1973 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 30th 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)

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 1973

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 847 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

An Act to Amend the Provincial Home Acquisition Act (Bill

No. 104)

Mr. Gardom. Introduction and first reading — 847

Indian Reserves Mineral Resources Act Repeal Act (Bill No. 105) Mr. Gardom.

Introduction and first reading — 847

Committee of supply: Premier's estimates Mr. McGeer — 847

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 863

Hon. Mr. Barrett— 847

Mr. Smith — 863

Mr. McGeer — 848

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 864

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 848

Mr. McGeer — 865

Mr. Phillips — 848

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 866

Mr. Chabot — 851

Mr. Chabot — 866

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 852

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 867

Mr. Gardom — 853

Mr. Williams — 868

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 856

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 868

Mr. Gardom — 859

Mr. Williams — 869

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 860

Hon: Mr. Barrett — 869

Mr. Gardom — 861

Mr. Williams — 869

Mr. Chabot — 861

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 870

Mr. Gardom — 862

Mr. Phillips — 870

Mr. McClelland — 862

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 870

Committee of supply: Department of Finance Estimates Mr. Richter — 871

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 874

Mr. Phillips — 871

Mr. Phillips — 874

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 871

Mrs. Jordan — 875

Mrs. Jordan — 871

Mr. Lauk — 875

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 871

Mrs. Jordan — 876

Mrs. Jordan — 872

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 876

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 872

Mr. Smith — 877

Mr. Fraser — 872

Mr. Richter — 877

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 872

Mr. Phillips — 877

Mr. Fraser — 873

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 878

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 873

Mr. Fraser — 878

Mr. Williams — 873

Committee of supply: Department of Agriculture estimates Mr. Phillips — 878

Mr. McClelland — 882

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 880

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 883

Mr. Phillips — 880

Mr. McClelland — 884

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 881

Reports Special Committee on Television Broadcasting No. 1 — 885

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 1973

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. First Member for Victoria.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, we have in the

galleries today a group of 25 students from the Vancouver

Island Junior Academy at 1462 Hillside avenue, here in Victoria — a private school. They are accompanied by two teachers, Mr.

James Hirschkorn and Mr. Dan Murphy and they also are

accompanied by two parents. I would like you to give them a

warm welcome.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Langley.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Also

in the galleries today we have a group of about 50 people from

the Langley Constituency Social Credit Association. I would

like you to welcome them as well please.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, I would also like to make welcome

in the Speaker's gallery the two gentlemen from Ontario: Mr.

Parker Oliver, who was formally leader of the Liberal Party

there and is now a member of a committee on legislative reform

in Ontario, and his assistant. Would you make them welcome

please.

Introduction of bills.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

PROVINCIAL HOME ACQUISITION ACT

Mr. Gardom moves introduction and first reading of Bill No.

104 intituled

An Act to Amend the Provincial Home

Acquisition Act .

Motion approved.

Bill No. 104 read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the

House after today.

INDIAN RESERVES

MINERAL RESOURCES ACT REPEAL ACT

Mr. Gardom moves introduction and first reading of Bill No.

105 intituled Indian Reserves Mineral Resources Act repeal

Act .

Motion approved.

Bill No. 105 read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the

House after today.

Orders of the day.

House in committee of supply; Mr. Dent in the chair.

ESTIMATES, PREMIER'S OFFICE

(continued)

On vote 2.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognise the First Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Very quickly, Mr.

Chairman. Last evening I asked the Premier a series of

questions about the B.C. Railway. Among them was whether or not

an annual meeting of the shareholders was held last year; if

that meeting was held; at what location and at what time? What

business was discussed at the annual general meeting? Was the

question of the contracts let to Keen Industries raised at that

general meeting? Does the Premier have any statement to make

regarding the overruns on the contracts for that particular

corporation?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognise the Hon. Premier.

MR. D, BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Chairman, unfortunately, I

wasn't the president of the railway last year so I tried to

find out if there was an annual meeting last year and I intend

to attend this year's annual meeting.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, if you write me a nice letter and

clear it through the Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan),

I'll consider it.

The question of the contract with Keen. I have a statement

from the Railway and this is the standard practice of the

handling of such contracts according to this statement.

"All railway grading contracts are called on a unit-price

basis, not a lump sum or gross basis, according with the

American Railway Engineering Association specifications,

modified for Canadian and British Columbia use. Unit-price, for

example, means a yard of dirt or a foot of culvert or so much

for rock, and a yard of dirt could vary anywhere from 50 cents

to $1.

"In calling tenders, the Railway makes an estimate of the

total amount of the various units involved in

[ Page 848 ]

the contract for comparison purposes. Weather and soil conditions

often make this estimate difficult. Therefore, in the case of the. contracts

of Keen Industries referred to, the contracts are not over their bid, as the.

bids are. on a unit-price basis.

"If there is any error in connection with the Keen

Industries contracts, it is in connection with the estimates of

unit-price involved that were made by the railway for

comparison purposes."

In other words, everybody who bids, bids on the unit price

put forward by the Railway.

"The Railway does not restrict any company from bidding on

contracts, but all bidders must have offices in British

Columbia and be registered here."

Now, that's the explanation I received.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If this is directly on the same point…

MR. McGEER: Just a supplementary question, Mr. Chairman. If

this is indeed the situation with regard to B.C. Railway,

then it seems to me, Mr. Chairman, we are in the position of

questioning the way the B.C. Railway arrives at their

estimates. I don't need to detail for the Premier, I'm sure,

the abuses we know have occurred in other departments of

government where a company was able to bid very low on a

tender but make money on the extras — and where the tender bids

were not serious bids at all. I detailed some of these in this

little book, Politics in Paradise , which some have read

in connection with the highways department many years ago.

This, is the reason why we have to question, very

seriously, estimates made by a government department or a Crown

corporation, when those estimates result in tender

contracts which are far below the true costs of the operation.

The B.C. Railway is receiving Government funds. They are

receiving funds from the pension plans of captive individuals

in the province. We have had no opportunity to place any kind

of controls or restrictions on that flow of funds to the B.C.

Railway.

We find now that the estimates of the railway have been

grossly inadequate and still there's no way that either the

public or the Legislature can get a grip on this thing. I

wonder if the Premier would care to make a statement now

regarding the adequacy of estimates that are made by the B.C.

Railway.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, first of all you must separate

the pension funds. They don't give them money; they buy railway debentures which

are guaranteed by all of us.

The Member has raised a valid point. I'm asking for a report on why the underestimating

appears to be consistent. But you recall, Mr. Member, through you, Mr. Chairman,

that I have already ordered a complete report by the Comptroller General on

the whole auditing procedure and budgeting procedure of the BCR and the B.C.

Hydro. As the fiscal agent, I made that request some months ago.

I can appreciate the disparity that the Member points out

and if there's a reason for it I am not going to be placed in

a position a year from now of having to stand up and say I

didn't do anything about it. Mr. Minty, I understand, is now

over completing the assignment with the B.C. Railway and

the next is Hydro.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for South Peace

River.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Chairman, during the Premier's

estimates in the last couple of days I've endeavoured to obtain from the Premier

some answers with regard to what steps he plans on taking to alleviate the unemployment

situation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, Mr. Member. Would the Hon. Member be

seated, please?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I answered all those questions when you

left the House the other day. They're right there in

Hansard — same questions, same answers.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would draw the attention of the Hon. Member

to standing order No. 43 which says:

"Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman, after having called the attention of the House, or of the Committee, to

the conduct of a member, who persists in irrelevance, or

tedious repetition, either of his own arguments or of the

arguments used by other members in debate, may direct him to

discontinue his speech, and if the member still continues to

speak, Mr. Speaker shall name him, or, if in Committee, the

Chairman shall report him to the House."

Now, Mr. Member, I'm sure that the Hon. Member has

something new to contribute in his speech and, therefore, I

would not want to have to ask him to discontinue. So I would

ask him to move to the new material, and he may again take his

place providing that he introduces something new.

MR. PHILLIPS: I would suggest that you wait till you find

out what questions I'm going to ask.

The Premier answered in a very vague way some of the

questions that I asked but I asked the question last night what

he was going to do, what his anticipated actions were with

regard to an automobile plant which he was going to bring

into this province — something that would help to solve the

unemploy-

[ Page 849 ]

ment situation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please, Mr. Member. The matter that you are raising

is the matter of unemployment which has been canvassed now for two or three

days.

MR. PHILLIPS: That is a matter for the Premier, Mr.

Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member be seated again,

please?

AN HON. MEMBER: Let him go, let him go.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member may introduce a

new matter, as I pointed out, but if he's going to canvass

again matters which he's raised in previous speeches in this

debate on these estimates then I would ask him to discontinue.

If he raises a new matter then I will continue to recognize

him.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. With due

respect, Mr. Chairman, when you weren't here, I recall a former

Leader of the Opposition asking a question 67 times. And I

think that the Member deserves an opportunity to develop some

new aspect of unemployment which we may not have debated yet in

this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would remind the First Member

for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) that the practice that

was carried on was dealt with appropriately by the Speaker of

the House of that day. (Laughter). I feel that as he was bound

by the rules, so I am bound by the rules as well. Therefore, I

would ask him to introduce a new matter.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for South Peace

River.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Chairman, I will proceed then with

some new thoughts then if I'm not going to be allowed to ask

the Premier if he would answer some of the questions which I

have already asked him. I thought we were going to have open

government in this province.

lnterjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order.

MR. PHILLIPS: I have some new questions in my hand. I am not

asking the Attorney General; the Chairman is running the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would just point out to the Hon. Member that

the Minister concerned is not required to answer nor may a

Member demand that he answer. He may ask for an answer but…

MR. PHILLIPS: Will you please let me ask the Premier again

if he is going to answer my questions? I have five specific

questions that I would like to ask the Premier and then I'll

sit down and give him a chance to answer. Will you please allow

me to proceed?

MR. CHAIRMAN: If the questions are a repetition of the

previous ones, the answer is no. If they are new questions, the

answer is yes.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'll have to proceed then with a new

line of thought then, Mr. Chairman.

The Premier campaigned in the August 30 election saying that

he was going to put people first. He campaigned on jobs for

people. Now I brought this up the other day and I'm not g o I n

g to quote what I brought up. But this was part of his

campaign: jobs for people.

I say that he has now turned his back on the jobless in this

province and he's turned his back on the misery of the jobless

in this province. He certainly hasn't given any answers in this

House on what he's going to do about the jobless in this

province.

I talked to some of the businessmen in my area this morning

and business in the month of February was down some 50 per cent

in some businesses. On the average, business in my area is down

by 30 per cent. There are new people being put out of work

every day. That is the situation February, 1973 versus

February, 1972, Mr. Chairman. I would like to again ask what

the Premier plans to do — what are the answers?

The Premier stated in a recent interview that…the

priorities are the clearest in our minds at this point, of

course, in terms of achievable goals, and are obviously in the

social welfare field. This is the area where we put the most

input and where we are the most "knowledgeable." This is a

statement by the Premier of this province, Mr. Chairman, and I

didn't say this the other day.

In other words, creating jobs is not an achievable goal for

this province by his own admission; creating jobs is not an

achievable goal by this government by the Premier's own

admission. I say that this is an admission of defeat. The

Premier cannot control the economy of this province, Mr.

Chairman.

We are getting no input whatsoever from his backbench on

this very problem and I don't know what they are going to do

when they go back to their own constituencies and find out

what's going on. I'm

[ Page 850 ]

not sure whether they're in contact with them now but when

they go back they'll find out what has happened to the economy

of this province.

So he says, "Social welfare…is the area where we put the

most input." Well, I can agree that there should be some input

into social welfare, but I say this is admitting that they are

not concerned for jobs nor is the Premier concerned for the

economy of this province.

Then he goes on to say that this is the area where he is the

most knowledgeable. In other words, he's admitting that he's

not very knowledgeable when it comes to running the economy of

this province. It's another admission of defeat, Mr.

Chairman.

I'm afraid the reason that the Premier has not given us the

answers is because he doesn't have the answers. He doesn't know

what to do. No wonder the Premier made such a feeble attempt to

answer my questions.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You weren't even here in the House. You

ran out.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: I read it in Hansard and it's a feeble

attempt.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You ran out.

MR. PHILLIPS: He tried to make up a cover speech to make up

for his inadequacies in dealing with the economy.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You ran out.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, the Premier goes on to say, "The

social goals are fairly clearly defined. The economic goals are

not all that clearly defined." In other words, we know what

we're going to do with the social aspects of this province but

the Premier clearly admits, and make no mistake about this, Mr.

Chairman, the man whose salary we are voting on today clearly

admits that the economic goals of this province are not all

that clearly defined. That's why he can't answer the questions:

he doesn't have the answers.

They have not set up the economic goals, Mr. Chairman,

except on an off-on, no-growth, limited growth, in-out, up-down,

black-white policy. One day it's no-growth, the next day it's

sub-growth, and it's no-growth from all the backbench. While

the Premier of this province has indecision, the whole economy

suffers, Mr. Chairman.

Philosophically, we have defined them and he's talking about the economic policies

of this Government. But the practical application is different, Mr. Chairman.

The practical application of his policies for the economy of this province are

different because he doesn't know what they are. He doesn't know how to apply

policies that he hasn't made up yet. That's the problem, Mr. Chairman.

He should have gone on to say that it's different and we

don't know how to apply them. We have no business experience

and we don't know. That's what he should have gone on to say,

Mr. Chairman. The Premier, the first officer, the Minister of

Finance, the man who is leading the economy of this province,

and — as I pointed out the other day — the man who makes the

decisions, just doesn't know.

The Premier says he is not going to rush into this job — creating business. He goes on in this particular interview to

say that he's talked to some lumberman from up-country. The

lumberman says that in the lumber industry up-country it has

created unemployment. So he takes one single specific

job-creating industry and says that it has created unemployment.

He fails to realize that in the last five years hundreds and

hundreds of thousands of jobs have been created in this

province.

Mr. Chairman, if we are going to follow a no-growth policy

in this province, I would suggest to the Premier that he get

right over to the Alberta border immediately and put up

barriers and keep people out of this province because there are

people coming to this province. There is a growing labour force

every day. If there is not a policy made up by the Premier, Mr.

Chairman, to create jobs, the unemployment figures are going to

grow.

I don't care how many snow-jobs I get in this House, Mr. Chairman. I'm not convinced that the Premier

shouldn't give us some clearcut policies as to where he is

going to go to solve this economic problem.

"Open Government," he says. He certainly has lots of answers for the

Press when they want to interview him in his suite. He's got all the answers

for them on what he's going to do even though some of them are vague. I would

suggest that he should give me some answers in this House.

The only thing that I can be sure of about our Premier, Mr.

Chairman, is that he plans on staying in office only for two

terms. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that anybody who

is running the economy of this province — a man in his position,

a man who is being paid by the people of this province — his

planning should not be for an intended eight years or an

intended 10 years, but it should be for the next 20 years and

50 years. The economic solutions that he comes up with to the

problems should be on a long term. A no-growth policy will just

not work.

One of the former leaders of the Opposition in this

province, Harold Winch said, "Facts are facts. There are others

in the world besides us." I would like, Mr.

[ Page 851 ]

Chairman, to point out to the Premier, through you, that each

year of the last decade has seen an average of 200,000 new jobs

created in Canada. The high rate of unemployment at this point,

in the 1970's, makes it painfully evident that the output of

new jobs falls short of satisfying the demands of the fast

swelling labour force.

An obvious answer lies in a higher rate of economic growth.

That, Mr. Chairman, is why I would like the Premier to answer

some of the questions that I have put before him. I'll sit down

and see what he has to say but I won't say that I'm

finished.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Columbia

River.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Chairman, speaking on

the question of unemployment, we in this province at this very

moment have 9.9 per cent of our labour force unemployed. In

British Columbia 95,000 people are unemployed today while the

Government sits back and does nothing.

I posed this question as to what programmes the Government

has to alleviate the unemployment that people in this province

are facing today. The answers I got from that Premier, Mr.

Chairman, were meagre indeed. They won't feed these people who

are unemployed today. These people want to know what kind of

programmes that Government has. They have a right to know. The

people in British Columbia contribute to the well-being of the

economy of this province and they're concerned about

unemployment. They want some answers and they want them

today.

I listened to the Premier. He gave me his outline yesterday

of what he's going to do relative to the question of

unemployment. He said, "We're going to invest $5 million in the

Accelerated Park Development Fund" — half of what was invested

last year. He's going to invest $5 million in the Accelerated

Reforestation Fund for jobs — half of what was invested last

year when unemployment was not as critical and as serious as it

is today.

He went on to tell us that $10 million is going to be

invested to create jobs — invested in land. The purchase of

land, Mr. Premier, does not create jobs. Then he went on to tell

us one more programme. Fifty million dollars will be added to

the Home Acquisition Grant to continue the home grants and

second mortgage programmes. But he doesn't tell us when some of

these programmes will be instituted.

The serious problem of unemployment is now. You have no winter works projects

on at this time to help these people who are seeking work in this province,

where 10 per cent of the labour force is drifting, anxiously looking for work.

You sit back and say, "We have these programmes. They'll come on stream, maybe

when unemployment is not as serious as it is right now."

Now, we've established that $10 million in the land bank

will create no jobs. I think it's important that we assess what

kind of jobs you can possibly create by that $50 million in

your Home Acquisition Grant and for second mortgages. Let us

assume that 30 per cent of that $50 million is designated or

earmarked for the purchase of older homes. That leaves 70 per

cent of it for new construction — $35 million will go into new

construction. I think that's a pretty reasonable

assessment.

I think we should also look into the type of labour content

that there is in home construction. Labour content runs between

30 and 33 per cent in the construction of homes or apartments

or whatever you want in the Province of British Columbia. If

you construct one new home — and the average cost of a home in

British Columbia is $30,000 — you will have provided one

man-year of employment by building one home at an average cost

of $30,000. So $35 million will in fact create 1,166 jobs for

the period of one year — 1, 166 new jobs will be created.

I think we should assess really where the high rate of

unemployment exists in the Province of British Columbia. Is it

in the skilled trades or is it in those people who have no

skills? In certain trades, certainly, there is unemployment but

there are shortages in many of the construction trades in

British Columbia right today.

No, I think your emphasis and your obsession with the

accumulation of land and public housing is misdirected if

you're thinking of that in relation to jobs. You're

misdirecting your emphasis if you're thinking of creating jobs

in this direction because the shortage of employment is among

those who have no skills.

Then we look at your $5 million for accelerated

reforestation and park development. Let's assume that that is

entirely labour content, that there are no supplies to be

provided. You can, in the course of one year, create — based on

$2.50 an hour — a maximum of 2,000 jobs for the period of one

year.

So, we've established that your programmes will or can,

based on the figures that I've outlined here, create 3,166 jobs

for the unemployed. We have 95,000 people unemployed in British

Columbia today. Taking into consideration the type of job

activity that these funds that you've outlined here will

generate, you still have 91,824 people unemployed in British

Columbia.

Still the highest figure ever in the history of British

Columbia. And yet you tell us about your tentative programmes

that you will eventually come around to. You have failed and

you have failed miserably to create jobs when jobs are

necessary. Jobs are necessary now. Yet you sit back and give us

no clearcut answers as to what you're going to do to

[ Page 852 ]

alleviate the very serious problems that the people of this

province are facing at this particular time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would like to make a point, Mr. Member.

Just be seated for a moment.

I have allowed both you, Mr. Member, and the previous

speaker a certain amount of latitude because of the importance

of the issue. However, I believe that on two counts I must now

ask you not to continue with that particular subject; first of

all because it's been adequately canvassed, both in the debate

on the Speech from the Throne and the budget debate and also

for the last two or three days; also there is a bill before the

House, No. 94, a private Member's bill, which is proposing many

of the things which you are suggesting in your speech.

AN HON. MEMBER: What's the name of the bill?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Bill No. 94, Stimulation of Employment

Act . Therefore, I would rule that you move to another

subject at this time.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, with due respect, the facts that I

have related to the House during the last few moments have

never been stated in this House ever before, not only in this

session but at any other time in the experience I've had in

this House. I talked about the type of jobs that could be

created by the type of funds which the government is proposing

to establish. I've gone on to relate the type of jobs that

could be created, based on the facts and figures that we well

recognized in the construction industry in this province. For

you to suggest that I'm being irrelevant and repetitious, in my

opinion, is most unkind.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, Mr. Member. That was not the point that

I was making. The point I was making was that this subject on

two grounds has been canvassed a great deal. Even though it is

an important issue and it is certainly always worth considering

again, there is a bill before the House proposing the very same

things that you're proposing — Bill No. 94.

Therefore, I would ask you to move to a new subject.

MR. CHABOT: Well, we can't talk about the funds which appear in the

excerpts from the budget speech which the Premier talked about yesterday. I

think that if you are going to allow this type of latitude to the Premier to

discuss the funds and the type of job activities these funds might create, in

all fairness to the Members of the Opposition, Mr. Chairman, I think you have

a right to give us equal opportunity to debate these issues on the floor of

this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I will make this point, Mr. Member, and that is — if it is agreeable with the Minister

whose estimates are being considered that you make these

remarks, then you can proceed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Get on with it.

MR. CHABOT: Now let's get on with it. If you hadn't

interrupted me I would have been sitting down some time

ago.

I think I'll leave these questions with the Premier and I

hope that he will tell us really what he intends to do in view

of the very serious problem facing British Columbia. I think he

should be in a position, really, as the Minister of Finance in

this province, to outline to British Columbia what his

programmes are and how he's going to deal with this most

serious economic problem facing this province.

I have a few more questions, but in order to give the

Premier the opportunity to reply on this most critical matter,

I'll allow him the time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the somewhat

dramatic presentation of the same questions which have been

repeated over and over again. Perhaps there's no harm in going

over the answers again.

We inherited the situation that the Member talks about — unskilled labour. We find pools of unskilled or wrongly-skilled

people when we have vacancies in other areas. There is

obviously a gap in the educational system we inherited when one

industry wants 40 welders in one day and we can't produce them — yet we're spending vast sums of money in our vocational

schools to train people for jobs. There's an absence of skills

that we can't fill.

We've got to readjust the training programmes and that is

already taking place. As I said, in one particular instance

where an on-the-job training programme was started in full

cooperation with Canada Manpower, the first time the

Government of British Columbia has entertained the thought of

cooperating with Canada Manpower — I welcome that cooperation — 50 per cent on-site in Prince George is being paid for by

Manpower, 25 per cent by industry and 25 per cent by the

provincial government.

In terms of the $80 million the Member speaks about, he

knows very well that $80 million injected into the economy and

job-producing isn't just confined to the skilled trades. House

construction involves the services, the appliances, the

unskilled work to prepare sites.

You can't build houses unless you have land, Mr. Chairman.

That's why we're acquiring land. I want to inform those people

in British Columbia who are concerned that land prices are

going up. Land prices will come down as lease programmes and

sales programmes by the provincial government are

[ Page 853 ]

initiated.

Now, Mr. Chairman, we've added $33 million to the Highways

budget, so that will be job-producing. There's major railway

expansion, again in cooperation with the federal government.

Good for them. There's major railway expansion which will

involve literally hundreds of jobs.

There is also the catch-up on schools and hospitals. We

released over $25 million of bottleneck money so that schools

and hospitals could get on with the job here in British

Columbia — something that needs to be done.

The Member talks about the grey areas of the economy and

attempts to paint a picture that there's something wrong with

the economy, that the socialists are dangerous and tries to get

across to the people of British Columbia that the economy is

shaky and collapsing. I wish to inform the House that in

January of 1971-72 the revenues of the provincial government

for that one month were $127,570,000; the revenues for the

Province of British Columbia in January, 1973, under the

socialists is $149 million, a total of 17.3 per cent increase.

The economy is healthy, it is expanding and it is expanding on

a rational basis absorbing people.

No matter what answer we give the Member he's not satisfied

anyway.

I'm also happy to announced that the best indicator of the

economy, the sales tax, for the month of February is up by 14.5

per cent.

I don't think that the Opposition Members are deliberately

attempting to damage the economy of British Columbia, but the

facts should be noted that that is the present record of the

economy this year.

I said in my budget speech that the estimations of revenue

would be conservative. I also said that as the revenue patterns

developed we would make funds available for extra projects so

that jobs can be produced rather than hoarding money for the

end-of the-year presentation of a great lump sum as a present

for nobody, especially the unemployed.

This is the first year we have a chance to break that

pattern. We intend to break that pattern as quickly as

possible.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Second Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): I'd like to

completely change the topic here. The questions I would like to

ask the Hon. Premier are in the field of municipal affairs.

Before that I would like to say a couple of words about the oil tanker problem.

There's no question, Mr. Speaker, that this goes completely beyond political

lines in the Province of B.C. It's a terribly, terribly serious issue that is

facing us. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, to the Premier, that all hands should

be utilized to do something constructive about it.

I would mention that the leader of the Liberal Party has

done something constructive and that he's worked very hard and

very long in fighting this tanker traffic. For the Premier to

treat, as he did yesterday, the efforts of the leader of the

Liberal Party and his not-inconsiderable expertise in a rather

offhand manner I think at most was not only unkind but it was

unfair. Even worse than that, I think it was silly.

If British Columbia, Mr. Chairman, is to stand up to the oil

tanker threat, all of us in B.C. not only have to stand

together but we should be working together for the common good.

I would suggest to the Hon. Premier that he's not setting a

good example by failing to welcome the assistance of the leader

of the Liberal Party and indeed invite him to accompany the

Premier to Washington. The leader of the Liberal Party has been

there and he's done a job. I think B.C. well deserves the

benefit of his assistance.

HON. MR. BARRETT: He doesn't want to go.

MR. GARDOM: Oh, yes. I understand you haven't even replied

to his letters. Is that right or wrong?

HON. MR. BARRETT: You've attacked my going to Washington.

Make up your mind over there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. GARDOM: I think you could well do with his expertise and

you know it. We've heard a lot of talk…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member address the Chair,

please?

MR. GARDOM: I beg your pardon?

MR, CHAIRMAN: I am asking the Hon. Member to address the

Chair when he makes his remarks.

MR. GARDOM: I am. Indeed I am, Mr. Chairman. At all

times.

We've talked a lot about the Columbia boondoggle. It was

expressed many, many times by the New Democratic Party, when

they sat in Opposition, that they never had any opportunity to

form some

part in the bargaining or the decision-making process

concerning the Columbia River.

I think it's about high time we learned by experience. I

think it's high time we decided on an issue such as this, which

is not a political issue. We should stand together and work

together. This is nothing more than an environmental issue and

it could become a life or death environmental issue to the

Province of B.C. I would expect the Premier to stand up after I

sit down and say yes, he shall

[ Page 854 ]

welcome and invite the leader of the Liberal Party to join

him in Washington.

Now I want to make a few remarks about the situation, Mr.

Chairman, of our cities and of our municipalities and at the

termination of these remarks develop six or seven specific

questions to the Hon. Premier.

It was interesting to note in the New Democratic Party's

election material, which I was reading from yesterday — there's

a lot of good ideas in here. One of them was this:

"There's a new deal for cities. The central problem

facing our cities is their chronic inability to pay for the services

people need."

Yea, verily, they spoke the truth. That is a continuing

situation today.

Then the socialists continue: "Under an NDP Government only

services to property will be paid from taxes on property."

Well, that philosophy I suppose has come to a complete

stalemate. It seems to be the philosophy of the New Democratic

Party, but it has not been accepted as the philosophy of the

caucus of the socialistic government in British Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, I am not going to transgress upon a bill that

is before the House, but it's interesting to note, Mr.

Chairman, what has happened to our provincial revenues since

1970. If the Hon. Chairman will remember, 1970 was the last

time when the per capita grants in the province were increased.

At that time they were $30, and there's a proposal now before

the House to bring it up to $32.

The budget, Mr. Chairman, of British Columbia in 1970 was

$1.165 billion. The NDP budget, which the Premier read a few

days ago to the House and of which we've all received copies,

estimates revenues of $1.722 billion, and we think that the

First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) has come

much closer to the facts by saying that it will come to $1.850

billion.

For comparison, Mr. Chairman, and this comparison is useful,

we find that in 1970 — only three years ago — the province's

revenues were $1.165 billion estimated. The Premier estimates

$1.722 billion, which is a 48 per cent increase of revenues in

three years. Using the perhaps more correct figure of $1.850

billion, we find a 58 per cent increase of provincial revenues

in three years.

The contemplated proposal, under the bill I'm not going to

discuss, estimates 6.65 per cent increase in per capita grants

to municipalities.

They're called "creatures" of the provincial government. I

think "paltry foundlings," Mr. Chairman, would indeed be

a better way to describe the municipalities and the treatment

they are continuing to get, from this new government who wishes

to have a "new deal," as they say, for the cities. It's

exactly the same old deal and the same old package.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's worse.

MR. GARDOM: Or indeed worse.

Mr. Chairman, there's obviously one very simple way to

effectively cure this. That is to tie these entitlements — and

I didn't use the word. "grants" — to tie municipal entitlements,

which is perhaps described as a "grant" today in the province,

into provincial revenues. If the provincial revenues increase,

or decrease, so will the municipal or city entitlement. So

instead of looking at a 6.65 per cent increase now, the

municipalities, on the basis of the Premier's figures, could be

looking to a 48 per cent increase — up to $44 from $30.

I want to develop the fact that the municipalities have a

right, a definite right, to a fair entitlement of provincial

revenues which they never have received. Because their costs

are increasing, even if not in the majority of cases, Mr.

Chairman, greatly in excess of provincial costs. In order for

municipalities to effectively budget, to come up with effective

planning or even, Mr. Chairman, to adequately perform — or even

exist for that matter — they have got to receive fair

entitlements from the Province of British Columbia. I would

say, as I have said, fair entitlements must be tied directly to

provincial revenues.

Even more than that, Mr. Chairman, the municipalities and

the cities in the province have never received proper

recognition in the philosophical sense. We need a new

philosophy for our municipalities and most particularly for our

cities. Whereupon they're no longer going to be regarded as

creatures of the provincial government but as partners, with

far freer rein from the province to guide their own destinies

in planning and in taxation.

We need a complete review of the whole municipal tax

structure. This has been advocated before and it's been

advocated exceptionally well. The Plunkett study in British

Columbia, Mr. Chairman, in 1971, was a darn good study. The

former administration flirted with it. It first tried to get

into the act and participate and then it went over the hill

because, I suppose, those who were responsible for the

decision-making process in the former administration — all of

whom are not here now — felt that they didn't like the drift of

the Plunkett report and the kinds of conclusions that they

were coming up. They were devastating conclusions. It concluded that the

Province of B.C. was avoiding its constitutional

responsibilities for the assumption of municipal costs and was

loading them onto the cities and municipalities in one way or

another, denuding them of provincial revenues. So that was the

policy. The municipalities were kept in the workhouse and if

they came to the front to get a little bit more soup, well

they certainly got the treatment. They were abused.

The orders of the day then seemed to be, "Divide

[ Page 855 ]

and conquer." There's no torrent of abuse today. I've no

criticism of that. But the new proprietorship in the Province

of British Columbia, Mr. Chairman, has not given any indication

of any new system or any new style, insofar as the cities and

municipalities are concerned — just the same old go-around and

the same old circle.

We all know here what direction the cities and the urban

centres are taking. Two-thirds of our population today is urban

and pretty well every prophet has reached the conclusion that

by the end of the century 9 out of 10 people within Canada are

going to live in urban areas. Those urban areas are obliged,

Mr. Chairman, to fulfil whatever responsibilities are assigned

to them by the province.

In order to do that they've got to look to the province for

handouts. So we find the cities having most of the problems and

the provincial government most of the taxing powers.

Now there's a marvellous quotation from the Plunkett Report

to which, because I've summarized it, I'm not going to refer.

Certainly also from the Economic Council of Canada there are

very, very grim warnings about the gap between municipal

expenditures and their requirements.

I am asking the Hon. Premier to just state the position of

his government concerning these points, which I shall now

mention and some of which I have already referred to in my

remarks this afternoon:

1) Does he agree that we need a complete reform and revision

of all of our municipal, provincial and federal tax-sharing

arrangements in order to face the realities, which it is now,

of an urban society? Fair entitlements, be they grants, be they

shares of personal or corporate tax or what-have-you.

2) Will he state that it is a policy of his government that

we will have a department of urban city affairs in the

province, with somebody at the helm whose mandate first and

foremost would be the interests of the cities and who would

work for them and not against them? Will he accept the

philosophy that the cities are no longer to be regarded as

creatures of the government but as partners of the provincial

government with much freer rein from the provincial side to

guide their own destinies in planning and in taxation.

3) We know that the municipalities have always experienced a terrific amount

of difficulty, and indeed have almost been stifled by virtue of difficulty in

raising money in the money market. Now in order to bolster employment, as has

been suggested by the official Opposition in several excellent speeches, and

in order to make these long range plans of the municipalities and of the cities

feasible, the provincial government must hereafter guarantee all future municipal

bond issues. All of them. Now, without the provincial side doing that, there

is no way the municipal side can effectively plan. I would like to have the

Premier's comments on that point.

4) The Province of British Columbia should be a pathfinder.

We don't always have to look around and find out what other

people are doing. We should take some positive and

demonstrative and exciting steps ourselves. We should initiate

in the Province of British Columbia income tax relief and

indeed request the federal government to do the same thing — income tax relief to individual purchasers of municipal bonds,

to the extent that the interest those purchasers would receive

from those municipal bonds would be tax free in their

hands.

This is a procedure that has been followed with quite some

degree of success in the United States of America. There would

obviously be a great deal of interest within the municipalities

for such a proposal. It would certainly make their securities

far more marketable, Mr. Chairman, and would be a very good

incentive for the small investor.

The securities do have to be funded and this would be a good

way to do it and a good way to attract investment capital at a

reasonable rate. I think it is a first class idea and I would

very much like to hear the Premier's acknowledgement of it, and

indeed, I hope, acquiesce to it.

5) Mr. Chairman, the cities must receive, which they do not

today — it comes in at about 50 per cent — the equivalent of

full taxes on all provincial government and Crown corporations

within their borders.

6) I'm asking these as questions to the Hon. Premier — we

must have assurance from the provincial side that the cities

and the municipalities will have their total zoning control

over areas within their own boundaries, just the same way as

they do with private developers today. I'm asking whether he

will say, "Yes, the cities and the municipalities will be

permitted to have zoning control over provincial government

developments or what-have-you within their own areas." This was

part of the very, very great problem that developed — zoning

control over provincial government projects with municipal

boundaries.

As an example, you can recall that a great deal of

difficulty was experienced with the City of Vancouver and the

proposed B.C. building when the City of Vancouver almost had to

get to the point of deciding that it was going to close the

streets and let the building be built from the air by

helicopter or what-have-you, unless the provincial government

would come in and make some kind of an equitable working

arrangement as to the zoning and the plan and the design. I'm

saying that the municipalities, within their own borders,

should have a totality of zoning control.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Totalitarian zoning powers.

[ Page 856 ]

MR. GARDOM: Not totalitarian — that's your word, my friend,

and your practice. Not mine.

Next, transit needs. Transit needs, obviously, Mr. Chairman,

only relate at the present time, insofar as complete congestion

is concerned, to the City of Vancouver, I suppose. This must be

accepted as a provincial responsibility and not only be left in

the doorstep of Vancouver as a city responsibility, because

the greater Vancouver and New Westminster–Burnaby area will

require, without any question of a doubt, a fantastic amount of

economic stimulation and an infusion of dollars in order to

prevent a transit crisis.

In order that they can start some kind of planning, some

dollars should be isolated and set aside for that purpose. I

would suggest as a fair formula to go ahead and see that the

City of Vancouver can have ploughed back to it one half of the

motor vehicle user taxes that are collected under that region

each year. Which, I suppose, right now would be in the

neighbourhood of about $30 million. That would provide impetus

to initiate a rapid transit authority in which the provincial

government would have to become, without any question of a

doubt, a full partner.

Mr. Chairman, the cities in the Province of B.C. are facing

urban chaos or urban survival. If the mountain won't listen to

Mohammed, well Mohammed had better start thinking of opting out

of the mountain. City tax states have been tried before and

quite successfully. Maybe this should only be looked upon as a

last resort but I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, to the Hon.

Premier, that we are getting mighty close to the last resort. I

do hope that I will be favoured with some response from the

chair there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: First of all, Mr. Member, there are a

couple of things that I want to deal with. With regard to the

question of your leader accompanying the Government to

Washington, I want to refer you to page 458 of this year's

Hansard of February 15, 1973 and I am quoting your

leader: "We expected that this step would be taken,"

that is, President Nixon's step. Then he goes on:

"It was a logical step. We'd been told that it would be taken if we won

on these grounds." — he's talking about the court case — "I should simply inform

the House, Mr. Chairman, that I did put the position to Rogers Morton in June,

I believe, of 1971, personally to him at hearings in the Interior Department

in Washington, D.C. He has been informed constantly of the Canadian Government's

position and in particular by a letter dated May 4, 1972, with respect to the

Mackenzie line. I think he has all along been kept pretty well up to date on

developments in Canada on this.

"Mr. Speaker, I mentioned that the decision to go to Congress with proposed legislation was taken by Nixon and

was not unexpected. It's no cause for alarm for British Columbians. It's perfectly

expected…. . "

Well, it's cause for alarm for the Government of British

Columbia and it would be a little bit inconsistent now to have

the Liberal Party appeal that they come along as a tag-end of

the trip, after their saying it's no cause for alarm. I can

only go by your leader's statements.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Then I think we should deal with a little

bit of myth about going there. One thing I will say is that we

are not going there just to criticize. We have alternatives.

You will see them.

The next move is this question of conversation. I must say

that I have invited all the leaders to my office, prior to the

throne speech being released, prior to the budget speech, and

I must say that the official House Leader of the Opposition came

to my office before the throne speech and before the budget

speech. I shared the speech with him, kept the confidence. I

asked if there were any other questions. We chatted for a while

about a number of things, and we had the opportunity to discuss

things rationally as people should, informally in the

parliamentary system. I must say the House Leader of the

Conservatives chose to do the same thing.

On both occasions, the Liberal Leader did not come down to

my office, did not avail himself of the opportunity. I hate to

say this, Mr. Member, but you have made a point that somehow he

is not getting to see me. On two opportunities, formal and

informal, in terms of doing the traditional British thing, of

making the throne speech available and the budget speech

available and asking questions and answering questions freely,

both the Conservative House Leader and the Social Credit House

Leader were there. From the Liberals, in terms of the budget

speech, I got a message: "Send it up by secretary."

Now, Mr. Member, you can discuss that with your leader. But

that's a fact, so I hardly find your appeal having any kind of

merit in terms of the…

Interjections by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, I'm not his social worker. It will

have to remain that way.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I come to the…

MR. GARDOM: You may be one again!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, it could be and I'm willing to take all kinds

of cases. (Laughter). That's one of the beautiful things about being a social

worker; we are never surprised at any kind of

[ Page 857 ]

behaviour. Contradictory behaviour

is something we have always dealt with.

I go on to the next number of questions. The question of

reform of taxation is a matter of great debate throughout the

country. Within our own jurisdiction we have looked at the

inconsistencies in taxation in the Province of British Columbia

and we made some moves of our own. I might say that I find the

federal-provincial conference that I attended on the taxation

adjustments in terms of one particular department, the

Department of Health.

The informal session, where the politicians are left alone

in a room — that afternoon of informal sessions was worth far

more than kind of posturing through papers in front of media. I

don't say that it isn't good for politicians to put their point

of view forth strongly, but when the doors were closed the most

frank discussion took place. To me that was a good sign that at

federal and provincial levels there was some real exchange

about feelings on taxation.

We did face some tax anomalies as soon as we came to office.

The obvious protection was in the tax haven created by the

former administration by limiting all industrial assessments to

10 per cent. Those large industries that had a low assessment

base were locked into that low assessment base by the previous

administration by the 10 per cent assessment. As all people who

are familiar with the municipal administrations know, that was

unfair. The homeowner in British Columbia was in fact

subsidizing large industry in this province. As a result, we

have removed the 10 per cent assessment limitation on

industry.

The first consequences of this are to read the response of a

number of outstanding municipal leaders, most of whom are not

NDPers, incidentally. In that category is the mayor of

Victoria, who has stated publicly that in his opinion, this

Government's action has removed the burden off the homeowner in

terms of subsidizing industry and, in actual fact, may cut

homeowner's taxes by 20 per cent in the City of Victoria.

That's a good move toward municipalities and I'm sure the

Member also would applaud that approach. It's not an additional

tax on industry. It's just asking them to pay their fair share.

They have been under-assessed. I'm sure when the vote comes,

everybody will vote with us on that particular approach.

The other areas of taxation structure stated by the Member

are matters of great interest. We are looking at the whole

measure and a whole range of tax restructuring in the province.

We're not going to do it on a crisis-by-crisis basis. The most

obvious problems are ones that we dealt with when we were in

Opposition — the 10 per cent assessment limitation and a number

of other areas. In terms of long-term commitment, they should

be more than just some kind of instant response.

The Member asked for pathfinder legislation. Well, if

there's one thing we're getting kicked around for, Mr.

Chairman, it's pathfinder legislation. I noticed that you did

mention…

AN HON. MEMBER: I said "pathfinder", not "blind alley".

HON. MR. BARRETT: You see, when a government comes into

office and is courageous enough, quite frankly, to take hold of

a very important issue, that's pathfinding. It's not a very

good haven for political skins. Nonetheless, if you're going to

be responsible government, you must do some pathfinding and

pathleading.

We'll stand or fall on that basis. We won't be a stand pat

Government. We accept the responsibility of breaking into new

territory and trying to find brand new solutions to old

problems that have generally had lip service. I look forward

with a great deal of anticipation to meaningful, thoughtful and

fruitful debate on the tax bills and other bills that are in

front of the House.

The transit needs and a Minister of urban affairs: we do

have a Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer). There

is a temptation to focus all of the administrative emphasis to

the large cities. It's a realistic temptation in that the urban

growth of Canada has been catalogued by demographers and

sociologists and others for years. I would prefer to see this

Government resist the temptation to put that much emphasis.

We've made a very clear start in terms of having an urban

philosophy. We've taken a position against the third crossing.

We've made it very clear that we will be involved directly in

mass rapid transit in the urban areas. We've made it clear that

we're concerned about their taxation patterns by the

legislation to remove the 10 per cent assessment.

But I do not subscribe to the theory that the small town has

lost its place.

AN HON. MEMBER: No one's said that.

HON. MR. BARRETT: O.K. But I think that if you have a

contradictory ministry — a Minister of Municipal Affairs, who

essentially deals with regions and small towns, and a cabinet

colleague who has the responsibility of dealing with the

cities, you immediately put up barriers of conflict between the

two. Because the problems are the same. The scale is different

but the problems are the same.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, but the emphasis has been different by

virtue of…

HON. MR. BARRETT: Ah, the emphasis has been different

because essentially, in my opinion — I don't

[ Page 858 ]

know if you agree with me, Mr. Member — the emphasis has

been different because of politics.

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): I can

handle them both. (Laughter).

HON. MR. BARRETT: My colleague says that he can handle them

both. The emphasis has been different because of politics, but

that's not unique to our jurisdiction in North America. In the

United States the only way they could break away from that

pattern was through a Supreme Court ruling that ordered the

states to have redistribution, so that the power of the

politicians more adequately reflected the people and the

communities they came from rather than square miles on a

map.

So this Government is obviously going to be committed to have some independent

commission or independent person of high repute take a look at our electoral

maps — unlike the last time, when we had a three-man commission travel around

the province. They came in with a report and we brought the report in here.

My friend, the other Member for Point Grey (Mr. McGeer), remembers. We saw the

government take out its pencil and say, "Well, this is where we really want

the lines anyway." That's what we voted on.

AN HON. MEMBER: That happened twice.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes. We're going to change that. We hope

that within our term of office, long or short, there is a

rational approach to the redistribution here in the

province.

AN HON. MEMBER: In the nineteenth year.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Certainly before the next election.

So I think that that kind of political pressure that

exists in favouring rural versus urban can be ameliorated. The

other thing is that there is a transition period that I don't

know whether or not we've really overcome in this province, in

terms of parochial lobbying.

There's this great debate that goes on constantly about

geographic representation versus population representation.

Perhaps we should have some debate in this House about a

combination of both. I don't know. Maybe we should put it to

committee. But it seems to me that the most parochial time that

comes out that emphasizes the point that the Member made is

during the highways estimates.

AN HON. MEMBER: I'm just going to mention that now.

HON. MR. BARRETT: During the highways estimates, everybody closes the

gates around their constituency and gets up and pleads with the highways Minister.

He is the fellow, except on one occasion…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: O.K., O.K., almost everyone…except on

one occasion, when the unnamed highways Minister was under

attack for other things. Most times it was a kind of "Bring in

your prayer rug, down on your knees and say, 'Can I have some

blacktop, please, and can I have this bridge here?'"

It's a pathetic kind of performance. I participated in it

myself as an MLA. It's part of the kind of politics that

influences decisions. I'm not saying it's good; I'm not saying

it's bad. It's a reality.

So when the Member talks about a ministry of urban affairs

and you split Municipal Affairs into two departments, you're

going to create conflict whether you like it or not. The

pressures are going to be unequal, depending on how the scale

is balanced in terms of areas of representation. I'd rather

take the risks with one Minister, as we have now. But I would

like a philosophy and that's really the essence of another

level of politics that we rarely get to.

MR. GARDOM: That's what I said.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Now the philosophy that we have espoused,

rightly or wrongly, is one of reviving the rural areas and

keeping a life style alive in northern and central and eastern

parts of British Columbia. We believe that a unique kind of

life style can be maintained in this province. That philosophy

is being shown more obviously in taxation bills and perhaps

even more obviously in land bills which will be debated later

on.

The philosophy is simply this. We believe that people should

have the opportunity of multiple choices at a life style. If we

urbanize too heavily — if the government doesn't translate its

philosophy into policy and protect choices of life style by

protecting farmland, by protecting areas of activity — then it

loses for its people the opportunity to express their freedom

of choice. Because economics — ruthless, harsh economics — dictate the choice of life style, rather than some rational

planning within that economy.

One of the most dramatic illustrations of why I would be

opposed to a ministry of urban affairs, through you, Mr.

Chairman, came during my visit through the north to the town of

Houston. I saw a whole life style in a region destroyed on the

myth that urbanization and centralization would effectively be

a good thing for the economy, and that bigness was best.

The previous government made a decision to

[ Page 859 ]

concentrate the economy of that particular sector in one

town — Houston. A whole life style was lost because of that

economic decision. The company involved, interestingly enough,

was making its decisions back in Montreal. They lost $60

million in the process, what I consider to be a failure as a

social and economic experiment.

So, Mr. Member, I would say that if we took your route and

went into a ministry of urban affairs, there would be pressures

by that Minister and on that Minister to continue a pattern of

centralizing urban activity, both of industry and consequently

of population. It would be a serious mistake.

Maybe we're wrong in having this philosophy. We'll have some

time to prove it. But the philosophy, in essence, in terms of a

life style, is that government should adapt itself to meet the

needs of people so that people have a wide range of choices,

rather than government conditioning limited choices through

centralization through a ministry of urban affairs. I say, one

Minister of Municipal Affairs, a great range of choices of life

styles. The Government's responsibility is to protect that

range of choices.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before the Hon. Member responds… Would you

make your brief question and then I'll make some comments.

I recognize the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point

Grey.

MR. GARDOM: I'd just like to make a few comments apropos of

the Premier's remarks.

The obvious need, Mr. Chairman, has been to place the

emphasis because the response was never forthcoming. The

Premier, with every respect to his very interesting and learned

dissertation, has not given any specific indication that the

response is forthcoming. That was the point that I was

making.

What we obviously need is equity. We have not seen equity to

the cities in the past and they have been badly shortchanged.

You can remember, when you sat on this side of this House, that

all your Members were making exactly the same kind of speech,

perhaps better, perhaps worse than I am today, maybe not

entirely with the same phraseology.

However, let us just look for one moment, Mr. Chairman,

specifically at the City of Vancouver. This is why I am saying

that you cannot continue to wait until this master plan evolves

from somewhere or other. You've got to go ahead in a situation

like this and do a little bit of ad hoc dollar entitling.

That's what's got to be done.

The City of Vancouver has received the short end of the

stick. Whenever you start comparing revenues developed within

that area and what the greater metropolitan area and City of

Vancouver has received from the provincial side, boy, you've

got a pretty poor little old Cinderella insofar as the City

of Vancouver is concerned.

You remember, Mr. Chairman, last year when we had that very

long and serious debate concerning the hotel tax. Now here was

a first class suggestion. The City of Vancouver wished to have

this thing; they needed it; they wanted to plow that money into

tourism and into the recreation and tourism industry. Okay.

Fine. What happened?

The government of the time went headlong into a Supreme

Court decision, came in with some legislation and emasculated

the right of the City of Vancouver to do anything with that

money. We had the tax. The tax came in, but it went into

general revenue. I'm saying that this type of thing should be

earmarked for the cities and for the municipalities because

they are creating that revenue within their confines and they

should be entitled to use it.

Just before I sit down, Mr. Chairman, I would say that the

City of Vancouver has been shortchanged about $6 million over

the past very, very short while. At one time the fines that

were collected, for example, Mr. Chairman, used to pay for the

provincial courts and the prosecutor's office and the juvenile

courts and so forth and so on. Then that was changed when the

fine system went out. Well, that's fine. The fine system went

out throughout the whole of the province and then the province

went ahead and decided it would absorb the magistrates'

salaries.

But the shortfall to the city there would be the better part

of $700,000. The shortfall to the city in not being able to

have this hotel or bed tax to plow back into the recreation

industry would, I'd say, be about another $300,000 — there's $

1 million.

As the Premier said, t his usually comes up during the

Minister of Highways' estimates. But this is the appropriate

time for this. Unless you're going to have certainly…how

could I describe him? It's difficult to describe the former

Minister of Highways (Mr. Gaglardi) and make any comparisons to

the past. I'll leave that right there.

I would tend to think that this will have to be much more

than a decision of a Minister. The Hon. Premier knows that as

well as I do. This is a provincial government decision. But if

the City of Vancouver had had the Highways Act applied

to it, the same way it was applied to other municipalities, I

gainsay that it would have had about another $3 or $4 million

worth of revenue. Okay. That's the second point.

A third one — this business of the provincial government

freeloading within the city insofar as its structures are

concerned. The federal government pays grants in lieu of taxes

and I gather that the rate that the provincial government has

coming in is about 50 per cent of what it should be. These are

rough figures. I can't give you the exact figures. They're the

best ones that have come to my attention. But according to the

information I have they add up — and the Hon. Minister of

Highways (Hon. Mr.

[ Page 860 ]

Strachan) says I'm right — to about $6 million

altogether.

So we find this principal city, the third largest city in

Canada, which is really the hub of British Columbia… I agree

with the Premier's sentiments about the joys of less-congested

living and so does everybody in the City of Vancouver. But darn

it all, they're faced with living within the confines of what

they do and they have the mounting problems. They've been

burgeoning and burgeoning over the 20-year period and you've

reached the critical point. That's why I'm saying you cannot

wait for an overall philosophical shift. You need now, purely

and simply, some dough — money — to go from the provincial side

back to the City of Vancouver, because it's been the best tax

cow that this province has ever had.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, I appreciate the debate very,

very much. It's in the framework, all of a sudden, within 12

months, instead of a lateral debate. It's a different

direction. It's good. The points are well taken and it's

consistent. You haven't had the opportunity to get over here

yet to test that consistency. (Laughter).

Nonetheless, it is consistent and it's absolutely valid.

The two decisions that we made in terms of Vancouver were in

the area of roads and the question of assisting in financing at

Second Narrows crossing. That money is still here, as was

ascertained in an earlier question, and it is still earmarked

in that general direction. We've said that we will participate

in urban transit. We're not going to dump transit on the

municipalities as another kind of punishment.

MR. GARDOM: You couldn't do it.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, yes, it was tried. But we wouldn't

do it anyway. We don't agree with it as a philosophy. Transit

is transit right across the board. Okay. So we're agreed on

that.

The next thing was the question of the assessment. We've

done that.

I had the Mayor of Vancouver in my office…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It was weeks ago. He's not complaining.

There are mayors of big cities, Mr. Member, and they're welcome

in Victoria. It's a new experience.

The mayor came into my office with the specific proposal

about taxation sharing. It's his idea and if he wants to

discuss it publicly it's okay with me.

It was an interesting proposal. I suggested to him, "Mr. Mayor, if you take that concept back to the UBCM, and the UBCM as

a body comes up with the framework of policy of taxation changes, rather than

just the City of Vancouver, encompassing that idea, or having within it a policy

with the germ of that idea, it's something that would find favour in Victoria."

Now we're communicating on that level.

It's not as if we're going to pull out a master plan and

dump it on them.

AN HON. MEMBER: If his thinking is pretty good, let's find out what

it is,

HON. MR. BARRETT: If he wishes to discuss it. I'm not going to say,

"Here, this is what he came to me with." We had a discussion in my office.

If he wished to make it public I have no objection to that.

AN HON. MEMBER: I hope he does.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Okay. That's fine. But that was the

proposal, and I think he's gone back to UBCM with it. I think

there's a prominent member of the UBCM here. In any event, they

were preparing the material to go back with it.

Instead, Mr. Member, of being in a position of coming in

with a great big plan and saying, "Here it is,"…

You wouldn't want that. We want the input of the cities.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): On land too?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Certainly on land. You want to go into

that? That's coming anyway. You bet. But the cities asked us to

help them too in controlling zoning. There's a record of

that.

MR. CURTIS: Which ones?

HON. MR. BARRETT: The cities are not opposed to zoning.

There's a record of that.

MR. CURTIS: What cities? What cities asked?

HON. MR. BARRETT: The debate will come on, Mr. Member. I am

sorry, Mr. Chairman. It's interesting anyway. Zoning is not a

brand new concept.

So, Mr. Member, I am suggesting to you that we are

receptive to ideas from municipalities and cities. We are

anxious to cooperate with them. We're not going to impose

taxation changes on them. The first moves we made were in the

obvious areas, absolutely obvious areas, in terms of the

criticism that we were a part of in the same manner that you

are today.

[ Page 861 ]

MR. GARDOM: Just one question on this point, Mr.

Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you make it brief, Mr. Member.

MR. GARDOM: Yes, Mr. Chairman, it will be exceptionally

brief.

One of the specific items which we're coming to will be the

situation of dollars for metro transit. It seemed to be the

accepted policy developed over the past years that, insofar as

Vancouver was concerned, B.C. Hydro was going to do its level

best to wean itself out of customer service, essentially by

giving not the best service at all and developing huge

deficits.

It came to the provincial government and received, if my

memory is correct, $2 million — something like that. I believe

that is exactly the same figure that is proposed again this

year. But that, I gather, is insufficient to take care of the

thing.

Now, I'd asked the Hon. Premier, Mr. Chairman, what exactly

is his policy insofar as customer service by B.C. Hydro is

concerned? Is it going to be improved; is it going to be big;

is it going to be better; or are you going to let the thing

follow the path of drift that it was following before?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, I ask you, beyond my framework

or philosophy that it will be improved, to get the details from

the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) who's

intimately involved.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before I recognize the Hon. Member for

Langley, I just want to make a few comments. I have allowed

considerable latitude in applying the rules of the House

because I understand that this is traditional when considering

the Premier's estimates. However, it is now getting deep into

the third day and I would point out to the Hon. Members that

many of the matters that are raised and discussed should

properly be dealt with in some other. For example I am sure that

the Hon. Members from the official Opposition regard the matter

of unemployment as an urgent and public matter. There is

provision to raise a matter of that kind under standing order

No. 35(1) rather than bringing it up repeatedly in the

consideration of the estimates.

The second point I would like to make is that in municipal

matters which were raised by the previous speaker, much of the

substance of what he said could properly have been brought up

under vote No. 180, under the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Although, certainly, there was some reference to the Premier's

office in some of the comments that were made.

The third point is: on bills before the House, or motions before the House,

it is not proper to debate matters which are contained in these bills or in

these motions because the debate is anticipated and there will be, in fact,

debate on these matters when these matters come up in their proper place. That

is the time that these matters should be discussed.

The fourth point is: proposals that are made to the Minister

whose estimates are being considered should more properly be

made by motions and bills by notice on the order paper rather

than suggested or urged upon the Minister considered, as we

quoted from May yesterday.

Also if any Hon. Member disagrees with the ruling of the

Chairman or with the way that the rules are being applied by

the Chairman, the proper remedy is to raise a point of order;

then, if he is not satisfied with the results, to make an

appeal to the House.

Now, there is one last point. That is if any of the Hon.

Members in the Opposition exercise the — you might say — the

option, in terms of the latitude that has been allowed by the

Chair, too extensively, the result will be more and more

speeches by the Hon. Premier. Therefore, while I'm sure we

consider the Premier an extremely good speaker…

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: …it is my opinion that the other Hon.

Ministers undoubtedly also have much to say about these

matters. Therefore I would urge that all Members cooperate in

expediting the business of the House.

I recognize the Hon. Member for Columbia River.

MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. If you are

going to lay down all those new guidelines, rules, to when we

can make proposals to Government, as to where…

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHABOT: I feel a draft, Mr. Chairman. I feel a draft

from the backbenches. Really if you are going to lay down all

these guidelines and rules, Mr. Chairman, in all fairness…you've indicated that we should present any proposals that we

might have for the Government by way of motion or by the way of

bill.

I want you to tell me now, at this time, Mr. Chairman,

whether you will allow full debate on presentation of private

Members bills. Will that be allowed? Full debate?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Member, if the Member will be seated I

will respond to his point of order.

MR. CHABOT: Oh, O.K. I hadn't quite finished my point of

order. But you complete this. I might have another one

after.

But really, if you're suggesting that the Second

[ Page 862 ]

Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) is out of

order — that he is discussing matters that should properly be

discussed under the Department of Municipal Affairs — I think

that that matter should be brought to his attention either by

the Chair at the time that he raises the point or should be

brought to his attention by the Premier, who should suggest to

him that it could be better presented during the estimates of

the Minister of Municipal Affairs. However, you've allowed the

Premier to filibuster the reply.

He talked lengthily on the reply, a matter that you indicate

he's completely out of order on. So really if you are going to

rule, you should rule a little earlier. Or the situation should

be brought to the attention of the House by the Premier if he

feels that it should be discussed under another vote rather

than his.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point of order made by the Hon. Member, I

think is well taken; that is that the Chairman should certainly

be more strict in the application of the rules in order to

expedite the business of the House. However I'm acting in

accordance, as I said, with the tradition of allowing more

latitude in considering the Premier's estimates. All I'm asking

for is the cooperation of the House in following the general

principles which are the tradition of parliamentary

procedure.

I recognize the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point

Grey.

MR. GARDOM: As you most correctly noted, Mr. Chairman, I was

quite in order during all of my remarks. During the Premier's

estimates it's certainly a most usual practice here — and I

gather in all Houses — to question the Leader of the Government

about the philosophical direction of the Government, and that

is exactly what we've been doing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point is well made by the Hon. Member. In

those matters certainly he was in order.

I recognize the Hon. Member for Langley.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I

have only two or three brief questions that I want to ask the

Premier and I'm glad to see him answering some of the questions

by the Hon. Liberal Member. Because he hasn't been answering

any up to this point on any of the important questions about

jobs. Speeches and performances yes; answers no, perhaps.

Mr. Chairman, I want to ask a question about a comment made in the throne speech

on page 14, with regard to the Home Acquisition Fund. We were told yesterday

that we could talk about these funds generally. The comment was made that the

Government doesn't agree with all of the details of this fund — and some other

comment made outside the written text in the budget speech about methods by

which perhaps there might be different areas in which this fund will be spent

rather than on home acquisition.

Yet, and even though those details are not agreed with,

there would be $50 million extra put into that fund. I think

the Members of the House, Mr. Chairman, have a right to ask the

Premier how that money is going to be spent, if it is not going

to be spent in the manner in which it is laid out in the

budget.

I would like to ask the question as well, Mr. Chairman,

through you to the Premier, about the Community Recreation

Facilities Fund: whether or not it is in operation at this

time; whether you have had applications or not; whether or not

you have, in fact, given approvals.

I wasn't satisfied, Mr. Chairman, with the questions about

the Powerline Beautification Fund. But, in light of your

remarks earlier today, I'll put that in the form of a written

question on the order paper and it can be answered that

way.

One other comment, Mr. Chairman, I would like to make and

that has to do with the Premier's admission some time ago that

there was a cabinet split in regard to the removal of taxes,

education taxes, from farm land and residential properties in

British Columbia. I would like to ask the Premier if he could

explain how that split went; what the reason was for it; when

we are going to get a direction of policy from the Government,

with regard to the removal of these taxes from both residential

property and farm property in this province?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Three questions and three answers. The

Home Acquisition Fund; I'm not happy about a number of things

but before there can be any changes there have to be

legislative changes. The Government is committed to legislative

changes.

One of the things that I'm not happy about is the fact that

native Indians on reserves are excluded. I'm not happy about

that. I expect the Member who brought in his bills today,

brought them in in anticipation of

interpretation of my

comments the other day. (Laughter). That's fair enough. It's

O.K. We're agreed upon it anyway. It's obvious. Not only does

it have to be done, but, it has to be retroactive.

AN HON. MEMBER: I mean, after that suggestion…

HON. MR. BARRETT: O.K. Well, so I don't agree with the Home

Acquisition Fund in that way. That was one of the ways. The

other way I don't agree with is in terms of limiting the use of

the funds or

[ Page 863 ]

access to the funds. We have under active consideration a

number of other methods of access to the funds so that more

people can take benefit from it.

There is no attempt whatsoever — and it cannot be done — to

destroy the use of the fund for home acquisition. It has to be

broadened. Exclusions against native Indians is something that

I didn't like and we hope to eliminate it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

HON. MR. BARRETT: So that is answer to No. 1.

No. 2, Community Recreation fund: nothing can be done until

the bill passes. As soon as the bill passes you will note that — Mr. Chairman, I am sorry to refer to the bill — but it is

retroactive to August 30. We have had a number of

applications.

The cabinet is not split. They have a difference of opinion.

There is nothing wrong with saying publicly, in my opinion — obviously it is not the traditional thing to do — that the

cabinet has differences of opinion.

People have very strong opinions whether they are NDP,

Social Credit, or Liberal or Conservative cabinets; perhaps

less notable than Socred cabinets but certainly evident in

Liberal cabinets and Conservative cabinets. People with strong

opinions come into politics and I don't think that fact should

ever be hidden. I think it's a good thing. I think that people

have strong ideas and should express them.

We had a difference of opinion in the cabinet over the

method of how we were going to remove school tax, not over

whether or not we should do it. We have not agreed on the

method, and that's what we're taking back, as I said, in the

newspapers.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for North Peace

River.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to pose a few very specific, very direct questions to

the Premier, through you, sir.

The first matter I want to deal with is a remark that was

delivered by the Premier during this debate a few minutes ago

when he spoke about a unique lifestyle in several parts of

British Columbia, and he referred to the northern part of the

province as well as to the Kootenays and some other areas.

Well, Mr. Chairman, we're trying to preserve a unique

lifestyle, if you wish to call it that, in the north right now

and we are having some problems, particularly economic

problems.

I would like to ask the Hon. Premier, through you, if he

would cooperate with the mayors and the regional district of

the Peace-Liard area in trying to convince Ottawa that we

should have area designation by the Department of Regional

Development and Economic Expansion (DREE) for the

Peace-Liard region. This is a matter that has been worked upon by many

people; they've put briefs together, they have sent delegations

to Ottawa, we've had talks with the former Minister and the new

Minister in Ottawa, we had the support of the previous

government when they were in administration here. I would like

to know if the Premier would lend the weight of his office now

to the request for area designation for the Peace-Liard region.

Point number one.

The second matter that I would like to raise, through you,

Mr. Chairman, to the Premier, is the B.C. Railway extension to

Dease Lake. In recent days we have seen in the Press

indications that some of the right-of-way may be considered and

that the route that is presently surveyed and the route that is

presently being used may not be the route that is finally used

in that extension to Dease Lake.

We've also heard comments from the Hon. Premier indicating

that he is approaching Ottawa to ask for financial aid and

support for the extension of this railway. It's interesting to

note, Mr. Chairman, that when the former Premier (Hon. Mr.

Bennett) approached Ottawa in the same manner about the same

particular problem, some people branded him as a

separatist.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not me.

MR. SMITH: I didn't say you did, sir. But when the present

Premier approaches the same people about the same problem, he's

speaking because he represents the interests of British

Columbia. What a difference a year makes.

What I would like to say though is this: Is that extension

dependent upon financial participation by Ottawa? That's a

specific question. Is there any intent on the part of the

Government, should the funds that they're asking Ottawa for not

be forthcoming, to cancel out any of the contracts and in fact

delay the Dease Lake extension of the B.C. Railway?

One other question — it's not one of a major nature but one

of a minor concern, I think, to the civil servants in this

province. I have been told in the last few days that just today

and yesterday, the civil service of this province received

their T-4 slips for the current year.

Now I know that it's a requirement by law that the T-4 slips

be in the hands of employees before the last day of

February.

AN HON. MEMBER: Mailed out by that day.

MR. SMITH: Mailed out by that day? O.K., I'll take the

Minister's

interpretation for it. But the point that I want to

make is surely with the computer equipment that we have at our

disposal today, there must be some way that the government

could place those T-4 slips in the hands of your civil

servants

[ Page 864 ]

before the deadline, or a day or two earlier than the

deadline. Surely we should be able to get those out to them by

the first part of February.

I'll tell you one good reason why. We all know about

registered retirement savings plans today and the benefits

available to people under the tax Act to contribute money which

they can then deduct from taxable income for the current year.

If they do not have a statement of their earnings and their

deductions prior to the final day of February they can place

themselves in a position where contributions they may have

otherwise made, a plan that they may have otherwise taken

advantage of, would be lost to them.

All I'm suggesting is that there must be some way that we

could get those T-4 slips into the hands of the civil servants

in this province a little before the deadline at the end of

February.

Three questions I pose to the Premier; I'd appreciate some

answers.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: We have no objection to the area in

question being designated under DREE. Sure, I'll support it; no

question about it. If they want that support, I'll certainly

give the support. But I wouldn't hang my hat on the results out

of the DREE programme.

I say candidly and I think you agree with me, more can be

done by direct involvement through provincial departments.

That's why Mr. McEwan is up that way now.

In terms of the CNR and BCR, I can't really make valid

comments about the

interpretation of the previous Premier's

position and mine by the newspapers. That's something that they

have to do.

But you recall that I and my colleagues in the official

Opposition, the Liberals as well, and the one Tory — I don't

recall the debate the time he was there — I don't think ever

attacked the former Premier on the question of asking for

railroad payments. As a matter of fact, the former Liberal

leader, caught in the embarrassing position of having to defend

Ottawa and still take a B.C. stand, always stood up in the

House and said, "Ottawa is wrong. They should give them the

money, but…." and that was a good opening to his

speech.

The demands asked by the former administration are ones that

I agreed with in Opposition and I agree with now. However, they

are not a conditioning factor as to whether or not that

railroad will continue through the north. They are not. But

they are certainly an ingredient in a negotiation and the

negotiations include shared financing. So you can see what I'm

saying.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, I'm saying that the railroad is

going to go ahead. The federal government wants the railroad

now just as much as the provincial government does, if not

more, which is really a change of attitude.

That's perhaps why there is a change of

interpretation in

the media. The response in Ottawa in the past used to be, "Aw,

he's a separatist," and the media carried that message.

They're no longer saying that because the feds now want the

railway. So that's what's changed, not the B.C. position.

I'm saying that the railway goes. The amount of money that

I'm talking about that I mentioned the other day is part of the

negotiations in terms of shared finances. Now we will not be

"provincial" about the sharing of information or the sharing of

goals. Those negotiations going on right now are very, very

candid.

The T-4 slips; we'll look into it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All right, your point of order, Mr. Member.

Would the other two Members be seated for a moment?

MR. CHABOT: Clarification on whether you suggested that

Members could best debate or discuss unemployment under

standing order No. 35, sub-section 1. Did you make that

statement?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I merely suggested that this might be one way

in which it might be done.

MR. CHABOT: Would you be prepared to give us leave to

discuss this critical issue at this time?

MR. CHAIRMAN: This would be a matter for the House to

consider, not in committee. The instructions of the House to

the committee are specific.

MR. CHABOT: If we should raise the issue as a matter of

urgent public importance when the House is…

MR. CHAIRMAN: This would be a matter for the House to

consider, not for the committee of supply.

MR. CHABOT: You've made the suggestion that this is the only

place You're confining where the question of unemployment can

be discussed. You're suggesting at this time that we cannot

question the Premier of this province on the matter of the

economic policies of this Government relative to the

unemployment being created by their policies.

Is that what you're saying, Mr. Chairman? Is that what

you're saying?

MR. CHAIRMAN: No.

[ Page 865 ]

MR. CHABOT: Well, where else? If you're suggesting that we

can only do it by asking for adjournment of this House, where

else can we discuss unemployment in this House?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the Hon. Member be seated and I'll answer

his point of order.

I made the point because the matter has been raised

regularly over the last three or four days. Therefore it would

appear to me that the matter is in itself important, rather

than as a part of the estimates that we're considering under

the Premier.

I also said as my concluding remark that if the Premier

wanted to continue the discussion as part of the consideration

of his estimates, then this could probably be done providing

there was no objection from the House. We'll proceed to the

next order of business.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'll just conclude this point.

The point is that it's been repeated and repeated and repeated.

The issue appears to be a matter in itself of importance to the

Members who are pressing the issue.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not of importance to anyone else.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. I reject any idea that

the Chair will determine the subjects that the Members wish to raise under the

Premier's office, if they are legitimate subjects under my jurisdiction or any

other Minister's. I would appreciate the Chair re-examining its position. The

economic matters are matters of responsibility of the Minister of Finance. I'm

prepared to answer the question.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point

Grey.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the Premier would

clarify one indication he gave. Has he given us today a firm

commitment that there will be a redistribution of seats before

the next provincial election and that this will be done on a

totally dispassionate and nonpartisan basis? (Laughter). Did I

understand him correctly that he gave that commitment, Mr.

Chairman? The Premier only needs to nod. Was that nod in answer

to that question, Mr. Premier? Just nod if that's so.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If the Hon. Member is including that as one of

several questions, would he ask them all and then the Hon.

Premier could reply to all of them. Otherwise, he could take

them in term.

MR. McGEER: Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, I'd also like to ask him if

he wouldn't reconsider the answer he gave to the Second Member for Vancouver–Point

Grey (Mr. Gardom) regarding the potential of the Liberal leader to assist him

as a diplomat in Washington.

Mr. Chairman, if I could just advance a brief argument to

the Premier, the one man in British Columbia — probably in

Canada — who is known and respected by President Nixon and

Interior Secretary Rogers Morton on the pipeline-tanker issue

is the leader of the Liberal Party. He's the one who has won a

victory over the administration in the United States. It would

seem strange indeed to the leading officials in Washington,

D.C., if an official representative of this province, namely

the Premier, were to go down without taking as his consultant

the one man who understands the issue and has won the respect

of the administration.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. McGEER: All I can hope for the Attorney General, Mr.

Chairman, is that his record in the courts is better than his

predecessor's in that post. They won't have to be very good for

that. (Laughter). Well, the Attorney General will have a chance

to disprove that statement, perhaps, in the next few years.

Mr. Chairman, very briefly, I'd like to ask the Premier why

it is, if the economy of the province is so buoyant, if the

sales tax revenues for January are up 14.5 per cent as he says,

already vindicating the statements that we made in this House

regarding the true state of revenues in the province, why it is

impossible today to put the surpluses of the province to work,

as indeed some Members of the official Opposition have

suggested.

Why is it, Mr. Chairman, that it becomes necessary for us to

present once more false revenue pictures to the province in

order to build up still more surpluses, when the funds, Mr.

Chairman, that have already been set aside against the advice

and votes of Members of the Liberal group have not been used to

further employment in the province but still lie idle, stuffed

with cash. I refer, Mr. Chairman, to: the Accelerated Park

Development Fund, with $5,600,000 in cash or short-term notes — they are the same thing; the Accelerated Reforestation Fund,

with $5,500,000 in cash; the B.C. Government Building Fund,

with $24 million in cash; the Greenbelt Protection Fund, with

$18 million in cash; the Power and Telephone Line

Beautification Fund, with $10 million in cash.

All told — in the answers that the Premier himself has given

to questions placed on the order paper by me — there are $129

million in cash or its equivalent, which is short-term bank

notes, in funds that have already been set aside. Then, Mr.

Chairman, he stands up and says today, "Still more coming in in

surpluses. Sales tax up 14.5 per cent."

As the Members of the official Opposition have

[ Page 866 ]

already pointed out today, the one thing we need in this

province is to put that money to work employing people. The

Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) is laying off

individuals. What happens? They get the money from the Minister

of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement (Hon. Mr. Levi).

Mr. Chairman, what it adds up to is lack of co-ordination by

the Premier and the Minister of Finance — the Premier supplying

jobs on the one hand and the Minister of Finance supplying the

money. Same old thing — these two people can't get

together.

As my final question, I would like to ask the Premier, Mr.

Chairman, why it really was that he broke his promise to the

public of British Columbia by not giving up that finance

portfolio.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Premier.

HON.

MR. BARRETT : Yes, there will be a redistribution and it

will be as dispassionate as possible. Certainly, we will not go

through the experience that we went through in terms of red

pencils flashing out over here on a couple of desks.

The next question is — Mr. Member, I find your line of

questioning surprising. But then perhaps not, because you're

being political. I appreciate that. Every one of us has a

political role to play. But we can't spend the money until you

pass the estimates and that's what we're doing now. The sooner

we get on with passing the money, we'll spend it.

To indicate that I'm trying to hoard surpluses when I made

it very obvious in the budget speech — and I'm giving you these

figures right now — you're trying to say that we're trying to

conceal something or be false. I'm giving you the figures now

in a way that the people of this province have never had the

figures before. That's a fact. Throughout the estimates I've

given you the information.

Now, if you want to get on with the business, it's entirely

up to you at this point. This is the wonderful thing about the

checks and balances of parliament. Do you want to pass the vote

so we can get on and spend the money and provide jobs or do you

want to make speeches? It's up to you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Columbia

River.

MR. CHABOT: A couple of brief questions. The Premier has

suggested here that estimates probably have never been

submitted to this House in previous years — that budgets have

never been presented before. Facts and figures have always been

here.

He suggests as well that we should get on and pass the estimates so we can

get on spending the money. The money we're voting on at this moment, Mr. Chairman,

is money for the year April 1, 1973, through to March 31, 1974. The money isn't

required at this particular time and you know it.

Now, question number one. This morning I read some very

disturbing news — disturbing to me, probably not disturbing to

the Premier — in the Vancouver Province relative to a

report submitted to the Manitoba government by one Eric

Kierans.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. I am not the

Premier of Manitoba.

Interjections by some Hon. Members,

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): We're surprised you know that much.

MR. CHABOT: Just a moment. I bring out a statement and you

haven't allowed me ample time. You're anticipating what I'll be

saying. I'll tell you. Just relax. Don't get jumpy. It says

this:

"Eric Kierans, a former cabinet Minister in the federal

Liberal government, has urged that Manitoba bring all the province's mineral

resources back under effective public ownership and control within 10 years

and set up Crown corporations for basic mining. Kierans, also former Quebec

revenue Minister and president of the Montreal and Canadian stock exchanges,

who has been appointed economic advisor to the B.C. government, makes the recommendation

in a 50-page report on a study of natural resource policy made at the request

of Manitoba's NDP government."

Now, he has suggested in Manitoba that they take over the

mining industry over a period of 10 years. I asked the question

yesterday whether Kierans had been engaged.

[Ms. Brown in the chair]

But it has to do with the overall economic climate that

might take place in the Province of British Columbia. Don't you

think that some of the legislation and some of the statements

made by the Premier of British Columbia relative to take-overs

would affect the economic climate in British Columbia?

Certainly.

It's quite obvious, and I know the Premier knows as well as

I do, that even though Mr. Kierans was a former cabinet

Minister in Ottawa and in the Quebec government as well, he is

now being paid by the B.C. Government as an advisor on economic

policy. He voted…well, just a moment. That's not true. Just

a moment.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That statement is not true. That question

has been canvassed in this House already. Mr. Kierans is not in

the employment of the Province of British Columbia.

MR. CHABOT: Just one moment. In reply to

[ Page 867 ]

questions and on the order paper it was stated that he had

received no salary but an honorarium is to be discussed. There

are questions relative to his economic advice. Will he be

paid?

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Highways): Ask me on my

estimates.

MRS. JORDAN: Oh, keep quiet.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Do you want to sit down?

MR. CHABOT: Let me finish. Quite obviously his philosophy is

much like yours. Last election, you know when he was voting in

Montreal, in a constituency in Quebec, he made the statement

that he wasn't going to vote for his former colleague, Pierre

Elliott Trudeau, but that he was going to vote NDP.

AN HON. MEMBER: Anything wrong with that?

MR. CHABOT: No. He's a free man. But it goes to show you

that his thinking is not too far off yours.

Do you support, Mr. Minister of Mines and Petroleum

Resources (Hon. Mr. Nimsick), the takeover of the mining

industry by the provincial government? Do you support that?

MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Order.

AN HON. MEMBER: He says yes.

MR. CHABOT: He says yes.

MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Would the Hon. Member please address the

Chair?

MR. CHABOT: Yes, Ms. Chairwoman, I'll address the Chair.

People in British Columbia are really concerned. I think that

the Premier should level with us as to whether Mr. Kierans will

be coming to British Columbia and setting up an overall

economic policy for the new government; whether the economic

policy will be one of takeover of some of the primary

industries in the Province of British Columbia; whether they're

going to engage him in the near future.

I don't care whether he's being engaged under the Department

of Industrial Development, Trade, and Commerce or not. It has

to do with your responsibilities as the Minister of Finance in

this province. I think it's a very important topic and one to

which I think we're entitled to have some straightforward

answers.

Ms. Chairwoman, the Premier did state here a couple of days ago, on the question

of subsidy payments for the PGE, that he was going to pursue the matter with

Ottawa. I certainly hope he will. It's a question which the former government

has canvassed on numerous occasions. It's a question which I know I've raised

on the floor of the House in years gone by.

However, I am a little disturbed with the weak bargaining

position being established by the Premier. Because in December,

1969 a very thorough analysis and brief was prepared by the

former government and presented to Ottawa on the basis of

subsidies for the PGE — now the B.C. Railway. In that brief, of

which I'm sure you have a copy, it was substantiated that the

national government owed B.C. Railway $27,991,500.

This brief is one which I think details very seriously and

very objectively what is due the Crown corporation, B.C.

Railway. I'm rather alarmed really that you would start

negotiating from a point of weakness, a point $9 million down

from what originally has been suggested to the national

government as due the B.C. Railway.

I wish you would clarify to me why you have suggested that

it be $19 million — we'll move from there and probably upward.

I think you should have used the figure that had been

previously negotiated with the national government as being due

the B.C. Railway.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Ms. Chairwoman, the approach I have taken

is the one I have been left with by the previous

administration. All the correspondence is available. The two

positions taken by the previous government are the ones that I

am taking — $19 million and up to $27 million.

My first meeting with the federal people involved Mr.

Marchand, Mr. Davis, and Mr. Jamieson, and I advanced the same

positions based on the same arguments. So that's it. I'm either

handicapped or blessed with the position of the previous

administration.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'd love to stick with it but I'm

handicapped by the original request by the former

administration for $19 million. I've got it by correspondence.

I'll give you the letter. I was compromised by the previous

government's caving in to $19 million.

Be that as it may, let's not, you and I, quibble, and I mean

this seriously, because having advanced that position by the

previous government — $19 million up to $27 million — there is

no way that I as Premier of this province will let go of the

argument that that money is due to the people of British

Columbia. No way at all. It's as plain and simple as that. I

answered the question, as related to negotiations, by the

Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) on the same question.

It was based on so much a mile.

[ Page 868 ]

Now Mr. Kierans. I have never met Mr. Kierans. He is not

employed by the Government of British Columbia. As I said

earlier, I anticipate meeting a lot of people, but I said

yesterday — because we repeat the debate and sometimes you're

not in — when I was asked about the same thing: Were you here

when the same question was asked and I…

MR. CHABOT: I was here.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh. And do you remember my answer?

MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. BARRETT: What was my answer then?

MR. CHABOT: It was that you indicated he…

HON. MR. BARRETT: As a consultant. That's right. Then you

asked me if I had ever met him and I said, "No." Then what was

the next question? You wanted it again today.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'm not the Premier of Manitoba. The

alarming thing is that the Member keeps on forgetting that he's

being repetitive. I have never met Mr. Kierans. He is not in

the employ of the Government of British Columbia. He has been

used as a consultant by the Attorney General (Hon. Mr.

Macdonald) and the Attorney General tells me that he hasn't

even submitted a bill. Now I don't know if that's a reflection

on the value of his advice or not. That depends upon your own

political philosophy. But that in fact is the case.

MS. CHAIRWOMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for West

Vancouver–Howe Sound.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Thank you,

Ms. Chairwoman. Mention was made of the Home Acquisition

Grant Act a few moments ago and there was an indication

from the Premier that there were going to be some changes in

the Premier, and he can make a note, that when this is taken

under consideration, would you look at the availability of

those moneys to individuals who have long-term leases from the

Crown corporations upon which they build residences?

The fact of the matter is, Mr. Premier, through you, Ms. Chairwoman, if you

have a lease of Crown land you qualify; but if you have lease of property which

is owned by a Crown corporation, you do not. This is solely the result of technical,

legalistic language in the appropriate statute. That's all that keeps them apart

and I think it has to be corrected.

Ms. Chairwoman, I want to raise the matter

of Howe Sound and Britannia very briefly; not to repeat the questions I asked

yesterday — they are in the Hansard along with the no answers. Yesterday the

Hon. Premier said that the public hearing which would be held would be into

the matter of aesthetics only, and it would not deal with the economics of the

Britannia port development. I accept that as your most final statement.

However, the day before, Hansard reports you

differently, and I'd just like to have the record corrected.

The day before you said, and I quote:

"We have made no firm decision. We are attempting to gather

all the pertinent facts, lay them before the people of British Columbia, hold

a public hearing and then we'll make our decision."

That's the end of the quote.

Now do I understand that that is not in fact the case but

that the only public hearing will deal with the matter of

aesthetics and that the economics will not be dealt with at the

public hearing?

HON. MR. BARRETT: All the pertinent facts of the location at

Howe Sound — and that goes beyond just Paish's report and the

debate about aesthetics — there is also an engineering report,

the detail of the report, all of that should be debated there.

If the thing goes ahead, people who are opposed or who are in

favour should see the location of roads; they should see the

location of silos; they should see the location of recreational

facilities. Those are the pertinent facts that I'm talking

about.

There's no point in having a public hearing debating just

the limitation of the aesthetics — how many ships can go by

before you get upset. What they need to know is the engineering

material on what's to be built there; what space is being taken

up; what kind of capacity it has there. Those are all the

pertinent facts. That's what I meant.

I have a report in terms of the engineering feasibility and a drawing. That will be released, again

unaltered. There are comments in there that are gratuitous and

I'll point those out when I release the report. But all of that

information will be made public.

In terms of your first question, the deputy has agreed to

look into this and see if we can come to some kind of lease

arrangement.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I expected that the matter would

go beyond just the narrow basis of aesthetics. What we will

have at the public hearing for discussion will be the full

physical layout of what B.C. Rail plans for that area. However,

the matter of what it might cost, whether it is profitable —whatever that means — will not be a subject of

[ Page 869 ]

discussion?

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, because the economics of the whole

matter don't confine themselves just to Howe Sound. There are

other things. But we're talking about the pertinent matters

relating to Howe Sound: all the engineering material, all of

the pertinent facts and materials as you described, the

drawings and everything else and other suggestions beyond B.C.

Rail suggestions. We're not confined to just hearing B.C. Rail

suggestions. There are openings for a lot of other

opinions.

MR. WILLIAMS: I appreciate that and I can understand the

Premier's point of view that at such a public hearing it may

not be appropriate to discuss some of the financial details

which will be involved in the complete operation.

I have two other questions to ask. One, can the Premier

indicate that he now has estimates from B.C. Rail as to what the

total capital cost will be for all the works required to

transport and ship this coal?

My second question is if he has those figures and they are

to form part of the negotiations with the companies which may

mine the coal, is he prepared to have this discussed by the

mining and railways committee of this House so that the Members

may know?

I suggest, Ms. Chairwoman, that the Members of this House

have a right to know. This must surely be basic to the

operation of the government, the operation of the Crown

corporations — that we have a right to know not after the fact,

but before some of these momentous decisions are made.

It isn't simply the matter of a Crown corporation which

borrows the money from the government. Year after year after

year revenues of this province have been plowed into the

capital stock of B.C. Rail even though we owned it all. That's

an outright grant. Those are revenue moneys that could have

been used for other purposes.

I think if the people have so willingly given to B.C. Rail

it's just not right that all those decisions be made behind the

closed doors of B.C. Rail. If you want to have the sessions in

camera, that's fine. But I think we're entitled to know that

the information that is given to you, Mr. Premier, as president

of the railway, really stands up to analysis and

examination.

The First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer), in

connection with matters he raised about work that's being done

in the north, raised serious doubts as to the ability of B.C.

Rail to make estimates. You yourself indicated that this matter

was being looked into and that Mr. Minty was in Vancouver

looking into this whole thing right now. Well, if their

estimates in that case are so bad, maybe their estimates of

costs with regard to Britannia and the whole Sukunka thing are

questionable too.

If you want to have the hearings in camera, that's fine with

us and we can treat the matter confidentially. But let's

examine and see whether we can accept the basis of the decision

that you must make.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's a decision that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council

must make and that's delegated. There are estimates. I have checked the estimates.

I have given the House as much information as I can in terms of negotiations

we're in. My friend, through you, Ms. Chairwoman, knows very well that no government

in the middle of negotiations would go into committee.

The matter has to be scrutinized. The government is responsible to make decisions.

We're cautious. We're not making frivolous decisions based on where we found

ourselves because of political commitments. The matter is one that is being

canvassed with a great deal of caution, professional assistance and just straight

horse sense. There's no way that we could go into a House committee in terms

of where these negotiations are at this point.

MR. WILLIAMS: I appreciate that you're getting the best consulting service

you can get. But let me say, Ms. Chairwoman, that the consultants that you have

advising British Columbia Rail with reference to the Britannia site are the

same consultants that put British Columbia Rail into Squamish and into the Mamquam

blind channel.

That's the way they take their instructions. They take them

from officials of B.C. Rail. They will give you whatever

answers you want on an engineering basis. That's right. You

say, "Build me a port there." They'll tell you how to build it

and they'll tell you exactly what it will cost but they aren't

going to give you any gratuitous advice as to whether it's a

good idea or not. As to whether those estimates are right or

wrong, that can only be tested if you're prepared to disclose

what they are because you don't know whether they're right or

wrong.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, that's your opinion. But I'm not

prepared to cast reflection on professionals who work as

consultants to the government. I think that's a mistake and I

hope you don't mean it that way. When anybody asks for

professional consultants, the frame of reference is given to

the professional consultant and the professional consultant

gives the answer.

I hope that there's no attempt — and I don't believe there

is any attempt — to interpret that their professional advice is

really not needed, that it's some kind of game, that the advice

is such that it's just a cover for a decision to be made.

That's certainly not the motivation by this Government and I

don't think it was the motivation of the other government. I

certainly do not know of any professional who will

[ Page 870 ]

allow himself to be used that badly — certainly not the

lawyers that we've engaged privately to assist us.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I have yet to find a lawyer who wouldn't

offer his opinion for a fee. The only kind of thing where I've

seen that condition is in a courtroom when two psychiatrists

are hired to either prosecute or defend a defendant. If the

Crown hires the psychiatrist, there's a predilection that he'll

come out saying that the guy is sane and ready to stand trial.

If the defence hires the psychiatrist, the idea is he should

come out and say that he's insane and shouldn't stand

trial.

I don't buy that theory. I don't think professionals operate

that way.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, I do. I do think there is a

professional ethic. We're asking for professional advice. We're

getting professional advice. I would not like the idea cast — I'm sure not intentionally — that somehow they're giving a

reflection of what the Government wants. There has never been a

statement by me to any consultant that I've dealt with. Unless

you can bring evidence to the contrary — and I'm sure you can't…

AN HON. MEMBER: What are the terms of reference?

HON. MR. BARRETT: The terms of reference to the scientists

dealing with it are in terms of the location of the port, in

the same manner that was dealt with with Mr. Davis on every

single step of the way. I just don't understand how you attempt

to twist that.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I certainly didn't.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's exactly why, because it's a matter of ecology.

It is the nature of the issue that there should not be any terms.

But when you hire an engineering firm and you're finding out

how much it costs to build a bridge, then you expect them to

tell you how much it costs. But you don't tell them that we

want the bridge to be safe and we want the bridge this, that

and everything, but aside from that we only want x number of

dollars spent. Not at all. We certainly have not given that

kind of advice to any of the consultants we've asked. None at