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)

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 1973

Night Sitting

[ Page 817 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Premier's estimates.

Mrs. Jordan — 817

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 817

Mrs. Jordan — 817

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 821

Mrs. Jordan — 824

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 825

Mrs. Jordan — 826

Mr. Williams — 827

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 830

Mr. Williams — 831

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 832

Mr. Fraser — 833

Mr. McGeer — 833

Mr. Morrison — 836

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 837

Mr. Phillips — 838

Mr. McClelland — 845

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 846

Statement

Mr. Speaker on memorandum on changes in the rules of the House — 0846

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 1973

The House met at 8 p.m.

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 recognize the Hon. Member for North Okanagan.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): If the Hon. Premier looks

through his little gnome's vault there and finds that.…

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Just be careful how you say that.

I inherited this (Laughter).

MRS. JORDAN: Well, there may be more truth than fiction in my

comment at that.

Mr. Chairman, through you to the Premier, in his role as fiscal

authority for the Province of British Columbia, I would like to talk

about some of the special provincial funds which I believe come under

his jurisdiction, particularly in relation to, first of all, the

British Columbia Cultural fund.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's under the Provincial Secretary (Hon.

Mr. Hall).

MRS. JORDAN: It's not in his vote. I think this is perhaps

part of the problem, Mr. Premier — there's some concern on our part as

to actually where these funds are and who's administering them. I did

look in the Provincial Secretary's vote and, unless I am in error, it

isn't there. I thought I would bring it up to you in your role as

fiscal agent for the Province of British Columbia. In view of the fact

that you have one of the signing authorities at your left, perhaps he

could answer these questions. I don't think you'll find them too

difficult.

I'd like to, in the interest of time, and not to burden you, put the

Physical Fitness Fund questions and the cultural questions together. We

would like to know, first of all, assuming that the original committees

were disbanded, what committees are sitting now, and who's on those

committees at the Ministerial level and in the departmental level, and

if there have been any outside advisors brought in in relation to the

actions of this fund, or these funds, also in relation to the spending

of these funds.

We would like to know if there has been any renumeration from the

interest of these funds going to any administrative expenses of

committee members, or paid to any outside advisors, and any of the fund

interest has gone to pay administrative expenses of the committees,

either at the Ministerial or departmental levels, or used to pay for

any administrative expenses, or travelling expenses of those acting in

an advisory capacity.

We would like to know your policy about these funds in the future,

as to enlarging them and expanding their scope. We would also like to

know if the internal workings of the funds as to their policy has been

changed up until this time under your administration.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I just want to make a comment regarding order,

and I'd ask the Hon. Member just to be seated for a moment.

I would just like to have some direction to the Chair from the House

Leader as to whether he wishes this particular matter to be considered

under his estimates or under the estimates for the Provincial Secretary.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, I can only express a preference, but

the Member is quite right, there is no allocation in any other

Ministers, and the Member's quite right in asking the questions here.

The only thing that I think the House should be advised is that I will

tell the House exactly who has been delegated the responsibility by

cabinet. Perhaps it might be more adequate later on if the House

chooses to question those particular cabinet Ministers. But the Member

is quite right in raising it under the circumstances in my vote.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Premier. You may proceed.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Premier, if I keep on the general terms of

the funds now, would you, once you find out where they are, permit more

detailed examination.…

HON. MR. BARRETT: It would be more fruitful then.

MRS. JORDAN: Fine. Well, in essence we'd like to know these

facts about all these funds — where they are launched and whether there

have been internal policy changes — and the specific questions that I

asked you.

But I would ask the Premier one specific question in relation to the

funds. I did mention in a previous debate the suggestion of the value

of expanding the concept of the physical fitness fund and the cultural

fund to include a cultural festival in British Columbia. I suggested

and suggest now that, should you take this under advisement, we utilize

the community arts councils and the regional arts councils as a vehicle,

[ Page 818 ]

and that for the first year, in order to get this started, we

utilize the vehicle through the British Columbia Sports Festival. They

have established contacts around the province. They have a mechanism in

which they work in order to reach into all areas of the province to

encourage people to participate. This might be superimposed for a year

or two through the cultural area, or bring the cultural area up to it,

in order to provide a vehicle that wouldn't use a lot of money in an

administrative expense.

The second value, I think, in encouraging the cultural people and

the recreational people or the sports people to work together, would be

to bring much closer together these two areas which have been fairly

distinct in the past. I'm sure you will find, and I've certainly found

in going around the province, that there was a very keen desire on the

part of a lot of people involved in so-called cultural activities and

sports activities to work more closely together. They don't want to

lose their own identity, and I don't think this would be wise, but they

do recognize that there's a duplication of fund usage and services that

might better be utilized for the benefit of the people in the

communities if they were in closer contact.

I would ask your views on that, Mr. Premier, as Minister of Finance.

I have a hard time calling you Mr. Premier. You look so young

(Laughter). And boyish.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Big Brother.

AN HON. MEMBER: Little brother…

MRS. JORDAN: …with a big jar.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please, would the Hon. Member please

address the chair.

MRS. JORDAN: There was an

article in the paper yesterday, and

it says the government will pay the way for chess champions.

"The British Columbia government will underwrite all

the expenses of Canadian chess champion, Peter Baizis, for the up-coming

international chess tournament, Larry Firstein, secretary of the

British Columbia Chess Federation said on Friday. Firstein said that he

had received information of the government's intention from the office

of Premier Dave Barrett.

"Baizis will represent Canada in the world

championship qualifying tournament in either Brasília, Brazil or Moscow

in August. The 21-year old champion from Vancouver will not only have

all his expenses paid by the province, but will also be allowed to take

a second with him. The latter's expenses also will be underwritten by

the British Columbia Government, Firstein said."

We would like to know, in view of the fact that this emanated from

your office, Mr. Premier, who negotiated this arrangement, and why — I

don't want you to misinterpret that we begrudge a merited situation; we

don't, but we'd like to know the details — why when this young man is

representing Canada as a nation would it be the provincial government

that is undertaking these expenses for him and his second.

How much money is involved for Peter Baizis himself, and for his

second? There's no figures mentioned. Is it just his air fare and his

accommodation? Is it air fare and accommodation and so much per day? Is

the federal government assuming some of this cost, and if so, how much?

Have other similar grants been made to individuals from any of these

funds over the past six months, for a national representation?

I would also ask one other question. If this is an amateur

championship, will the payment of his way, whatever it is, affect his

amateur standing?

With this in mind, I'd also ask if there has been any effort to

assist such people as Karen Magnussen, and the team of Moore and

Murray, who are from British Columbia, and are now skating in

Czechoslovakia in the world figure skating championships. What we want

to know is if you are establishing a new policy. If so, have you

considered it for others? Why was this particular young man chosen?

In regard to the First Citizen Fund, we would again ask your policy,

and I don't believe you answered it this afternoon, with regard to the

Port Simpson cannery. You were in Prince Rupert in August, and you did

announce that you would establish it and pay for it all. We would like

to know: 1) if this is your policy, 2) if you are going to pay for it,

and 3) if it is out of the First Citizen Fund. We'd also like to know

how much money is involved, and what you projected your costs on. We'd

like to know what the construction costs are, what operating capital

would be required to initially see the plant in operation, and who will

be the directors of the plant.

In looking at the First Citizens Fund, as you know, it was

originally established to encourage new and constructive projects to

advance culture and education and the economic circumstances and the

personal well-being of the first citizens in British Columbia without,

frankly, having these benefits taken away from them by the federal

government if we encroached on their area. I think it's important not

to get into a jurisdictional argument with the federal government; the

efforts put forth by the province should not detract from any effort

that the federal government is most anxious to make.

In other words, our efforts as a province should enhance their

opportunities, not just leave them spinning their gears in a shuffle

between the federal and provincial responsibilities. We'd like to know

your policy on that position; whether the First

[ Page 819 ]

Citizens Fund will be continued with that as its objective.

The major thrust in this intent was given at the community level.

While many projects should have had the band approval, the attitude

was, as far as the committee was concerned, if it was a good idea and

if it had a germ of possibility of success then it should be given

every opportunity.

As you know, the First Citizens Fund provided money for feasibility

studies for business undertakings that the Indians wished to undertake

themselves. One of the express concerns was that when these feasibility

studies were being done, the involved Indians should work with the

people doing the feasibility studies in order that they learn from this

experience so that at least they knew how to read their own feasibility

studies.

When I look at the final interim statement when you introduced it

into the House, I see that there's a balance of $2,465,445 unexpended

in this fund. There hasn't been a great increase in expenditure,

according to these figures, since you took office. We would like to know

whether this fund is dormant or whether, in fact, projects are being

okayed by the committee and that there is an opportunity for the first

citizens at the community level to continue their undertakings or to

expand them.

We would like to know about the Power and Telephone Line

Beautification Fund. It has a capital funding of $10 million. In the

interim statement as of March 31, 1972, it still has $10 million and

there is no evidence that any interest has been spent. We would like to

know, Mr. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett), when you finish your

conversation.…

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'm just getting information.

MRS. JORDAN: Are you getting the questions?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, I'm listening,

MRS. JORDAN: We recognize that these programmes are

cost-sharing programmes with the municipalities, regional districts and

Hydro and that this takes time. We would like to know if any are in

progress, if any are under consideration or if you anticipate any

becoming viable and operational and utilizing the fund within the next

year.

We also would like to know — and again it may be my own experience

in reading balance sheets — but there was $27 million set aside for the

third Narrows crossing. I certainly can't find in the budget or in your

statements where this $27 million has been absorbed either on paper or

in fact. We would like to know where this is.

We would also like to know your policy. In the last provincial

election campaign, the Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr.

Gabelmann) stated that there would be no third crossing in Vancouver.

This has obviously been a commitment that was met by your Government.

But in light of the events that are happening and in light of your own

statements in this debate that you would like to see the Howe Sound

area developed into more of a playground and you'd like to see the

Squamish area developed into a recreational area, you must certainly

realize that this would mean a tremendous traffic increase, not

necessarily from the North Vancouver–West Vancouver area and not

necessarily from the extended Fraser Valley but from Vancouver proper

and the areas going down towards the border.

We would like to know, in talking about this, if you have set up a

commission to study this particular question and whether you have given

any consideration to the thought of building a third crossing with a

rapid transit provision, multiple lanes and room for extension of

multiple lanes with a view to making it a second Narrows crossing by

eventually doing away with Lions Gate Bridge. This would leave the

entrance to the harbour wide open and very beautiful.

In developing a new Second Narrows crossing with the necessary

facilities …

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. Member, would you please

not discuss the details. You could discuss the details under the

estimates of the Department of Highways. I think the point has been

made.

MRS. JORDAN: All right. I don't know, Mr. Chairman. I'm not

into the money. I just want to know if the principle is.… I think it's

worthy of thought. We've got to do something to accommodate the traffic

that's going to develop in the Vancouver–Howe Sound area over the next

10 years.

When one thinks about it, maybe the rebuilding of a whole new Second

Narrows approach with the necessary vehicles in it that could be

developed as the population increased and the demand was there, thus

doing away with Lions Gate Bridge eventually, is worthy of

consideration. I would like to know your view on that.

In regard to the Squamish area and your statement, have you

commissioned any group or any planning board or any ecological or

environmental study groups to take a look at the Squamish area in the

avenue of an overview? I would ask, if you haven't, would you consider

undertaking this in consultation with the local regional district in

the involved municipalities?

I don't have to explain, I'm sure, that this is a magnificent area.

I had the privilege of helicoptering all through the back area and

could see that the potential for recreation in skiing, in

snowmobiling, in cross-country hiking, in snowshoeing as well as

major family tourist centres is unlimited. I believe this is

[ Page 820 ]

something that should be looked into over the next year, certainly

from the principle point of view if not in detail. We would urge you

and your views to discuss this with the local governing bodies.

I'd like to bring up another matter and ask for the Premier's views

and perhaps a commitment tonight. As you know, the federal government

has set up an advisory committee for women under the Hon. John Munro,

the Minister of Labour, in which he's going to assign 10 to 30 members.

I fully support this proposal. I think this is a very good way of

going about solving some of the problems that many women suffer. I did

not feel that a separate Ministry was wise, but we do have a practice

in Canada and in British Columbia of setting up special commissions to

advise the government on areas where they might well move.

I would ask the Premier whether he will support this proposal

federally. In light of the statements made by the Minister, Hon. Mr.

Munro, that he will appoint people from across Canada, I would ask the

Premier to contact Mr. Munro and suggest two names for this commission

from British Columbia.

The first name that I suggest is Miss Beth Aulin, who is president of

the Canadian Federation of Business and Professional Women. She

represented Canada at the Federation Congress of Business and

Professional Women of Americas in San Salvador on October 25 to 29,

1972. She is now the president of the Canadian Federation of Business

and Professional Women. She comes from a small community; her home is

in Kamloops, and she also was president of that local.

She's a young woman. She's experienced in the business world. She's

experienced in the problem that women confront, and not in a radical

nature particularly, but the day-to-day areas. She's very capable. I

would suggest that she's non-political. Certainly to my knowledge, I

have never heard of her being associated with any political party. The

fact that she is in office at this time and that she does command

respect on her own merits would make her very desirable.

I would just like to quote for you her views as they are outlined in

the recent Business and Professional Women's Magazine of December. I

think they're very impressive. Miss Aulin says:

"We are Canadians. What are our thoughts when we hear

the word 'Canada'? I hear the name and my heart overflows with the

sights and sounds and scents of my particular part of this beautiful

land. And each of us will have a different vision of the wonder which

is Canada."

And then I'll leave out some. Her next statement is:

"It is exciting to think of millions of men and women

different from one another in origin, language, culture, history and

tradition — all Canadians who think of this land as theirs. I love the

thought that everyone is working to make our country greater still — more beautiful, more confident in

herself and in her destiny.

"Those who were discoverers felt that way. So did

those who came later and toiled to develop this broad expanse. So do

those who continue to arrive on our shores, because they have faith

that in Canada they will find security and freedom. Here they will

build toward a brighter future because our land is as young as tomorrow

and as young as hope itself."

I think the Hon. Premier and, I'm sure, the Hon. Members from the

Government side of the House would suggest that this young woman's

basic philosophy and her thoughts as she expressed them are the type of

thoughts that we're going to need on that commission representing women

in Canada.

The second name that I would like to recommend for the Premier to

ask to have appointed to this council is Mrs. Chris Waddell, who is the

director of the British Columbia Government Women's Bureau, Department

of Labour. The Premier himself said this afternoon that he was

impressed that the civil servants of British Columbia were

non-political and that they were here before we came and they'll be

here after we're gone. I think this is true. I'm sure again all would

agree that Mrs. Waddell falls into this category very ably.

She's had wide experience in the real rough-and-tough area of toil

and work. She's washed dishes in a restaurant. She's waited on tables.

She's cooked. So she knows what tough work is all about. She has been a

secretary. The Hon. First Member for Vancouver Little Mountain (Ms.

Young) explained the problems of secretaries. She's conversant in this.

She has been a member of a labour union and worked hard for the labour

world. She rose through the ranks and is now, as I mentioned, director

of the Women's Bureau of the British Columbia Government.

On top of this I believe, and I'm confident that it's recognized,

that Mrs. Waddell is respected by men and women throughout British

Columbia, and that her knowledge and her contribution to women's

legislation in Canada is well respected. The federal government in

their department know of her. They frequently call on her for advice

and opinions. She's known in Ontario, Manitoba — in fact, she's known

in all the provinces of Canada for her thorough understanding of

legislation, not only how it pertains to women, but to families and in

such areas as day care and health services.

I feel that we are very fortunate to have such a fine woman in

government service in British Columbia. She is well aware that

discrimination can't be legislated against in all fronts. I believe

that when you examine both these women, you will recognize that they

would have the ability to cut across all lines,

[ Page 821 ]

whether it's male-female impression of the public, whether it's

party politics, or whether it's the economic lines.

This will be necessary if this commission is to fully help the

public understand where there is discrimination that can't be

legislated against and which is a result of social attitudes. It's in

this light that I suggest these two names to you, Mr. Premier, and

would ask your views on this.

The second point, in light of the women's commission which is being

established in Ottawa within the next three or four weeks — so your

action will need to be very quick — is to now establish a British

Columbia women's advisory commission. You've got a framework to work

with in Ottawa. Now we need it here in order to back up our British

Columbia appointments to that commission.

I would suggest for your consideration that it be under the

direction of the Council of Women of British Columbia, who initiated

this final move, and that perhaps it be made up of 12 members: one lady

from agriculture; one lady from labour; one lady from management;

representation from volunteer groups such as hospital auxiliaries to

mental health care; two MLAs if you wish, one from the Government side

and one from the Opposition side; and regional representatives from

around the province, who would represent all sections of that area — Vancouver Island, the lower mainland, the Kootenays — East and West

combined, the Okanagan and the northern part of British Columbia.

I would also strongly urge that on this advisory commission of women

to the Government of British Columbia and, in turn, to the federal

government there be a representative from the elderly citizens. This

should be a lady who has experienced the problems of the elderly and

would be quite able to put forth their views.

I would suggest, Mr. Premier, and ask your views on the fact, that

you give them reasonable expenses, so that women who have children or

the elderly citizen, who might not have funds, can take

part in all the

meetings and carry out their duties as they are assigned. I don't

suggest a lavish account, but certainly enough that they could cover

babysitting if necessary and their expenses in living, to and from the

meetings.

If serving on this commission proves a problem in light of their

employment, then I would ask that as Premier of this province and

Minister of Finance, you discuss this problem with management and

endeavour to make arrangements that these women, whether it's Miss

Aulin or Mrs. Waddell or any member of the commission, have the

opportunity to leave their employment without losing any benefits and

with the assurance that their jobs would be there when we returned,

whether it's on a straight-period-of-time basis or whether it's on an

intermittent basis.

Mr. Premier, I feel that, intentionally or unintentionally, you

broke your faith with the women of British Columbia. They were under

the impression that you were going to establish a ministry of women.

There is now an opportunity — and I don't quibble with your decision

not to — but I think now is the time. There is a concrete framework to

work with with the federal government to establish an advisory

commission of women's affairs in British Columbia.

Or, if you would rather call it an advisory commission on family

affairs, we are not concerned with the name. I'm just concerned that it

be established. Then you would have the opportunity of making amends to

the women in British Columbia who believed that you were going to do

this.

A question in relation to this, Mr. Premier, is: will you recommend

these names to Mr. Munro? Will you provide the necessary expenses as I

have outlined? One more point: when you establish this advisory

commission — and I believe it should work outside the framework of

government, with the exception of representation — would you see,

within the framework of their terms of reference, that they hold

hearings throughout British Columbia, not just in the mainland?

The Status of Women Inquiry Commission came to Vancouver, New

Westminster. It went to all the major centres. But there are women in

the Peace River area who have problems which are peculiar to them, as

in other remote areas of the province. These commissions really don't

mean very much if they don't represent all the people and give them an

opportunity to make an input.

So I would ask, would you have this commission hold hearings in

remote areas of the province, where women who are living on the farm,

who are living and working in small country stores or managing families

under these circumstances, have an opportunity to discuss their

problems and make an input? I would be pleased if the Premier would

answer these questions now, in order that I could ask any supplementary

questions that I might have.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, the last thing we need is

another committee or commission or travelling group on women's rights.

We welcome Mr. Munro's federal committee. If he wants representation

from British Columbia, I can't possibly take two names that are given

to me across the floor of the House. We certainly need a great deal

more input than that.

One thing I will say is that this Government will immediately

implement machinery to put into practice any of the recommendations out

of Mr. Munro's committee, as soon as those recommendations come out.

The last thing they need is another committee to

[ Page 822 ]

stall some action. I think the federal government is to be commended

in moving toward the committee. The last thing they need is another

committee or hearing or group travelling around British Columbia giving

over the same material that has already been worked over.

The women of Canada want action. There's a positive response to

Munro's decision announced last night. We don't want to duplicate all

that. Let's get some action. Now that the committee is sitting, as the

results come out we intend to implement those recommendations as they

affect provincial jurisdiction.

It doesn't need a ministry of women to do it. It just means a

Government committed to see that some equality starts to take place for

the women of Canada. The last thing they need is another commission,

hearing, or travelling group. This comes from someone who's just won

the piggy-of-the-month award (Laughter). Well, I rejected the award.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I wasn't reading a funny book. Someone in

the never-neverland of the press gallery sent me some clippings

intituled.…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, it was intituled, "Cartoons of the Male

Chauvinist Pig." It was an anonymous missive. People shouldn't send

anonymous missives. I would appreciate initials at least.

In any event, that's the course of action we wish to follow. A

general statement on the funds was in the budget. We have just simply

not had the time to sit down and do a thorough review of all the funds,

and I made that clear.

In terms of administration of the funds; all funds have been brought

back under the absolute control, in terms of the final decision to

spend money, of the Treasury Board. That was not the case before. Now

the Treasury Board has the final responsibility.

We have established two committees, both sections chaired by two

cabinet Ministers. Hon. Mr. Hall (Provincial Secretary) is chairing the

cultural fund and under Hon. Mr. Hall also is the physical fitness

fund. Along with Hon. Mr. Hall is the native Indian fund with the Hon.

Minister without Portfolio, Mr. Calder.

Hon. Mr. Williams (Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources)

is handling the disaster fund (Laughter) and also the greenbelt fund.

I'm on the Treasury Board as of last committee hearing. These

matters are referred to Treasury Board.

The matter of the chess player. I was approached and lobbied in my

office and I said this sounded like a good idea and that I'd certainly

put it forward to the committee. I certainly intend to pursue it to the

committee with my very strong recommendation. The report came out of my

office saying that it was going to happen. I hope it does happen. But

the report is premature in that it has not been brought directly to the

committee. I will be lobbying the committee because I think it's a good

idea.

The reason for the full expenses was that although the young man is

the Canadian champion, the federal government was only willing to put

up a limited amount of money. I think it was $600. The total figures

that I'll be submitting to the committee is $2,000. I'm not a chess

player myself but I understand it enjoys a very great favour among a

lot of people. I think for a young man from British Columbia who is a

Canadian champ, $600 is hardly a reasonable payment. I don't think it

endangers his amateur status at all.

It is my understanding that the last competition this young man went

to, he didn't have enough to pay his hotel room and spent the night

before the competition walking the streets, but he did very well the

next day. Now, I don't know if that's good for chess or not, but it

certainly is a reflection on his dedication to the game.

I think it's a worthy expenditure of the funds. There's no change in

policy of any of the funds. They are all under review. We are trying to

get citizens advisory committees structured for every one of the funds

rather than leaving these to some kind of pressure that can be brought

upon the politician or the interest. We just have not had a chance to

do a thorough job on those particular funds.

The First Narrows crossing. That fund is still in existence. It's in

short-term bank notes. We have not changed the legislation on it nor

have we touched the fund. We've made our public announcement that we're

not in favour of another crossing at First Narrows.

I don't know why I have to constantly repress a feeling of

bewilderment about some of the issues that are brought up by the

Opposition. I've been here too long to be naive, but I must confess a

degree of bewilderment at some of the issues the official Opposition

brings up. It is a matter of confusion to me to see the official

Opposition stand up in this House and absent their minds, either

individually or collectively, from any history.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'm just confessing some feelings. For

example, when the Member gets up and talks about planning in Howe

Sound. It was that government, when they were government, that did away

with the Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board.

[ Page 823 ]

Because of the absence of the Lower Mainland Regional Planning

Board, the whole problem that we're faced with — that great emotional

thing about the land bill and planning of Howe Sound, planning the

whole lower mainland — there is no overview. For the Member to come in

this House and say, "Is there an overview?"; for the Member to come

into this House and suggest that we need an overview of Howe Sound,

when it was the Social Credit administration that killed the Lower

Mainland Regional Planning Board…. When many of these Members have come

through the political life of this province through municipal councils,

some of them from the lower mainland councils, have suffered because of

the loss of that planning board.

My friend who is very new, is happy to protest and is very

vociferous in his denial of us. But had that Member been here in this

House, he would share my bewilderment too. Because some of those

speeches were absolutely incredible. You killed all the planning, and

then you've got the nerve to come in and say, "Where is the planning?"

Mr. Member, I can't relieve your feelings for joining that party.

That's your problem. The facts are that it was that group over there,

when they were, that killed the Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): That was a valid document of

British Columbia.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Nothing was done to implement it either.

AN. HON. MEMBER: It's implemented.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. BARRETT: In terms of the next question, Karen

Magnussen and Moore and Murray, I don't know the last two.

AN HON. MEMBER: They're the pairs.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, the pairs champions. I don't know if

they've made an application, but I can certainly check with the

Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall). I don't know if they have.

Port Simpson. Port Simpson became a political issue because, in my

opinion, a decision was being made under certain political pressure — as

you care to interpret it — about the native Indians establishing a

cannery in that area. I've asked for extensive research on the

potential of the project. We've had some separate and independent

reports, in-government reports and evaluations, again from our own

staff and one staff member of the Department of Industrial Development,

Trade and Commerce.

We have been very cautious in making a decision around this

particular cannery, because success or failure around this project will

not so much reflect on a government as on the native Indians

themselves. As much as most of us in this House would like to believe

that the native Indian population of British Columbia is no longer the

subject of either prejudice or ridicule, the facts are otherwise. There

is a great backup of feeling against the native Indian population in

this province. I confess that I find it a matter of shame to even admit

it. But if you ignore it, then you're not dealing with reality.

When the government decides to embark upon a programme of self-help

for the native Indian, it's very easy and I think quite fair to

criticize a government for making a decision or not making a decision.

But the danger is that once a decision has been made, and if the

particular project fails, especially if it's the first project, the

hostility won't be focused on the government. It will be focused on

that minority group. That's my opinion.

Within that framework we've worked very, very hard. I've been

intimately involved in the project, in the negotiations. I've taken

time out of other matters that I've been confronted with, along with my

colleague, the Minister without Portfolio (Hon. Mr. Calder), the

Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement (Hon. Mr. Levi), and

the Member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), for many meetings and projects.

A statement was drafted today after our meeting with the Port

Simpson people. Here is a draft of what was to have been released this

afternoon and for some reason wasn't released. I read exactly from the

statement:

"Premier David Barrett today indicated that the B.C.

Government will give major help to the recently organized Pacific

Northwest Native Cooperative, which is planning the erection of a major

fish processing plant at Port Simpson. Mr. Barrett said the

Government's support at the present moment is in principle, but will be

prompt and definite, subject to clarification on certain points to be

discussed by the native group."

That was after our meeting today. There were certain requirements

that we wanted cleared up. They've gone back up north to discuss it

with their own people. This is a statement agreed by both the

government and the group:

"Simon Reese, chairman of the North Coast District

Council, which includes Port Simpson, Kincolith, Metlakatla, Kitkatla,

Hartley Bay, Masset and Skidegate and associate villages of Kitimat and

Klemtu, who is also president of the Pacific North Coast Native

Co-operative said, 'On behalf of all cooperative members and the people

[ Page 824 ]

of the north coast, I wish to express our sincere

appreciation to Premier Barrett and the people of British Columbia for

this favourable government decision. We have worked long and hard since

1969 with many uncertainties, but we can look forward now to a new

future which will provide dignity and employment for our people whose

heritage is so closely related to our fisheries resource.' "

Now we've come a long way in this agreement. I've been very, very

hard in the conditions outlined by the government, but necessarily hard

in my opinion, to ensure that every possible precaution that can be

taken will be taken so that this project can be a success.

The funds that will be given will be given as an outright grant.

They will be given to a co-operative. The details of the co-operative

are

the last matters that are now being discussed with the group. They are

reaching out to bring in the best possible administrative help in

running the cannery. They understand as well that the government will

not only give the outright grant but will also guarantee, a

yet-to-be-agreed-upon figure, the notes that are on the boats to permit

these

people to refinance their boats and come directly into the co-op with

their boats.

I'm not going to go into too much more detail because some of the

things that we discussed this morning in our final meeting must be

clarified by the group up north. If the co-op accepts the

administrative guidelines that we have advised them we feel are

necessary to give at least some assurance of their success, then there

will be no hesitation for that cannery to go ahead.

If the cannery does go ahead, I would urge every citizen of British

Columbia to view the cannery not just as another competitive business

in the fish industry, and not subject this particular industry as a

selective buying item to the detriment of competitive fisheries in

British Columbia.

But I would like the people of British Columbia to pay particular

attention, when they have access to the purchase of goods, to give a

little bit of extra consideration to purchasing these particular

products, because there's a great deal riding on this project. There's

a great deal at stake. I'm sure that if it goes ahead every citizen in

British Columbia will wish them well.

The government will not be involved in terms of administering

because of the grant. We are going to make sure they have the best

possible advice. Every government department that can possibly assist

them will be made available to them. In essence, after having done all

this work, the concept is essentially "sink or swim," because if

they're going to make it they've got to be able to make it on their

own; to demonstrate not only to their own people but to all the people

of British Columbia that the welfare image can and should be over

forever.

That's where we're at. It did take a lot of time to do this, because

I did not want to rush into something that may have built-in failures

and that we would regret later — not so much as a Government but that

they as the native Indian people would regret because of that one

chance.

Let me say this about the outright grant. It's out of funds already

established. I don't think there's one reasonable citizen in this whole

province who would argue against spending those funds.

MRS. JORDAN: I'm not complaining. I merely asked you a

question.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'm not suggesting that anybody would.

There isn't a Member in this House who would. I am suggesting outside

of this House I don't believe there is anybody who would make a case

against this kind of expenditure.

The last item was the beautification fund. There are six projects

approved, I am advised. The last one was the Lynn Valley Road, and it

has to do with the power lines in Lynn Valley. I think that covers all

of your questions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Supplementary?

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Premier, your comments on the Port Simpson

cannery are very interesting. I would ask you if these funds are

coming from the First Citizens Fund and whether this privilege will be

available to other Indian groups in the province to form a co-operative

and undertake other industries — for example, in the lumber industry.

I can't help but be very annoyed at this Premier's constant reaction

any time a Member of this House tries to ask a reasonable question. You

live in the past. We're not concerned about the past. We're concerned

about the present and the future, and it's your policies that we're

interested in. He has to, this Premier, when I ask a quiet, logical

question, stand up and get into his boyish, pranksterish mood and try

and distort the reasons for the question. It makes us feel that indeed

we do have a "boy" premier and that he is going to.…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MRS. JORDAN: I would ask the Premier if he does know, through

all the smoke and cloud and fuss he raised, that the lower mainland

regional board plan was turned over to the new regional district,

that it is a legal document today, that it is being implemented

and that the people are being guided by it? If you know that, then will

you acknowledge it instead of trying to cast dust over the past all the

time? Live on your own ability, Mr. Premier.

[ Page 825 ]

Don't try and cover up your own inadequacies from others' ability.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MRS. JORDAN: I'll have more questions on these under the

other estimates.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, there was a Lower Mainland

Regional Planning Board made up of competent, professional planners, an

accumulation of staff that took a number of years to get together.

There were reports out of it. But what the Member doesn't understand is

that the former government wiped out the board, not the reports. We've

been without a Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board for the last five

years. The reports are there.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member for North

Okanagan please be seated? Order, please. Will you be seated please?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, all the excitement in the

world won't wipe out the fact that the Lower Mainland Regional Planning

Board, as a body, was wiped out by the former government. Period.

That's all there is to it. Because of that the call for the overview at

Squamish was one that found my bewilderment.

The continued absence of the knowledge of what was done by the

previous government also boggles the mind, however it upsets the

Member. Perhaps a review of the press clippings of the past will

refresh her memory.

The personal invective of the Member is more than welcome. When an

argument is reduced to the absence of fact, there's really nothing else

left to say, is there?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for North Okanagan

for further questions, but please, would you refrain from making

personal comments.

MRS. JORDAN: The facts as revealed by the Premier, in regard

to the expenses of the young man who's to go to the chess tournament,

are very disturbing. He, by his own words, said that they got into his

office and they lobbied, and he as a member of Treasury will be lobbying

for that man.

I want it clearly understood that we don't oppose assistance to

people who are going to national and international competitions,

representing British Columbia or Canada. What we oppose is another

evidence by the Premier's own statement that this government is, in

fact, responsive to lobbying.

This government in fact has a Premier who will lobby for an

individual without any consideration as to whether or not that's an

exception to policy, or whether it is establishing a new policy, or

whether it's making him popular with a small group of people.

We want to know: are you establishing a policy for athletes,

cultural representatives and other meriting people from British

Columbia, whether it is in the capacity of representing British

Columbia or the capacity of representing Canada, to receive funds from

the Government of British Columbia, either through the established

funds or the Provincial Secretary or a lobby in the Premier's office to

attend this type of international competition?

We want a policy, Mr. Premier, not the result of a quick

minute-lobby on your behalf, and then you on the behalf of someone

else. What is your policy? How does this action affect the policy of

those funds as they have been established and as you outlined to us in

this House a few minutes ago? Is the Premier going to answer the

question?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I've answered the question.

MRS. JORDAN: Is this a lobby as a response to somebody who

finally got through the maze of workers in your office on their behalf,

or are you establishing a policy? Shall I repeat the question, Mr.

Premier?

HON. MR. BARRETT: You've had an answer.

MRS. JORDAN: Is this a lobby action on your part or is this

part of a policy?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: The Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich)

says yes. Is he the Minister of Finance now? What is going to be your

policy as a Member of Treasury Board in regards to grants to

individuals in this province?

HON. MR. BARRETT: All applications will be considered.

MRS. JORDAN: And how, in response to your answer that all

applications will be considered, are these applications to be made? In

writing?

HON. MR. BARRETT: In writing.

MRS. JORDAN: Verbally through your office?

HON. MR. BARRETT: In writing.

MRS. JORDAN: Was this application made in writing?

[ Page 826 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, but it will be.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. BARRETT: We just had a Member, I make it very

clear….

MRS. JORDAN: Well!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member be seated while the

Premier.…

HON. MR. BARRETT: I made it very clear that the announcement

was premature — that I will be taking the request to my colleagues in

Treasury. The request, I expect, will be coming to my office in writing

as I requested, and I will not be approaching Treasury until I receive

it in writing. If you have any other offer to make, or suggestion, put

it in writing and it will go before the committee.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You have a supplementary.

MRS. JORDAN: This is one of a series of premature

announcements that are emanating from your office — perhaps not as

serious as others. You have emanated premature announcements on the

British Columbia Telephone takeover. You've emanated premature.…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member please be seated. I have

not recognized you as yet. Would you please be seated. I merely wanted

to point out to the Hon. Member that I must recognize you before you

can speak. Would you please stand, and I will recognize you. I recognize

the Hon. Member for North Okanagan, and I would appreciate it if you

would not ignore the Chair.

MRS. JORDAN: I'm delighted, Mr. Chairman. What I want to

know, Mr. Chairman, is am I correct in assuming from your statements

that a young man, or a representative of a young man in this province,

went into your office and peddled you a story which on the surface

looks very reasonable, that he needed $2,000 to supplement the federal

grant for his expenses to go to another country and engage in a

tournament — it's only a preliminary to a national event; it isn't a

national event, if I recall correctly — and that you were quite taken in

by this young man, and didn't even ask for a written request?

You didn't ask for verification that this tournament is taking

place; that he has in fact won the right to attend; that he has in fact

a commitment from the federal government for $600; that this is the

date when this tournament is going to take place, and that these are

the expected costs — and you, the Minister of Finance of British

Columbia, the man that's going to sit down to tough knuckle-dusting

financial bargaining with the Japanese and with the Czechoslovakians

and with the Australians and with the European Common Market; you, Mr.

Premier, Mr. Minister of Finance, you who are going to the vaults of

the gnomes of Switzerland, said, "Oh, that sounds nice. Sure, I'll lobby

for you in Treasury."

Mr. Premier, and Mr. Minister of Finance, I find this an incredible

situation. What bothers me, is that it's a very…. Mr. Minister of

Finance; you know, you as a social worker still have shown every

indication that you don't understand the complexities of the

marketplace.

You don't seem to understand — and I'd ask in the form of a question

— do you understand that financiers and investors who handle large sums

of money, other government's money, and people's money through

investment portfolios, take the matter of investment very seriously? Do

you not understand that, Mr. Premier? — Mr. Minister of Finance? Do you

not understand that they do want to know about liabilities and assets?

They want to know about the credibility of management?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would you come to your

supplementary question?

MRS. JORDAN: I'm asking this question. This is a very serious

matter to the people of British Columbia. This man is going to

represent us as the fiscal agent, the fiscal lion of British Columbia,

a province that has an A-1-plus credit rating. He let someone come into

his lobby, into his office, the lobby of his office, and give him a

story which may be very substantial or may not, and he says, "Sure,

I'll pay up to $2,000 for you." Then he admits that without anything in

writing, without any firm knowledge of this situation and the validity

of this story, he's going to the Treasury Board of British

Columbia and he's going to lobby, or influence that board, to hand out

taxpayers' money — $2,000 of taxpayers' money, without anything in

writing.

My question is, Mr. Premier, do you think this is credible? Do you

think you are going to cut a credible figure when you go to

international financing? What I'd like to know is, did you intend to

inform this Legislature of this if we hadn't happened to find out about

it?

If this in fact is going on, and we don't know about it, what other

things are going on? What other deals are you entering into with the

taxpayers' money of British Columbia without anything in writing,

without anything to verify the validity of the business deal? And you

have the gall to stand up in this Legislature and flim-flam and wave

your arms and act like an impudent gnome when you're being

[ Page 827 ]

questioned (Laughter). And I'd like to ask another.…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, Mr. Member, my action might be

unparliamentary, but I suggest that this Minister of Finance's actions

are not only unparliamentary, they are un-responsible. And the people

of British Columbia are concerned. They have good reason to be

concerned. If there's any doubt in their minds, if there are any left-wing reporters up there that have had any doubt about the

irresponsibility of this Minister of Finance, then let this be an

example to you,- that he is indeed a financial boy. He's a boy in a

man's world.

Interjection by some Hon. Members.

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

you state your point of order please, Mr. Member.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): I would like

to know, is this the player who might be blind in two years' time?

MR. CHAIRMAN: What is your point of order?

MR. WILLIAMS: Point of information, then. Is this the same

boy? He's 21.…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member please be seated if you

don't have a point of order? I will recognize the Member for North

Okanagan, but before you begin, I would ask you please to keep your

comments to questions to the Minister at this point.

MRS. JORDAN: I've been asking that Minister of Finance if he

thinks he's credible. No answer. Gnoming around under that desk. The

next question, Mr. Minister of Finance, is: has B.C. Hydro approved its

one-third of the six projects that you mentioned were underway for the

powerline beautification programme?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, before the projects go through

Treasury, either the telephone company or Hydro approve.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, they are in writing.

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

Vancouver–Howe Sound.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I can't help but comment on your

attendance to the rules of this committee, how you could do otherwise

than recognize the Hon. Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan), even

shrouded as she is… (Laughter). It's incredible. You really are a

great chairman, Mr. Chairman.

I'm pleased that the Hon. Member for North Okanagan has raised the

matter of the chess championship, because I think that the government

should do everything they can to uplift this sport (Laughter).

Considering the broad expanse of experience that the Member for North

Okanagan has, I think that the Hon. Premier should give every possible

attendance to the request, which will be made to him in writing

(Laughter).

I must also.…

Interjection by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. Would the Hon. Member for West

Vancouver–Howe Sound be seated, on a point of order.

MRS. JORDAN: On a point of order: in the comment that the

Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound made, I wonder if, in fact,

he's henpecked at home. He seems to have such an underlying hostility

to women.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. There is no point of order. Would you be

seated, please?

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's under the agricultural estimates.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you continue.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I also feel that I must comment

on the matter of the questions that the Member for North Okanagan

raised about the Squamish area. It's really very serious.

In my brief experience in this House I have come regrettably to the

conclusion that the only overview of Squamish that was ever taken by

the previous administration was when that Member flew over it by

helicopter. That's the only way to account for the rape of Powder

Mountain and the indecent assault upon Brohm ridge and the situation we

have in the Squamish estuary today as a result of the kind of attention

that the previous government gave to the matter of regional planning.

To hear this Member — who was a Member of the Executive Council of the

previous government — raise the question of Squamish at this time is

incredible.

However, I want to raise another matter with the Hon. Premier which

does not deal with Britannia or Howe Sound or Squamish or any of these

matters. It

[ Page 828 ]

deals with a subject which I introduced into debate last Friday. It

is the matter of the use — I think the abuse, Mr. Chairman — of the

Strata Titles Act and the conversion of rental accommodation in this

province into self-owned apartments.

I raised the question of Esquimalt Towers, and I dealt at length with

the problem that was created there.

I wish to advise the Premier, through you, Mr. Chairman, that there

are not one, not two, not three, but four apartment buildings in West

Vancouver which are being dealt with in the same way.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'd ask the Hon. Member if he

would mind relating this to the Premier's estimates.

MR. WILLIAMS: I shall in my very next remark, Mr. Chairman.

(Laughter).

I trust the Hon. Members won't treat this matter with such levity

because as part of the salesmanship which is being used in the attempt

to convince the tenants in these buildings that they should buy is the

fact that the home acquisition grant is available in such

circumstances. Once having acquired their apartment on an ownership

basis, they will, year after year, be entitled to the homeowners grant.

I appreciate that this is at the moment entirely in accordance with

the law of this province, but it is an urgent and desperate problem. I

would point out to the Hon. Premier on this basis. Two years ago when

he was in Opposition and Members of his Executive Council were as well,

we saw the sorry spectacle in Victoria of retired teachers coming to

the government here in Victoria asking for some relief.

Now let me tell you, Mr. Chairman, that many of the tenants in this

particular building that is now under this cloud are retired teachers.

They are in a very, very difficult situation. The tenants in this

apartment building have lived there — and I'll just read from the list

— two years, six years, six years, ten years, one year, nine months,

six years, ten years, ten years, six years, eight years, nine years.

These are long-term tenants in this building.

AN HON. MEMBER: Name names.

MR. WILLIAMS: I'll table the list. They're all there. Tenants

who have properly fulfilled their responsibilities and made this

apartment building worth what it is today.

Now this apartment building was acquired in October, of 1972 as a

rental accommodation. As I indicated on Friday, these tenants have now

been offered the choice to "buy your apartment or get out."

Now it was purchased for about $500,000. I have here a list of the

purchase prices of all of the suites.

The purchase price in the aggregate, if my mathematics are correct,

is $753,300. The developers, the people who have taken the opportunity

of the Strata Titles Act in this province, will pick up almost $225,000

without anything more than the original investment. They will get it

back, because people who acquire these apartments will be paying up to

25 per cent down and the balance by mortgage. In effect; the owners of

the apartment building today will be taken out of this thing between

October 1972 and April 30, 1973.

The prices, Mr. Chairman: a bachelor apartment, $16,600; one-bedroom

apartment $23,100. That's on the first floor.

When you go up, Mr. Chairman, to the fifth floor: one-bedroom,

$25,000; two-bedroom, $30,600.

Now in addition to that — and I'll deal specifically with the two

retired teachers with whom I spoke on Sunday night — they can buy their

two-bedroom apartment for $29,600. They currently pay rent of $217 a

month. When they buy, 25 per cent down, a mortgage payment plus their

monthly cost of maintenance will cost them $241 more than the rent they

pay today.

These two ladies are approaching that time of life when under no

circumstances can they seriously contemplate this kind of investment.

If they had wanted private ownership of their residence, they could

have made that choice many years ago. This is happening to every one of

the tenants in this building and in three other buildings in West

Vancouver as well.

In the main, these people are over the age of 65 years. Now aside

altogether from the plight that faces these particular people, let me

assure you, Mr. Chairman, that others in West Vancouver who live in the

same kind of buildings, paying the same kind of rent, are faced now

with the prospect that any morning their mail may bring to them a

notice that their landlord has sold the building and that the building

is to be converted into a Strata Titles Act condominium. They'll be

given 30 to 60 days in which to make the decision to buy or to get out.

The fact of the matter is, Mr. Chairman, that there isn't any place

to get out to. You are offered a choice. You're offered, like the

Godfather, a proposition you can't afford to refuse unless you want to

go and live on the street.

Mr. Chairman, I just happen to believe that this is not the kind of

future which we in this province should be holding out to the older

members of our community.

It is also not the kind of future that we should be holding out to

the younger members in our community; young men and young women

recently married, starting out on life without the assets with which to

acquire their own home, hoping one day that they will be able to do so,

renting their accommodation in

[ Page 829 ]

the meantime but never knowing whether or not they're going to be

faced with the obligation to buy which they cannot do, or move out.

Whey you move, Mr. Chairman, it costs about $500. They don't know if

the building to which they move, if they're fortunate enough to find an

apartment, is not also going to be turned into the same kind of

proposition.

Mr. Chairman, there is a Member of the Executive Council who knows

about this particular problem. I'm not going to raise that any more

than to say that he knows how it works. But it is not fair, and it's

going to happen again and again and again for one particular reason,

and that is that we do not have in this province a sufficient supply of

rental accommodation available as an alternative.

I'm asking the Government what they propose to do about it. It is a

serious, degrading and continuing problem, which is our responsibility.

Whether we made the situation that exists today or whether it exists by

reason of actions of other governments or not doesn't matter. It's our

particular problem. I suggest that we must move, and move quickly, to

relieve these people from the terror that they currently feel.

So far as the people of Esquimalt Towers are concerned, if they

accept the offer to purchase by March 15, they have been offered a

discount on their purchase price. The suite I mentioned which can be

purchased for $29,600 has a $600 discount available if they buy by

March 15. If they don't buy by March 15, they face the obligation to

remove themselves by April 30.

Another thing concerns me about this particular proposition. I have

searched the records of the Registrar of Companies to find out who

might be behind Vanguard Properties Ltd., the company that owns this

particular building. The records of the Registrar of Companies indicate

that the shares — and there are only two of them — are held by a lawyer

and his secretary.

The company was incorporated in April, 1972. I appreciate that under

the laws of this province the company is not obliged to file any

additional information concerning shareholders until something like 16

months after they have incorporated. The directors, however, are also

this lawyer and his secretary. I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that

this lawyer and his secretary are the nominees of people who desire to

remain anonymous.

I cannot confirm the information which I have, save that it appears

in the Dun & Bradstreet report where it is suggested to me that one

of the principals in Vanguard Properties Ltd. is one Walter Link.

Now I don't know whether Walter Link is still connected with

Vanguard Properties Ltd. I make no criticism of that man with respect

to whatever his activities are. But I think.…

HON. MR. BARRETT: What's the name of the firm that the lawyer

is.… Is it Vanguard?

MR. WILLIAMS: The name of the company that owns the land is

Vanguard Properties Ltd. It was incorporated in April, 1972. Its

authorized capital is $20,000. There are two shares issued — one to Mr.

W.E. Ireland and one to a person who I understand to be his secretary.

They are the only two directors disclosed in the records of the

Registrar of Companies.

HON. MR. BARRETT: How is Link involved?

MR. WILLIAMS: All the information I have, Mr. Chairman, is a

Dun & Bradstreet report that I saw which indicated that Mr. Walter

Link was a principal in Vanguard Properties Ltd. As I say, the records

of the Registrar of Companies do not show.

Aside altogether from whatever associations there may be; aside

altogether with the inadequacies of our disclosure laws in the Province

of British Columbia, I suggest that something must be done to take the

burden off these people in this apartment building. In the other

ones — and I gather it's happening in North Vancouver; it has already

happened in the City of Vancouver — it will be an increasing

technique, a technique, Mr. Chairman, for which the Strata Titles Act

was never designed in the first place. The Strata Titles Act was

designed for a particular purpose, but not this, not to take rental

accommodation and in a few months change it into a proposition of "buy

or get out."

I must admit that I have canvassed the statutes of this province in

the hopes that I could find a solution that I could recommend to the

government. I have found one. Therefore, I think that some urgent

remedy is required at the highest level.

I would suggest, at least as a beginning, that if existing rental

accommodation is to be changed under the strata titles legislation into

self-owned, that any tenant, whether month-to-month or under lease, be

allowed to continue to occupy the apartment on a rental basis for so

long as he or she might wish, paying nonetheless the fair rental value

of that accommodation.

When that person decides to vacate, then the opportunity will be

presented to the owner of the strata corporation to dispose of that

suite and the interest therein by sale. But so long as any of these

tenants wants to stay, they should be entitled to stay. I hope that the

Hon. Premier can indicate tonight that some early and positive

consideration be given to this problem.

The Hon. Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement (Hon. Mr.

Levi), when confronted with a problem for senior citizens under Mincome

said, "If there are improper increases of rent, we'll send out

[ Page 830 ]

investigators and we'll see what is going on." Now that was designed

to protect senior citizens in respect of their housing accommodation.

I think that these people who have saved their money and who have

paid their way are entitled to the same kind of protection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I welcome the debate, and I welcome the

opinions and the analysis given by that Member. I think it's that kind

of exchange, when you bring problems down from theory to reality, that

the House itself perhaps can find some solution to the problems.

I want to put the debate in the framework of what exists as Members

of this House. What you are talking about, Mr. Member, is free

enterprise. Let's make that clear.

The social consequences of that kind of free enterprise are the

punishment of those people, because they have been confronted under law

with that choice — "buy or get out." You are suggesting then that the

government interfere with private property rights. It's a matter that's

already under some public discussion in a bill that will not go named

right now. But you are suggesting when you give this social situation

that the government perhaps has a responsibility to interfere with

private rights to protect the loss of rights of other people. That's an

interesting proposition, a very interesting proposition.

Somebody has to assume the responsibility to protect the individual

against the vagaries of private enterprise. It's very interesting. An

excellent plea, made on behalf of renters. But if we brought in a bill

to say, "You can't do with your property, even though it's your private

property, what you think you can do," what would be the response — on

"hot-line" shows? What would be the response in the media? "The heavy

hand of state socialism is curtailing investment and the construction

of housing." "The heavy hand of state socialism is going to interfere."

Ah, how a picture changes.

The sorry picture of a widow, and no question it's a reality,

becomes a matter of great plea, and I agree with the Member, on the

hearts and the emotions and the reality of the Members of this House.

Because there is a social consequence of private enterprise that hurts

people and there are appeals like the Member makes to us politicians to

see that private enterprise doesn't destroy little people.

The rights of private property are a matter of great emotional

debate. But you can't have it both ways. You can't have it both ways.

You cannot say that private property has inalienable rights and then

assume that when we give rights to private property they should be

assaulted. I have great sympathy with what the Member has stated, and I

appreciate his frankness in suggesting that he doesn't have the

solution to the problem.

When we voted for the Strata Titles Act we saw that there were good

possible social consequences out of that Act. It was one of the best

debates that I heard in this House. I sat back and I heard the lawyers

exchange their opinions; the former Attorney General, Mr. Bonner, was

the one, as I recall it, who brought the bill in.

It has been abused. There are unscrupulous people in this world who

do abuse property rights. A presentation has now been made to the

government that the government has a responsibility to interfere. I

hope that is well recorded so that the editorials in the newspaper can

carry on the debate from one problem to another that are absolutely

related — the whole question of private property rights versus public

good for an individual's good.

I've given some thought to what the Member is saying, and it appears

to me that one method could be this: that we would suggest by

legislation that any apartment complex that was being built would have

to be zoned, by law before it was built, into either being a rental

accommodation or strata title accommodation before somebody moved in.

That we would say, through zoning laws, that you cannot build an

apartment unless you give a covenant that it stays as rental

or that you're building it under the Strata Titles Act .

That would be hampering the flow of private capital by the

government demanding zoning laws. Now wouldn't that be an interesting

debate, the inhibition of private capital by the government or a

municipality using zoning to tell people how their capital is to be

spent for housing? What an interesting debate that would be.

Does the state have the right to interfere and demand that zoning be

established on that basis, or does private capital and the dollar have

the moral, ethical and right by priority of power to determine what

the nature of the apartment building should be?

What would the debate be if we brought in that kind of absolute

zoning? Would it be the cause for a Member to rush out of this House

and scream "Communism" — as has been the case on other zoning

legislation? Or would it be the cause of great welcoming debate by

those individual Members saying, "At last you're protecting those poor

retired people."

I suggest that in some instances it all depends on whose ox is being

gored. The obvious responsibility of any government is to bring in

legislation that protects as many people as possible for the common

good. That's the motivation of legislation. It can't be isolated into

one kind of right of private property from another right of private

property.

I'm glad the Member raised it. I don't know the answer. But it

appears to me that there have been

[ Page 831 ]

unfortunate abuses of the Strata Titles Act .

I would like to get a response from the municipalities to the

proposition that we do lock the construction into either a rental

accommodation or a strata title accommodation. Would the House be

willing to entertain an amendment to the Strata Titles Act that would

restrict the rights of private property by saying, as the Member

suggests, that you cannot convert without the consent of the existing

tenant? Would the House accept that kind of state interference?

It would be interesting — it's something that I think our own caucus

should consider in terms of legislation. Perhaps the Member has the

germ of a good idea, that the House would bring in legislation saying

that private capital will be told in apartment buildings that you must

not send the tenant out and go to the private use of your property

because they were there first. You have to wait until they move out

before you apply the Strata Titles Act .

Isn't that an infringement on private property? Should we test the

House and the mettle of the House — I would welcome the caucus

discussing this. Perhaps talking to the cabinet benches and suggesting

that we introduce such a bill. It would be an interesting test,

wouldn't it?

How would we answer the letters that we would get, saying, "Oho! The

heavy hand of state socialism is interfering. It will stop the flow of

capital from America. It will stop the flow of capital from the east.

It will stop the flow of oil from the ground. It will stop the whole

world from going around"?

I find the consequences of this kind of debate out of one special

situation that

the Member has earnestly and sincerely given, and I agree with him that

there

are people being victimized by the economic system that we live under.

But it

is one thing to pose the problem within our economic system; it is

another thing

to pose the solution. Once you assault the myths of North America that

the private

dollar has a priority right over social values, then you get into the

crunch.

So I throw the challenge to the backbenchers of this party. Get

busy, draft an amendment, bring it in on the Strata Titles Act ; let's

have a debate on it. I would be very, very curious to see the debate on

the social consequences of that kind of interference on private capital.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would give the Hon. Member for West

Vancouver–Howe Sound an opportunity to ask supplementary questions.

MR. WILLIAMS: It is still on the same subject, Mr. Chairman.

I thank you very much.

When I rose a few moments ago I complimented you on the manner in

which you maintained order in this committee. I take it back. You have

allowed the Premier of this province to abuse the rules of this

committee by raising on the floor here legislation which stands on the

orders of this House. You said not a word. If you can't control the

affairs of this committee, Mr. Chairman, without asking the Premier

what you do, I suggest you vacate the chair.

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

MR. WILLIAMS: I will not be seated until I am finished. No

point of order had been raised, and I intend to proceed with this

debate. The Premier stands up like funny boy dealing with matters which

have nothing to do with suggestions which are raised on the debate and

placed before him and.…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member be seated please, until I

explain a point.

I would ask the Hon. Member to rise on a point of order and state

his point of order and his authority, and then I will deal with it.

MR. WILLIAMS: I'm not raising a point of order at all. I'm

speaking to the Premier in a matter of debate. He deals with a bill

which is before this House, and you are aware of it, Mr. Chairman. You

say not one word about it.

The Minister deals at length and gives us these big speeches, big

political answers. You haven't answered a question in this House all

afternoon.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, nonsense.

MR. WILLIAMS: This is your responsibility …

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member make….

MR. WILLIAMS: You are making a mockery of this committee.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, you are making a mockery of this

committee.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member please be seated once

again for a moment. Would you be seated for a moment, please.

I would request again that if the Hon. Member is going to attack the

Chair that he make a point of order that I can respond to.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, we have had enough smart remarks

from the Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources (Hon. Mr.

[ Page 832 ]

Williams), the last few days.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the Hon. Member to make his point

of order.

MR. WILLIAMS: He has got the nerve to talk about going on to

TV, because we have got a tape of what that man said about the land

bill. He will answer for that.…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member come to his point of

order?

MR. WILLIAMS: I asked the Premier, Mr. Chairman, a very

simple question. I detailed a particular problem that affects

individuals in this province.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's right.

MR. WILLIAMS: I asked the Premier if there would be anything

that his Government might do about it. Am I to understand that your

answer is to turn to your backbenchers and say, "Why don't you bring in

an amendment to the Strata Titles Act ?" Is that your answer to these

people who have difficulties? Individuals?

I'm not talking about your autocratic move to control all of the

land in British Columbia. I'm talking about the ability of the

Government to deal with the individual citizen. The individual whose

rights you said in the budget address would be supreme in this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member please address the chair.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to draw these

matters to your attention because it must be of the greatest concern,

and should be to you as Chairman, that the Premier of this province

sees fit to answer questions, which are properly proposed by Members of

this House, by arm-waving speeches. It was better under the previous

administration when the chair was turned with his back to us and we had

no answers at all.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You don't like the answers.

MR. WILLIAMS: At least we weren't subjected to continuing

political debate.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. WILLIAMS: The fact of the matter is.… Oh, you laugh. The

Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams)

laughs. He has been through this exercise. He made his profit out of

condominiums and such development, and now he laughs. He laughs at these

individuals in this province who are suffering the problem that his

tenants suffered.

HON. MR. BARRETT: If you want the Government to interfere,

that's fine.

MR. WILLIAMS: Now he laughs. Mr. Chairman, I just would like

to ask the Premier if he has any particular solution for these

particular individuals who are facing the problem in the next 15 days.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I have no particular solution, but if the

Member will recall the comments I made, there is the matter of

rights of private property. Those rights are what I discussed, and the

Member suggests that we are concerned about the rights of individuals.

How do you separate the rights of the individuals? I ask the Member the

fair response — you relayed the problem.

I'm suggesting one solution — through zoning. We will certainly

consider an amendment to the Strata Titles Act for that kind of zoning.

My comments were directed to the particular matter you suggested within

15 days for us to come up with a solution to the vaguries of private

enterprise. I'm sorry, I'm not that skilled. I wish I could.

If you can assist us in any way within the 15 days, we will

certainly welcome your assistance, but how do you separate the private

rights of the person who owns the building versus the rights of the

tenants? That was the burden of my argument.

Mr. Member, I can appreciate your heat in response, but if you

carefully consider my remarks, they were related to that very principle

— the matter of individual rights as protected by law. The law in

British Columbia says today that the individual has the right, under

the Strata Titles Act , to do exactly what you say is taking place. They

have the right to use the law that way. It is regrettable. I don't like

it, but by golly, it's legal.

Whether you like the fact that I respond on that basis is really

irrelevant. The fact is we are dealing with people who are obviously

taking advantage and abusing a law that was designed to facilitate

better accommodation for people. Therefore, you are suggesting — and I

welcome the suggestion — that the Government has a responsibility to

interfere with private property rights. That's the point that I made. I

think it is an important time that your suggestion is heard in this

House.

Now, we will consider interfering with private property rights to

protect these people. We will find the best possible means available.

We will consider any suggestion you have got.

My reference to the backbenchers, Mr. Member, if you can't see it in

terms of history, is a denial of

[ Page 833 ]

autocracy. I expect these people to help me in my work rather than

the absolute decisions we have been subjected to before that you made

some reference to.

I welcome anybody's ideas to help these people — no holds barred.

But you must understand that what you are asking is for the state to

interfere in private property rights that exist under law today.

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

Vancouver–Howe Sound.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, if I may preface my question by a

few remarks, the Hon. Premier seems to be under some misapprehension

with regard to what he calls private property rights.

Most all legislation passed in this and in any other legislature is

an interference with the free and unbridled exercise by individuals of

their rights. Certainly the Hon. Premier would not suggest that the

Landlord and Tenant Act of this province, which has been on the statute

books of the province for many, many years, is just that — an attempt

to regulate the relationship between landlords and tenants.

All that I am suggesting in my remarks tonight is that, in respect

of that landlord and these tenants, some change be made in the law as

it affects that particular relationship. That is the prerogative of the

Legislature. That is a far different thing than a philosophical

difference that exists between us concerning the ownership of private

property.

I suggest that perhaps it's too important for us to discuss this in

the heat of debate. The people in this building are your supporters as

well as mine, there's no question. It's their particular problem, and I

just hope that we can resolve this in some way.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, I will suggest to you, Mr. Member,

that I will give serious consideration to the use of an

order-in-council to protect those people.

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

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Mr. Chairman, I would like to

bring up a point that I don't think has been brought up so far in the

Premier's estimates. I take great pleasure in changing the subject here

somewhat that's been going on for a while. I refer to the spraying of

the rights-of-way of the BCR (British Columbia Railroad), the B.C.

Hydro and also the highways department.

I would like to tell the Premier through you, Mr. Chairman, that the

citizens of this province are fed up with the practice that is going on

in these three government departments, spraying the defoliant spray.

They're not only killing all the foliage on the right-of-way, but it

extends and blows as it is picked up by the wind — ruining a lot of

gardens and so on, on the route. I would like to ask the Premier, as

President of the railroad, if this has been brought to his attention

before, and ask him to direct the BCR, the B.C. Hydro and the

Department of Highways to desist immediately, starting the year 1973.

Regardless of party affiliation, I think all our citizens are fed up

with this.

The alternate is more expensive. In other words, we'll have to get

machetes and axes out. I agree that they must have their rights-of-way

cleared. We can't have the foliage growing out of control. But I

disagree with the method that they're trying to kill it under. I

suggest that they go back to the machete or the axe, and maybe take

some of the people who are on the unemployment rolls, put them to work,

and charge it to the different government departments.

So I'd ask you, Mr. Chairman, to the President of the BCR — because

I've got a funny feeling that he might get his vote soon and I realize

that once he's got his vote, we can't talk about the BCR any more — I'd

like to have a clear policy decision from him. What are they going to

do about it? Are they going to stop this or are they going to let it

continue, because it's gone on too long already? Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the First Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Chairman, before

the dinner hour I asked the Premier some questions regarding Keen

Industries. I wonder if he is prepared to provide answers to those

questions?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, we were not able to reach Mr.

Broadbent. I have no further information I can give you.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, he wasn't here today, and I wasn't

able to reach him.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. BARRETT: If you care to put the questions on the

order paper, they'll be answered in as complete detail as possible, as

they have been up to now.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, perhaps the Premier can answer this

question, then. He did draw attention to the fact that $60 million worth

of provincial trusteed funds had gone to the B.C. Railway.

One of the requirements by legislation is that the

[ Page 834 ]

B.C. Railway, or the PGE, its precursor, hold an annual meeting of

shareholders. I'd like to ask the Premier when that meeting was held,

where it was held, who attended, and whether this matter of Keen

Industries was raised at that annual meeting. In the event that no

annual meeting of the shareholders was held this past year, perhaps the

Premier could tell us when the next annual meeting will be. I'd like to

attend, if it's possible. I realize, of course, that the only people

entitled to vote at the annual meeting of the shareholders are the

shareholders. This is one that the Government could win 18,000 to 0, or

whatever it is the Minister of Finance has registered on behalf of the

people.

The other questions that I raised, Mr. Chairman, and I was again

very disappointed in what the Premier had to say regarding pension

funds. He seemed to think that I was unaware of the order-in-council

that the Government had passed, and indeed that the order-in-council

could solve this serious conflict of interest. I want to remind the

Premier — and I'm sure he's aware of this, Mr. Chairman — that

historically there has been a far greater point spread between Province

of B.C. bonds, provincially guaranteed, and federal government bonds,

which represent the prime rate of Canada Pension Plan funds, that far

exceeds that 0.25 per cent.

What I had hoped the Premier would say, and I ask him again now if

he would consider this, is to open these pension funds up to the users.

In other words, let the teachers have a representative speaking for how

their funds should be invested.

AN HON. MEMBER: No way.

MR. McGEER: Who said, "No way"?

AN HON. MEMBER: I did.

MR. McGEER: I'm ashamed, Mr. Chairman, that we should take

the pension funds of the teachers and the civil servants and the

municipal civil servants, make those captive funds, and give them no

say in the way they should be invested. They're not the Minister of

Finance's funds. Those funds belong to the people who pass them.

AN HON. MEMBER: They're his responsibility.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I challenge that viewpoint. That

has been the disease in this province for 20 years — that we should

take the funds of the people of this province, make them captive funds,

put them in the hands of one man who's not accountable by any

legislation to how those funds are invested or how they've been spent.

Over the years what we've seen as a consequence of that is that the

pension funds have been gypped of their proper return. When I stand up

and speak on behalf of the teachers and the civil servants, it's to see

that they'll get a proper return for the money they've been forced to

contribute for their own retirement.

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't even understand pension plans. Cut

it out.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, it's my hope that this open

Government is going to become open, because we've got all the conflicts

of interest we had before. We've got the Minister of Finance wearing

all the same hats that he always has. We've got the same people doing

the same things with the people's funds. I think it's as wrong now as

it was under the Social Credit administration.

AN HON. MEMBER: They're doing a good job; leave them alone.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, the Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser)

is very exercised, and he's defending the Minister of Finance. You

ought to enjoy this evening, Mr. Minister of Finance. He may not always

be this much on your side.

I'd like to ask the Premier this time a few questions about the

Columbia River treaty.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Just a minute (Laughter).

MR. McGEER: He has more hats than Rowan and Martin. Mr.

Chairman. He's got a whole rack of them. Mr. Chairman, the subject

really isn't a matter for humour, as I know the Premier realizes. If I

interpret the answers given to questions on the order paper, it sums up

something like this. The cost to the taxpayer of British Columbia to

reach the point of the former Premier's promise, which was to construct

the three treaty dams and provide half the machining of Mica, is $284

million. That's with the smaller generating system that was

contemplated in 1963.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's your figure for half the cost of

Mica?

MR. McGEER: No, the three treaty dams plus Libby, Wachin and

general costs.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You're referring to his original figures.

MR. McGEER: His original figures were $410 million.

[ Page 835 ]

The three treaty dams plus Libby plus Wachin plus general,

come to $592 million. We've got $182 million there. Then there is the

question of the generator costs — $460 million is the full installation

of the generators now for 2.6 million kilowatts.

Originally the plan was only for 1.8 million kilowatts, and

originally the cost of that was $106 million. If you scale that up to

the larger generation system.…

HON. MR. BARRETT: What are you using in that $400 million

figure, now — $460 million?

MR. McGEER: The generators at Mica — the figure you gave is

$460 million. Half of that would be $230 million. You have to scale it

down a bit because originally, in that promise, it wasn't for 2.6

million kilowatts. It was only for 1.8 million. You have to take that

$460 million divided by two, which is $230 million, and multiply it by

1.8 over 2.6.

MR. FRASER: This is Liberal arithmetic.

MR. McGEER: It's very tragic arithmetic, Mr. Member. How you

arrive at the figures maybe includes what assumptions you want to make

regarding what the installation that was promised at the time of the

1963 election was really intended to be.

No matter how you slice it, the British Columbia taxpayers have been

saddled with this fantastic loss that came along because of inexcusably

bad cost estimating in the first instance, and runaway inflation in

the second.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You guys voted for this.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, you may remember…

Interjection by an

Hon. Member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. McGEER: …at the time when these debates were taking

place in this chamber, neither the Columbia River treaty nor the 1963

agreement signed between the federal and the provincial government was

ever referred to this Legislature. I have faulted publicly the federal

government of the day because I think they made a tragic mistake.

They worked hand in glove with the provincial government of the day,

agreed to the treaty on the provincial government's terms. Though the

financial judgment, that blame must rest on the shoulders of the former

provincial administration, there is still no excuse for the federal

government having agreed to it. They should have seen the dangers.

Mr. Chairman, it's because of that culpability, really, of the

federal government of that day that I think the premier has such a

strong political case for re-opening of the treaty. I was disappointed,

Mr. Chairman, and you will recall my speaking on this subject in the

House last fall, saying that I thought the Premier had a strong case

and that I would do everything I could do to help him see that this

treaty was re-opened. I was disappointed that the Prime Minister did

not give a more favourable reception in that meeting with the Premier,

whatever was said at that meeting.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'll tell you about that.

MR. McGEER: Perhaps he wasn't aware of the degree to which

the former federal administration and the Conservative administration

before that, had been in drafting that treaty.

Mr. Chairman, I know I've said this before, but there are routes

that the provincial government can take to try and achieve a re-opening

of that treaty. The first of these is to use the

article under the 1963

agreement of this joint study board. I'd like to ask the Premier

whether he has named his two members and, if he has, who they are. I

think it's extremely important.…

HON. MR. BARRETT: You're talking about the B.C.-Canada

separate treaty?

MR. McGEER: Right. That's the one, Mr. Chairman, I consider

the weakest route, but it is a route. It's something that gets this

whole subject started.

AN HON. MEMBER: So try them all.

MR. McGEER: The second route — and I think this is the

stronger and proper route — is to say to the federal government, this

was a continental energy agreement. It didn't involve natural gas or

oil. It involved energy. But the principle was the U.S. gives us the

money, we give them the resource. We enter into a long-term contract.

The money dangled in front of the politicians at the time the agreement

is made looks very nice. Then in a few years it fades, and we're stuck

with the bill.

It is because the Columbia River treaty represents everything that's

wrong in a continental energy policy, when it comes to energy, the

moral obligation of the federal government should be to place reopening

of the Columbia River treaty at the top of the shopping list for any

discussions that take place about energy in any form between Canada and

the United States. What the Americans want right now is our natural gas

and our oil next. What we need to do is to establish the principle that

always these contracts can be re-opened and renegotiated, starting

[ Page 836 ]

with the one involving energy and the payments that are due the

Province of British Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, suppose there is a third route, and I might just

mention that too. That's to say this whole matter should be referred to

the International Joint Commission. There is a provision under the

treaty for a direct referral of any matter that Canada and the United

States cannot agree upon, to the International Joint Commission.

It's very important, Mr. Chairman, for us to understand what we want

to ask for if that treaty is re-opened. I submit that it cannot be

those things that were mutually agreed to in the contract. Those things

were firm power and flood control benefits. What we can ask for is

things that were implied in the treaty, but were never written into a

firm financial agreement. These things are peaking power, for which

Canada gets no payment at all, but for which the Americans are using

all the Canadian storage after the initial period of the treaty passes.

In other words, we're paid for firm power but the payments to us will

drop virtually to zero by 1990, while they use all our storage for

peaking power and they get it scot-free.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. McGEER: It is not.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sure it is.

MR. McGEER: It is not. Not for peaking power — only firm

power, Mr. Member. I've read and reread and reread and reread that

treaty. Unless those terms are changed, we're stuck and we will never

get another penny under the Columbia River treaty.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh!

MR. McGEER: Never. The Hon. Members should really read and

study that treaty, and consult with people who have read the

engineering reports on both sides of the border. If all that stored

water is used for peaking purposes, and if the installation of firm

power capacity is such that all of that stored water can be used at any

flow rate by the plants that are installed, the entitlement to Canada

is zero.

At the present time the Americans are quadrupling the size of the

Grand Coulee. It will be able to handle, once that quadrupling has

taken place, the most rapid flow that's been recorded on the Columbia

River for the last 50 years. What that spells is nothing to Canada. So,

Mr. Chairman, we must demand payment for peaking power.

The other thing which was not written into the treaty, but which we

can demand payment for now is ecological damage — the fact that

productive land has been lost to Canada. There's 150,000 acres of it,

for which there is no compensation and for which we're not being

adequately paid to clear and maintain the reservoirs.

If these things are asked for, it seems to me possible that British

Columbia might be able to gain $300, $400, $500 million as indemnity

payments from the United States for favours granted under the Columbia

River treaty, for which British Columbia got no compensation. Because

the potential rewards to British Columbia are so extraordinarily high — higher, I believe, than any British Columbians have realized to date — then I think that one of the most important political cases that we can

pursue is this re-opening of the Columbia River treaty. I hope the

Premier would give us a brief report this evening on how that's going

and what he sees as the prospects.

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

MR. FRASER: I wonder if the President of the railway is going

to answer what I asked about spraying of rights-of-way on the BCR.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I've got the answer.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. First Member for Victoria.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, I would like to

ask the Premier, as the chief executive officer, if he campaigned at

any time that the sessional indemnities for MLAs were too low, and if

he also campaigned at any time that the salaries for Ministers were too

low.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. These come up under legislation.

They can be debated then.

MR. MORRISON: Then I'll refer just to his own, if I may. Did

he campaign that his own salary was too low? I would also like to ask

if he campaigned that the travel allowances and so on were too low.

I would further like to ask what his intended changes are for the

next two or three years regarding salaries, his own in particular. I'd

further like to know if there has been any arrangement or agreement

reached with the federal tax department concerning what parts are

taxable.

One additional question I'd like to ask him, as Minister of Finance,

is if he is in favour of night ferries for Vancouver Island,

particularly from Sidney to Tsawwassen.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I believe the latter question would come up

more properly under the Department of Highways estimates.

MR. MORRISON: Well, I think that it would

[ Page 837 ]

safely come under that….

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The Minister of Highways will have to

answer the ferries question.

It's great. What am I going to say, that what you're presenting is

not correct? It's correct. You've flogged the historical points one by

one. So have I. I'm trying the liaison committee route.

There was a misunderstanding, unfortunately. The Prime Minister was

asked a question that was not related to what we had agreed on. He'd

agreed that we would go the route of a liaison committee first. I've

pursued that, and the correspondence is available.

I must say the Prime Minister was sympathetic. He was sympathetic,

but he did point out the legal limitations that there were in terms of

the binding treaty that was signed. But here is that avenue of the

liaison committee. It's an avenue that is there by the treaty between

British Columbia and Canada, and that's the route we're pursuing. I

can't say anything more than that, other than we're continuing. We're

not going to abandon it. Perhaps it's a drum that can be beaten every

session and we talk about it. But I have hope that we can recover

something out of that very, very tragic deal.

We've not named anyone to the liaison committee yet, because we've

told the Prime Minister we're gathering more material in terms of the

exact kind of presentation we want to make. The cooperation has been

good. I have no complaint at all.

I really wonder, through you, Mr. Chairman, how many people in this

province realize what a blunder that treaty was. You know, Mr.

Chairman, when you talk in hundreds of millions of dollars, it's

difficult for people to comprehend just exactly what we inherited out

of that treaty.

I think the Member is quite right in his assessment and is shocked

and disappointed. I share the feelings. But honest to goodness, through

you, Mr. Chairman, I don't think the average man on the street really

appreciates the magnitude of that blunder.

We are a wealthy province. We're going to be able to absorb that

blunder. It's going to cost a lot of money — I'm not denying that. But

had it been one of the prairie provinces or a province without the

economy that we have in this province, what disaster. That goes down as

another tragic page in history.

I'm not going to abandon it as long as I'm around. I'm sure you're

not going to abandon it either. So any informal discussions you can

have with federal people to press the urgency of our position will be

welcome.

A question was asked about Hydro spraying. Hydro is looking for

alternatives. I have not raised the matter with the BCR other than once

when I received a letter on it in the fall. I was to get a report and I

just don't recall, quite honestly, what the report was.

But I asked for them to discourage it. I'll double-check and see.

On the question of salaries, Mr. Member, I'd just like to refer to

the vote. It was a very rare experience for me. As a matter of fact, it

was the only time in 13 years that I've been here that we actually

discussed salaries before we left the House. This is always a sensitive

matter for politicians. The bill was brought in that was intituled Bill

No. 37,

An Act to Amend the Constitution Act , that limited salaries and

laid out scale.

As I recall it, every single Member voted for that bill. There it

was: tacit approval of the salary route that we're following by every

single Member — the Opposition, the Government, everybody else.

MR. McCLELLAND: What year was that?

HON. MR. BARRETT: This was 1972, last spring. You remember …

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It was 6.5, retroactive to 1970. Read the

bill. It was debated. Your colleagues — not the one next to you, but

your colleague in the corner and your colleagues in the front row — all

voted for it the same way that I did. It's just a simple fact.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, I campaigned because at that time

there was some question that the bill was motivated because of the 6.5

limitation on teachers' salaries. We were told during the debate that

that was not the case. We voted for it. Some of your colleagues who are

still left were among those who voted for it. It was one of those rare

occasions when a House was abolishing itself, and just before it

dissolved itself it did vote on a salary. I think it's a good idea.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Did I campaign on 6.5? Certainly. I said

that the bill had been passed. It was a matter of debate publicly and I

mentioned, as the Government Members did in the campaign, about Bill

No. 37. As a matter of fact, it was one of the planks in the

Government's platform. Bill No. 37 and the Constitution Act amendment

was used during the campaign as a demonstrative device by the

Government to indicate that it was prepared to limit its salaries to

the same that it was limiting the teachers to. That was part of the

campaign itself.

My name is on record along with everybody else's who was here. Some

of the people who voted for it

[ Page 838 ]

didn't recover from the election. Nonetheless, the legislation is

there.

AN HON. MEMBER: The best of us did.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The best of us did? Thank you, Mr. Member.

(Laughter).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 2 pass? I recognize the Hon. First

Member for Victoria.

MR. MORRISON: I wonder if he would answer the second part as

to what his intentions are for the next two or three years, and have

they reached any kind of an agreement with the federal tax department

as to what portions are or are not taxable.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You'll have to ask the Provincial

Secretary. The intention is to carry on a pattern that has at last been

established in the House. I would ask that the disappearing House,

prior to an election, be confronted with the decision so that the

interest would be limited. The House would dissolve after having

resolved the decision of salaries so that the candidates out in the

field would be there on the basis of what the previous House did. It's

a good method.

It's always been a sensitive thing, the question of legislators'

salaries. There's no question about it. When I first came to the House,

we used to have a system called the round robin. "Would you agree on a

raise?" Everybody initialed it and it was to be very quiet. This is a

very sensitive area with politicians. I found that early. You signed a

little space in the round robin and you gave your little pledge that

you would never talk about your salary.

Well, I don't think it's a matter of embarrassment or shame or

anything else. Quite honestly, I think that the legislators did vote on

the Constitution Act — I welcomed the Act because it was a frank, open

statement around salaries. We're in the unique position where we do set

our own salaries. I've stuck by what we voted on. I would hope that

three years from now, when we vote again, the House itself will decide

the limitation on the incoming House.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, the

interpretation you'll have to get

from the Provincial Secretary.

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

River.

MR: D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Well, Mr. Chairman, I

had the opportunity to speak in this debate yesterday afternoon, and I

asked the Premier some questions on what I considered to be one of the

most important matters in British Columbia

today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Then you left.

MR. PHILLIPS: We've had a lot of discussion here tonight

about a lot of items that we can't do anything about right now. I'd

like to get back on a subject that we can do something about — that the

Premier can do something about.

After I spoke, the Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis)

stood in the House and he said that he didn't learn anything after

listening to my talk on unemployment. He said I talked too long. I say

that if this House does nothing else in this session but does something

concrete to stem the increasing tide of unemployment, it will have been

a very productive session.

I would suggest that if that Member for Saanich and the Islands

would move out of the capital area, where a majority of the people or a

very large number of them indeed are employed by the provincial

government, into the boondocks…

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, not the boondocks — "into the rural

areas."

MR. PHILLIPS: …where employment is reliant on private

enterprise, maybe the Member for Saanich and the Islands would know

what was going on in this province.

I get a little sick and tired of this "holier than thou" attitude of

the two Conservative Members in the House, who are on a big ego trip …

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. Would you get to your point,

please.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's my estimates. It's not his. (Laughter).

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'm going to get to you right now. But I

did want to get that off my chest because I get a little sick and tired

of it. (Laughter). They need a research assistant. Maybe if they'd do

their research as to how they can be critical of the Government instead

of compliment the Government, they might not need another research

assistant.

The Premier said after I spoke yesterday, "I'm sorry the Member is

not here who gave us some entertainment." Well, I don't find it very

funny that the first officer of this province thought that I was

entertaining when I was talking about, as I said before, the most

important problem facing British Columbia today — the problem of

unemployment. I don't think it's entertaining at all. Unless, of

course, the first officer of this government gets his kicks out of

seeing how high unemployment is going to go in this province. If he

does that, maybe that's why he

[ Page 839 ]

considered my dissertation on unemployment entertaining.

He complained that I talked too long and that I wasted the time of

the House. Well, I've seen him here today filibuster his own estimates.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member please get on with the

vote.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm talking about the Premier, the first

officer of this government, Mr. Chairman. He wants to be paid and he

wants me to vote on his salary. I'm talking about a statement he made

in this House about a talk that I made in this House yesterday

afternoon on unemployment. That's what I'm talking about.

Then he said I left the House and went out and said that he and his

Government were acting like communists. That's what he said, Mr.

Chairman. But I didn't hear him stand in this House and say that that

was wrong. No, he didn't deny it.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Excuse me, I'll be right back.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, take your time, Mr. Premier. Take your

time.

I'd like to look at some of the answers, Mr. Chairman, that the

Premier gave me on some of the questions that I asked him. Is that

permissible, Mr. Chairman?

Well, number one, he said in the estimates this year that he was

going to spend some $50 million out of surplus on second mortgage money

so that people could build houses. Mr. Chairman, through you, I would

like to ask the Premier how he expects that unemployed people are going

to build houses, whether they have first mortgages or second mortgages

or third mortgages. I don't think people on unemployment can raise

enough money for the down payment on a house. If they do, I don't think

they'd be building a house.

So I don't know how this $50 million that he's going to put into — and it's not a great deal of increase over what's been put into the

second mortgage field in the last few years by this great idea that was

created by the Social Credit government of providing second mortgage

money. I'm glad that he answered me that he's putting money into this

great idea, this great fund that was created by the great Social Credit

government.

Then he says he's going to spend another $10 million to buy land for

these houses. If the Government is going to buy land, Mr. Chairman, are

they going to rent the land back to people to put their houses on that

he's going to loan them the second mortgage money for?

The problem is, Mr. Chairman, that the government cannot go on being

the main employer. It's all right to spend money in the public sector

and try to create money by the government spending it. But that's not

what I asked the Premier to do yesterday afternoon, Mr. Chairman. I

asked him to create an atmosphere in this province that would allow the

private sector to progress so that they could be the number one

employer.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): Don't repeat yourself.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'll repeat myself until I get an answer in

this House, Mr. Attorney General.

As I said before you came in, I happened to be discussing, Mr.

Chairman, the most important problem in this province. I think that it

deserves some attention, and I think that it deserves some constructive

answers from the Premier.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear. We're certainly not getting them

from you.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I discussed the mining industry, and I'm

going to get into that.

Then he goes on to say that he's invested $80 million — $10 million

for community recreation. That's a good point, and they'll probably

build some community recreation facilities. But this still is not going

to solve the unemployment problem.

What the Premier didn't answer me is what he's going to do to solve

the cold war in the mining industry. That was a specific question that

I asked him, and I gave him a suggestion. It would help the unemployment

situation. But I got no answer from the Premier.

Is he going to talk to the petroleum industry? He's had a lot of

people in his office.

Mr. Chairman, I am not young enough that I cannot remember the

1930s when there was unemployment, when people couldn't find a job.

There was misery. I fear that we're headed in that same direction. I

think this winter will probably go down in the history of Canada as the

history of mismanagement by the provincial and federal governments.

While our federal government tries to walk a tightrope between their

own policies and those of David Lewis — who, by the way, hasn't got

that long to go.…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm talking about unemployment.

Interjections

by some Hon. Members.

[ Page 840 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: The Premier stood in the House this afternoon,

Mr. Chairman, and he read an

article from the newspaper. It was written

at the time that Jim Pattison recently addressed the Vancouver Board of

Trade. Jim Pattison has a very large investment in the Province of

British Columbia through his companies. He doesn't want the apple cart

upset because Jim Pattison probably left here to go back to New York

and borrow another $30 million. If he had said what he actually felt

here in the Province of British Columbia, he might have been turned

down when he got back to New York.

That doesn't impress me. Where we've got one statement where one man

says that things aren't that bad — and I don't think Mr. Pattison has

taken the time to really look into what is happening in the Province of

British Columbia. I don't think he's really looked into it.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: I asked the Premier when he's going to bring in

his Industrial Development Act so that we …

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That's my department. Ask me.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: It's a policy of this Government. I

specifically outlined yesterday afternoon before I started talking that

the Premier is the man who handles the dough in this province. Are you

going to put your own money into this industrial development

corporation, Mr. Attorney General?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. PHILLIPS: No. It's going to come from the Minister of

Finance. And who's the Minister of Finance? He's the Premier. How much

money do you intend to put into this industrial development corporation?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. You'll have an opportunity, Mr.

Member, to canvass this matter when we consider the estimates for the

Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce.

MR. PHILLIPS: I am talking about money, and the money comes

from the Premier. I spent quite some time yesterday afternoon, Mr.

Chairman, outlining this to you. He is the Minister of Finance. He has

to okay the money that's going to go into this industrial development

corporation. I would like to know how much money he plans on putting in

it, when he intends.…

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

seated for a moment. I'd like to make a point.

I would draw the attention of the Hon. Member to standing order No.

43, which requires that a Member does not repeat himself too frequently.

If he has new material to offer, then he brings it forward rather than

repeating material which has already been contained in a previous

address to this House.

I would ask him, therefore, if he has no new material that he

discontinue his speech. Otherwise, I would ask that he introduce his

new material.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, is there anything in there that

the man the questions are asked to should answer them?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The answer is that no Minister is required to

answer any question in this House.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I would like an answer to this very

important question because, as I said, it deals with the most important

problem in British Columbia today.

I also asked the Premier if he was going to do anything about

developing the port of Prince Rupert and the port of Stewart.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I answered those questions yesterday.

MR. PHILLIPS: If you answered them yesterday, I wish you'd

read to me because I didn't see where they were answered.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You don't stick around very much. Stick

around.

MR PHILLIPS: Mr. Premier, as the president of the British

Columbia Railway, do you have any intention of extending the railway

from Fort Nelson to Nelson Forks? I asked these questions, and I didn't

get any answers.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, I haven't heard an answer yet

since this session opened about what this Government intends to do to

solve the unemployment situation.

I pointed out that somebody is spending in this province $36 million

a month on unemployment insurance. I made a suggestion, and the Premier

said I was a fascist, because I made a concrete suggestion that maybe

by some inducement, by either providing board and room or travel,

people in the lower mainland could be moved into the hinterland to take

up some of these jobs.

[ Page 841 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: That wasn't what you said.

MR. PHILLIPS: That certainly is what I said. Read Hansard .

I made a suggestion that you do something, and you accused me of

wanting to force these people. One of your own Members said that we

should force young people into the north. I didn't say anything about

forcing them. I said that you should deal with Ottawa.…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member please address the Chair;

and again I would request that you introduce new material rather than

repeating that which is.…

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Well