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)

THURSDAY, APRIL 12, 1973

Morning Sitting

[ Page

2605 ]

CONTENTS

Morning sitting Routine proceedings Energy Act (Bill No. 148). Hon. Mr. Macdonald.

Introduction of amendments — 2605

Water Utilities Act (Bill No. 146). Hon. Mr. Macdonald. Introduction of amendments

— 2605

Telecommunications Utilities Act (Bill No. 147). Hon. Mr.

Macdonald.

Introduction of amendments — 2605

Ocean Falls Corporation Act (Bill No. 164). Hon. Mr.

Williams.

Introduction of amendments — 2605

Development Corporation of British Columbia (Bill No. 102).

Second reading.

Mr. Chabot — 2606

Mr. Smith — 2607

Mr. Phillips — 2608

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2609

Mrs. Jordan — 2609

Mr. Gardom — 2611

Mr. Wallace — 2612

Division on amendment to postpone second reading — 2612

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2613

Division on second reading — 2613

Pacific National Exhibition Incorporation Act (Bill No.

103). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Williams — 2613

Mr. McClelland — 2614

Mr. Gardom — 2615

Hon. Mr. Williams — 2615

Division on second reading — 2616

An Act to Amend the Municipal Finance Authority of British

Columbia Act (Bill No, 120). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 2616

Mr. Fraser — 2616

Mr. Brousson — 2617

Mr. Curtis — 2617

An Act to amend the Public Schools Act (Bill No. 156).

Second reading.

Hon, Mrs. Dailly — 2617

Mr. Schroeder — 2617

Mr. Brousson — 2618

Mr. Wallace — 2618

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 2618

Ocean Falls Corporation Act (Bill No. 164). Second

reading.

Hon. Mr. Williams — 2618

Mr. Smith — 2619

Mr. Williams — 2620

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 2621

Mr. Wallace — 2621

Mr. Rolston — 2622

Mr. Lockstead — 2623

Hon. Mr. Williams — 2624

Ocean Falls Corporation Appropriation Act (Bill No. 164).

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Williams — 2625

Division on second reading — 2625

An Act to Amend the Community Care Facilities Licensing Act

(Bill No. 168). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 2626

Mr. Wallace — 2626

Mr. Rolston — 2626

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 2626

Alcohol and Drug Commission Act (Bill No. 173). Second

reading.

Hon. Mr. Levi — 2627

Mrs. Jordan — 2627

Mr. Wallace — 2627

Mr. Rolston — 2628

Mr. Lauk — 2629

Mr. Williams — 2629

Hon, Mr. Barrett — 2630

Hon. Mr. Levi — 2630

The House met at 9 a.m.

Prayers.

Introduction of bills.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Industrial Development,

Trade and Commerce.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce):

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

ENERGY ACT

MR. SPEAKER: His Honour the Lieutenant Governor transmits

herewith amendments to Bill No. 148 intituled Energy Act

enclosed herewith and recommends the same to the Legislative

Assembly, Government House, April 10, 1973.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move that

the said message and the amendments accompanying the same be

referred to a committee of the House having in charge Bill No.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I move that the said

message and the amendments accompanying the same be referred to

the committee of the House having in charge Bill No. 148.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to

present a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

WATER UTILITIES ACT

MR. SPEAKER: His Honour the Lieutenant Governor transmits

herewith amendments to Bill No. 146 intituled Water

Utilities Act enclosed herewith and recommends the same to

the Legislative Assembly, Government House, April 10, 1973.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move that

the said message and the amendments accompanying the same be

referred to a committee of the House having in charge Bill No.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I move that the said

message and the amendments accompanying the same be referred to

the committee of the House having in charge Bill No. 146.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to

present a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

TELECOMMUNICATIONS UTILITIES ACT

MR. SPEAKER: His Honour the Lieutenant Governor transmits

herewith amendments to Bill No. 147 intituled

Telecommunications Utilities Act enclosed herewith and

recommends the same to the Legislative Assembly, Government

House, April 10, 1973.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move that

the said message and the amendments accompanying the same be

referred to the committee of the House having in charge Bill

No. 147.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I move that the said

message and the amendments accompanying the same be referred to

the committee of the House having in charge Bill No. 147.

Motion approved.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources):

Mr. Speaker, I have the Honour to present a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

OCEAN FALLS CORPORATION ACT

MR. SPEAKER: His Honour the Lieutenant Governor transmits

herewith amendments to Bill No. 164 intituled Ocean Falls

Corporation Act enclosed herewith and recommends the same

to the Legislative Assembly, Government House, April 11,

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move that the

said message and the amendments accompanying the same be

referred to the committee of the House having in charge Bill

No. 164.

Leave granted.

[ Page 2606 ]

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I move that the said message

and the amendments accompanying the same be referred to the

committee of the House having in charge Bill No. 164.

Motion approved.

Orders of the day.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I move we proceed to

public bills and orders.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, adjourned debate on second

reading of Bill No. 102.

DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF

BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT

(continued)

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Columbia River.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker. When I concluded last night at about 11:29 p.m. the

Premier had just gotten into the debate on the Development

Corporation of British Columbia Act, Bill No. 102 and he

was a little emotional about the legislation being called

"jackpot legislation." He became quite emotional.

Well, you know, he might get upset about "jackpot

legislation…."

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Crackpot.

MR. CHABOT: Jackpot. I get more disturbed and the people in

British Columbia become disturbed too with the "crackpot"

government we have over there.

HON. MR. KING: We know you're disturbed.

MR. CHABOT: The crackpot government.

MR. SPEAKER: Order.

MR. CHABOT: That's what it is.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. It is one thing to call some

bill "crackpot" but not to call other Members of the House

"crackpot," especially at 9:15 in the morning.

(Laughter).

MR. CHABOT: Well, I know it is very difficult to find the

proper words sometimes at this time of the day and it is

neither a personal nor individual attack I am making against

any Member — it's a collective attack. It is a "crackpot"

government.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHABOT: No. We are looking at….

MR. SPEAKER: Excuse me, Hon. Member. I have had a request

that you get back to the bill.

MR. CHABOT: You know, this legislation is the type of

legislation that strikes at the very fabric and way of life

that we recognize and have recognized in British Columbia

— that of individual enterprise. It is a piece of

legislation that is interwoven with other bills that are before

the House with other similar principles. The Revenue

Act, the land bill, the Energy Act, the Mineral

Act, the monopoly insurance, the right of investment in any

having in charge Bill No. 146. And this is part of it. This is

one segment of that master plan.

No, it's a whole change in the direction of the affairs of

the people in the Province of British Columbia. Yet, Mr.

Speaker, the government is very anxious to see this session

terminate. They have this deadline and they have become very

disturbed with the fact that we, in attempting to do the

people's business by infusing new ideas into the legislation

that is before the House and that we are debating now, trying

to point out the pitfalls and the errors of their way, are

warning that government not to pursue these faulty….

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, they're anxious to get out. But

there's no reason why we should rush when we're dealing with

serious principles of legislation such as the Development

Corporation of British Columbia. Because it has such wide

ramifications.

No, the Premier sits us to 11:30, back in at 9 the next

morning, because he has this deadline of Easter. He wants to

hammer the legislation through. He doesn't want us to take the

necessary time to debate this serious principle of this

legislation. And then continuously he will say we have this

deadline before legislation comes in on a daily basis.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): He's taken an ounce

off the bottom and put five pounds on the top.

MR. CHABOT: I can understand why the backbench is not

particularly anxious to debate the principle of this bill or

particularly anxious to meet the objectives of the government,

or the House Leader, or the Premier relative to its

adjournment, because they are only here on a platoon basis.

Some are here, some are not. Most are not. They operate much

like the Liberals. They're only here in bits and pieces. That's

the kind of party they are to start off

[ Page 2607 ]

with. (Laughter).

MR. SPEAKER: Order.

MR. CHABOT: Like this morning, Mr. Speaker. All they have in

is the rearguard. The shift system.

The principle of the bill, Mr. Speaker, the Development

Corporation of British Columbia, is one in which the government

say they want a piece of the action. Not one in which they are

going to make dollars available at attractive interest rates,

but dollars will be available on the commission's terms. A

piece of the action. They want control, that's what the

legislation is about. And some of those left-wing Liberals

behind me, the rough group, they'll go along with that, Mr.

Speaker, I think.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Next he'll

attack the attendants. (Laughter).

MR. CHABOT: But really I'm wondering whether the government,

when they close the debate, will tell us if they are

responsible for the failure of the establishment of a copper

smelter in the Kootenays, which would have provided many new

jobs for the people in the east Kootenays who are British

Columbians. Is that the reason why we don't have a copper

smelter under construction today in the east Kootenays or

anywhere else? Is it because of the insistence by the

government of control of a copper smelter? Is that the reason

why we are not refining our copper in British Columbia today?

Is that the reason why there are no prospects on the horizon

for a copper smelter in British Columbia, because of the

government's insistence on control of the action?

I know that the Premier has had talks with people relative

to the establishment of a copper smelter. I think he should

tell us, through the Minister of Industrial Development, the

reason why we don't have a copper smelter in British Columbia

today. He knows why not, and I hope he'll level this morning

with the people of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, this is legislation really that has wide

ramifications. It is not the type of legislation that has in it

the type of principles that I support. I believe that there's

need for industrial development — secondary industry

incentives through the method of loans — but I don't

think that the government has any business to invade every

potential corporation in British Columbia that might need

financial assistance.

I don't think it is the government's responsibility to

expect to control in a minority way or a majority way the

corporations or the industries of British Columbia that might

need financial assistance.

You can rest assured that any industry that would come to

you for help would be coming as a last resort.

No, Mr. Speaker, this is far-reaching legislation that

I would like to have more opportunity to study. We've seen much controversial

legislation, new direction legislation presented before us. We haven't had too

much time, Mr. Speaker, to examine in depth the direction and the path down

which this terrible — legislation is leading British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, you know in by-gone years there's been ample

opportunity, really, to assess legislation. Let's just look at

the session of 1972. There haven't been the night sessions that

we've seen and the lengthy sessions that we've seen this

session. In 1972 there were only three night sessions beyond 11

o'clock, two of which adjourned between 12 and 1 o'clock, and

one adjourned shortly after 1 o'clock. None started before 2

o'clock in the afternoon.

Under the circumstances we haven't had the necessary time

— and I'm going to be perfectly honest — not only

for this piece of legislation, but for other pieces of

legislation as well. If the government is insistent that the

particular deadline be met…I know the Liberals, with their

law practices are anxious to go back. They're only here on an

every-other-day basis.

Well, they can go and look after their law practices, but

I'll stay here on a daily basis and as long as it's necessary

to look after the affairs of the people of British Columbia.

No, Mr. Speaker, this legislation is legislation that needs

more study. I therefore move that the motion be amended by

deleting the word "now" and substituting therefore the words

"in six months hence."

MR. SPEAKER: I think the Hon. Member intends the motion to

read, "Upon this day, six months hence."

MR. CHABOT: Yes, probably. It's early in the morning for

speeches.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHABOT: Yes, I'm usually up.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHABOT: Because the legislation has such far-reaching

effects and is legislation that I can't support and will not

support. I think it should be delayed.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North Peace River.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): On the amendment, Mr.

Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the amendment is that the bill be hoisted

and read on this day six months hence. If we ever had a good

reason to

[ Page 2608 ]

move that amendment, we certainly had it after watching the

performance of the Premier last night. I'm speaking to the

amendment, and the reason why we have moved the amendment. Mr.

Speaker, it was a petulant performance and unbecoming to the

head of the government of this province. He not only threatened

the Members in this House with that performance but, in a

manner, threatened the people that we represent.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I can't see how this relates to

your amendment that the bill should be stood over for six

months.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I'm relating not only what has

happened this morning but what happened last evening to the

reason for moving an amendment to delay the second reading of

this bill for six months.

The bill is the carrot on the end of the stick treatment to

both large and small potential industry in this province. The

bill provides that the government will have an equity position.

In so doing, the government has taken a good idea as far as a

development corporation is concerned and surrounded it with

political manoeuvre.

It's obvious that if this bill is passed in its present

form, only those corporations and firms who have been able to

convince the government on a political basis will be

successful in obtaining finance. That should not be the

principle of any bill before this House. Unfortunately, it is

the principle of too many bills that we have seen come before

this House in this session.

It shouldn't matter Mr. Speaker, whether it be a copper

smelter in the Kootenays or an alfalfa cubing plant in the

Peace River country — the finance should be available

from the corporation without political interference or without

any political intervention.

If the proposition is sound, it should be available on a

straight business-like basis without any political interference

from the government. That is why we want to see this bill

withdrawn so it can be reviewed for six months. Remove the

undesirable features; bring it back into this House in a form

where people, regardless of what political party they belong

to, have equal opportunity to share in the benefits of the

corporation.

Mr. Speaker, the bill is loaded in favour of those people

who support the NDP philosophy. In that respect, it is not

acceptable to those of us in the opposition and we will not

support it. That is why the Hon. Member for Columbia River

moved a motion to read this bill six months hence.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for South Peace River.

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to support this

amendment, Mr. Speaker, for a number of reasons. Last evening

when I opened my comments on this bill, I said that there was a

definite need in the Province of British Columbia for a

development corporation. In the few moments that I had to

speak, I put forth some good suggestions that should be

considered by the government.

When I resumed my seat, the Premier rose to his feet with

fire in his eye and hate in his heart and started threatening

Members from the Peace River ridings, a performance which to me

was absolutely, completely disgusting.

So I had to do some thinking, Mr. Speaker, as to why the

urgency to ram this legislation through. I got to thinking, Mr

Speaker….

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): Peace River doesn't

need any help now, even for six months.

MR. PHILLIPS: I got to thinking, Mr. Speaker, that the….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Now there's some more threatening remarks from

the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce

(Hon. Mr. Macdonald). Go ahead and threaten away; I'll stand my

ground any day against both you and the Premier. You go right

ahead and threaten away.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: You explain to me why you're ramming all this

legislation through.

HON. MR. BARRETT: To help the people in the north.

MR. PHILLIPS: To help the people in the north! This whole

thing is tied in together. Your finance legislation, your

resource development legislation, your insurance legislation,

your revenue legislation; the whole thing is tied in together,

Mr. Speaker. That's why it needs to be set off for six months

and examined in the light of the rest of the legislation.

That's why it needs to be done, Mr. Speaker.

You can go ahead and threaten me about the alfalfa cubing

plant and all the rest of it. I know what the situation is, Mr.

Speaker.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: If this legislation is so sound, it shouldn't

be necessary for either the Premier or the Minister who is

introducing this legislation to throw

[ Page 2609 ]

threats across the floor of the legislature.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: We're going to have a fall session, Mr.

Speaker. It's already been told to us by the master of the

House, the Premier, that we're going to have a fall session. I

have never — and I said last night and I said yesterday

and I'll say again this morning — never in the history of

this parliament has so much legislation been tabled.

Not only is there a great amount of legislation, Mr.

Speaker, but there are 10 to 12 bills before this Legislature

that completely change the whole system from individual

enterprise in British Columbia to a collective socialist state.

It's just too fast to move. It's too fast for the official

opposition and it's far too fast for the people of this

province.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): You're just not used to

change.

MR. PHILLIPS: The Premier himself, Mr. Speaker, seems to be

overworked and suffering from the pressure and I say, if he

can't stand the heat, he should get out of the kitchen.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. PHILLIPS: We've been running, Mr. Speaker, a shift

system and it's time we stopped, right now. Give us six months

to study this legislation in relation to the rest of the

legislation; in relation to the Mineral Act, in relation

to the Revenue Act, and in relation to the Energy

Act.

They all fit together, Mr. Speaker, into a great big pattern

that's going to change the entire life style of this

province.

This bill, Mr. Speaker, was not drawn up by our legislators

across the way — this bill was drawn up from the Manitoba

bill. Mr. Speaker, I haven't had the opportunity to sit down

and compare the two, but there are many flaws in the Manitoba

bill.

The people in the province of Manitoba today are paying

millions and millions of their tax dollars to subsidize their

Industrial Development Corporation there. That is why this bill

should be suspended until we can study and find out where they

went wrong.

Last evening, Mr. Speaker, I made some good concrete

intelligent suggestions to the government opposite. They were

so intelligent that the Premier couldn't stand it. That's why

he went off in an uproar and lost his cool. But I think it

would be wise, Mr. Speaker, if the Premier would rethink his

position and give the Members of this House the courtesy that

is due to them and give us an opportunity to study this

bill.

The Revenue Act, Mr. Speaker, gives the government the right to invest in any corporation, about along the

same lines as the Industrial Development Act. So what is

the difference between the two? I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the

government will take a second look, keep their cool and pass

this amendment and give the Members of this Legislature and the

citizens of British Columbia the opportunity to study the

wide-ranging ramifications of Bill 102, the Development

Corporation of British Columbia Act.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I'll be very brief on this

amendment. It seems to me that one of the areas of this

province that needs assistance in the realm of secondary

industry is the Peace River area, north and south. I think it's

absolutely disgraceful that this Member would want to hoist for

six months the kind of assistance we could give if we had the

legislative ability for agricultural processing in that area.

That's exactly what you're doing by this amendment.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, what you were saying, Mr. Member, is

that the reports and the consultation reports and the economic

studies we've done, for example, with regard to alfalfa cubing

in the Peace River area — that all of that should be

delayed for another six months, at least six months, and that

the government would have no legislative power to give that

kind of assistance to the farmers in the Peace River country

— in your own area.

Now, you say that if we go up into that area and tell the

people that, we're threatening you. We ought to. We ought to

tell them that. You are stalling the ability of this government

to extend help in agricultural processing to the have a perfect

right to tell them that and we intend to tell them that. We

intend to see that they get better representation from the

Peace, north and south, in this Legislature than is being

afforded by these two Members.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Hon. Member for North

Okanagan on the amendment.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker. In rising to support this amendment, I'm just shocked

to sit here after the performance of the Premier last night,

where he stood up again — and I wasn't in the House the

other time.

Not only is bludgeoning legislation unknown by the public of

British Columbia through this House, he constantly threatens

the Members of the opposition — "Do this or we'll do

that." Mr. Speaker, this is a

[ Page 2610 ]

democracy. This fact may well have escaped this Premier and

this Attorney General. But this is British Columbia, not Chile.

This is British Columbia, not Russia. This is British Columbia,

not Czechoslovakia.

Mr. Speaker, we will stand here and defend the rights of the

people of this province as long as necessary. We will not

knuckle under to ham-handed, immature, petty threats by the boy

Premier of this province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MRS. JORDAN: By the Premier of this province, Mr. Speaker. That Attorney General, who is supposed to be

the epitome of justice in this province, gets up and tries to

delude the opposition and the people of this province that this

is a great big assistance bill. Mr. Speaker, this is a bill

that has an extraordinary price on it, an unbelievable price on

it. A few bucks, Mr. Speaker, for your democratic rights

— and they're your own bucks at that.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister is questionable as the Minister of

Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce. It's ludicrous that

statements from him should come from the Minister of justice in

this province.

The Liberals are sitting behind me saying, "Oh, oh!" This

Liberal Party, Mr. Speaker, of which only one Member is present

in this important debate, has been laying its eggs in the

opposition's nest for the last month. They packed up their

tents over a month ago and dedicated themselves not to

defending the rights of the people of British Columbia, but to

going home and tending to their personal affairs. We say to

those Members, produce your own eggs in your own nest. Stop

following the lead of the official opposition.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the Hon Member address herself to the amendment instead of insulting

every Member of the House?

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, in response to your statement, the

Members are here to defend the rights of the people of British

Columbia. That means that every Member in this House has to

make up their own mind. Every party has to have its own

policies. If there's a Waffle group across there, Mr. Speaker,

there's a Waffle group cousin sitting on this side of the House

in the form of the Liberals, who can't make up their minds

which way they're going. This official opposition….

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MRS. JORDAN: I fooled you, didn't I? I fooled you and I

fooled the Liberals and we fooled the Conservatives. You put

all your eggs in our nest.

This official opposition is willing…

AN HON. MEMBER: Get through with it.

MRS. JORDAN: …and have assumed the role as the watchdog

for the people of British Columbia, the little people in this

province — the husbands and wives and business people,

small business people, the farmers who can't be in this

Legislature to speak for themselves, Mr. Speaker.

The government over there has a platoon system. Look at

them. Less than half of their platoon is here now. They can eat

through their platoon system. They can sleep through their

platoon system. And they can be out of the House through their

platoon system, Mr. Speaker. Because the Premier just lops it

off by saying, "Only one speaker can be on the floor at one

time." And that's true. But, Mr. Speaker, what that Premier

doesn't understand and what that obedient little platoon over

there doesn't understand is that that's not what the British

parliamentary and the democratic parliamentary system is all

about. As I say, The Liberals want to go home and they use the

platoon system — a slightly depleted platoon, Mr.

Speaker. I won't mention it any further. They use it in

cooperation with this government time after time.

This government has refused time after time an opportunity

for effective and rational and well thought-out debate on these

bills. They have refused time after time proper study of these

bills. In presenting these bills and the bill which we are

amending at this moment, they have refused to tell this House

and the Members of this opposition who care and the people of

this province who care, what the real content of these bills

are.

Mr. Speaker, only one bill, the money bill, has gone through

this House at this time. This government is talking about

proroguing next week and they're still introducing legislation.

This is an example of shameful disarray of that government; an

example of lack of leadership by that Premier; an example by

the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce of

wilful effort to keep the people of British Columbia from

knowing what these bills contain and how they're going to

change the complete fabric of their individual lives in British

Columbia.

They say, Mr. Speaker, that we're obstructionists. We

expedited the estimates in supply. We were accused by the media

and by that government of letting it slip through. The media

said 46 minutes. Mr. Speaker, we're dedicated to our duty.

Where it is proper, the estimates will go through. Where it is

proper, the estimates will go through. Where it is not

[ Page 2611 ]

proper, they will not go through.

Mr. Speaker, there is more dollar and budget significance in

the bills before this House and in this bill in particular than

the whole estimates that we debated put together. That is part

of the point, Mr. Speaker. We look at Canada as we seek to

amend this bill. We see a parade of failures across this

nation, with government in business. Not just socialist

governments, Mr. Speaker. The Liberal government have an

excellent record of failure when in business and using the

taxpayer's dollar.

In Newfoundland, Mr. Speaker, $250 million of taxpayers'

money down the drain. The only people who were happy at that

time, when it started, were the government. The only people who

were happy in the end, Mr. Speaker, at the loss of those

taxpayers' dollars, were the slick bankers. The heavy water

system, Mr. Speaker, in Nova Scotia — pipes that don't

even sweat to this day….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. On a point of order, Hon.

Member, I think May clearly sets it out that you must stick

closely to the amendment if you are permitted to debate it at

all. In some jurisdictions the Speakers don't permit debate on

this motion, but I feel that every Member should have a right

to speak.

That does not include debating the principle of the bill, or

going all over Canada to discuss whether we need a six months

delay of the bill.

MRS. JORDAN: Well thank you, Mr. Speaker. We appreciate the

wisdom of your decision, and the generosity of your decision in

allowing this amendment to be debated. My point in supporting

the amendments and asking the government to examine this bill

and let the public examine this bill for six months is to show

them the need is there. Because they have not examined the

results and consequences of their philosophy and their

proposals in this bill. If they took six months, Mr. Speaker,

and the public took six months to look at the failures by

government in business across Canada, I'm sure the government

would take a second look at the bill, and use their wisdom and

their responsibility of leadership. If they talked to Premier

Schreyer during this six months about the Churchill Falls

situation in Manitoba, Premier Schreyer in that six months

would tell Premier Barrett of British Columbia that the

taxpayers' money invested in Churchill Falls will never be

recovered.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier of this province the Premier over

there who is talking so happily says that it's government's

duty to look after people, and we agree. But, Mr. Speaker, it's

not government's duty to elbow its way into the business of the

people and put them out of business.

It is not the government's duty to take taxpayers' money and invest it in failures,

and we as the official opposition do not wish to contribute

to that failure. Business must take the risk and the success or failure, not

the taxpayer.

We'll find when we examine this bill over six months, if

it's laid over, Mr. Speaker, that the difference between the

socialist philosophy on industrial development and the Social

Credit philosophy is incentive. We believe, in asking that this

lay over for six months that the Premier will find out that

business should be encouraged — yes, Incentives —

yes. Participation by government and elbowing-in by government

— no.

Individual enterprise, Mr. Speaker — yes. Castro

— no. Regulations to be drawn up in that six months

— yes. Heavy-handed state control — no. Quality

control to be designed in this six months — yes. Dollar

control of the individual by the state — no.

The point is that it is obvious that we are debating a bill

that will change the life style of individual British

Columbians. In speaking to the amendment, Mr. Speaker, we warn

the Premier: this and his other bills will not be rammed

through this House. We say to the other Members of the

opposition: "Meet your obligations to the people who elected

you and meet your obligations to this democratic system, and

concentrate on these bills. Stand here and don't make just

piecemeal legal contributions, but speak for the rights of the

individual in British Columbia. Take time and speak for a long

time if necessary. Ignore the ho-hums of the Minister of

Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) so that the people of this

province have the time to know what is in these bills and to

make up their own minds, and so that the media have the

opportunity to got the story across."

Mr. Speaker, I support this amendment. I warn the Premier

again, through you, that ramrodding this type of legislation

through this House does him no credit, and it does his

government no credit. It's a complete invasion of the rights of

the individual and he speaks of carrots that will choke those

who swallow them.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, in all fairness, I think that we

have to treat the remarks of the last speaker more in pity than

in scorn. It's a very clear indication that the atmosphere in

this Legislature in recent days has become pretty seamy.

There's been a great deal of very serious and very relevant

debate, and that's the very thing that makes democracy work.

But I would say that cheap rhetoric and constant, dull

repetition is contributing nothing to the process, but is

demeaning it.

This is one of the reasons why political people are not all

that popular in the eyes of the general public.

[ Page 2612 ]

MRS. JORDAN: You want to come and run against me?

MR. GARDOM: I wouldn't even come close to you, Madam, let

alone run against you.

It is also extremely interesting to hear the Social Credit

talk about assistance to business. I have been in the House for

six years. During the whole time I was in the Legislature there

was during every session and throughout the year constant

approaches on the part of the Liberal Party, on the part of the

New Democratic Party, and on the part of the Conservative

Party, when they became Members in their own right in this

House, for assistance to business, and for incentives and

assistance for secondary manufacturing. And to completely deaf

ears for 20 long years.

AN HON. MEMBER: They all used to laugh.

MR. GARDOM: As my Hon. colleague says, the former Minister

of Industrial Trade and Development (Mr. W. Skillings) used to

laugh and come out with a lot of banal talk about "hot-house

industries" and "putting camels through the eyes of needles"

and all of these kinds of things, and it didn't make any sense

whatsoever.

There was only a tiny bit of deathbed repentance in Kelowna

before the last election when they came through with some kind

of an offer to the general public.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that they have been speaking with

forked tongues on this particular point. I reiterated my views

on the bill last night, and I am not going to repeat that.

There is far, far more good than bad in the bill. We indicated

last night that we are supporting the bill. We think it is

necessary for the Province of British Columbia and I think it

would be a very, very sad thing if this adjournment were to be

accepted just for a political reason.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, the Member for

North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) has suggested that every Member of

the opposition should take a stand in debating this amendment.

I am certainly very happy to do that.

The inconsistency of the Social Credit stand on this particular bill just has

to be seen and heard to be believed. Right here I have a copy of Bill 17 under

the name of one Mr. Phillips — who I believe is the Member for South Peace River.

If you compare Bill 17 introduced at the fall session with Bill 102, you are

looking at very much the same document — very much the same phraseology. (Laughter).

The phraseology, the principle, the fundamentals in Bill 17 from the fall session

are exactly the same as Bill 102. Not only that, but last night we have the

Member showing absolute incredibility by tearing the bill apart in debate and

then sitting down and saying, "But we'll support your bill," and then they

come back this morning and say that it's completely unacceptable.

She then has the audacity to suggest that they are rejecting

it because they are defending the rights and freedom of the

individual.

The fact is that the Social Credit government did nothing

about secondary industry when it was in power, and those same

Members who come from the Peace River country — the

former Member asked the government of that day for this very

kind of assistance. This is the kind of flip-flop performance

we see from the official opposition. As the Member for Point

Grey (Mr. Gardom) has just said, no wonder we politicians are

in pretty poor repute in the eyes of the public when the

official opposition behaves in this irresponsible way.

As I said last night, there are some dangers in this bill.

There's always danger when you lend anybody money, and some of

these businesses may well go broke. But the point is that there

have to be initiatives in trying to diversify the economy of

British Columbia to produce the jobs which we have all talked

about from all parties on both sides of the House.

Now, the government has come up with a constructive

proposal. The bill isn't perfect — no bill that comes

before this House ever will be. But this kind of performance

down the road here, as I say, has to be seen and heard to be

believed. I can't see any reason whatever why I should support

this amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is that Bill No. 102 be read on a

day six months hence. Are you ready for the question?

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 9

Richter

Chabot

Jordan

Smith

Fraser

Phillips

McClelland

Morrison

Schroeder

NAYS — 39

Lorimer

Williams, R.A.

Cocke

King

Calder

Hartley

Skelly

Gabelmann

Lauk

Young

Lockstead

Gorst

Hall

Macdonald

Barrett

Dailly

Strachan

Nimsick

Stupich

Nunweiler

Nicolson

Brown

Radford

Sanford

D'Arcy

Dent

Rolston

[ Page

2613 ]

Anderson, G.H.

Barnes

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Lewis

Liden

Wallace

Curtis

Williams, L.A.

Brousson

Gardom

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Attorney General.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, on the main bill we had a

long debate. I am not going to try to review everything that

has been said, but I would like to assure the Hon. Members who

have made constructive suggestions as to how this legislation

can be implemented.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. We are on the main motion and I

am taking it that the Hon. Attorney General is closing the

debate.

HON. MR. MACDONALD : Right.

MR. SPEAKER: I must indicate under standing orders that he

is so doing. Agreed? Proceed.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: In terms of constructive suggestions

that have been made throughout this long debate I want to

assure Hon. Members that their remarks are enshrined in

Hansard and it will be required reading and the first

task of the new commissioners and directors when they are

appointed.

I think this is one of the occasions when Hansard is

a very valuable thing in terms of new legislation, so that

those who are coming in to implement that legislation can read

the debate insofar as it was a good debate — insofar it

was a bad debate, they can throw it in the wastepaper basket. I

ask that the question be put.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that Bill No. 102 be read a

second time now.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 39

Hall

Macdonald

Barrett

Dailly

Strachan

Nimsick

Stupich

Nunweiler

Nicolson

Brown

Radford

Sanford

D'Arcy

Dent

Lorimer

Williams, R.A.

Cocke

King

Calder

Hartley

Skelly

Gabelmann

Lauk

Young

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Barnes

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Lewis

Liden

Wallace

Curtis

Williams, L.A.

Brousson

Gardom

NAYS — 9

Richter

Chabot

Jordan

Smith

Fraser

Phillips

McClelland

Morrison

Schroeder

Bill 102 read a second time and referred to a committee of

the whole House at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 103, Mr.

Speaker.

PACIFIC NATIONAL EXHIBITION

INCORPORATION ACT

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources):

Bill 103 is a non-controversial bill as well, Mr. Speaker. It deals with the

Pacific National Exhibition, which is the greatest exhibition in western Canada.

As indicated in this bill, the statute originally was in

1908. The Pacific National Exhibition has grown and developed

within the city. With the former board of directors, I might

say now, to a very great extent it was self-perpetuating. It's

the intent of this bill to make the board of directors more

responsive to the community that the exhibition grounds are

within and more responsive to the province at large.

There has been a unilateral decision by some members of the

board that the board is carrying on most satisfactorily with

the members of the city council in the City of Vancouver making

up the great majority on the board. Several others did remain

on the board so that there's some diversification.

Mr. Speaker, the bill proposes to include people from

various sectors of the provincial economy, from such areas as

business, industry, the arts, sports and ethnic groups; and in

addition to have representation from the city council itself,

representation from the city parks board as well, and

representation from the neighbourhood that the exhibition

grounds are within.

Also included within the principle of the bill is an

advisory committee with respect to agriculture, so that people

from different regions of the province and different sectors of

the agricultural economy are advising the exhibition board.

I might say that I've met with the board of directors of the

PNE in the last few weeks. It was a most amicable meeting.

AN HON. MEMBER: Amiable.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Amiable, that's it. At any

[ Page 2614 ]

rate, it was a most worthwhile and productive meeting. Some

amendments have been suggested by the board of directors that

will certainly have the positive consideration of the

government. We're not talking about any amendments of a major

nature, but there will be amendments of a minor nature brought

forth.

The principle of the bill, however, will remain the same.

The city council in Vancouver has indicated that they're very

happy with this bill. There are minor amendments which they

feel would improve the situation somewhat. We're certainly

prepared to entertain those.

I'm pleased to say that we've had correspondence from some

members of the city council who are on the board of directors

indicating how happy they are that the government has taken this step to democratize the Pacific National Exhibition to a

greater, extent, and to have it relate to what we see as the

greater needs of the province and the needs of the community

it's within.

It's with pleasure that I move second reading of this bill,

Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Langley.

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

really shocks us, you know, to watch this group on the other

side just getting their sticky fingers into everything they

possibly can. Most of all they must get at community-oriented

organizations which are now served by volunteer people, and

have been served well for years and years and years.

All of a sudden, Mr. Speaker, this government wants to turn

those organizations upside down and create new jobs for friends

of the government. Once again, that's exactly what we're doing

here with what is the finest exhibition association, or was the

finest exhibition association in Canada — the association

that put on the finest fair in Canada and what was largely a

farm fair and not a community centre for the east-end gang to

cavort in.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to just point out that in the past the

Pacific National Exhibition has spent an average of $50,000 a

year on 4H activities, which have ramifications all over

British Columbia, not only in the east end of Vancouver. The

Pacific National Exhibition, Mr. Speaker, has spent in the

order of $200,000 every single year on agricultural activities

and horticultural activities which have great benefits to all

of the people of British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, not just the

east-end gang — including them as well.

Mr. Speaker, the Pacific National Exhibition has been a community centre to

a degree. The people of the east end of Vancouver have used it extensively,

used it well; so have all of the other people of Vancouver. The people from

the west end of Vancouver and the people from the Mt. Pleasant area; the

people from Langley and the people from Cloverdale and the people from

Abbotsford; the fair belongs to all of those people because all of those people

contributed to the overall good of the Pacific National Exhibition.

Mr. Speaker, this government now wants to emasculate that

fair. The Minister talks about speaking with the board; what's

left of the board, he means. There's no board left; there's

just a token left and those people are all supporters of this

government, and we know that.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Moonen. Mr. Speaker, virtually every

agricultural group in British Columbia — Mr. Moonen knows

where his bread is buttered too, Mr. Speaker — every

agricultural group in British Columbia is against this move.

Mr. Speaker, the people who have devoted much of their lives to

the community in the way of the Pacific National Exhibition

— for no pay; just out of love and community spirit,

wanting to see this fair get ahead and be successful; and it

has been — have been chopped off by the government, just

as this government is chopping off every single

community oriented operation in the province, or wants to.

I'd like to just point out, Mr. Speaker, where the input to

the Pacific National Exhibition came from in relation to

dollars spent. The capital expenditures of the Pacific National

Exhibition to the greatest degree were paid for not by the city

of Vancouver alone, but by the provincial government, by the

federal government and by the City of Vancouver and by a whole

lot of other people who have contributed to the Pacific

National Exhibition like the Jockey Club, the Vancouver Canucks

and the British Columbia Lions.

The Minister of PNE over there laughs about their

contribution, just as he laughs about the contribution from

people who have volunteered their time and effort to make that

fair a going concern. The Minister wants to turn over all of

those assets to the city. But what about the assets that belong

to somebody else; are you going to confiscate those as well and

turn them over to the City of Vancouver?

Mr. Speaker, the Minister has suggested a token

representation from the agricultural community. He says he's

going to set up some kind of an advisory committee to advise

the east-end gang about how the fair should relate to the

agricultural community. Well, Mr. Speaker, we feel that's not

nearly good enough.

There should be representation from all over the province so

that those people's interests are protected, unless the

Minister really believes that this fair is going to be nothing

but a giant community centre as he quoted it in the House here

one day — a giant community centre to serve only the east

end of Vancouver.

[ Page 2615 ]

You might as well turn Stanley Park over to a commission and

let only the people of the west end enter the park, or turn

Queen Elizabeth park over to the people of that area, and turn

it over to a paid commission of party followers.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, there isn't any doubt in my mind that when the

Minister talks about community participation, what he really

means is jobs for our friends and his friends. Mr. Speaker, we

can't support this bill, because it's just another example of

this government intruding and putting down the effort of people

who want to volunteer their time.

For some reason, Mr. Speaker, those people who have built

this fair up over the years into the most successful fair in

Canada, the sixth most successful fair in North America…for

some reason this government has a vendetta against people who

only want to serve their community. They seem to be doing

everything in their power to put those people down and replace

them with party followers and party hacks. For that reason, Mr.

Speaker, we can't support this bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I recognize the Hon. Second Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. GARDOM : I'd just like to say a few words concerning the

bill, Mr. Speaker. The Minister, when he opened his remarks,

talked about democratizing the representation of the board of

directors of the PNE. This is something that has been requested

for a very long time.

But I do feel very strongly that it is an extremely

incorrect thing to blame the lack of democratization upon the

volunteers, the directors, who have performed an exceptionally

valuable community service over the years. I think they have

received a degree of public abuse that has been totally

uncalled for, both in the Press and by the critics of the

particular process.

I think it would be a very nice thing today if this House

was at least unanimous on one thing — that the people who

have been directors of the PNE have served without reward and

they have performed a first-class service. They have produced

one of the best exhibitions we have in Canada. I think the

whole House should at least express some sentiment of gratitude

to them.

By virtue of the process, they've been easy to attack — much as people do not

like parking meters. I do feel, with every respect to the Minister, that when

he discussed the situation of the PNE in this House some weeks ago, I'm afraid

he really did start off completely on the wrong tack in sort of establishing

an cast-west vendetta. Well, this may be a particular hang-up

that he has, but I don't think that did justice to the thing. Nor do

I think his remarks, when he indicated that he was going to "bet his sweet bippy"

that he wished the whole thing to turn into a community centre…. Well, that

perhaps was a capricious remark and I do hope we're not tending in that direction.

Because if we were tending in that direction, the bill would show it.

I think the bill shows very adequate representation, save

and except one thing — and I agree with the Member who

spoke last for the Social Credit Party. I think it would be

advisable if the agricultural representation was beefed up. I

think that this is a little shallow because the initial concept

of the Pacific National Exhibition was, of course, to be an

agricultural fair. For the literally thousands who have the

great opportunity of attending this fine fair, it's perhaps

their only advent into the agricultural arena. I think that we

should continue to see that it remains absolutely first-class

in that field.!

So I say thanks to the people who have served. And I hope

that many of them will be considered for these positions. And I

hope also that we'll hear from the Minister that he doesn't

intend to turn this place into a community centre — which

obviously isn't going to be the case.

Perhaps also we might hear from the Minister, when he does

close the debate, whether it might be a contemplated policy of

the government in the future to maybe get, to an extent, away

from total appointment of directors. I see that we're moving in

the regional field towards election: and maybe, to some extent,

election might be a useful thing here. Perhaps not of all, but

of some.

On the whole, I think the bill stands as a needful change

and we intend to support it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister closes the debate.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to hear the

Members of the Liberal Party will be supporting the bill. It

certainly is the intent of the government to see the exhibition

in the broadest sense become a community centre for all British

Columbia. We see this kind of representation on the board of

directors as a means of achieving that.

I did mention some modifications or amendments that would

make the composition of the board somewhat more flexible than

is proposed in the bill. But the basic principle would remain

the same.

I recognize the need for reasonable representation from the

agricultural community. The advisory committee will certainly

do that. But something additional might be done with respect to

the composition of the board itself.

[ Page 2616 ]

Regarding the contribution of the city, the province and so

on…and the lessees, as the Member for Langley (Mr.

McClelland) mentioned: there's no question, there seems to be

some doubt about the contribution of the lessees to the

development of those grounds — to the whole question of

reasonable payment for services and real estate rendered.

The present city council in the City of Vancouver is quite

disturbed about that question. They want some assurance that

the City of Vancouver and the PNE get a fair rate of return for

the commercial operations on the PNE grounds. The government is

most sympathetic to those views of the new city council in the

City of Vancouver.

I would say, from the meeting with the board of directors

that I had, that the feeling, with respect to the return the

PNE gets from those lessees being inadequate, is unanimous.

That is, people of various political walks of life on that city

council are convinced that through the years the city has not

had their fair shake, and that the PNE itself has not had a

fair shake from the commercial operators on the exhibition

grounds.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

The idea that the people should be tied to leases into the

1990's with respect to the commercial operations on those

grounds, and the idea that there should not be some kind of tax

revenue to the City of Vancouver with respect to those

commercial operations is simply unsatisfactory for the council.

I am pleased to see that there is that kind of progress: that

the kinds of attitudes at the responsible political level in

the City of Vancouver have changed so significantly because the

attitudes at the provincial level have changed in the same way.

So we foresee considerable cooperation between the city

council, the new board of directors and this government in the

future.

I call the question, Mr. Speaker.

Motion approved on the following division:.

YEAS — 36

Hall

Barrett

Dailly

Strachan

Nimsick

Stupich

Nunweiler

Brown

Radford

Sanford

D'Arcy

Dent

Lorimer

Williams, R.A.

Cocke

King

Calder

Hartley

Skelly

Gabelmann

Lauk

Young

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Barnes

Kelly

Webster

Lewis

Liden

Wallace

Curtis

Williams, L.A.

Brousson

Gardom

NAYS — 10

Richter

Bennett

Chabot

Jordan

Smith

Fraser

Phillips

McClelland

Morrison

Schroeder

Bill No. 103 read a second time and referred to a committee

of the whole House at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 120, Mr.

Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

MUNICIPAL FINANCE AUTHORITY OF

BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs.

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

you, Mr. Speaker, in moving second reading of this bill, I

would like to point out that there are two major issues in this

bill that I'd like to mention.

First, the objects of the authority are extended to include

the financing of all capital requirements of regional districts

and their member municipalities. Formerly, the financing was

limited to water, sewers and pollution control and abatement

facilities. To date, the Municipal Finance Authority has been

successful in obtaining funds at a very competitive rate and so

this bill authorizes the extension of their objects for

borrowing for other capital investments.

The second main area of change is provision whereby special

districts such as the water and sewer districts, which

previously were not included, may opt to finance through the

authority. Once having opted to finance through the authority,

then they must continue to do so.

I think basically those are the two major provisions in this

bill. There are other minor provisions. It deals with the

broadening of the objects of the authority and so on and types

of investments that may be invested in by the finance

authority, these to include investments guaranteed by any

chartered bank and term deposits of credit unions.

I am pleased to move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: I recognize the Hon. Member for Cariboo.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Mr. Speaker, we on this side

agree with this, to see the expansion in the Municipal Finance

Authority which has got a good start and which this expands a

little further.

[ Page 2617 ]

MR. SPEAKER: I recognize the Hon. Member for North

Vancouver–Capilano.

MR. D.M. BROUSSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr.

Speaker, just very briefly I do want to comment that the

chairman of the Municipal Finance Authority at the present time

and last year is, of course, the Mayor of the District of North

Vancouver, Mr. Ron Andrews, who I represent. Many of us have

tried for several years to broaden the powers of the MFA, and

we're very pleased now to see these powers being broadened.

Most certainly, the MFA has made an excellent contribution to

the financing of the municipalities in British Columbia. I know

that Mr. Andrews, as chairman, is certainly pleased to see

these amendments being put forward by the government.

Just one disappointment about the Municipal Finance

Authority at the moment, Mr. Speaker: we're disappointed to

note that the bills on superannuation do not allow the

government to invest those funds in the Municipal Finance

Authority. I hope that the government will accept the

amendments in that regard that the Hon. Member for Saanich and

the Islands (Mr. Curtis) has proposed.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I recognize the Hon. Member for Saanich and

the Islands.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Well, Mr.

Speaker, we will support this. The Municipal Finance Authority,

or whatever it would have been called when originally envisaged

and requested by municipalities, was to cover all borrowing for

capital purposes, and this really brings us up to date.

I would point out through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Hon.

Members that the MFA does not have a provincial guarantee. In

the early stages, in 1970, it was felt that this would be an

impediment, that this would create difficulty in the national

and international markets, but that has not proven to be the

case. Indeed, the credit is so well accepted that one, without

too much stretch of the imagination, could see the day

approaching when the Province of B.C. might indeed wish to

finance through the MFA.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister closes the debate.

HON. MR. LORIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate and

have noted the remarks by the Hon. Members and I now ask that

the question be put.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Motion is that Bill No. 120 be read a

second time now.

Motion approved; second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 120 referred to a committee of the whole House at

the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 156, Mr.

Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

PUBLIC SCHOOLS ACT

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I recognize the Hon. Minister of

Education.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): I want to point

out, first of all, that all these amendments were brought about

through consultation with the B.C. Teachers Federation and the

B.C. School Trustees Association. We sat down for a number of

meetings before we came up with these amendments.

Most of these points here I've already mentioned in former

speeches. They deal, of course, with the enactment of

kindergartens being made compulsory — that is, for school

boards to put them in, with local employment of school

superintendents on a pilot project basis, with facilitating

financial operating costs between school boards and

municipalities and regional districts and with facilitating

better use of our school buses, so that they can be used by

community groups.

Also, of course, in a major amendment, the government now

takes over 100 per cent of the capital cost of college

financing.

I move second reading.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I recognize the Hon. Member for

Chilliwack.

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): Mr. Speaker, the official

opposition will support this bill. There is only one caution as

it pertains to the entire bill, and that is that we would like

to be sure that the expenditure for these amendments is well

within the reach of our capabilities as a province. We're all

aware that perhaps one-third of the entire budget is involved

in education expenditure, and I will have some questions in

committee on what are the anticipated costs of the various

sections.

However, in principle we support the idea of kindergartens

completely. We support the idea of common use of buildings.

We have some questions regarding title — in whom shall

title be vested whenever we are constructing buildings on a

common site? We have some questions regarding the

responsibility of a school board to provide operating expenses

in a section. I'm sorry I can't refer to the

section —

I'll do it in committee.

[ Page 2618 ]

These are some questions that I will be asking and I give

notice of the questions so that the Minister won't be

surprised. We support the bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I recognize the Hon. Member for North

Vancouver–Capilano.

MR. BROUSSON: Mr. Speaker, every one of these points, of

course, are items that we have asked for many times in past.

years. We are very pleased to see the government bring them in.

I hope that the other matters that require amendment in the

Public Schools Act will also be coming forward in due

course.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I recognize the Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR. WALLACE: We also support the bill for the reasons

already stated.

We would like to commend the government for the degree of

cooperation which they are showing with the school trustees

and B.C. Teachers' Federation. One gets the impression from

reading their reactions that they feel they do indeed have an

access to the Minister and that she is listening.

The other point I would commend the Minister for is the

speed with which she has acted in bringing in these amendments

which have been requested repeatedly for a long time,

particularly the kindergarten amendment which I think shows

that we realize we should start a little earlier and give

children exposure to educational experiences on a broad basis

We strongly support the government on these amendments.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister closes the debate.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I want to thank the Members who spoke for

their remarks and in preparing me for the questions that you

are going to be asking in the committee stage.

I would like to move second reading now and call for the

question, Mr. Speaker.

Motion approved; second reading of Bill No. 156

Bill No. 156 referred to a committee of the whole House at

the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No 164, Mr.

Speaker.

OCEAN FALLS CORPORATION ACT

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I recognize the Hon Minister of Lands,

Forests and Water Resources.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, this Bill No. 164 is the Ocean Falls Corporation Act establishing a

Crown corporation which will own and operate facilities at and

around Ocean Falls. The intent, Mr. Speaker, as has been

indicated in previous announcements by the government is to

make sure that a town that was going to die will stay alive on

the north central coast.

The kinds of assets that the Crown is acquiring at Ocean

Falls are considerable. This small map here alone, Mr. Speaker,

gives an indication of the amount of land itself at Cousins

Inlet, the fine deep-sea harbour area on which Ocean Falls is

located with miles and miles of shoreline, plus the assets of

the own itself and the power facilities at Link Lake, and all

the licences and appurtenances related to that.

Among the assets at Ocean Falls, Mr. Speaker, are some 86

houses in the old townsite, some 73 homes in the Martin Valley

area, the Martin Inn, the hotel with some 400 living units, 5

apartment buildings with 163 units, 1 garden apartment complex

with some 24 units, a swimming pool for which Ocean Falls and

its people are known around the country, a cinema, a fire hall,

a bowling alley, tennis facilities, sports facilities, moorage

facilities. There are also television relay facilities. There

is a post office, a liquor store, a RCMP office and a legion

hall which was recently remodelled.

There is a secondary school built in 1970 at a cost of over

$1 million. In addition there is a hospital built in 1971 at a

cost of $500,000 and there is a provincial building, a court

house, paved roads, and the whole infra-structure of a living

community — significant social capital on the

north-central coast of British Columbia.

There is a mill which can provide employment for the people

in that part of the province. There is also, we think, a chance

to diversify on the north-central coast so there can be

additional roles for Ocean Falls and additional activity in the

north-central coast. We've continued to pursue the possibility

for diversification and also the immediate opportunities in the

area itself so that the people can move around more readily in

their part of the region.

We are convinced there are opportunities in that regard.

We've had other people and other industries in Ocean Falls only

this week that are potential industries that could diversify on

the basis of the actual economic base of the region.

The north-central coast obviously has a role in relation to

the sea, and Ocean Falls in recent years hasn't played a role

in relation to the sea. We think it can in the future. It has

the power facilities, it has the housing, the infra-structure.

In addition, it's got the people — people who have stayed

and people who want to come.

There is intention, Mr. Speaker, as we announced in the earlier release, to

have newsprint production underway in the fairly near future and our progress

[ Page 2619 ]

to date is beyond our expectations. We are presently producing now at the mill.

Beyond that, we are finding that our management costs are

not what we had anticipated. In fact they are considerably

less, so that we are rather pleased at the progress that has

been made by our new manager who was formerly with Crown

Zellerbach and who knows the town intimately. He is probably

the most qualified person in the province in terms of making

Ocean Falls work as a community in that part of British

Columbia.

The alternative, Mr. Speaker, was to let the town die and to

lose those jobs, to lose that productive capability. At this

time in the province that alternative wasn't acceptable to this

government. Now Canadian Magazine, a national magazine,

came out not that long ago with a story about a town that was

going to die.

I think that there's a real feeling not only in this

community but around the province — a feeling of joy, if

you will — that there is a government now in British

Columbia that isn't willing to see this kind of thing happen,

that isn't willing to see social responsibilities ignored.

I wonder if many of the Members of the House have seen some

of the television shows that have been on national television

since the decision by government to keep this community, and in

effect this region, alive. I don't think one can help but be

moved by hearing and seeing the people of that community and

their feeling about this government's decision. While we

indicated initially that we saw this not as a profitable

operation — and I think that's so — we're rather

encouraged by developments today which indicate that it is

probably a more positive situation than we had anticipated in

our first analysis.

But despite the economic question, if one can see and hear

the people of that community, people that now know there is a

new lease on life, people that were born there, for example,

that want to continue to live there, then one can't really wipe

it all out. The marketplace has a place in our society. The

market plays a significant allocation kind of role that no

other thing can and even we in this government don't deny

that.

But there is the question of social responsibility; there is

the question of regional development. We see some of the

decisions that were going to be made in the private sector both

in this community and in others as such that would have been

too destructive to the regions that were affected. And so

despite the present positive outlook with respect to the

economics of the situation in relation to this bill, the

important thing is that attitudes have changed and there's a

feeling of hope that is right and justified in that part of

British Columbia. For that reason alone I'd be happy to move

second reading of this bill, Mr. Speaker, but there are a wide

range of reasons.

This is a bold breath of life for a region that has been

ignored in the past by former administrations and we are

pleased to move second reading.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I recognize the Hon. Member for North Peace

River.

MR. SMITH: Listening to the Minister comment on second

reading of this bill, it's fairly obvious that he's trying to

do a real sales job on those of us who sit in this House. This

Bill No. 164, called the Ocean Falls Corporation Act

should more properly be called the "Crown Zellerbach Bail-out

Bill."

For anyone who looks at that proposition, they've got to

conclude that the Minister has made a bad business deal. Not

bad for the people who live in the area, but bad in terms of

the position that he's taken in bailing out a company who had

some responsibility both moral and financial to look after

their own interests and the interests of the people that were

working for them better.

The government is paying $1 million for a list of assets

that the Minister referred to. More properly I think the

government could have negotiated a deal which would have

committed Crown Zellerbach to putting many more millions of

dollars up before the government stepped in.

This is the first step in a move by this Minister on behalf

of the government of this province to take over the forest

industry. And it's a very unsound step at that.

So let's take a look at what you have done for the people of

British Columbia, and what this deal has done for Crown

Zellerbach. Let's draw up a balance sheet, Mr. Minister,

through you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, it's apparent that you relieve the company of

any responsibility for school costs or school taxes. That will

make them feel very bad, won't it?

You've relieved the company of any responsibility for the

operation of that hospital or for paying any hospital taxes for

the operation of it.

You've relieved the company of any responsibility for the

maintenance, the upkeep and the operation of a townsite. You've

relieved the company of any responsibility for the operating

losses that they were incurring at that mill.

You've even relieved them of the responsibility for the

costs — which I understand will be substantial — in

repairing the dam at Link Lake that supplied the power.

In the process, you've purchased some obsolete, vintage

equipment — two paper mills, as a matter of fact, or

paper machines. They're early 1900 vintage. One has been

cannibalized to repair the other. In the process you have also

set up an agreement between the government and Crown Zellerbach

that they still

[ Page 2620 ]

retain control and supply the sawlogs.

So they supply the product to the paper mill, which is now

an asset of the Crown, at a profit. So that Big Brother

government can operate the mill at a loss. In the same process,

the government has relieved Crown Zellerbach of any commitment

or responsibility to bring that plant up to present pollution

control standards. They've been relieved of any responsibility

or commitment to the viability of the communities at both

Campbell River and at Ocean Falls.

For this privilege taxpayers of the province have paid Crown

Zellerbach $1 million. Somebody must have done a real sales job

to have talked the Minister into this type of a business

proposition.

It would seem to me, Mr. Speaker, that this Minister, in his

haste to move into the forest industry in a participatory

manner and to become involved financially, has taken the

taxpayers of the province down the garden path. This initial

step by the government, and it is just the initial step, into

the private sector of the economy of this province, I am sure

would qualify the Hon. Minister for the P.T. Barnum Memorial

Oscar Award — the one which is inscribed, "There's one

born every minute."

In the remarks of the Minister it was apparent that in

trying to present his case he has worked on the emotional

appeal which is certainly going to have some effect on people.

But he has completely disregarded the economic lack of appeal

in this particular business proposition.

The money that we have invested so far is peanuts compared

to what will have to be invested to bring that plant up-to-date

and operate those communities in a viable manner. The only

people who have benefited financially by this particular

takeover is Crown Zellerbach because they have been bailed out

of a very difficult position. So regardless of what the

Minister might say, we in the opposition say it's a bad

business deal, Mr. Speaker. It could have been negotiated in a

manner much more beneficial to the Province of British Columbia

and those people who will live there. Because there is only one

of two solutions: either you will continue to pump millions of

dollars into an uneconomic operation or eventually you will

reach the same conclusion Crown Zellerbach reached and that is

that you have to close the mill down.

Politically, the government would have egg all over their

face if they closed the plant down. So politically the

government will probably continue to pour millions and millions

of taxpayers' dollars into an uneconomic operation, and they'll

justify it by the same type of claptrap that we heard when the

Minister spoke on second reading of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, we do not support this bill. We think that the

type of decision the government made was not a wise decision,

and therefore we will vote against Bill 164.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I recognize the Hon. Member for West

Vancouver–Howe Sound.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Thank

you, Mr. Speaker. We will support this bill. As I listened to

the Hon. Member for North Peace keep talking. I didn't know

whether he was going to end up supporting it or not supporting

it. But at least we have him fairly identified at the beginning

of this debate.

As I listened to the Member for North Peace, I thought back

over the months and the years that Crown Zellerbach was

operating Ocean Falls and the difficulties that they had. I

recalled that some many, many months before this last election

the government of the day was made aware by Ocean Falls that

they were going to discontinue operations of that mill and of

that whole town.

Nothing was done. No move was taken by the former government

whatsoever to stop the destruction of that community. However,

in the few months before the election campaign, the then

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

recognized the political implications of allowing that town to

disappear and took some action — or tried to take some

action.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WILLIAMS: That's right, Mr. Provincial Secretary (Hon.

Mr. Hall), They weren't particularly concerned with saving the

town, but with saving the seat.

It's typical of the former administration that they would

think of the community as a conglomeration of physical assets

that would appear on the balance sheet, and would fail to

recognize that a community and its strength consist of the

people in that community. They were prepared to stand by and

see those people and that community destroyed.

The new government came along and had to face up to that

situation as to whether or not it would be allowed to

happen.

There's no question that there are serious financial,

economic questions about the future of Ocean Falls. But I for

one have never believed that Ocean Falls merely had to exist

because of the single operation that Crown Zellerbach had in

that town.

I can't believe that that

section of the coast of this

province is not capable of growth and development along other

lines. And yet before that growth and development can be

approached, and certainly before it can be realized, there must

be a base of operations. If we are to lop off all of the

communities along our northern coast which may not be viable

for a single

[ Page 2621 ]

corporate operation, then we are going to lose all of the

chances that we have of growth and development in that area of

the province. It is an area which for years had been ignored,

an area where industry has flourished largely by a subsidy from

government — not a direct subsidy, but by support from

government, all for the benefit of areas which were easy to

populate, were easy in which to establish communities and were

easy in which to demonstrate economic viability.

The government must fully appreciate that in taking this

move they take the risk of subsequent criticism if the hard

decision that they have made turns out to be a failure. But

when we are talking about saving a community — in fact

revitalizing a community — which had already been lost,

of providing an opportunity for people to re-establish

themselves in what was their home for many, many years, the

government has to take some hard decisions. We will watch with

interest the progress that's made by the government.

If the government does not move into new areas of economic

opportunity in that community, we will wish to question them as

to that failure. If the government were to allow Ocean Falls to

continue on a single industrial base, we will criticize them.

But we wish the government well — not for the government,

but for the province — for the people who are going back

to Ocean Falls, people who are going to make that second

effort to build that community into an exciting and responsible

contributor to the success of this province, it's a risk we're

taking. There are many, many communities in our province which,

looked at from a straight dollars-and-cents point of view

— the balance sheet approach, could lead to a simple

conclusion — let it die. But that's not the way that the

pioneers of this province developed it and that's not the way

in which we will develop in the future.

There's been a lot of talk from time to time about

incentives and the need for incentives in our society But we

can scarcely talk on the one hand about incentives, initiative,

drive and pioneer spirit and responsible approach to growth if,

at the same time, we are prepared to ignore an opportunity such

as is presented at Ocean Falls.

I would have wished that the government had found themselves

able, in the course of making this decision — or having

made it, to have given the Members of the assembly some better

look into the background upon which that decision was based. So

we will have to wait and see whether that decision is really

wise.

We could debate this bill better, I think, if we had some of the same advice

available to us that the government had, fully appreciating that the government

must make the initial decision; but in testing the wisdom of that decision now,

we should have had the opportunity of at least seeing

some of the economic reports that they had, rather than waiting as we will over

the next few years to see what develops in Ocean Falls.

We will watch very carefully to ensure that the government

does not pour millions and millions of dollars into a fruitless

venture. We will watch to ensure that the people who have come

back to Ocean Falls are not disappointed in the opportunity

which this government is today offering to them.

We'll criticize the government if they have made a blunder.

But when you weigh the human values against the risk, we feel

that we must at this time support the government in their

decision.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I recognize the Hon. Minister of

Agriculture.

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, in

a sense I'm imposing on you at the moment. I took this

opportunity to ask the House — at least those Members who

are here — to welcome a group of students from Nanaimo

who conveniently arrived in this House just at this very

precise moment. I'd ask the Members to welcome those students

from Brechin school in Nanaimo.

When the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound

(Mr. Williams) was talking about the concern about the millions

of dollars that might be poured into this project, personally I

was pleased that he went on to mention the case for the human

values, recognizing that this too is important. Certainly, if

it were on the basis of economics alone, I think the government

would not have been nearly as anxious as it was in view of all

the other factors.

Of course, as he says, if they had the full knowledge of the

economic facts, they would be in a better position to discuss

this bill and to vote on it more intelligently. But, the other

part of the case that he did mention — the human values

— really can't be studied in black and white on reports

as can the economic part of it. It's only by looking at the

whole situation, recognizing what is there, recognizing the

potential to some extent, that the Members can intelligently

vote on this. We appreciate this. But we think the case has

been made well enough, particularly for the other factors, that

the House should unanimously support this legislation.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I recognize the Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR. WALLACE: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I had to be out of the House

so I hope I won't repeat what others have said.

The stand of the Conservative Party is pretty much in the

terms that the Minister of Agriculture has

[ Page 2622 ]

outlined. We feel that the individual in society today feels

very much in the grip of automation and economics and the

marketplace and all the other words we use for the forces which

intimately affect the individual in society. It's a machine

age, it's a technological age and it's too much an age in which

the dollar decides everything.

We agree with the government that the dollar should not

decide everything. In this particular case, as the Minister has

just said, if you look at this issue we're debating purely in

terms of dollars, we would have to be extremely apprehensive.

As an aside, of course, Mr. Speaker, I'd also say that the

Minister in charge of this bill has given us the welcome

information that he is very keen to diversify the economic base

of Ocean Falls. Surely this makes sense.

Without reflecting on previous bills, I think this bill

specifically ties in with the general theme which we've

discussed many times in this House that British Columbia must

diversify; that this established pattern over the years of

depending on one or two basic industries must change. In fact

the population is growing very rapidly and it's an entirely

different world we're living in from the world of 20 or 30

years ago when the forest products and the mining probably

could remain basic pillars in the economy.

On top of that, the advance of automation and highly

sophisticated techniques in machinery and the fact that each

individual to sustain himself in our present society has to be

highly trained and better educated means that we have to be

careful that we don't lose sight of the human value of each

single individual. I have said many times in this House that

this is the first, primary and basic concern of the

Conservative Party in all aspects of it function in this

province. A concern to safeguard not only the rights and

freedoms of the individual, but to try and bring about the kind

of government and the kind of society which will enable the

individual to achieve his maximum potential and to feel that

his purely technical capacity and his ability to earn a dollar

is not the one and only basis on which we draw up

legislation.

For that reason — which has been well spelled-out, by

the Minister — that this particular issue was one of

creating a ghost town and forgetting about the human individual

concerned or trying to save the town and at the same time

perhaps introduce a new element into the 1970's where

government does indeed put the individual and his welfare and

element into the 1970's where government does indeed put the

individual and his welfare and Mr. Speaker, this is not to overlook the fact that one

cannot completely ignore the dollar. If this government had

said we are trying to resuscitate the old mill and had not come

forward with this wider policy for northwest British Columbia,

and had not recognized the need to diversify the economy of Ocean Falls, we, I think, would have opposed this bill.

So that on these points that I've raised — the human

factor, the willingness to look at different roles for Ocean

Falls, the willingness to put it clearly on the record that

this government believes in the individual — and while I

say that I hope this government on the other hand, as it seems

to have done in other legislation, sometimes puts the

individual at the dictate of government, and I think this

particular bill is showing very much the kind of philosophy

that we can approve of.

I also know that as a member of the Conservative Party that

has many so-called hard-nosed businessmen I will stand to be

criticized for what I have said today. All I'll say to these

businessmen, if that's their attitude to me, I don't propose to

change it in terms of human values, and I don't care which

political party I'm in.

I've had a great deal of reaction by people who have said,

"what on earth is this government doing? They're useless, they

don't know anything about business, and they're making one

foolish blunder after another." Now I will admit, Mr. Speaker,

that as a layman in the business world of high finance, I don't

claim to understand the very complicated economics involved in

this particular issue of Ocean Falls, or the other one we'll be

debating shortly.

But I think, as I've said already, that the individual in

society these days feels so trapped by the stockmarket and the

harsh, inhuman world of economics and the marketplace, that I

am sure that this bill in its impact on society and on the

individual in society, has given him and her fresh hope that

governments don't just look at cold hard figures on a balance

sheet and say yes or no.

Now I'll simply close by saying again that if the

Conservative Party thinks that this kind of philosophy I am

espousing is hard to swallow, well, there'll probably be a lot

more to swallow in the next few years.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I recognize the Hon. Member for Dewdney.

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): Well, Mr. Speaker, I stand in

this debate as a person who has lived for three and a half

years in a town like Ocean Falls. Ocean Falls is very similar

to Tahsis. It has 188 inches of rain. It takes two hours to go

by Mallard or Goose to Vancouver if you're lucky and if the

weather breaks for you. It's a place where transportation and

communication are very crucial, We never had any television. In

fact television only came to Tahsis four years ago and the CBC

repeater station rarely had any radio.

I think that this House needs to give some encouragement to

the people who want to live on

[ Page 2623 ]

that part of the coast. It's very easy to live in Victoria.

It's very easy to live in the lower mainland of Vancouver, and

goodness knows these areas are increasing in population.

But I really believe, and I hope it's representative of this

House, that it's very important that we have people who can

find a meaningful life either working in a place like this or

even retiring, Mr. Speaker. I've considered retiring at some

time on the west coast of Vancouver Island where I can do a

little scuba-diving and maybe a little fishing. I would hope

that there is a sense of real faith; and theologically my idea

of faith and I think yours too, Mr. Speaker, is hope. It's not

blind optimism, but it's hope. It's hope based on the fact that

people are really willing to dig in and do something.

Now I think that's what most MLAs in this House are really

saying this morning. You just can't measure things in financial

terms. We want this to be a viable financial enterprise and yet

we do believe that there are many places in the province where

people, can be encouraged to live and to play and even to

retire. I think Ocean Falls is one of these several places

where a much greater effort has to be put in.

I hate the cynicism. It disappoints me that some Members who

have probably a lot of time to discuss this matter with the

Crown Zellerbach people, who spent an awful lot of money of the

taxpayer in a new hospital and in a new high school, would be

so cynical. Their cynicism is negative — it's a kibitzing

kind of attitude which isn't going to help us.

I just want to quote a few words from the Crown

Zellerbach News of late March:

"Mr. Bob Rogers, Canada president of Crown Zellerbach says

that he wrote the Premier, Dave Barrett, a week after the New

Democratic Party was elected in late August. He said we were

publicly asking in the range of $10 million for Ocean Falls

facilities. Mr. Rogers said, 'Obviously we are prepared to

consider offers on an as-is, where-is basis. The other

alternative was to dismantle the equipment and salvage what we

could. As president of the company I did have an obligation to

the shareholders to recover what value I could from the assets

of Ocean Falls, but at the same time as a Canadian and as a

British Columbian I felt it was essential to do everything

possible to preserve Ocean Falls as an ongoing, viable

community.' "

That's the president of Crown Zellerbach. I think that we

can diversify. I'm sure we'll look into the possibilities of a

sawmill, maybe a veneer plant, maybe a plywood plant. It also

has occurred to me that this is a place for oceanography, for

the obvious ocean studies. There are many other possibilities

and there have been discussions.

But what I'm trying to say is that for $1 million and with some capital outlay

later to somewhat modernize the plant, I think that

there can be a real, viable and human place to live.

I would ask the Minister, and with some of the Liberal

Members here, I think we really have to look at ocean freight

rates, Mr. Speaker. If we subsidize most other forms of

transportation, certainly rail and highway transportation

through links of highways, I think we have to ask the federal

government — or maybe at the provincial government level

— to look into some kind of subsidy for transportation on

the coast.

The federal government was subsidizing up until recently

Northland Navigation for work in this area. These subsidies, I

understand — and I could be corrected — have been

lifted. I believe some of the problems with Ocean Falls is the

towboat increased freight rates, This is a serious thing, Mr.

Member, and one that we have to look at.

My point in this discussion is that we be optimistic, that

we be hopeful, that we have faith, that we aggressively work

with the Department of Transport federally to get some kind of

subsidy, just as almost all other British Columbians are

subsidized when they take a trip on a highway. So some of the

economy can be improved even more for this very habitable place

of Ocean Falls.

Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I recognize the Hon. Member for

Mackenzie.

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): I'll be very brief, Mr.

Speaker. Ocean Falls is in my constituency and I wish that

every Member in this House could have been in Ocean Falls the

night the Minister made the announcement that this government

had purchased Ocean Falls.

There were very nearly 200 people at that meeting, and there

wasn't one person who said that they were against the

government buying and operating Ocean Falls. Even if Ocean

Falls, Mr. Speaker, does not make money — and I think it

will for awhile anyway — but even if it doesn't, the

social implications are tremendous — first of all for the

people living there and for that part of the coast.

It is a vital community, a vital link in a part of the coast

that has been dying. We hope, as a government, to be able to

revive school services, social services, courtrooms, everything

— a place all stationed in Ocean Falls. A whole vast area

of the coast would have been left without these services.

When we think, Mr. Speaker, that we are providing 200 or

more jobs directly,200 jobs that will probably affect 500 or

600 people, some of whom have been without work…somewhere

down the line somebody would have been out of work had these

people not been employed in Ocean Falls.

The input into the community and into the

[ Page 2624 ]

financial reserves

of this province just by the fact that these people are

employed, rather than unemployed, will have an impact.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, as the previous speaker stated, the

Hon. Member for Dewdney, there is room for expansion in that

area. It is not a dying community. It's going to live and grow.

People are happy about it, not only in Ocean Falls but all up

and I down the central coast area.

Thank you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister closes the debate.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It has been a

pleasure for me to hear the difference between the rational

opposition and the irrational opposition in this House. And I

think that the definition pretty well is clear.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

The Members from the official opposition, Mr. Speaker,

talked about this being something beneficial for Crown

Zellerbach; that the government was really interested in

helping them out. They talked about us buying supplies from

Crown Zellerbach and in fact using their marketing facilities

for a period of time as well.

Obviously, if one wanted this community to continue living

without any major break-up, a close working relationship with

the Crown Zellerbach Corporation was necessary, certainly until

the date of the agreement in 1975.

There is no way one could provide the pulp and wood and

marketing expertise and so on overnight. You just don't create

that kind of ability overnight and I would think that people in

so-called "free enterprise" parties might appreciate that fact.

If we wanted that community to be an ongoing community so that

there was no major disruption to speak of, there was no element

of choice. Close cooperation between this government, the

people of British Columbia and Crown Zellerbach was

necessary.

I suggest that that's not without costs to Crown Zellerbach.

In a world of high demand for wooded products and pulp, Crown

Zellerbach has all the markets it wants for its products. As a

result of this decision by government, they have had to change

their plans and programmes and see to it that this community

and this industrial base was supplied with pulp and wood and a

marketing ability. I suggest that that may well have affected

their own internal operations, and not to a beneficial degree,

as the Members in the official opposition suggest.

The confusion in the irrational

section of the opposition is

apparent in one speech. One part of the speech we get from the

Hon. Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) is, "They paid too much. The government

was taken." In the next part of his speech he says, "It's

another confiscatory action by he government." Make up your

mind, Mr. Member. Which is it?

The former Minister who was aware of this problem for some

length of time — possibly for some length of time before

he ever advised the Premier or the cabinet — continued to

say one thing in public with respect to Ocean Falls and another

thing in private in discussions with people in the company.

It's that kind of two-faced position on public issues that

finally discredited that former government.

As a government, we do want to see the coastal area in the

north-west diversified, and as a government, we do want to see

Ocean Falls diversified. To that end we've had two different

groups in fact up in Ocean Falls this week that could well see

to it that Ocean Falls is diversified to a greater extent. This

wouldn't be just the Crown corporation we're discussing here

but other independent private companies with facilities, needs,

demands and markets of their own. We intend to encourage that

kind of approach with respect to the central coast.

I think growth and development can be assured in the central

coast and in the north-west. But as the Member for West

Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams) indicated, you don't

destroy the base you have if you want to do something there. We

have to have some kind of urban structure, some kind of

communications system, some kind of development, some kind of

settlement to grow from. We already have that in Ocean Falls.

We intend to build on it.

The think that has impressed me about some of our regions in

British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, is that we've allowed them to be

cannibalized. I suggest that the central coast of British

Columbia is one of the regions that we've allowed to be

cannibalized, where the resources all get pulled down,

essentially to the lower mainland or lower Vancouver Island.

That's the pattern the international companies have wanted.

That's been to the hardship and the detriment of those regions.

I suggest that all of us as a people in this province have to

look at the way we've allowed the major private sector

industries in this province to cannibalize our regions. We have

to ask ourselves if that's the kind of growth pattern we want

to continue in this province.

The Queen Charlotte Islands, for example, so much a part of

the central coast — is it right that they should be

cannibalized? Is it right that the central coast should be

cannibalized, or part of the north coast? I suggest not.

Transportation is a problem. That's something the government

will have to spend time on. It's a very serious question. There

have been significant subsidies, again in the private sector,

with respect to transportation. It's one of the critical

questions now

[ Page 2625 ]

that we face and will have to deal with regarding Ocean

Falls.

"Governing," the late President Kennedy said in the

United States, "is making choices." We have to make those

choices. They're not the kind of choices one would like. We

think we can develop this company in a way that will be

satisfactory and viable. But more important, there are the

social elements that everybody in the rational opposition and

in the government benches have indicated that they're concerned

about.

One of the choices was this — and I wonder if that's

really the choice that the rational opposition is in favour of

— this kind of thing. Something that might have happened,

in fact probably would have happened, if they had remained

government — an advertisement that would probably have

been in the Wall Street Journal , the Financial

Post and the other financial journals of North America.

What is it? A chunk of the British Columbia coast, a beautiful

little town on the northern inlet. "For sale on the British

Columbia coast. Instant town. All you add is people."

Is that the kind of social irresponsibility that we might

have had if the former group had remained as government in

British Columbia? What did they say at the end of this ad? This

ad was close to going. At the end of the ad they said, "It's

the biggest bargain in town. We're looking for offers in the

$10 million range with a 10 per cent cash down payment."

AN HON. MEMBER: How much?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: "With a 10 per cent cash down payment,

" and a $10 million price. The price the government paid

is $1 million which will in fact be $790,000 with the remainder

at 6 per cent mortgages at market value.

We're convinced as a government that we and the people of

this province can do the job that hasn't been done heretofore

in this part of British Columbia. As the Member for West

Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams) suggested, it's a

risk worth the taking. In a sense, it's a new kind of

pioneering on the part of the government in this province. I'm

pleased to see the kind of basic endorsation of this new kind

of pioneering by the rational opposition, the Members in the

Liberal and Conservative Parties.

The kinds of social concerns that they express are the kinds

that concern this government. You see people in that community,

people who were born there and want to continue to live there.

You see some people who have lived there as long at 42 years.

They're people who have lived there so long and they want to

die there. We think that that kind of right should

continue.

I think it's interesting, Mr. Speaker, that the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace),

who has expressed on countless occasions a genuine concern

with respect to the individual, finds himself in agreement with this

government in this regard. I think it's one of the strange ironies of politics.

I don't think politics is anything if it isn't irony. But the people in the

rational part of the opposition, the Conservative sector of the opposition,

find themselves agreeing with us in areas like this because we live in the kind

of world where the power of the state is necessary to assure the freedom of

the individual.

Mr. Speaker, it's our intention to use the power of the

state to keep our individuals free in this province,

particularly right now the people in Ocean Falls. I call for

the question.

Motion approved; second reading of Bill No. 164.

Bill No. 164 referred to a committee of the whole House at

the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of the companion bill, Bill

No. 165, Mr. Speaker.

OCEAN FALLS CORPORATION

APPROPRIATION ACT

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, this is the companion bill

to Bill No. 164, which simply provides for the funding for the

acquisition of the assets that will be held by the Ocean Falls

Corporation.

I move second reading.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 37

Hall

Macdonald

Barrett

Dailly

Strachan

Stupich

Nunweiler

Nicolson

Brown

Radford

Sanford

D'Arcy

Dent

Levi

Lorimer

Williams, R.A.

Cocke

King

Calder

Hartley

Skelly

Gabelmann

Lauk

Young

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.,

Barnes

Kelly

Webster

Lewis

Liden

Wallace

Curtis

Williams, L.A.

Gardom

NAYS — 9

Richter

Bennett

Chabot

Jordan

Smith

Fraser

Phillips

Morrison

Schroeder

[ Page 2626 ]

Bill No. 165 referred to a committee of the whole House at

the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 168, Mr.

Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

COMMUNITY CARE FACILITIES

LICENSING ACT

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Health Services and

Hospital Insurance.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance):

Mr. Speaker, Bill No. 168 is a bill to amend the Community Care Facilities Licensing

Act. It's an omnibus type of bill. There are a number of amendments to the bill,

and I think most of them can best be discussed at committee stage.

I want to indicate that the most important aspect of this

bill is the fact it tightens up the whole question of community

care facilities licensing. Heretofore people weren't quite

aware of whether or not they were covered under the Act. There

was advertising that was going on that would indicate that some

of the facilities were covered under the Act and were licensed,

but weren't. So, Mr. Speaker, all in all it has been a

hodge-podge.

One of the things we have been troubled with recently is

that the Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement

(Hon. Mr. Levi) has been plagued with the day-care problem, and

we haven't really had

an Act that lent itself to this whole

question. So there has been a great deal of shadow boxing and

all sorts of things being done in our province just because of

the fact that we have had

an Act that really said not enough of

anything. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we have

an Act now, with

these amendments, that I think will do the job adequately. I

therefore move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, we will certainly support this

bill. We regard it as a step in the direction toward the better

integration of all levels of care. We had great debate in this

House earlier in this session about the need — if

diversify is the word used in business — in health care

facilities to diversify the types of care that are

necessary.

This kind of bill is somewhat similar to the ambulance bill

where we are setting standards and trying to make sure that

personnel providing care have a basic and safe amount of

training. That sounds all too simple a thing to say, but it is

absolutely vital to the very effective and economical use of

health care personnel and facilities.

I have said many times in this House that very often

we finish up with people in acute hospitals who need not be there in the first

place had the standard of care and the kind of personal attention which they

could have received in this type of facility been available.

I think we have a long way to go, but the government

obviously appreciates the vast scope of facilities that are

required to meet the individual needs of citizens. This

particular bill, I think, sets out on that path by spelling out

the requirements for a person to operate such a facility; the

right to suspend licences when the standards aren't met and so

on. I think this is a most progressive step and we certainly

support the bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Dewdney.

MR. ROLSTON: Mr. Speaker, through you to the Minister, just

a quick question. When you close the debate could you tell us a

little bit about who is going to administer this because in my

riding there are still those that…I think there is a half a

nurse increase. There still hasn't been a significant increase

in the public health staff.

On the weekend I talked to the public health officer again.

There is an increasing demand on his staff to administer this

Act. So I am asking: do you plan for a team of inspectors to

administer this Act for an area like the central Fraser Valley?

Is it possible to have one community-care form for the fire

marshal, for the health inspector and for the building

inspector? It, again, is still confusing to the people out in

the field.

I am just simply reflecting input from people who I have

worked with in my riding — the need for greater staff to

administer this Act. We appreciate the Act, but it has to be

administered to be useful. The other thing is: can we look

forward to one common, simple form per facility?

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister closes the debate.

HON. MR. COCKE: Well, Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate

the support from the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) who is

most interested in health care in this province, and has

indicated his interest over a long period of time. His

confidence in this kind of bill certainly gives us a greater

feeling of support. We feel a lot of work has gone into

this.

In reply to the question from the Member for Dewdney (Mr.

Rolston), we have had nothing really to work with heretofore.

As far as standardization and as far as inspection and that

kind of work, that now can be contemplated with some feeling of

confidence. What would have been the purpose of having any

organized inspection service in the past when we didn't have a

bill to support it?

Mr. Speaker, I therefore ask that the question now

[ Page 2627 ]

put.

Motion approved; second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 168 referred to a committee of the whole House at

the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 173, Mr.

Speaker.

ALCOHOL AND DRUG

COMMISSION ACT

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement): This

bill is really the culmination of a great deal of public debate and in response

to people in the communities, especially parents, who have been asking for a

number of years now that something be done about the drug problem and the alcohol

problem.

What we want to do in this bill is to coordinate first of

all financial distribution of money which has previously been

through four government departments. We want to be able to

cooperate with the federal departments — three of them

— that have been giving money into our communities in a

somewhat uncoordinated way. We also want to be able to stress

prevention and the educational aspect of the whole problem.

I would ask the House to be assured that the discussion in

respect to the pilot project about the possibility of the use

of heroin is only a discussion. It's the kind of thing that we

want to stimulate. There will be no moves made unless we have

adequate talks with the federal government. I asked the federal

Minister of Health and Welfare last week if some time in the

fall it would be possible to have a federal-provincial

conference around the total drug problem involving all of the

Ministers that have some concern in this. I hope that we'll be

able to have an answer on this in April when we attend the

conference in Ottawa.

It's a first attempt to coordinate everything that really

has to be attempted in terms of the drug and alcohol problem.

You have a similar structure in the Province of Alberta and

recently in the report that was tabled in the Saskatchewan

Legislature the first recommendation is that the alcoholism

commission of Saskatchewan be renamed the Alcohol and Drug

Dependency Commission of Saskatchewan. Their aims and

intentions are exactly the same as what we have in the

bill.

I move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North Okanagan.

MRS. JORDAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We know of the Minister's views

in this area fairly freely. We've listened to his comments.

We will support the bill, Mr. Speaker. We will deal with it

in more detail in committee.

The Minister is aware of the cautions that we feel he should

take in this area and those again can be dealt with in later

debate.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, this party will certainly support

the bill. It is the kind of step which I think is very much a

first step towards a more rational and practical and perhaps

unemotional view of a tremendous problem in our society

today.

When we have a problem of this dimension it's so easy to

criticize any steps which are taken when really nobody has the

answer to the drug problem.

If you stand dispassionately back and look at the drug

problem you wonder how on earth any even half-sensible

individual would abuse himself physically and mentally by the

taking of drugs; but the fact is that in society today it is a

very widespread, social menace.

There seems to be no obvious answer. Everybody's got all

kinds of suggestions and the people who have not yet been

closely involved with it tend to be rather indifferent —

"It can't happen to my kids," is so often the phrase I

hear.

If the concept behind this commission does nothing else than

to bring the intensity of the problem into focus for a start,

then I think the bill in that respect is very well

worthwhile.

I know the Minister plans to go well beyond that in making

this commission function, not only as an educational body

— which indeed is very important — but as a better

vehicle for coordinating such information and research as we

now have. I hope that in the general terms in which this bill

is set out that there will be tremendous scope for the

commission to innovate by dealing with individuals and groups

and bodies of various kinds — researchers, scientists,

physicians, parents — and that from that kind of exchange

of ideas the public by and large, as the Minister has said,

will be drawn increasingly into the debate.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

Indeed, where the problem of this dimension has no obvious

answers, it's clear that there will have to be pilot projects

and experimental attitudes taken in the hope that we can find

some measure of solution heretofore missing.

The Minister I think has wisely today pointed out that the

heroin problem is part of a total problem. While, from my

position in this House, I have taken a firm stand on the

question of the possibility of heroin

[ Page 2628 ]

clinics, the Minister has never at any time on the record

made that kind of statement. The Minister has simply said that

the problem is immense, it is serious, it is growing and that

some time in the future, based on research and public debate,

this kind of approach might be taken by the government.

I think now that we have this bill for second reading in

principle, that clear statement of fact should go on the

record.

The main approach which I know the Minister plans to take is

to involve parents and concerned citizens at the community

level and to minimize the centralized function of

establishments simply working in a central urban or

metropolitan area. I think this again is one of the basic steps

that is required to put the whole management of the problem on

a more hopeful basis.

I would be remiss also if I didn't make a plea that I would

like to see the medical profession, now that it has this kind

of vehicle, take a more active

part in trying to support and in

many ways contribute to this exploration of the problem in the

hope that we can find at least some partial solutions.

I don't mean to sound unduly critical of the medical

profession, because some of the practical aspects to the

physician conducting a general practice are very difficult if

he becomes too closely recognized as treating the problem of

addiction. But apart from the actual therapeutics of the drug

problem, I think that the physician can now be given

encouragement through this commission to contribute not so much

specific treatment, perhaps, but his experience and his advice

and his new ideas as to how the commission can carry out some

of its research function.

The problem of course must involve the federal government. I

do hope that the Minister, as he stated a few moments ago, will

be successful in persuading the federal government and the

provinces to meet later this year to exchange their ideas and

perhaps compare their planning. Alberta already has a drug

commission and Alberta and B.C. together could probably present

a very sound approach and a useful brief to the federal

government.

In discussing this with the federal MP from Victoria, Alan

McKinnon, I was distressed to find that while he sits on the

health and welfare committee in Ottawa, he said that in general

the MPs in eastern Canada are not at all aware of the problem,

nor are they much impressed by the kind of information which he

takes to the committee from western Canada.

If this is the case I think it's very disappointing that, despite the intensity

of the problem here in British Columbia and all the efforts the Minister has

either unaware or relatively indifferent to a problem of this severity — and

we have 61 per cent of that problem in British Columbia.

While the conference is very important I hope that between

now and then the Minister will spare no effort to get the

message across to Mr. Lalonde and the federal government, that

while they may have ignored a lot of other things like freight

rates and other parts of the difficulty which western Canada

has, they can no longer ignore the drug problem which happens

to exist in British Columbia.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I recognize the Hon. Member for Dewdney.

MR. ROLSTON: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to emphasize three words

to the Minister: prevention, education, rehabilitation.

There's been very good feedback on this. I think you know,

Mr. Minister, some of the people who worked with me in my

campaign. One of them was a heroin addict. He's been straight

for five years. He's a very successful businessman in Maple

Ridge and is really trying to do a job. There's been very, very

good feedback from public health and even some of the aldermen

in Maple Ridge.

Prevention: we've got to risk; we've got to get close to

people; we've got to intercede. The RCMP officer who in my

experience as a clergyman did more to really police was a

fellow by the name of Ted Foster who lives in Victoria right

now. Staff Sgt. Foster, a very young man, always was effective

as an RCMP officer because he interceded. He prevented the

difficulty before it happened. He was there. He was close to

people.

I'm very appreciative that this is a community-oriented

programme. This is a service-oriented programme. The emphasis

must be that we prevent, in the sense of interceding with the

kids. It's not just kids, unfortunately. As you know, in Maple

Ridge three weeks ago there was a very large heroin

interception. All the people there involved were over 21 years

old. This certainly concerns me.

The second thing is education. We've done a lot of education

work in drugs. I've always been amazed that the parents don't

seem to know the drug families, the actual chemical families.

This concerns me because this ki