1974 Legislative Session: 4th 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, MAY 16, 1974

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

3175 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Real Property Tax Deferment Act (Bill 16). Hon. Mr. Barrett.

Amendments — 3175

British Columbia Coastal Zone Commission Act (Bill 136). Mr. Steves.

Introduction and first reading — 3175

Oral questions

Response to telegram on gasoline price guidelines. Mr. Wallace — 3175

Right of immigrants to sit on community resource boards. Mr.

Chabot — 3175

State of organized crime. Mr. Phillips — 3175

Impact of construction strike on housing construction. Mr.

Gibson — 3176

ICBC cheques sent in error. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3176

B.C. drivers used for bus purchase pick-up. Mr. McClelland — 3176

Ferry modifications and ferry facilities work. Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3177

Motor regulations hindering deliveries of blood plasma. Mr. Curtis — 3177

Freeze on rental accommodation. Mr. Wallace — 3177

Phasing out of natural gas use at Burrard thermal plant. Mr. Phillips — 3177

Cut in student-teacher ratio. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3177

Government purchase of Reid property. Mr. L.A. Williams — 3178

Request of B.C. school trustees for federal winter works money. Mr. Wallace — 3178

Committee of Supply: Department of Lands, Forests and Water Resources estimates.

On vote 161

Mr. Phillips — 3178

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3178

On vote 162.

Mr. Smith — 3179

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3179

On vote 163.

Mr. Gibson — 3179

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3179

On vote 164.

Mr. McClelland — 3179

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3180

Mr. Schroeder — 3180

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3180

On vote 165.

Mr. Phillips — 3180

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3180

Mr. Phillips — 3181

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3181

Mr. Fraser — 3181

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3181

Mr. L.A. Williams — 3182

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3182

Mr. Smith — 3182

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3183

Mr. Smith — 3183

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3183

On vote 168.

Mr. Richter — 3183

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3183

Mr. Richter — 3183

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3184

On vote 169.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3184

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3184

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3184

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3185

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3185

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3186

On vote 172.

Mr. Rolston — 3186

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3186

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3187

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3187

Mr. Wallace — 3188

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3188

Mr. Fraser — 3188

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3189

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3189

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3190

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3190

Hon. R.A. Williams — 3191

Department of the Provincial Secretary estimates.

On vote 188.

Mr. Phillips — 3191

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3193

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3194

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 3195

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3195

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3196

Mr. Fraser — 3196

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3198

Mr. L.A. Williams — 3198

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3199

Mr. L.A. Williams — 3199

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3200

Mr. Smith — 3200

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3201

Mr. Curtis — 3201

Mr. Gibson — 3201

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3202

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3203

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3203

Mr. Smith — 3203

On vote 190.

Mr. Curtis — 3203

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3203

On vote 192.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3203

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3203

On vote 193.

Mr. Curtis — 3204

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3204

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3204

On vote 195.

Mr. Gibson — 3204

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3204

On vote 196.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3204

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3204

On vote 198.

Mr. Curtis — 3204

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3204

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3204

On vote 199.

Mr. Curtis — 3205

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3205

On vote 200.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3205

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3205

On vote 204.

Mr. Curtis — 3205

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3206

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3206

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3206

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3207

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3207

Mr. Curtis — 3207

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3207

On vote 205.

Mr. Fraser — 3207

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3208

Mr. McClelland — 3208

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3208

On vote 207.

Mr. Gibson — 3208

On vote 209.

Mr. Curtis — 3208

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3208

On vote 210.

Mr. Chabot — 3208

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3209

On vote 214.

Mr. Chabot — 3209

Department of Travel Industry estimates.

On vote 246.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3209

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 3210

Mr. Curtis — 3210

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3211

Mr. Chabot — 3211

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3212

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3212

On vote 248.

Mr. Chabot — 3212

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3213

Mr. Chabot — 3213

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3213

THURSDAY, MAY 16, 1974

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House to welcome some very special guests along with my mother today.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, in the

gallery today there are a group of students from the Province of

Ontario who are here as part of the Canada Project programme. I'd like

the House to join with me in welcoming them.

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): Good afternoon.

It's another beautiful Nicola Valley afternoon because there are a

group of Merritt elementary students who travelled all the way down

here and brought the sunlight and the shine. I'd ask you to welcome

them with their principal, Mr. Gage.

Introduction of bills.

REAL PROPERTY

TAX DEFERMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Barrett presents a message from His Honour the Administrator: amendments to Bill 16, intituled Real Property Tax Deferment Act .

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

said message and the accompanying amendments to the same be referred to

the committee of the House having in charge Bill 16.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

BRITISH COLUMBIA

COASTAL ZONE COMMISSION ACT

On a motion by Mr. Steves, Bill 136, British Columbia Coastal Zone Commission Act ,

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the

day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral questions.

RESPONSE TO TELEGRAM ON

GASOLINE PRICE GUIDELINES

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, could I ask the Attorney-General

or the Premier, whichever cares to answer, what response if any the government

has had to the telegram sent yesterday suggesting guidelines for the price hike

in gasoline to 8 cents a gallon?

HON. MR. BARRETT: The response has been generally favourable.

MR. WALLACE: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I was wanting a

specific answer to a clearly specific question. Perhaps I could follow

it up by asking what plans the government has if in fact the guidelines

are ignored by the oil companies?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the answer was that the

response has been generally favourable. If the response was

unfavourable then we'd have other plans.

RIGHT OF IMMIGRANTS TO SIT

ON COMMUNITY RESOURCE BOARDS

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): To the Minister of Human

Resources: has the Minister received any requests, specifically from

the Kitsilano area, which would permit landed immigrants to serve on

community resource boards? What is the Minister's decision in respect

to such a situation in terms of present policy?

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Human Resources): We did receive a

request. I spoke to the Vancouver Resource Board about it. They're not

in favour of it, and neither am I. Does that answer your question?

MR. CHABOT: A supplementary. In view of the fact that

legislation is before this House, what is the statutory basis for not

only the current efforts of the community resource boards task force,

but for the community resource boards, which results from their current

activities?

MR. SPEAKER: It seems to me that legal opinions are not required in question period by Ministers.

MR. CHABOT: A supplementary. I just wondered under what

guidelines they are operating in the Kitsilano area, due to the fact

that we have legislation making them a legal entity. What is their role

at the moment?

HON. MR. LEVI: They do not have a resource board at Kitsilano. All they have is a task force, and it's trying to get a board together.

STATE OF ORGANIZED CRIME

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct my little question to the

[ Page 3176 ]

Attorney-General. Stewart McMorran, recently

designated by the Attorney-General as the chief of the new provincial

strike force against organized crime, has said he did not get a chance

to tell his story. Could the Attorney-General advise the House as to

the state of organized crime within the Province of British Columbia at

this time?

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, I don't

presume to absorb the whole question period and begin a description of

organized crime which would have to be very general. So I'm afraid I

can't say anything more at this time.

MR. PHILLIPS: A supplementary question to the

Attorney-General, Mr. Speaker: does the Attorney-General agree with

McMorran when he states that the situation in British Columbia has

become more serious?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes.

MR, PHILLIPS: Finally, Mr. Speaker, when the Minister gave

the new designated successor terms of reference which would include

full public disclosure of what McMorran has said he would have told had

he not been appointed judge, is the new successor going to be allowed

to tell the story of where organized crime is at in British Columbia so

that the people will know?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It'll be a highly visible operation — this coordinated crime unit.

IMPACT OF CONSTRUCTION STRIKE

ON HOUSING CONSTRUCTION

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Speaker, over

a week ago I asked the Minister of Housing if he could advise the House

as to the impact of the current construction strike on the housing

construction situation in British Columbia, particularly

multiple-family rental dwellings. I wonder if, after a week, he now has

some information to give us.

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): Well, Mr. Speaker, the first thrust of our department has not been to create a department of statistics.

However, I have taken the Member's question into account and made

inquiries of Central Mortgage and Housing, who could not give me any

firm estimate. They've been in the business for a long time and have

that type of capacity, but they could not give a firm statement other

than to estimate that perhaps about 50 per cent of housing starts in

British Columbia are presently being held up in one form or another.

ICBC CHEQUES SENT IN ERROR

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): To the Minister of Transport

and Communications. Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that cheques are

being sent out by ICBC computers, in their kindness, to people who have

no knowledge of why they are receiving these cheques, may I ask the

Minister how many cheques have been issued erroneously by your

computers and what the total amount of money is that has been happily

paid out to the citizens of British Columbia for no reason that they

are able to determine? I have one here if you would like to look at it.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications):

I'll take that question as notice. I think you realize in putting the

question that if there was an error, we can't possibly know how many.

But I would appreciate receiving that from you.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, if this is an error, may I

ask the Minister whether they have any procedure whereby the people who

are less honest than my informant who sent me this copy of the cheque,

which I will return to ICBC…what procedures he has to check on those

who have simply cashed these cheques and pocketed the money?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Of course, you were the one who said that it had been sent in error. That's why I would like to take and check it.

B.C. DRIVERS USED FOR

BUS PURCHASE PICK-UP

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Speaker, on May 7 the

Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) took as notice a

question that I asked about Vancouver Island Coach Lines. I asked if

drivers of that company were being used to pick up new and/or used

buses for the provincial government in either Saskatchewan or Manitoba.

I wonder if the Minister has an answer yet.

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

thank the Member, Mr. Speaker, for asking me again. It's the first time

I've had his question since he last asked it. (Laughter.)

I understand there were 14 buses driven back on a contract with the

coach lines. There were, I understand, four drivers sent out on three

different occasions to pick up the buses. Those buses are being used

basically on the ferry runs.

MR. McCLELLAND: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In view of the answer, would the Minister be able to tell us from whom the buses were bought and

[ Page 3177 ]

whether or not they were bought by tender?

HON. MR. LORIMER: No, they were not bought by tender. We'll

buy anything that is for sale providing the price is right. It is very

difficult to get buses of any kind — new or used. We are scouring

throughout North America trying to find used buses that are suitable

for our operation. It has been very, very difficult to get them. So

anyone who has a good bus for sale, we will be very, very interested.

MR. McCLELLAND: Just one further supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister indicated on an earlier occasion that the buses they were

buying were by tender. I wonder, would the Minister be prepared to

table all the details of tenders or non-tendered purchases relating to

the purchase of buses, both new and used, for the House so that we

could have a look at it ourselves?

HON. MR. LORIMER: No, Mr. Speaker, I'm not prepared to table

anything of that sort. I will tell you that any new buses are on

tender. Second-hand buses are not because, as I say, there is a

scarcity of them and we will pick up anything we can find that will run

and has four wheels.

MR. SPEAKER: The Minister of Transport and Communications on an answer to a question.

FERRY MODIFICATION AND

FERRY FACILITIES WORK

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, I took notice from the Member for

Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis) on two questions. One was whether

I could tell the House if the shipyard or ship-repair yard has been

selected to do the modification work which was indicated with the new

ferry that has been purchased. The answer is yes — Burrard drydock; and

time has been booked for the estimated time of arrival of the ship.

The second question he asked me was whether I could inform the House

of the now likely completion date of expanded facilities and ships at

the Tsawwassen terminal. The dredging of the basin is completed. The

sea wall and holding compound will be completed, we expect, 90 days

after work is resumed by the pile-driving trade, but they are held up

right now.

MOTOR REGULATIONS HINDERING

DELIVERIES OF BLOOD PLASMA

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, thank you to the Minister, through you, for the answers to those questions.

On another subject for the same Minister: is he aware of and will he

comment on the fact that if the motor carrier commission regulations

are strictly enforced, presumably there would be difficulty in the

delivery of blood supplies or plasma over municipal boundaries by taxi?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'm afraid I will have to take that one as notice. I'm not aware that there are any inhibitions in the Motor-vehicle Act that would interfere in any way with the transport of blood across municipal boundaries.

MR. CURTIS: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Is the Minister aware

of the fact that this subject has arisen in discussions in Vancouver

within the last couple of days?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No. I'll check into it.

FREEZE ON RENTAL ACCOMMODATION

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the

Attorney-General, in light of the fact that long-term leases up to 99

years are being used to circumvent the Strata Titles Act

and the provincial rent freezes, if the Minister is giving

consideration to a total freeze on all conversion of rental

accommodation until government policy has been finalized.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, we are certainly giving

consideration to it and we are giving consideration to perhaps amending

the legislation now before the House to cover this particular situation

of a 99-year lease — probably an amendment to the Landlord and Tenant Act .

PHASING OUT OF NATURAL GAS

USE AT BURRARD THERMAL PLANT

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I would like to direct

just a small question to the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources. In his capacity as a director of B.C. Hydro and Power

Authority, has the Minister or has B.C. Hydro any plans for phasing out

the B.C. Hydro thermal plant at the head of Burrard Inlet — the Burrard

thermal plant — from using natural gas in view of the shortage of

hydrocarbons in the world and in view of the tremendous horsepower

still to be developed in sites C, D, and E on the mighty Peace River?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh.

[ Page 3178 ]

CUT IN STUDENT-TEACHER RATIO

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: To the Minister of Education, Mr. Speaker.

I wonder if the Minister could inform me if she has anything further to

report on the question of cutting the student-teacher ratio which she

indicated a month ago she did not expect to take place. She said that

if indeed it did take place, she didn't expect to receive any blame.

Could she tell me whether or not there have been any new developments

to cut the ratio at this time?

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): I don't really follow your question, particularly the second part, at all.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Sorry, Mr. Speaker. The Minister recently

made a statement that no one would be to blame if she was unable to cut

the student-teacher ratio. She made that statement a couple of weeks

ago. I wonder if she could now inform us if her fears at that time — that she would be unable to cut the student-teacher ratio — have been

proved groundless, or whether or not it will be possible indeed to do

it.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: First of all, that is not a completely

accurate quote of mine that you are referring to. I said that we may

not be able to meet all the expectations. I know you are taking it from

one excerpt in the paper. If we can't reduce the class size right down

by the 1.5 this year in every district, I said no one can be blamed. In

no way does this mean that there will be no reduction in class sizes.

As a matter of fact, the reports I have are that of the boards that

have already received supplementary assistance many have already shown

that they are going to be able to have considerable reductions in their

school districts this fall. My point was that you can't expect this to

be in every district immediately.

I'm quite satisfied that I will be able to report to the House, when

I get the opportunity, when all the results are in from the various

boards and they have finished hiring their new teachers, a substantial

reduction.

GOVERNMENT PURCHASE OF REID PROPERTY

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

Minister of Public Works, Mr. Speaker. Has the Minister or his

department concluded an agreement for the purchase of property in the

Inner Harbour generally known as the Reid property?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: No.

REQUEST OF B.C. SCHOOL TRUSTEES

FOR FEDERAL WINTER WORKS MONEY

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the Minister of

Education whether she has had an official request from the B.C. school

trustees association asking school districts for a share in the $37

million in federal winter works allocated to British Columbia?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: No, I haven't received it officially but I

was aware, having been at their convention, that this was discussed at

the convention

MR. WALLACE: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Could the Minister

tell the House whether the $37 million has been allocated to

municipalities and regional districts, or is the final disbursement of

these funds undecided?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I can't give you an answer on that. I would

have to check with the other departments in government who are involved

to see just how much they have taken.

MR. WALLACE: Would the Minister like to take that as notice?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Yes.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF LANDS,

FORESTS AND WATER RESOURCES

(continued)

On vote 161: Water Resources Service, Water Rights Branch, $1,429,368.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I'd just like to ask

the Minister if the surveys by the Water Rights Branch have been

concluded on sites C, D and E on the Peace River. Who is going to be

paying for the moving of the hydro transmission line across the Peace

River, or does it have to be moved behind site 1? Who will be paying

for the cost of moving the Westcoast Transmission gas pipeline which

crosses the Peace River above the proposed site 1dam?

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

I'm frankly not familiar with those specific problems regarding the two

transmission lines, but the normal course of events would be for the

utility to bear the responsibility, since they're the new people in the

field. That's

[ Page 3179 ]

something that I'd have to check further, though.

MR. PHILLIPS: What about the surveys, Mr. Minister, on sites C, D and E?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Studies essentially are being carried on by B.C. Hydro rather than the Water Resources Service.

Vote 161 approved.

On vote 162: Water Resources Service, assistance to improvement districts, $25,000.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Just one quick question

on this vote, Mr. Chairman. Last year in the debate on this particular

vote, the Minister agreed that $25,000 was not enough by way of

assistance to improvement districts. I think the exact quotation was on

page 1894 of Hansard . Then the Minister went on to say that in

the coming year he would review and perhaps integrate the activities

between the Department of Municipal Affairs and the improvement

districts. What steps have been taken along these lines, Mr. Minister?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I'm sorry, I didn't get the last part of the question.

MR. SMITH: You said that $25,000 was really not enough in

this vote and that you would perhaps take steps to integrate activities

between Municipal Affairs and the improvement districts. I just

wondered what steps had been taken along these lines.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: It's a matter of ongoing discussion

between the Minister of Municipal Affairs and myself. While the funding

is very slight, if there were serious problems we would probably take

the matter up by warrant in the case of a small local area that was

really strapped. Discussions are being carried on.

Vote 162 approved.

On vote 163: Water Resources Service, Canadian Council of Resource Ministers, $52,750.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Chairman, a

question for the Minister. The Canadian Council of Resource Ministers

was a body that started out with a great deal of flourish and promise.

We've heard rather less of it in recent years. I wonder if the Minister

would advise the House what the council is up to these days.

Also what has happened within this vote? It would seem that the

moneys provided for British Columbia delegates to attend such

conferences have been lifted out of the estimate, or else it has all

been consolidated into one vote.

HON. R, A. WILLIAMS: I frankly don't spend that much out of

it myself, Mr. Member, because the Canadian Council of Resource and

Environment Ministers now has been going through a period of turmoil

and difficulties. Because of my lack of involvement in their earlier

years, I've avoided some of their recent discussions. I expect to

attend the next conference and the agenda is being determined by Mr.

Grossman, one of the Ministers from Ontario. We've had some input on

the priorities of discussions and programmes for the coming year and I

look forward to being involved in those. They've also lost I think, Mr.

Deleve, their senior official, so it's really a new ball game. We

intend to be involved in that process in the coming year.

Vote 163 approved.

On vote 164: Water Resources Service, inspector of dikes, $57,192.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): I'd like to ask the Minister

if he would comment a bit on the Cowichan River flooding. I'd like to

know how much money was spent on improvements to the Cowichan River

this year because the people in that area are desperately worried about

future flooding. This year was the worst in history, the worst ever on

both the Koksilah and the Cowichan, with 3,000 acres of farmland

threatened at the moment. The people in the area seem to think that the

department is working backwards in making the improvements there,

working from upstream to down instead of the other way around, which

seems to compound the problem.

In November, December and January last year and this year, Mr.

Chairman, the worst flooding conditions were experienced. Houses were

evacuated, animals had to be moved off farms and $25,000 worth of dikes

were breached at one farm in mid-January. The river crested again March

15 and we're told that the next flood crest could see both rivers

completely out of control, flooding out of their own channels with the

whole area covered with between two to five feet of water, which would

rip off the topsoil and leave gravel in its place, as has been done in

the past. Unfortunately, it seems that the Indian lands in that area

will be the hardest hit.

I know that one of the senior engineers of Water Resources has done

an extensive study of the Cowichan; yet nothing seems to have been done

yet, That survey, I understand, was brought up to date for 1973. Water

Resources seems to have all the answers at hand, but so far there

doesn't seem to have been too much done. If nothing is done in the very

near future, December, 1974, and January, 1975, could be disastrous.

I understand that the cost of improvements is $3 million, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to know: has that

[ Page 3180 ]

money been allocated and, if not, when will it be allocated?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, the funds spent either by

Highways or the Department of Water Resources in the past year would be

roughly around $60,000. $91,000 was expended out of the disaster fund

with respect to flooding mainly in the Cowichan.

It's true that a major report was prepared by Water Resources in

1967. The recommendations have been accepted by the fisheries people in

our Fish and Wildlife Branch, but we still have not received federal

approval with respect to the fisheries on the Cowichan, and that is the

main problem at the moment.

The matter has been gone into quite thoroughly between the Minister

of Transport and Communications, (Hon. Mr. Strachan), who is also the

MLA for the riding, and myself and we hope to receive federal approval

regarding the scheme in the reasonably near future.

I think that covers the points raised.

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): I'd like to report to the

Minister that the dikes in the Chilliwack area, upon inspection, seem

to be in extremely good condition this year and that the expected high

water levels, should it not go over and above the height of the

dikes…likely the dikes will be strong enough to hold. I'd also like

to express the appreciation of the people in the area for the

Minister's keen attention to the problem of the diking this year,

particularly the labour dispute that existed. We're grateful that work

has resumed and that pumping will begin in a little while.

However, as a result of the pumps being idle for a great length of

time, some water damage has occurred in the dike areas. The question

is: is there any compensation available because of the loss of crop — perhaps a half a year's loss of crop in these areas — and through what

department would this compensation be made available?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: The disaster fund is seen essentially as

a fund for major disasters that involve numerous people on a fairly

broad scale, but if the Member would pursue the matter by

correspondence with me, we'd certainly investigate it.

Vote 164 approved.

On vote 165: Water Resources Service, Water Investigations Branch, $1,666,333.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to ask the Minister

if he would give consideration to a little problem. There is in that

Peace River area a lake that's known as Moberly Lake. Recreational

lakes in that area are not that prevalent — I'm talking about the

northeastern part of British Columbia. There are hundreds and hundreds

of them in northwestern British Columbia, well stocked with sporting

fish, but in northeastern British Columbia, out on great plains, there

aren't that many recreational lakes, but there is one known as Moberly

Lake. It doesn't have too many fish in it, but it is a good lake for

boating and water skiing.

There's one problem, Mr. Chairman, with the lake, and that is that

in the spring of the year when the water flows down out of the

mountains, the level of the lake rises several feet above normal.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Not in all lakes. I'm not talking about a

river, I'm talking about a lake. There's a great deal of erosion going

on around the banks of the lake. The other thing is that nobody can put

any permanent boat ramps or anything in there because if they do, in

the spring of the year they're washed out. What I would like the

Minister to do is have a survey done of the water levels of this lake

and determine how much construction would have to be done to widen the

outlet?

I have been down the outlet, and I have reason to believe that it's

mainly landslides and log jams in there in the spring of the year that

will not allow the water out of the lake.

Maybe with a little bit of construction, a little bit of widening,

Mr. Minister, we could allow that water to get out of the lake faster

in the spring of the year. Also we could determine what it would cost

to put a weir at the outlet to maintain the level of the lake in the

summertime, because it goes down so low. There are a lot of benches in

this lake and in several of the areas you can't even water-ski because

you go for 300 yards and you only have two and three feet of water.

It's dangerous in that area.

Mr. Chairman, I'm sure that the Peace River–Liard Regional District

would be most happy to set up a taxation area. The people who have

property around the lake, or who lease around the lake, would be most

willing to pay for whatever construction it would take to maintain the

level of lake closer than what it is now. But we need an engineer to go

in there and give us some facts and figures as to what construction

would be necessary and then, of course, the regional district would

need a permit.

I'd like the Minister's cooperation on this very, very worthwhile

project for the people of that area who don't have that many

recreational lakes.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: If it looks like it's in the ballpark,

the branch would carry out a feasibility study with the idea that the

cost of the feasibility

[ Page 3181 ]

study would be applied with respect to whatever

works were recommended out of the study. So the first step, probably,

is to work with the regional district in forming a local improvement

district and then deal with the branch.

I wouldn't want you tripping water-skiing and bringing more problems down here than you've already caused.

MR. PHILLIPS: What I'm saying is: I should go to the regional

district and say, "Form a water district first and then work through

the Water Rights Branch."

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Yes. Get a consensus, a petition of

owners around the lake with respect to their support for the idea of an

improvement district, and then proceed with the branch. If it looks

like it's a ballpark kind of proposition, they would proceed with the

feasibility study.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, just one further note. I had at one time

a complete petition signed by every owner of property on the lake. The

fellow who was given the job worked for B.C. Hydro, and after the dam

was finished he's taken off and I haven't been able to find the

petition, So we have to do that work again then — get a signed petition

again.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Yes, I think that would be worthwhile. It's good organizational work anyway.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): This is the department of government that comes in and helps with the bank revetment and so on, I believe. Is that correct?

I'd like to go back to 1972 when we had a lot of trouble in this

province on the Fraser and the Thompson Rivers — a lot of damage was

done and settlements were made where property was lost. I suggest that

this department hasn't done anything to correct this occurring again.

It shortly is going to; it already has started on the Fraser system in

1974. I'd like to know why, Mr. Chairman, some positive steps weren't

taken to organize and get bank revetment work done because the damage

is going on again in these same places.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Where?

MR, FRASER: Where were they settled for? Well, I can give you

several, Mr. Minister, on the Fraser. I'm not that aware on the

Thompson or the Quesnel River — but the erosion is taking place. This

is what happened in 1972 and now the river is at it again.

The Fraser River is changing course, which caused the trouble in

1972. Now we have farmland going into the river, acres and acres of it.

I have correspondence which shows here from this department that

probably it wasn't feasible…. I don't think anything was done by this

department to try and organize a permanent solution to this problem.

There certainly is a permanent solution to it and it is costly.

It's my information…. I asked the Minister yesterday…. The

people also know this is a 75-25 sharing formula. In the case of some

farms, I know they're quite willing to pay but they can't get anything

going with the department. In the case of one farm, within the next

couple of weeks they're going to their farm home.

I can't understand why things deteriorate to this point. We had

normal conditions in 1973. Now I'm told by the Water Investigations

Branch that it's too late this year because the velocity of the Fraser

River has already increased and nothing can be done, so just let it go

down the river. I'd like to hear the Minister's comments about it.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: It's my understanding, Mr. Chairman, that

there have been very few people turned down who were prepared to pay

the 25 per cent. Frequently the problem is that the cost of the work

far exceeds the value of the land protected. That's simply a real

problem. The funding has not been great, but generally the problem has

been that the people weren't even prepared to pay the 25 per cent of

the cost of works to maintain their land. If that's the case, they're

making a serious judgment about the value of their lands themselves.

MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, just a supplementary here. Does the

Minister's department feel it's too late to get something done now in

the next two to three weeks? The Fraser River has risen. It's fallen

slightly, but we all know it's going to come up probably higher than it

was in 1894.

Can we get something organized to get some of these bad situations

corrected now? The loan is available; the contract is available. They

want to pay their 25 per cent, but they can't get any clearance out of

your department on the 75 per cent.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: If the Member would like to talk to me

privately, I'd be prepared to follow that specific question up. If

there's material available and the person involved is ready to go, and

if it makes sense from our staff point of view, then we'll seriously

consider it.

MR. FRASER: Thank you, Mr. Minister. How do I get an appointment with you?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Oh, well, if the estimates are over I'd be glad to join you for coffee sometime later this afternoon.

[ Page 3182 ]

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Chairman,

the Water Investigation Branch has carried on studies for a number of

years into the levels of Lillooet Lake and the influence on those

levels of extreme high flows and low flows in the Lillooet River. There

doesn't seem to have been any result ever published from those studies

even though level stations were maintained throughout the length of the

lake.

I'm sure the Minister is aware, or he should be aware, that the

delta being formed at the mouth of the lake, where the river enters the

lake, is growing at such rapidity that it has become a matter of

international curiosity.

Water investigation people and people concerned with the growth of

deltas visited the Lillooet Lake a year ago to see what exactly what

has happening.

Now, while it may be an international curiosity, one of the

consequences of the growth of the delta is to bring about flood

conditions in areas in the Pemberton Valley which are not protected by

the dikes which were built many years ago.

In particular, the influence of this flood is most seriously felt on

the Indian lands in the Mount Currie reserve. I know that the federal

government, the community generally and, I believe, the provincial

department have been interested in the construction of further dikes

throughout the reserve lands.

I would like to know whether the Minister has had a report from the

department on this particular problem, also whether or not the

department has given consideration to one of the corrective measures

which might be undertaken — namely, to improve the outflow from the

southerly end of Lillooet Lake thereby stopping the major rises in the

lake levels at the time when the river is in flood.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I understand that in the early '50s

something similar was done and it was not too effective. The judgment

of the professionals is that it isn't too practical an idea. They have

an ongoing research project regarding that particular delta, which in

the long run may be valuable but probably not too useful now. There was

preliminary work regarding protecting the area. The costs appear to be

uneconomic from the landowner's point of view — that is, the local

diking area. I don't know that I can provide much more information

beyond that.

MR. SMITH: There's a matter I wish to discuss with the

Minister concerning a potential problem with flooding in the Kamloops

area. I was wondering if I could be guided to the vote under which I

could take this up. We have flood control in the Okanagan area but not

in this specific area of Kamloops. Would it be proper to discuss this

matter under vote 165?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I'm sorry, I missed the question.

MR. SMITH: Would this be the proper vote to discuss a problem

with potential flooding in the Kamloops area? Is there some other vote

that you would wish to discuss it under?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I think the previous one, 164. (Laughter.)

MR. SMITH: Yes, but perhaps it's…. Well, if I may be permitted.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: By all means.

MR. SMITH: I had a conversation with a gentleman in Kamloops

this morning, a Mr. Roger Hook, who was very concerned about a specific

problem in the area of Kamloops which used to be known as Brocklehurst.

It's part of Kamloops proper now. In 1972, Nu-West Homes constructed a

dike adjacent to the area that he is concerned about. This dike was

constructed by John Gatsby, the engineer on the job, and placed there

by Nu-West Homes which is responsible for constructing this dike.

It held during the 1972 flood, but subsequent to that time I presume

the Water Rights Branch or the inspector of dikes or somebody in the

department, in cooperation with the Department of Highways, has

suggested that they do not think the dike is strong enough or up to

specifications or standards to withstand another major flood, They

would like to install five headgates in the dikes. The Department of

Highways say they are going to undertake this work starting next week.

These people own lot No. 1, plan 17979; lot 2, plan 17979; lot 2,

district lot A, group 2, plan 19072; and district lot A, group 2,

Kamloops district, the Yale district. Their concern is that if these

headgates are installed and the decision of the Water Rights Branch or

the inspector of dikes or anyone else is that the gates must be opened

to allow water to escape, their land is the escape route for floodwater

being released through the headgates which will be built and put in

place by the Department of Highways.

This may prevent flooding in some other areas of Kamloops but it's

going to directly flood all of this land. These people are very

concerned to the extent that they're presently checking to see if they

can get a court order. Their land will become the safety valve and the

escape route for excess flood waters and they'll be wiped right out.

They're very, very concerned citizens at the moment, Mr. Minister.

What I would like is some assurance from the Minister that, if this

happens, these people will be properly looked after and compensated for

their losses. The way they look at the situation right now, they're

going to be wiped out

[ Page 3183 ]

if those headgates are opened to release floodwaters.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: The intent of the department is to see to

it that if flooding has to be faced in that area, it be on a control

basis, working toward equalizing the pressures and the like. It would

be controlled flooding if that kind of contingency is upon us.

But let's not kid ourselves about the coloured history of Cinnamon

Ridge and that particular mess, that particular ranch and that

particular council. We had to hold a special public hearing in

Brocklehurst regarding the cleanup of that Social Credit mess.

We are not involved in approving a secondary line of defence and a

new dike. If things had gone their merry way under the former

administration, there would have been a zillion houses in that flood

plain rather than what we have now which is essentially a ranch and

hayfields. I make no apologies. The department intends to take a firm

hand and position with respect to policy in the Kamloops area. The kind

of games that one individual landowner might want to play will not be

tolerated. There will be a provincial position regarding flooding in

Brocklehurst, and the Hook Ranch will have to consider the provincial

interest as the primary interest.

MR. SMITH: Once again we hear the Minister get up and,

instead of answering a question put on behalf of a concerned citizen

who has every much a right as any other citizen in this province to be

concerned about the flooding of his property, the Minister gets out a

big harangue. He doesn't in any way help to alleviate that man's

problem or any one else who is living behind that dike if their area is

flooded out.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: No, just the people of Brocklehurst.

MR. SMITH: All he has said and all he is asking for is, if

this happens and you destroy his land, will he be fairly compensated

for that destruction? You have to make a decision as to whether you're

going to open those gates so that you give protection to a larger

number of people than those located in that particular area. But if

that's the decision, will those people who own land there be

compensated for that damage? That's all he's asking.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Those people have been very handsomely

compensated in the past through the various arrangements that they've

made. General policies, however, will prevail.

Vote 165 approved.

Vote 166: investigations, hydraulic surveys and projects, $ 1,662,487 — approved.

Vote 167: environmental quality studies, $300,000 — approved.

On vote 168, Okanagan flood control, $95,000.

MR. F.X. RICHTER (Boundary-Similkameen): I wonder if I could

ask the Minister if his department or the government has made any

approaches to the U.S. authorities to enlarge the capacity of the

Okanagan River of the American side of the boundary to accommodate the

flow of water at the confluence of the Similkameen and the Okanagan to

a capacity that would be more commensurate with what the Okanagan flood

control channel and the Similkameen River discharges? This has a rather

unfortunate effect on the land around Osoyoos Lake in that the flow of

the Similkameen River backs the Okanagan flood-control waters back up

into the lake. Now we have a decision that no building can take place

around Osoyoos Lake unless it's at a level of 921 feet above sea level.

As I recall some years ago in appearing before an International

Joint Commission, the Okanagan River on the American side was to be

enlarged to meet the capacity that would be discharged. Not only would

it be a help to British Columbia and the Okanagan Valley but it would

be a help to the Americans themselves who suffer considerably from

flooding down towards Omak, Washington and the communities all the way

along the route.

My main thrust of this is: have we as a province approached the Americans as to enlarging the capacity of the channel?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I wrote the Hon. Mitchell Sharp, the

Minister of External Affairs, on April 22 this year regarding the Zosel

dam and taking that to the International Joint Commission for the

possibility of some improvements there. That, however, is still not

fundamental; it might improve it at the extremes.

It appears the real solutions, because flooding basically cannot be

avoided on Osoyoos Lake, lie in zoning and land policies around the

lake in relation to future development. We have a special group

comprised of the Department of Municipal Affairs staff and Water

Resources staff working on that particular question.

MR. RICHTER: Another short question. Some years ago, Mr.

Minister, a survey was done at the request of the department of water

rights as to the possible damming of the Similkameen River with flood

control reservoirs, and also pertaining to the Ashnola River. I know

there are a number of sites that were approved as having potentiality.

I believe one was at Similkameen Falls and one was closer to

[ Page 3184 ]

Princeton and others in the Ashnola. Is your

department considering in any way the reactivation of flood control

dams on the Similkameen which would alleviate the situation around the

Osoyoos area?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I gather that there was a joint study,

all right, Mr. Chairman, on the possibility of damming on the

Similkameen in order to avoid the back water effect on Osoyoos Lake

across the border, and that one location in the United States was the

best in terms of the impact on flooding in Osoyoos Lake.

But the consequences in the Cawston Valley were unacceptable. That

is, it would mean flooding up to Cawston itself. That would involve

Indian lands and other questions in Canada. So while it might resolve

some of the problems in Osoyoos Lake, it would create an unacceptable

situation in the Cawston Valley.

MR. RICHTER: I fully realize that I opposed that same

proposal because I would have been completely flooded out on my ranch.

It was not that; it was the Kendrick Study that was in higher reaches

of the Similkameen.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Well, the higher you go, the less impact you have on Osoyoos Lake. That's the problem.

MR. RICHTER: I realize what you are trying to convey to me,

Mr. Minister, but the fact is that if some of the waters in the head

waters could be retained until a later time of the year, then you would

have a continuity of flow. For instance, if say 50 per cent of the flow

of the Ashnola at peak period was cut off…these reservoirs would not

be very sightly once they were brought it down. They would act as a

catch basin to control the main flow. This is an area in which, I

think, to maintain a continuity of flow and at the same time cut down

the crests….

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I gather that that possibility is still

being investigated, Mr. Chairman. The staff aren't too hopeful, but

they're still looking at the possibility.

Vote 168 approved.

On vote 169: Water Resources Service, Canada–British Columbia Joint Development Act , $12,670,000.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): A quick question to the

Minister on vote 169. This vote virtually doubles. Of course, I imagine

there is a substantial compensating increase in federal commitments

because this is, after all, Canada–British Columbia Joint Development

Act.

I wonder whether the Minister can inform me, then, of the present

situation with respect to the municipalities. Are they required to

finance anything under this joint federal-provincial programme? Have we

been able to wipe out the municipality portion, which used to be

involved, I understand?

I wonder whether he would also indicate the dates which we have

taken over the municipalities' portion, because a doubling here would

indicate that it must be very recent. I wonder if the Minister has

information on that.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: It actually has been back-dated, and it

is a total-sharing, provincial and federal. So all of the communities

will benefit from that. The communities still have the responsibility

regarding rights-of-way.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: On the question of rights-of-way, I wonder if I could at this point….

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: That's a special case.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: There is a special case which the Minister

is aware of. It is a man by the name of Baumgartner, whose name has

come up and I….

The point is this, we do have a bit of legislation. The

Attorney-General is smiling happily, pleased that it is not him that is

being asked this question at this time.

We have the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act , which is

chapter 261.

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes. It is also another Minister probably that you are trying to pass the buck to, but you are on the spot now, Mr. Minister.

I would like to ask you whether or not you would find some way of

arranging compensation in cases where land is not expropriated, but is

simply taken away without any possibility of compensation at all, under

chapter 261 of the Statutes of British Columbia .

Please, it is not a compensation question under expropriation. We

had a lot of nonsense on that previously. This is a straight

confiscation bit of legislation, something opposed bitterly by the NDP

at the time when….

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: It was a Social Credit bill.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, it was a Social Credit bill, bitterly opposed by the NDP when it came forward. I wonder what steps you are taking, Mr.

[ Page 3185 ]

Minister, to have that changed.

It essentially ties in with diking and with canals. The problem

arises because an individual whose land is needed, apparently, for

right-of-way or for diking purposes, can get no compensation for either

the right-of-way or the diking. Therefore the man in question, a man by

the name of Baumgartner, whom I wrote to the Attorney-General about

back on February 1 of this year, could have many, many thousands of

dollars worth of land disappear on him to all intents and purposes. He

would simply lose the value of his property due to government action

under Bill 261.

The reply I got from the Attorney-General or from his department

indicated that it was because of a federal-provincial-municipal

agreement….

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: It is very complicated.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, it's very complicated. And that's why

it had to be that way. But whether it has to be that way or not

according to the letter of the law, I wonder whether the Minister, who

I believe personally opposed that statute when it came in years ago,

but who certainly will agree with me that it is wrong in principle,

could indicate to us whether compensation could be paid to people in

cases such as that of Mr. Olaf Baumgartner.

Perhaps you would like to comment on this.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I have reviewed the matter with the

Member for Richmond (Mr. Steves) and discussed the matter with the

mayor of Richmond and his engineering staff. We have agreed the

question of compensation is essentially a matter of municipal policy. I

think about half of Mr. Baumgartner's land is affected. But it is

considered by the government to be a matter for municipal policy.

I am not aware of any proposals by the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) to change the statute.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, I

agree that there may well be a case of the sort of executive action

being delegated to the municipality, but the fact is that they are

acting under a provincial statute.

When we are dealing with $12,670,000, the amount of money involved

in cases such as Mr. Baumgartner's is not great. In his particular case

it is a matter of something like $25,000 to $30,000. However, for him

personally, that is an enormous loss. It is a loss of 50 per cent of

the value of his property which disappears without any hope of

compensation. Were this expropriated, to use the terrible word, there

would be some chance of compensation. But because it is confiscation,

he gets nothing. Now, can you not figure out some way of giving him

some assistance or help?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: It is my understanding that the

municipality is prepared to discuss compensation in Mr. Baumgartner's

case. That is certainly the word that I have had from them. It is just

a matter of whether they can come to some mutually satisfactory

arrangement.

The fact that as much of his land is affected seems to me to be some

justification for compensation in that case. But that is up to the

municipality.

The special cases that I was referring to earlier are where the

Crown sees a recreational interest in the land. For example, the sea

dikes in the municipality of Delta around Boundary Bay would become fee

simple assets of the Crown provincial. So the entire Boundary Bay

shoreline, for example, wouldn't just be a dike, but in fact would be a

recreational embankment with a different cross-section and the like so

that all the people of the region would have the benefit of that

recreation area.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The Minister encourages me by his

statement that Mr. Baumgartner does seem to be getting a pretty hard

deal. The choice the municipality is offering the man is really no

choice at all. He has the choice either of a 45-foot right-of-way

running right through his property or, alternately, to have his

property taken away.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Or being flooded.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, there is the possibility of flooding

too, but that is something that he is willing to go along with because

he has waterfront.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Wait till the river comes up.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, that's one of those things. Rivers rise; rivers go down. But the difficulty that he faces….

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Let's ask him in about a month and a half.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, I will be happy to do that, but your

estimates will, I trust, be through by then. I would like to see them

through in a couple of minutes. To aid me in seeing them through in a

couple of minutes, perhaps you would give the commitment to the House

that you will take this matter up with the Minister of Municipal

Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) with a view to having

chapter 261 of the Revised Statutes of British Columbia struck from our statute books. It is an iniquitous bill. It is

an Act which allows property to disappear without any

[ Page 3186 ]

compensation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would point out to the Hon.

Member that it is not permissible to ask one Minister to recommend

something to another Minister.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Perhaps I could recommend it to him

individually to take this upon himself, if that is the case. The fact

is, Mr. Chairman, that it is fine to have federal-provincial or

dominion-provincial agreements and municipal agreements as well, but

when it is the individual getting it in the neck, there seems to be

nothing that can be done. I have raised this issue three times under

three different Ministers. Really and truly, the legislation which

permits not expropriation but straight confiscation should disappear

from the statute books of British Columbia.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: There is historical precedence in British

Columbia regarding Crown-granted lands, the right to take back for road

allowances and that kind of thing — on a limited percentage basis, I

recognize.

The matter has been discussed with the municipality and we suggested

that there should be a policy established in the municipality with

respect to compensation in cases such as this. I think they are taking

our suggestions positively.

Vote 169 approved.

On vote 170: Water Resources Service, B.C. hydrometric stream-gauging, $200,000.

Interjections.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: We've passed the wrong thing.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): No.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's vote 170 we just passed.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Could we confirm that it is the B.C. hydrometric stream-gauging that we passed?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Yes, that's what it was. I should have read that part, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You may be reading the title of the

section rather than the title of the specific vote.

Vote 171: Water Resources Service, Southern Okanagan lands project, $362,791 — approved.

On vote 172: pollution control, $3,023,920.

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): Mr. Chairman, maybe the Minister

could bring us up to date on the debate. The Pollution Control Branch

is a very zealous group as far as defending the environment and the

ecology and is technically really tops, but also philosophically it's

tops as far as this precious earth…this earth which, you know, we

seem to do so well to destroy.

How is that debate going? I personally can't see why it isn't under

the Department of Health, quite frankly. I think you have a conflict,

really, as the resource Minister, having this Pollution Control Branch

in your department. But that is my own personal feeling, and doesn't

necessarily affect the party. Health in the wider sense of the word….

If I could just illustrate. We really have conflicts; we could use all

kinds of illustrations.

We're still thrashing around with the coal industry, the CPR and

coal dust out in my riding. We've had meeting after meeting. We've had

people doing tests on top of the schoolhouse out in Dewdney and Agassiz

to measure the precipitation of coal dust, which is considerable. Yet

there isn't even the persuasion — I would like to see policing, but

there isn't even the persuasion — that I would like to see.

I only use this as an illustration, Mr. Chairman. I think we have

got to deal with the apparent conflict between a resource industry and

the Pollution Control Branch. I illustrate it with coal dust, but there

are all kinds of other illustrations. I think we have a responsibility.

I really hope that the people in pollution control are neutral and are

really tops.

I would like to ask you if you are able to attract top technicians

into this department. I understand that in some departments — like in

the Water Investigations Branch — you have difficulty getting water

engineers, civil engineers and hydraulic engineers. How well are you

doing in attracting the best people? This really is a motherhood issue.

It shouldn't be a problem to you. In no way should we, as a

resource-rich industry, compromise here.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I would say this, Mr. Chairman: there is

a great demand for top professional people. I think, by and large, that

we are doing reasonably well. But I am putting the Pollution Control

Branch on my agenda as the highest priority matter of this summer.

There will be a full review of the section, its role, the problems that

they face, the question of the separation of functions — the police

function, for example, compared to the research and baseline studies

that are really the initial work that is necessary in critical regions

like the west Kootenays or the Kitimat valley or elsewhere. We are

taking a very serious look.

The economic institute at the University of

[ Page 3187 ]

Victoria will be holding a major conference in

June, chaired by Dr. Irving Fox from the West Water Institute at UBC,

involving people from the State of Michigan who have done some of the

better work in policing and others from around the continent and

elsewhere, particularly in the field of effluent charges and the whole

range of approaches that are being applied around the world at the

moment.

The intent is to see the conference as the first step toward looking

toward reorganization and further work throughout the summer that might

result in legislative and administrative changes.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, to the Minister, the vote

here is a big one. It involves $22,695,000. Quite recently a member of

the Minister's department in this area quit; his name was Maxwell. He

said:

"I'm appalled at the waste of public funds and human

resources that exist in the Pollution Control Branch…. Expenditures

of large sums of money are approved for unnecessary and inane

projects." He further added: "A great deal is being done to establish

this great bureaucratic government agency known as the Pollution

Control Branch, but very little is being done about pollution."

There are many other charges made by this gentleman about the fact

that your 191-man staff could be reduced by at least 50 per cent. He

said there could be enormous improvements. He suggests many changes.

The point I would like to make is this: I'm not endorsing all his

criticisms. I'm quite sure that within any branch there are people who

have genuine and very firmly held desire for change, who may well see

only perhaps their own area of responsibility and not necessarily the

whole picture. But the charges are fairly serious ones.

The man in question was not a minor employee in the department; he

was a man of some importance. I wonder if the Minister could be a

little more forthcoming in information on this particular vote — $22.5

million which is described as being spent in an inane way and with 191

men in the department — there are probably more now — which this man

suggests could be reduced by 50 per cent and get the same amount of

work done.

These are statements that the Minister should certainly reply to. We

haven't yet heard him reply — or at least I haven't — in this house or

elsewhere. Surely the time is now if he is going to defend this vast

chunk of money — three minutes if you like — to say a few words about

the need for change and what he is doing to make the branch more

responsive, what he is doing to change it from the old attitude of the

branch which, rightly or wrongly, used to be called the "Pollution

Approval Branch" rather than the Pollution Control Branch by some

people, and what he is doing to make sure that it is an effective

agency.

The suggestion has been made that it should be shifted to another

Minister. I agree. I think perhaps it should go to the Minister of

Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford). In other words, this

responsibility should be separated from the Minister who is also

responsible for such polluting mills as Can-cel and Ocean Falls. But

that is another matter. As he has the responsibility at the present

time, could he please say a few words about what steps he has taken to

improve this particular branch?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: One of the things that we have certainly

been doing is working toward greater decentralization so that there are

more field people on the ground in the main regions of the province.

That's taken place over the last year, certainly.

I think it is fair to say that the Pollution Control Branch has

concentrated in the past too much on the rather simple aspect of

permits and the number of permits as a measure of performance. I

personally and, I'm sure, the government don't see the production of

permits as the right kind of measure of productivity.

Beyond decentralizing we are looking at reorganizing and at what is

being done elsewhere on the continent. We think that with the right

staff and with the right approaches we can break new ground in this

field and that it is desirable.

I did meet with Mr. Maxwell, the young engineer that you mentioned,

when he did resign. I had a good discussion with him. I think it was

worthwhile. I think it is unfortunate that we have lost people like

that. He was quite a young man and ready to travel in Europe. I

wouldn't knock that at all.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you want to travel in Europe?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You get $10,000 for travelling. Surely you could fit it in.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Maybe I could join the Minister of Municipal Affairs or something like that.

At any rate, we regard this now as probably our highest priority in

terms of action on the part of myself as the Minister. I'm sure that it

will result in significant changes later this year.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: What type of changes?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I'm not going to prejudge it. I indicated

a minute ago that it appears to us at this state that there is an

obvious need for breaking up two functions that are presently mixed

within the branch — that is, the research and baseline analyses of an

environmental nature and the policeman function

[ Page 3188 ]

that the branch also carries on.

That's an obvious first step as we see it, along with the decentralization that we have been carrying out.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I had intended to raise this same

issue and I am interested in the Minister's reply. It relates a little,

I think, to the point I was trying to make yesterday on the Forest

Service that highly skilled technical and engineering people, in the

case of the foresters, don't seem to be out doing their job in the

forests at the actual site of the action.

It seems to be the same in the case of Mr. Maxwell. I had a quote

where he stated that all the work he did was boring and frustrating

trivia. He said, "I refuse to continue to check spellings, correct

grammatical errors, fill in details for standard letters, et cetera,

for three-washer laundromats in Oyama."

Certainly if we have men as qualified engineers who are using their

time in this manner, the reassurance the Minister has given is very

welcome that there will be a basic review of the function of the

department and the better use of skilled personnel.

The only other point I wanted to raise, and it's one I'm surprised

has not been discussed a little bit, is the question of discussion or

cooperation with the State of Washington about the possibility that was

raised that the tankers from Alaska might put into Port Angeles instead

of the proposed route to Cherry Point through the Strait of Juan de

Fuca.

Now I realize this is a very complicated issue and I would think, as

a layman, that all the money that's been spent at Cherry Point in

preparing refineries and so on, or that kind of money and expertise and

effort, is likely to mean that there will not be any basic change of

plan. But on the other hand, one of the consulting engineers was quoted

a month or two ago as saying that Port Angeles would certainly be the

best alternative among possible sites in northwest Washington for

unloading oil transported from Alaska.

The gentleman's name was Wolf Bower, of Seattle, and he was talking

to the Skagit Valley College. I'm a little surprised, too, and I don't

say this with the intention of trying to be smart after the event, but

it's rather interesting that after all the song and dance that has been

made about our concern for oil down the coast, it's very interesting

that with the oil crisis we have the tankers sailing out of Vancouver

to help the situation in eastern Canada.

It would seem to me that we run the real risk of being branded as — if not hypocrites — at least inconsistent in our attitude. We're very

concerned about tankers coming from Alaska, but when our own national

well-being is in danger, there's nothing wrong with tankers sailing out

of the harbour of Vancouver from Burnaby.

I'm quite willing to admit that this is an inconsistent position. So

really what I'm saying now is: have we just given up the battle? In

other words, are we resigned to the fact that these large tankers will

be coming from Alaska and, as far as we can determine, will go through

the straits to Cherry Point? If that is the case, if it's something we

don't want and didn't want and have resisted — but now see it as

unavoidable — maybe the Minister could tell us to what degree the next

constructive step has been followed: namely, to deal with the federal

government on the whole question of communications and monitoring of

vessels and stepping up the efficiency of land-to-ship communication

and vice versa, and all the other traffic-lane problems and navigation

problems which will be so vital, if in fact these tankers are to sail

down here, and finally the degree to which Port Angeles, either by the

Americans or by the Americans and ourselves jointly…. Is it seriously

being studied as an alternative?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm not familiar with

Port Angeles being looked at seriously at all by other authorities. I'm

not sure that that source is that reliable a source.

The point, however, regarding tankers on the coast: the federal

government has a significant inter-departmental task force working on

the question, and they have met with provincial staff. The province,

however, has taken the view that the federal government has not

seriously looked at the alternatives, that they have accepted as a fait

accompli the question of tankers on the coast linking Valdez and Cherry

Point. As a result, it's not possible for the Government of British

Columbia to carry on a satisfactory dialogue with the federal

government.

It seems clear that they've made up their mind but that they haven't

investigated the alternatives adequately enough. We've indicated that

to them, but their group is pursuing their work at this time.

MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I want to talk about beehive

burners for a minute. Due to the fact that the Pollution Control Board

is issuing permits to pollute as usual — I refer to Cariboo Pulp — I

think they made a grave error there….

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: Certainly they had to have a burner but why did

they have to have it in the location they put it in? What is the

Pollution Control Board doing granting permits like this in built-up

areas whether it's non-polluting or not — and I don't believe that for

one minute.

The only other thing I have to say, Mr. Chairman, is about the

beehive burners that exist. The Minister has indicated…. I believe I

remember that the

[ Page 3189 ]

sawmill industry has been given till 1975 to clean

up these burners. A lot of them are operating illegally without even

tops on them and the fly ash is heavy. A lot of communities feel that

this day and age has long gone.

What I would like to know from the Minister…. The industry has

been notified they must have burners satisfactory for pollution

standards by 1975. Are you going to grant extensions when they say

"Sorry, we haven't had time to look into all this"?

How many years extension do you intend to give to the beehive

burners because there are communities in this province right now with

quite a few burners around them and the indications are that not very

much is going on. They're not paying any attention to the directive the

Pollution Control Branch gave them, I believe, in 1973.

So I can read between the lines that when the deadline that they

have been given comes along, they'll come to you as the Minister and

say:"Due to all kinds of circumstances beyond our control, we haven't

been able to do anything. Would you give us another two years?"

I'd like you to indicate just how tough you're going to be. Would

you remind them in 1974 of the reminder they had in 1973 that these

things are going to go, and that's so by whatever period of 1975?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: We'll certainly be tougher than the previous government in this regard.

It is clear that there are problems in terms of the availability of

steel and materials just to meet the goal. So it's possible that some

modifications will be needed, and in some areas they will be more

justified than in others. Nevertheless, it's a fairly serious goal and,

although there will be modifications, we recognize the need for change.

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I was questioning earlier

the structure of the Pollution Control Branch. The difficulty that

seems to come up from time to time, in view of the letters we have

received, is the lack of authority for that branch, perhaps, as opposed

to other branches.

Perhaps the Minister, before he gets his vote, would like to say a

word or two about the opportunity there is for the Pollution Control

Branch to pursue an independent course, whether it be critical of a

government agency, Highways department or any other with respect to

their operations or something approved by it.

My fear is that this agency simply doesn't have enough clout in the

government to overrule decisions, either within the Minister's

department in other branches, or indeed over other Ministers and

Ministers' departments. I wonder if he would say a few words about that.

I raised this question because I have in my hand a letter dated

March 4, 1974, to Mr. and Mrs. Norman Thyer, Nelson, B.C., signed by

Leo Nimsick, Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources. He said:

"I'm writing in reply to your letters regarding your

operation of a gravel pit…." — et cetera, et cetera. "You will

understand that the Department of Mines and Petroleum Resources only

deals with the reclamation of such an area, and the granting of a

permit to excavate the gravel does not come under the jurisdiction of

my department. It is handled by the Department of Lands."

Now I have another letter dated April 9, signed by Robert Williams,

the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, which says in the

second paragraph:

"Firstly, I must advise that the operation of a gravel

pit does not come under the purview of my department but is under the

jurisdiction of the Department of Mines and Petroleum Resources. I am

advised that you have already had considerable correspondence and

discussion with officers of that department and it would appear

redundant for me to comment on this matter."

So you washed your hands of it and Leo said — good old Leo, he's

laughing there; he's smiling away — he said it was all your job. You

said it was nothing to do with you. Now what does this poor couple do

when they're faced with the problem? — which I will now, of course,

have to describe, Mr. Chairman. It is as follows. Let me read you a

couple of paragraphs of their letter.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Whereabouts is this case, the location?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The location? Nelson, B.C. R.R.2, Nelson;

Mr. and Mrs. Thyer — Norman and Anna. It's dated May 14. It's a copy of

a letter to you, I presume.

"Dear Sir:

"We live in in the country and our domestic water

supply comes from a spring which is on our own property but close to

the border with a neighbouring lot. The water supplies of four other

households also originate close to this lot. A few months ago this

neighbourhood lot was bought by someone whom we shall refer to as 'Mr.

Z.' Soon afterwards, 'Mr. Z' started to operate a gravel pit."

Now, Leo, will you please listen?

HON. L.T. NIMSICK: (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): I've already listened to that.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, I'm sure you have.

"He ignored our protests about the risks of

[ Page 3190 ]

the operation disrupting our water supply. He merely declared

'll bought the land and I'm going to do what I want with it.' "

What happened of course was…. Perhaps I better read the next paragraph:

"The Mines Regulation Act should provide for some

control over such operations. According to

section 11 of this Act, a

gravel pit operator should submit reclamation plans referring to the

effects of the operation on watercourses, farms, nearby inhabited

places and the appearance of the site, and the programme must be

approved by the Ministers of three other departments of the provincial

government. This approval and subsequently a permit should be obtained

before work starts on the operation.

"We informed the local inspector of mines of the

operation soon after it started. Two months later, he had done nothing

about it.

"Neither had the Water Rights Branch complied with our

request for protection of our water supply. Indeed, there is

considerable vagueness as to whether our water is classed as ground

water or surface water.

"By now our protests had reached the Ministerial

level. At this point, the chief inspector of mines in Victoria granted

'Mr. Z' a permit…"

You see, later on he granted a permit. Shameful thing.

"… apparently without the approval of the three other departments.

There has certainly been no consultation whatsoever with ourselves or

other residents who might be affected. After all, in the words of the

chief inspector, 'Mr. Z' was 'doing this for the good of the country.' "

I won't read the whole of the letter, but the question that we're

really faced with is: who's responsible? You've washed your hands of

it, according to one letter.

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, you're all pointing at one another

saying, "after you, Alphonse" or whatever it is that Ministers say. Who

do these people go to to get a clear decision? It's perhaps amusing to

us at the moment, or to some people in the House, but they're having

their drinking water affected by the operation of one of their

neighbours.

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Minister, your estimates are through,

you lucky fellow. This poor chap has to reply. That's not a factual

statement, Mr. Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Nimsick).

They feel their water supplies are affected and they would like to

know what to do about getting some kind of redress. You've washed your

hands, Mr. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. The Minister

of Mines washed his hands of the matter. Both of you passed the buck to

the other, or tried to, leaving Mr. and Mrs. Thyer in the unhappy

position of having what they consider to be a damaged water supply,

affected water, and no redress from a government agency. I just leave

this with you right now and hope that you'll be able to reply. What can

I recommend to Mr. and Mrs. Thyer as to how they should go about

getting some sort of redress?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I suppose the first line of defence is

local in questions like this. It's essentially in the first instance a

land zoning question within the regional district. If the region was

doing its job, then they would have a pretty careful look at any

proposed gravel pit operation. It appears that the region also doesn't

regulate gravel pits within terms of a land use zoning and the like.

That's probably where as much of this problem lies as any.

I gather that the local district engineer in the Water Resources

Branch at Nelson has visited the site and the staff have visited the

site and have not in fact confirmed that the water source for these

people is adversely affected. So the problem as much as anything is

really a land zoning question which related directly to the regional

district.

MR. D, A. ANDERSON: Yes, but this brings up the question I raised at the very beginning.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: None of the three Ministers….

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: None of the three Ministers are guilty, of

course not. Perhaps it's the Minister of Consumer Services. (Ms. Young)

— they're consuming water.

But, Mr. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, what authority…?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: The Navigable Waters Protection Act , possibly.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: There are all sorts of possibilities, yes.

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The Premier has suggested that it would be

a federal Liberal piece of legislation. Well, I trust that after July

8, that's where they may be able to go for help. But the fact is that

the Water

[ Page 3191 ]

Resources Branch is the pollution control agency of the government,

and it appears to me from your answer that they are subordinated to a

large number of other authorities, including municipal authorities. I

don't think that's necessarily good enough.

The point I was making to you earlier — and I think Mr. Maxwell made

it in that resignation letter which I referred to earlier — is that the

branch simply doesn't have enough clout in the government to have its

views heard. Instead you have a number of other departments quite able

to overrule it. Even within your own department it appears to me that

your Pollution Control Branch doesn't have enough authority.

This is undoubtedly something rather more structural than we can

deal with at this time, but I do trust that by this time next year when

we're discussing your estimates on this, you've had an opportunity to

change this, because to give it such low priority is of course to give

the whole work of that branch low priority. It leads to the frustration

that Mr. Maxwell made clear in his resignation.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I'm sympathetic to what the Member is

saying, Mr. Chairman. That's why we are considering the Pollution

Control Branch as a high priority project this summer. It may very well

be that more clout, in fact, is needed.

Vote 172 approved.

Vote 173: Water Resources Service, laboratory services, $963,094 — approved.

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF

THE PROVINCIAL SECRETARY

On vote 188: Minister's office, $52,524.

MR. PHILLIPS: Things are moving fairly rapidly here this

afternoon. I just want to say a few brief words about the civil

service, which comes under this Minister's estimates.

Mr. Chairman, in the 18 months since this government has come to

office — to power, as they like to phrase it — the civil service in

British Columbia has increased by some 33 per cent, approximately

one-third over what it was for a number of years. That's what I would

term a substantial increase for that period of time.

The reason I bring this up, of course, is the increase in cost in

the civil service to the taxpayers of British Columbia. The increase in

the cost of this civil service in 1974 over 1973 is over $70 million.

That's an astronomical amount of money in one year for increased

employees — twice the amount of money that we give to the entire

Department of Agriculture, including supplementary allotments for

special funds.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): I think, Mr. Member, that your

excellent suggestions and comments are probably more appropriate under

210 when we zero in on that specific matter.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm quite willing to wait, but it's under the Minister's estimates and what I bring up might not be that specific.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'm sure that the Minister would respond specifically to your questions.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, let me get it over with and then I'll get out of your hair.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You're doing a fine job.

MR. PHILLIPS: We know, Mr. Chairman, that among the hierarchy

of the civil service, and particularly among the upper echelon, there

are a great deal of known party supporters which have been hired. Maybe

all of these aren't civil service employees, but a lot of them have

been hired on commissions and it all ties into the same bag. I'm

beginning to wonder, Mr. Chairman, if you have to have a degree in

political science to work in the upper hierarchy of the socialist

government employment now. Or do you have to be a graduate of the

London School of Economics? Or do you have to have a degree from

Harvard University? Because all of these are sort of tied in to the

socialist philosophy.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Harvard is a socialist university?

MR. PHILLIPS: I didn't say that. I said that certain graduates were tied into the socialist philosophy.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Shades of Joe McCarthy. Harvard is a socialist university. Ho, ho, ho!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Will the Member continue?

MR. PHILLIPS: Will you, Mr. Chairman, please call the Premier to order? He's upsetting me. (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: You may continue with your remarks.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, Mr. Chairman. We also know that many

socialists have flocked here from other provinces and they're put on

the payroll. I sometimes have to wonder about the capability and the

training and qualifications of these government employees.

This has never had to be questioned in the past,

[ Page 3192 ]

and I don't want to have to question it now. So I want the Minister

to assure us that all of these 8,000 new persons who have been employed

in the civil service are well qualified for their jobs.

I also want him to assure the House that it's not going to be a

requisite for a promotion in the civil service to carry a New

Democratic Party card. I wouldn't want that to be the only door that

would be open to promotion, because not necessarily carrying a New

Democratic card would qualify you for promotion.

I didn't think, Mr. Chairman, that the government would start firing

people in the civil service who have been doing a good job, and

replacing them with party supporters. I don't know of any cases where

this has happened where there's been a full-time employee. But

certainly where there are part-time employees, Mr. Chairman, it offers

an excellent opportunity to replace some of these part-time employees

who have been efficient with party supporters. I think this is very

arrogant on the part of the government, very arrogant indeed. Some of

the party supporters who might be hired might not be as efficient in

the new job as the person who has held that job for a number of years.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Are you suggesting we bring back Ron Worley?

MR. PHILLIPS: I would like to read into the record a case in

which I feel a great injustice was done. I'd like the Minister to

comment on that. This letter was recently sent to me from a constituent

in the Peace River area. This might be an isolated case, and if the

government's willing to take a look at it and if an injustice has been

done rectify that injustice…. I certainly hope this is an isolated

case and isn't happening elsewhere in the province, Mr. Chairman. But

I'd just like to read you some excerpts from this letter, because I

feel it's incumbent…and I'm glad the Premier's in the House. This

man, I feel, has been unjustly treated.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Named Phillips?

MR. PHILLIPS: No, his name is not Phillips. No, I don't have

any relatives in the area. I'm a lone wolf up there. All my relatives

are still back in the hinterland, back in New Brunswick.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The yea team.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'd like to quote from this letter of May 7, Mr. Chairman:

"In 1969, my brother-in-law had the job of park

attendant at Sudeten Park, Tomslake. He quit when he got a steady job.

My wife took the job over under his name for two months at $35 per

month with the verbal understanding that I would have got the job

permanently on a seasonal basis.

"From 1970 I have had this job" — that's from 1970,

three years — "for four seasons and presumed I was getting it this

year, as my work has been satisfactory, according to my superiors. I

can obtain a petition from the general public stating that whenever

they were there, they had no complaints. Also I have the register for

1973 with signatures and comments on the park."

HON. MR. HALL: Which department?

MR. PHILLIPS:

"I was promised a company vehicle during the past years, which I never did get."

HON. MR. BARRETT: Which department?

MR. PHILLIPS:

"I never made an issue of it because I was happy with the job and used my own vehicle. I usually commence my job in mid-May.

"This year I presumed the job was mine and was surprised to see a company vehicle in the park on May 1…"

Now, you must remember that he never started his job until May 15.

"… and Mr. William (Bill) Kuenzle working in the park.

"When I saw him I phoned George Schwartz, Parks

Branch, in Fort St. John, to verify the situation. He said the job went

to Mr. Kuenzle as he was more suitable. How can Mr. Kuenzle be more

suitable, as my job was always satisfactory? Mr. Kuenzle is

approximately 60 years old. I am 20 years younger and I feel more

capable of work production and efficiency.

"I would like to know what I can do about this

situation. I would like to know why I didn't get the job. I have always

been conscientious, and for peace of mind would like to know the reason

for this. Why did I have to do without a company vehicle and he gets

one? I cannot see the justice of this, as I have previously said my

work was satisfactory and I had no notification or idea the job wasn't

mine for 1974.

"As Mr. Kuenzle started earlier than I had in prior

years and he received a company vehicle, I feel there is political

involvement. Mr. Kuenzle is president of the local NDP club.

"I was paid approximately 16 cents a mile for use of

my pickup. It seems the taxpayer has the protection as the mileage has

to be accurate, et cetera. Mr. Kuenzle has not got a

[ Page 3193 ]

pickup and he received a company vehicle May 1 for doing the Sudeten

Park, and prior the Parks Branch didn't think that Sudeten Park

warranted a company vehicle for economic purposes."

Now, this is a case where a political supporter, the president of

the NDP club in Tornslake, has been given this job over and above a man

who has done the job satisfactorily for the last four years. I think

this man has been done an injustice.

HON. MR. BARRETT: We'll look into it.

MR. PHILLIPS: I want you to look into it, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Send the staff over and we'll look into it immediately.

MR. PHILLIPS: I want it looked into and I want justice done for this man!

HON. MR. BARRETT: You bet.

MR. PHILLIPS: Is that a promise from the Premier that justice will be done?

HON. MR. BARRETT: The Minister will look into it immediately. Why didn't you bring the facts out sooner?

MR. PHILLIPS: I certainly hope so, because this might be an isolated case, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Right. Send it over and we'll look into it immediately.

MR. PHILLIPS: I certainly will send you a copy of this letter.

HON, MR. BARRETT: That's what we want — action, not talk. Send it out.

MR. PHILLIPS: I want action in this particular case and I

intend to follow it up. I intend to find out if there are other such

cases throughout the province.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Hear, hear! You send it over here right away.

MR. PHILLIPS: This is not justice, Mr. Chairman — not justice

at all. I don't want to see this Mr. Kuenzle, if he's been planning on

this job for the summer, fired either.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Get over here.

MR. PHILLIPS: Don't rush, don't rush.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Every minute you're losing is delay.

MR. PHILLIPS: We're all right. I checked out the time, Mr. Premier — we're okay. You can go fishing.

HON. MR. BARRETT: How long have you had that case?

MR. PHILLIPS: How long have I had this case?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes.

MR, PHILLIPS: I got this case in the mail, I think it was Monday morning.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You should have been to see the Minister right away. You wasted four days. Shame!

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, no, Mr. Premier! Mr. Premier, you brought

up a very important subject that I didn't wish to discuss here this

afternoon, but if you keep on prodding me, I'll tell you about some of

the letters I've written to some of the Ministers. So don't taunt me!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Are you threatening me?

MR. PHILLIPS: No, and I don't want you to threaten me, either!

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, I love you.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, I'm sure you do. All right. Now, I'd like

the Provincial Secretary to respond and put it in the record that if I

bring you this, you will check into it and justice will be done for

this man.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Hear, hear!

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Chairman, there's no

question that if the Member gives me that information I'll check into

it personally. But I want to just make sure everybody in the House

realizes one thing, because I don't want the Public Service Commission

per se to carry any of the criticism that the Member has, in his own

right, justifiably presented to the House. This employment, which I

understand is in the Department of Recreation and Conservation for a

temporary employee, will come out of the temporary vote in the

estimates, and that is the departmental hiring. I just want to make

sure that my staff — Mr. Richardson the chairman of the Public Service

Commission, isn't here yet — realize that that is a local decision

thing with the department. I certainly want to assure you that in terms

of full-time employees, in terms of

[ Page 3194 ]

permanent, continuous and so on, that's a different route of getting

into the public service than the one you've explained, which is a

temporary appointment.

Having got the record straight on that one, I want to reassure the

Member that if he'll give me that information I will personally….

MR. PHILLIPS: You have the letter now.

HON. MR. HALL: Oh, this is the one you have just given us, is it?

MR. PHILLIPS: That's right.

HON. MR. HALL: The next thing I want to point out, Mr.

Chairman, in answer to the Member's particular remarks about the growth

of the public service, is that nobody is as concerned as I am. My

colleagues, both in the cabinet and in the Treasury Board, will attest

to my concern over the growth of the work force that is our machine,

for two reasons. One is that it underscored the deficiencies that were

there when we came in. There's no question about that, and I think

everybody would agree with that. Secondly, it reflects the new

programmes that we're putting in. And we're picking up now in a very

different way the temporary appointments that used to be a feature of

the government.

The next thing is the relationship that now exists between the work

force and ourselves in terms of a contract, which is currently being

negotiated, in terms of putting an end to that kind of "permanent

temporary" and "part-time continuous." The names they used to give to

categories are just unbelievable.

I think it is fair to say that we shouldn't expect, as Members, to

see a continuation of that kind of growth curve. I would point out that

indications from other jurisdictions also show growth but they don't

show the kind of growth that you've referred to. I think that is a

reflection of a new government and a new programme.

I want to show my concern. I'm already getting something of a

reputation among my colleagues of being, to use the colloquial, a bit

of a red-neck about this. I think it is probably the best department….

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you say "red-neck"?

HON. MR. HALL: That's what I said. I used the colloquial term that you know so well.

Now, let's discuss the other remarks you make about political

appointees. I don't want to get into a furious debate with the Member

because I know he didn't really want to leave the impression that

political appointees are to be found riddled throughout the public

service of this department. He knows, as you know, Mr. Chairman, and as

I know, that that is not a fact.

The fact of the matter is that we make no apologies whatsoever for

appointing people whom we know, whom we trust, who have the same or

similar political ideals and programmes that we have. We appoint them

by order-in-council for specific jobs. Everyone of them is listed. You

have, as a matter of fact, read out the list of those appointees who

are political appointees who will live and die with this government. We

make no apologies at all.

What I did object to — and I wish I had an opportunity to respond to

your speech earlier…. You read out a list, Mr. Member, which, if you

had just done 10 seconds of thinking, you knew included government

agents and previous appointments by your administration to hospital

boards. I can think of a senior vice-president of the Social Credit

Party who was appointed by one of those orders-in-council that you read

out, not too far from my constituency. You read out names of young

girls who work for this government and who, for a period of a month,

have to take over the duties of a senior person in order that the

various legal forms can be dealt with at the financial offices, the

government agents' offices that the Premier looks after, the length and

breadth of this province for a month. You read those names out. You

read 1,700 names, I think; it is possible that 1,700 of those names

could not really be described in the way you did do.

If you want the list of political appointees, ask me for it; I've

got them. They're in orders-in-council. I think you should sort out

those orders-in-council a little better than you did last time. We make

no apologies for it; it's done in every jurisdiction that I can think

of. As long as we all understand that, we don't need to get very

up-tight and very distraught about it. I think those are the answers to

the questions of the Member for Peace River.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I welcome the words of the Provincial

Secretary. He and I argued last year that some of these political

appointments — I'm thinking now specifically of people hired because of

their connection with the NDP and for positions of confidential

relationship….

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The point that I am trying to make, Mr.

Premier, before you think you are being criticized, was that my

original point last year to the Provincial Secretary was to allow some

of these people who feel they have qualities, despite their political

affiliation, which could be useful to the public service, to be

switched to the public service. He turned down that proposal last year

by way of amendment which I think is wrong. I think that many of the

people who may well have political connections might be of value to the

public service

[ Page 3195 ]

after a change of government. But that is a point I won't argue again.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I don't think you'll find that kind of

maturity there. I accept your argument; there needs to be some maturity

in accepting that. I accept your argument. There needs to be maturity

to accept that.

MR, D.A. ANDERSON: Well, nor does the Provincial Secretary accept it, curiously enough.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's because of what we are dealing with there. They aren't mature enough.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, the Provincial Secretary is curbing growth and is showing maturity at this stage, and I appreciate that.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Think of Pearse, for example. He's invaluable.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Exactly.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, if this is not all on Hansard , the Premier has mentioned a person such as Peter Pearse being a very valuable person.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Right.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: He was obviously not hired for his

political background, I would think, unless you wished to hire

Liberals. But when you hire an NDPer who is qualified, my point last

year was that if that person is qualified and happens to have been

hired by an NDP cabinet Minister for his own office and he is

definitely a political appointment — for which I have no quarrel — that

person, if — through some mischance or accident or anything else — this

government should no longer remain the government, should have the

opportunity of swinging into the public service if he is qualified in

and the public service wants him.

HON. MR. BARRETT: By competition.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, by competition. I put in an amendment

to that effect and it was unfortunately turned down last year. I think

we are going to have a more responsive government now that maturity has

hit the Provincial Secretary.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, no, no. Get that in writing from over there.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, okay. We'll try also to get the

official opposition to agree. But it was the Provincial Secretary who

turned it down last year. I am pleased to see that there is more

flexibility in the government's position.

By the way, before I finish on the subject, the Provincial Secretary

said he would send us a list of direct political appointees. May I ask

him at this time, formally, for such a list? I would appreciate having

a copy of it.

Now, may I turn to a debate under the Public Service Labour Relations Act of last year, p. 1318 of Hansard ,

November 6, 1973, in which I requested that certain people with a

confidential relationship with the government be excluded from being

members of bargaining units. Again, a technical subject which the

Provincial Secretary knows well.

I asked at that time that people who were in an executive position,

people who were in the personnel departments and involved in personnel

work and people who have to deal formally on behalf of the government

with a grievance, which may be put in accordance with the grievance

procedures under this Act, be in a special capacity. The Provincial

Secretary replied to me saying that he could not accept it. He said,

I congratulate the Member for a well-thought-out amendment — an

amendment which would find acceptance, I suppose, in almost every board

room of the province, but not this one. It is a different philosophy,

and I think nothing points up the philosophy difference better than

this amendment.

It's our desire, when making sure that work people have full and

free collective bargaining arrangements, that the privilege, right or

access be guaranteed to as many people as possible…. We don't see as

a government, in a philosophical way, the need to exclude people who

are in a confidential capacity….

In fact, the Premier is often on

record as saying everyone should be in the union right up to the Deputy

Minister.

I would like to congratulate him for changing his mind. As I see in

the April 29 edition of The Provincial , there are, indeed, 800 employees

excluded. I see from a letter dated April 26, 1974, from the Speaker to

all personnel in the service of the Legislative Assembly, there are six

categories of people who are listed as being excluded.

I would like to thank the Minister at this time for changing his

mind. I wish he had accepted my amendment because it would have made a

great deal more sense to have had this in writing and as part of the

law. But he has changed his mind from his statement of November 6, 1973

in a relatively short period of time. We appreciate that he has

accepted the fact that there are people in confidential capacities who

should not be involved in the collective bargaining process.

The second item I would like to ask him a few

[ Page 3196 ]

questions on is the emergency programme. We changed the name of this

last year from civil defence. Again, I would like to start out by

congratulating the Minister. I believe the programme and the people in

it are doing a good job; I believe they are doing their very best. I

even believe the Minister has given them support and help and, indeed,

it is working well.

The question I raise for him is this: are we spending enough time

thinking about future disasters which might call upon this organization

for assistance? I'm thinking, for example, of a plane crash of a major

nature, say, in Saanich near the Victoria airport. Say, for example,

there was a major crash at that time. Would the B.C. emergency

programme be able to assist in a meaningful way? Would it be possible

for them to play a role and, indeed, should they play a role? My

feeling is that the emergency programme began when civil defence was

the major concern of people and basically it was preparing for nuclear

disaster. When it was assumed that nuclear disaster was less imminent

than had previously been thought and the name "Civil Defence" was

dropped, the programme began to lose any real purpose.

I wonder if he could indicate what efforts are being made to

re-evaluate its role in terms of disasters such as a plane crash — I

give that only as an example — which might well occur in British

Columbia and require something more than the assistance that can be

provided by local fire departments, police departments and the regular

airport or other services. I wonder whether he might at this time give

us a few words on what the role will be in the future and whether or

not it will have the opportunity of revamping itself and finding some

sort of new opportunities in the future.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Chairman, dealing with the questions

raised by the Liberal leader in the order in which he raised them: I

haven't changed my mind about exclusions, so be careful how you

congratulate me. I said at the time of the debate that I believe that

anybody has the right to be in a trade union, but I believe in

collective bargaining, period.

Those exclusions were negotiated by collective bargaining on the

desire of the union, even for exclusions. I, in fact, overruled a

number of departments who wanted exclusions because they were claiming

they were in a confidential capacity. I regret in some ways that the

union has applied to the Labour Relations Board for the exclusions that

they have done.

I think you are quoting from the union, not my magazine. I think you're quoting from the union magazine.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HALL: That's the union magazine. Mine's a different one altogether for the Public Service Commission.

I think it's fair to say that my position remains the same as

before. However, the union in its desire to cooperate on the

establishment flowing out of the Public Service Labour Relations Act ,

to negotiate those 13 components themselves…and that was done with a

committee of the union and a committee comprised of senior people in

the Public Service Commission.

I want to go on record as being, frankly, at times a little unhappy

about some of the exclusions. I know that Ministers have come to me

already asking why a junior staff person in their office should be

excluded. My reply is that that was the demand of the union, that was

full and fair collective bargaining; they took votes, they took their

decisions in that way. And that was the philosophy I was describing to

the Member last session.

As for the emergency programme — I am glad the Member brought it up

because for years we tended to just simply vote against that department

because it was called Civil Defence, and tended to be oriented towards

the period of 1940 to 1945, and perhaps the cold war and other things.

Because of that feeling, one of the first things I did was discuss

with the members in the emergency programme a new thrust, a new style,

a new stance. I am happy to report that we have had a number of

conferences of staff people — one as recently as a month ago which I

addressed on Dallas Road — and they've been working out some of these

new ideas in conjunction with the federal people, the police people,

the army and others.

I am meeting in a very short time, on June 4, with the head of the

Emergency Measures Organization who is coming from Ottawa and meeting

me in Nanaimo on June 4. It's at those meetings we are, I think,

changing the thrust of the department.

In direct response to your questions as to whether a department

could involve itself in such a thing as a plane crash, the answer is

yes.

As a matter of fact the communication

section and the aeronautical

division — which is being very useful in coordinating plane searches — I am assured by my people, would play a role in a disaster such as you

say.

MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, to change the subject a bit, I want

to talk about library services in the Province of British Columbia,

which comes under this Minister, and the change that is taking place. I

refer to the regionalization of library services in the province.

As I understand it, somebody here in Victoria, I assume after

discussion at the regional levels and local levels, decided that it

would be regionalized and that there would be 11 regions in the

province. I don't

[ Page 3197 ]

know for sure that I'm correct on that, but that's my understanding.

In the case of the Kamloops and the Cariboo, it was decided to put

the Thompson-Nicola Regional District in with the Cariboo Regional

District. So, I again assume that's one of the 11 regions that was to

be renegotiated.

The Thompson-Nicola went ahead; they had their vote in their region.

I believe it passed by 88 per cent to join and regionalize the library

service which in prior times has been, in the rural areas, handled by

the province. In the municipalities there were varying types of

municipal library services.

Then when it went to the Cariboo Regional District — that's where it

still is — the Cariboo regional board wouldn't even give the citizens a

vote on the subject. That's the impasse we are at at this present time.

In other words, the elected Members of the Cariboo Regional District

decided in their wisdom that they would not allow the taxpayers of the

Cariboo Regional District to vote whether or not to opt in and with the

Thompson-Nicola district for a regional library service, which would

probably improve the service of the library functions.

There has been a real breakdown and I'm quite concerned about it.

I've tried to help, with your department, Mr. Minister. I have had a

lot of help from them and I have taken it back to the regional level

and council level and so on, but things are at an impasse.

The worry is that you intend to inaugurate this in, I believe, 1975

and all grants and so on will be on that basis. Anybody that hasn't

opted the way it was suggested by the Library Development Commission — if they haven't opted into this, well, all provincial funds will be cut

off.

I notice in one of the votes here that it's up from some $900,000 to

$2,200,000 — I assume that's what it is for. But when we have a

situation like this, I don't know what you can do. I have had a lot of

correspondence from citizens demanding their rightful vote, and I have

taken the position publicly that they are entitled to a vote. But the

elected Cariboo Regional District say they won't have a vote.

Now the root of the trouble is this: a decision was made for them

that they would opt into the Thompson-Nicola Regional District. It

probably was discussed, but I don't think they liked this. I would say

we have different thoughts from the Thompson-Nicola Regional District

who are pretty free, high and mighty spenders. They are certainly

higher spenders than, say, the Cariboo regional board, so we have a

different philosophy entirely. Trying to meld them is the problem.

But getting by the fact that they haven't had a vote, the people

would be asked to vote to a maximum of 1.5 mills. I think the elected

people of the Cariboo Regional District feel this is far too costly an

impost on the taxpayer for the function of library. This could well be

and it has been determined that the Thompson-Nicola Regional District

don't feel that way. They've got lots more money, and they're well

willing to pay up to a maximum of 1.5 mills, I might say.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

So there we have the impasse. Now the most recent development is

that the Cariboo regional board are, I believe, going to approach you

to see whether they can go on their own, not go in the function with

the Thompson-Nicola for a library. As I see it at a provincial

overview, I was wondering what your feelings on it are because no doubt

this would upset the provincial plan. It is a controversy raving on all

through the Interior. I would just point out to you in the mention of

1.5 mills as far as taxation is concerned for library — where one area

might agree they can afford and are willing to pay for it, and others

won't — the Cariboo regional board total operation is less than 1 mill

which would be assessed for administration purposes. This is something

that they see, again, adding another function.

I would also like to know if this is the maximum, 1.5 mills, and if

it did come to pass, what is the percentage the province feels they

will be paying under this new regionalization of library services? That

is, overall is it 20 per cent, or what?

In some areas they are saying that the load of library services is

being transferred from the province to the local taxpayer. I'd like to

know whether this is such. There are indications through the

correspondence I have that this is not the case, that in fact the

province will be contributing more than they ever contributed before.

But statements are being made that there is definitely a transfer here

from the province back to the local level. Again I think this is the

problem.

I might say that the dilemma really is the fact that the elected

Cariboo regional board won't allow a vote to take place. I have checked

with Municipal Affairs and found out that there isn't much they can do

about it either, so it could probably end up in the municipal elections

in the fall.

But there is an impasse, and I see trouble ahead — loss of

provincial funds that have been coming through to particularly the

municipalities in the Cariboo. They'll be cut off if there is no vote

taken in 1974; then it will switch over because they haven't opted in

to the regionalization of the Thompson-Nicola — and everybody suffers.

This is most unfortunate. I don't know whether this has developed in

other parts of the province, but it is a very controversial item up

there.

I repeat: from the Cariboo Regional District

[ Page 3198 ]

directors' point of view, they are looking at the cost of their

operation. In my opinion, the Cariboo Regional Board is really loaded a

little heavily on the rural side, and that is where the vote was close

that they had within the board itself to hold a plebiscite. The vote

was 12 to 10. There are 22 votes on the regional board, but it failed

by a vote of 12 to 10.

Now after this and the pressure on them by a lot of citizens of the

area, they have now come up with the idea that rather than opt in with

Thompson-Nicola, they want to go it on their own. They are coming to

see you.

There are several questions there but it is quite a controversy.

Really, I think in both areas, the Thompson-Nicola and the Cariboo,

they will be the sufferers, because an upgraded library service will

not be available because of the stand taken. I would like to hear the

views at this juncture from the Minister.

HON. MR. HALL: First of all, I would like to thank the Hon.

Member for the work he's done in trying to reverse that decision. I

know he's done the work because on Friday last I addressed the library

association, some hundreds of delegates meeting in convention in

Richmond.

In a little get-together prior to the meeting I had the opportunity

of talking to a great number of delegates at that convention in

private. And a number of delegates, who were very upset, as you are,

Mr. Member, about the situation, praised you for your efforts.

I think I would be less than doing my duty if I didn't convey that message to you.

The vote you refer to indicates the seriousness of the situation,

when a 50-50 split on having a vote seems to me to be really cocking

one's snoot at democracy. Obviously to decide anything, you should have

a vote. It is a little odd to understand.

It is true to say if you examine the estimates over the three books

that are currently before us, I think it is fair to say that

percentage-wise the amount of money the government is giving to the

development of libraries has increased probably more than almost any of

the votes in government. I am rather proud of that.

I have also got a commitment from the cabinet and the Treasury Board

that the vote will be increased as the systems come in. I am sending

over to you the booklet on the systems which answers most of your

questions about funding.

If you join the system you get all sorts of grants — basic $10,000

grants, $1 per capita for this, $2 per capita for that and you get….

Frankly, it is one of the most attractive formula proposals I have ever

seen. It was worked out prior to my assuming office. I'm not taking

credit; this was the Library Commission which was toiling away

unnoticed, unheralded and not supported in the sense of a government

decision to support the system.

I made that decision. The government made that decision. And now

they are away and we are running. The first one on line…. You beat

Vancouver easily, by being ready in the Cariboo and the Thompson-Nicola

area.

I provided money. In fact, money was provided first of all, extra to

that which was in the book. But at the last minute, as you say, the

Cariboo area backed out.

We are on stream now — $600,000 ready for the Thompson-Nicola. I

can't answer your questions until I discuss it, obviously, with the

board members. But it seems to me that when you get a deal going that

gives this kind of money, we have got to use, frankly, that sort of

incentive to get people to at least have a vote.

I am going to be a bit tough and a bit hard. But certainly we won't

let the library service necessarily deteriorate. When you consider what

you get, how you are plugged into the audio systems, all the non-print

media and the resources centre theory that is behind this programme,

they are very foolish not to allow it.

I again congratulate you. Perhaps we can jointly see them when they

come in. Perhaps we can all get together, and I invite you, obviously

as an important part of that decision-making process, to join me in

trying to persuade them.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, the Provincial Secretary has

a number of varied responsibilities. One that often goes unnoticed,

except every three or four years, is his responsibility for the

electoral process in the Province of British Columbia.

I think sometimes that the department is incorrectly named. It

should be the department of the political commissar, or something.

Can you imagine, Mr. Chairman, chasing this secretary around the desk?

At any rate, may I ask the Hon. Provincial Secretary, if the

government and his department, through the Registrar of Voters, has

under active consideration of redrawing of the constituency boundaries

of this province? We have had since 1965-66 a significant increase in

the population of the province. Not only have we had an increase in our

overall population, but there have been some significant and startling

shifts of population.

I don't need to remind the Provincial Secretary of that because his

own constituency is one which has experienced a growth which I suppose

some might call phenomenal. I don't think it is phenomenal; it is

natural growth in the Surrey constituency.

Therefore, I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if the Provincial Secretary could

indicate when we may expect to see an independent, impartial commission

[ Page 3199 ]

established to consider the matter of electoral boundary reforms, so

we can approach even more closely than was the case following the last

distribution some equality of vote representation by population in

British Columbia.

HON. MR. HALL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Memb