1970 Legislative Session: ist Session, 29th 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)

MONDAY, JANUARY 26, 1970

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 17 ]

MONDAY, JANUARY 26, 1970

The House met at 2 p.m.

THRONE DEBATE

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. DAVID BARRETT (Coquitlam): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that

they have installed new microphones because I have always had some

difficulty with my voice in the past. I want to say at the outset that

I welcome the new members here in the House, and I appreciate the

comments of good wishes from the Premier. I know that if I am in any

trouble at all, Mr. Speaker, the first person to help me out of a jam

will be the Premier, and I look forward to his counsel and advice. I,

too, understand that he must leave early today and I can appreciate

that he has very good reasons for that. No, it's not because of my

speech. I must tell you a bit of an amusing story — I did bring my new

suit with me today, but I forgot my belt, so I have a borrowed belt,

something borrowed, I have a new suit, something new, and what I have

that is blue is all the bad news for the Government. May I say to the

new members that it is difficult for me to realize that this is almost

my tenth year here, and time goes very fast, and for some of us,

regretfully, time is very devastating. The mortality rate in terms of

political life is very severe, especially on this side of the House

anyway, and it seems that ten years have gone by very, very quickly.

When I came to this House, at this date some years ago, the member from

Kootenay was celebrating his birthday, and today is his birthday and he

is 62 years young …(applause)… I think the way things are going he

and the Premier are going to be here for another 100 years. They are

the two senior members of the House, and they seem to have long

political lives and in the political parlance, twelve votes is as good

as a 1,000 as long as you win, and I'm glad that my friend is back with

us.

I don't know all the new members, but I hope to meet them very

shortly, but I am very, very happy with the new member we have from New

Westminster and I'm sure he will give a terrific account of himself. I

thought I could spend some time reviewing the election, but there was

not very much good news in it so I thought I wouldn't spend too much

time reviewing the election. The Premier won a magnificent victory, and

he is to be congratulated for that. It was only afterwards that we

found out he was plugged in to God, and some of us have been asking the

question, who was it — was it the B.C. Telephone Company — or was it

the member from Kamloops who plugged him in, but in any event, he seems

to be on the line. He plugged himself in. Well, I won't say anything

more about that. In terms of the position I find myself in, I thought

that I would really be able to come up with those kinds of statements

that I was plugged in to God, or I was ordained, and my ego really did

take a bit of a boost over the fact that all of a sudden I found myself

as Leader of the Opposition, and to really impress me about this, I was

pleased that my wife and my children were excited about it, too. As a

matter of fact, a reporter phoned my home shortly after I was named the

Leader of the Party, and the reporter asked, "Is the House Leader

there?" and my son answered immediately by saying "Just a minute, I'll

get my mother." A prophet without recognition in his own home. I've had

some anxiety and pleasure about approaching my job, and I've tried to

find out some way of describing it, and the best analogy I can make is

almost like a porcupine approaching the problem of making love. It has

both pleasure and anxiety built in. But if you think that we have

trouble, one of our troubles has been reduced by the fact that our

ranks are reduced…

SOME HON. MEMBERS: …Right…right!

MR. BARRETT: …it cuts the competition down. But what are

you going to do over there? I think you have to look to Shakespeare for

some of the answers to problems faced by the Government. Who is going

to be Brutus? Please stand up! …(laughter)… Where is Cassius? And

then of course, we look for Lady Macbeth! Other things have happened

that can be related to Shakespeare. After all, who else could make the

resurrection of King Lear as quickly as the Premier of this Province

did.

You know, Mr. Speaker, it was interesting to see that the former

Minister of Highways has been now placed in the position of being the

Minister of Welfare. He's going to change the name of the Department. I

imagine he is going to start some re-training and rehabilitation

programme. Some wag suggested to me that probably the first thing he

would do is give a course in real estate development alongside

highways, Mr. Speaker, because many people have been helped from

unemployment on that particular course of action, and I know that the

Minister wants free enterprise to be spread amongst the poor. So I look

forward to seeing him develop that course. Some of us have long

memories, and I haven't forgotten many things that have taken place in

this House. I regret that in the printed version of the Speech from the

Throne, Mr. Speaker, there is no mention of the passing of Alex

Matthews, former member from Vancouver Centre. It was mentioned in the

Speech from the Throne, but if you check the printed version, it was

regretfully omitted, and I hope that something can be done about that.

I went through the Speech from the Throne and I noticed a number of

very interesting statements. A lot of them are comparable to other

Speeches from the Throne. On page five, there's a statement saying the

expansion of the industrial and commercial life of the Province

continues to be reflected in the outstanding rate of growth in the

labour force and improved working conditions. I'm pleased to note that

last year there were more persons employed in British Columbia than

ever before. What the Speech didn't mention, Mr. Speaker, was that

there are more unemployed in British Columbia than ever before, and

there are more people on Social Assistance rolls in British Columbia

than ever before in the history of this Province. The last statistics

would indicate that we would be well over the 100,000 mark of people on

social welfare in this Province, and they can't all be deadbeats, Mr.

Speaker. There is no mention in the Speech from the Throne about that.

Yet when they talk about employment, they also brag about the fact

that Japan is becoming our second largest customer. This Government

can't see the foolishness of the fantastic commitment we have made in

our economy of exporting raw material to feed another country's economy

without the profit even staying here in British Columbia. Both the

Kaiser Corporation, that is exporting coal at a fantastic rate from

British Columbia, and other primary investments in this Province are

reaping the profits to be taken out of British Columbia and spent

somewhere else. The audacity of the Kaiser deal, Mr. Speaker, was the

fact that out of the $55,000,000 that they were to spend on capital

investment, $35,000,000 of it was borrowed from Canadian

[ Page 18 ]

banks. Taken out of Canadian banks, out of Canadian

taxpayers and Canadian wage-earners, little bits of savings to finance

a huge American Corporation to exploit our resources and not leaving

any kind of pool funds for mortgages for the average wage-earner to

have a chance of building a home in this Province. I don't think it's

anything to boast about, and this Government shouldn't have put it in

the Throne Speech. I noticed on Page 6 it mentions that the gaol

population is down, and it's true, but part of the reason is, Mr.

Speaker, that the system of putting the chronic alcoholics into Oakalla

has been terminated, which was a good move. But we still have no

detoxification centre in Vancouver and the chronic alcoholic is just

sobered up in the city gaol and turned out on the street to continue

the same pattern of behaviour, without any commitment by this

Government towards service or rehabilitation. Over $60,000,000 a year

is made in the sale of alcohol, and despite all the pleas by every

member in this House against the evils of alcohol, except for a few — most of us are against the use of alcohol — this Government continues

to ignore its moral responsibility in providing services to people who

are chronic alcoholics, and I think it's regrettable.

Of course, one of the things that's also missing from the Throne

Speech is the chronic care hospital promise. You remember that promise?

That was good for an election in 1965, '60, 1963. As a matter of fact

one of the members who used it as a lead item in his '63 campaign and

was elected at that time lost in '66 because he didn't fulfil that

promise, but he is back in the House, Mr. Speaker, and I hope to see

him on his feet fighting for chronic care hospitals as soon as

possible. But some of the members on that side of the House, Mr.

Speaker, are committed to the philosophy of "why ruin a good promise by

doing something about it?" They've been using those promises year in

and year out and hundreds of people, thousands of people, are faced

with economic ruin because of the fantastic cost of chronic hospital

care. I was amused, Mr. Speaker, to get the new catch phrase. Was it

from the O'Brien agency? Was it our friend Bill Clancey? Or was it from

Lovick's? How much do you pay for the words "human betterment", "good

life", "rounded life", "debt-free", "time-table for progress", "keep

B.C. moving", "dynamic year"? This is the most sloganeering Government

that British Columbia ever had, and now of course there is this

"rounded-life" gag that we've got in the Throne Speech. I remember the

Throne Speech that came in one year — "human betterment" — "now is the

time — we're going to spend all of our efforts in human betterment".

The Minister of Municipal Affairs was then newly made the Minister of

Welfare. He was going to charge in with his input-output theory and he

was going to put all the welfare recipients in one end and the money in

the other end and pull the lever and thus solve the problem in the

middle. Somebody pulled the plug on him, and away he went and left the

idea of human betterment, and now we've gone into the rounded life. I

don't think it's fair to the new Minister of Welfare to talk about the

rounded life…(laughter)…but I want to tell you this, Mr. Speaker,

that the changes of name and the quick answer and the insults to people

who are on welfare in this Province do nothing to solve a vexing

problem, not caused by democratic socialism, Mr. Speaker, but caused by

freebooting private enterprise that has privilege for few in our

society. Mr. Speaker, it's their welfare system caused under their

society, not the kind of world we want to live in nor the kind of world

we want our children living in, and the 49,000 children who have to

rely on social assistance should not be classified as dead-beats;

they've never even had a chance at life. It's really ridiculous to see

the kind of sloganeering that goes on. Let's have some progressive

ideas. Let's have some projects. Let's have a change of attitude. But

let's not carry on the myth that somehow people on welfare are

dead-beats, Mr. Speaker. They'd like a chance at the good life too, and

we've got to give them that chance.

I would think, Mr. Speaker, that this is the first time we haven't

heard about the Government's disaster fund. You remember a few years

ago we set aside $50,000 to deal with disasters as they showed up in

the world? I'm not talking about the election disaster — $50,000.

couldn't solve that one — but I do think now is the opportunity for the

Premier of this Province to announce in this House that, despite

Ottawa's hesitation and Ottawa's stupidity in its hesitation, some of

that disaster fund will be released by the people of British Columbia

to help relieve the starvation in Biafra. I think that the Federal

Government is showing a singular lack of action and concern over a

severe problem. Everybody in the world knows that Canada has no vested

interest in that problem over there and I know that there isn't anybody

in this House who would oppose the immediate granting of some funds to

the Nigerian government or to the International Red Cross to see if we

can do something to help in our own little way here in British

Columbia. I don't think we should wait for Ottawa. We've waited too

long for them for so many things.

I also note, Mr. Speaker, that in the Throne Speech there was no

mention of the schools freeze. The construction of schools has been

frozen, and the member from Delta was on his feet in this House on

Friday and I expected him to get up and attack the Minister of

Education, and I expected him at least to attack the Minister of

Finance over the fact that in Delta one of the most severe problems of

school overcrowding exists. Delta is even growing faster than

Coquitlam, Mr. Speaker, and I don't want the Chamber of Commerce of

Coquitlam to find out that I said that, but it's true, and where was

the member from Delta? Was he up asking for more school facilities for

his constituency, or was he up fighting the Minister, saying "you've

forgotten us in Delta"? Was he attacking the Premier as the Minister of

Finance? No, no — he was attacking Ottawa. He said Ottawa was trying to

make Delta a different country. I want to tell you, if I lived in Delta

and was treated that way by this Government over the school issue I

would ask for Ottawa's protection, Mr. Speaker. If this Government

can't assume its responsibilities in protecting the children of Delta

and guaranteeing them a decent education, then of course they should

look for more vigorous action. I'll give the member another chance to

redeem himself. He can go down the corridor right now and demand,

through a press conference, for a release of funds for Delta and all

the other school districts, because I know that this Government is

deeply concerned about the education of its youngsters in this

Province. Why else would the school freeze be lifted briefly last

Spring? Someone suggested the school freeze was lifted just because an

election was coming. Now who would say such a thing like that about

this Government? Shame is right. No-one in this Government would play

politics with the education opportunities of the children of British

Columbia. Although some of my friends in the Liberal Party are cynical

of my approach, I want to assure them that I am doing my best to

convince people that they weren't playing politics with the children,

that it was just by accident that the freeze was lifted prior to the

election and put on after the election campaign was over. In

[ Page 19 ]

Coquitlam we have thousands of children on shift,

we have an extreme problem of having inadequate facilities to house

children. I made a tour of some of our school facilities prior to

coming to the House, and I think it's regrettable that the Government

hasn't taken positive action to release funds that people have freely

and democratically voted on to spend for themselves. It's not a

question, Mr. Speaker, of people asking for things that they already

haven't made decisions on. In the democratic structure of School

Districts that this Government boasts about we have passed referenda

and we have asked for the money that we wish to spend on our children's

behalf, and this Government refuses to give it to us. If that isn't the

hand of big oppressive government I don't know what is, Mr. Speaker.

Don't you believe in democracy? You've gone one further and you've

ruled out even the opportunity for people to vote on referenda.

And then of course the whole question of democracy — I have watched

the Minister of Municipal Affairs and how he handles himself in the law

and order syndrome and I watched him do the kind of dance around the

tulip that he's so famous for. You know, Mr. Speaker….

AN HON. MEMBER: He's a new Tiny Tim…. (laughter)….

MR. BARRETT: Yeah, well he's Tiny Tim without a Vicki, I'll

tell you. But I watched him and, you know, it was very interesting. He

was on this committee that was dealing with the possibility of oil

drilling in the Gulf. He says "We'll do what we want. Ottawa will mind

its own business, and they can take their laws. We're going to do what

we want here in British Columbia, you're the law," says the Minister.

"We're not going to drill in the Gulf, we're going to go at it from an

angle." And then I thought, "He's moving on, he's doing the right

thing." Then I heard the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources say

"No, no, we're going to drill in the Gulf." But the compromise is that

they're going to be drilling in the Gulf on an angle, they're going to

lie on their backs while they're drilling in the Gulf, and that's the

kind of garbled report that they're going to give. We know very well

that if they want to drill any oil wells, break any Federal law in

existence, law and order stops over there, Mr. Speaker. We've seen it

in the Stellako River log drive. We've seen how you act towards Federal

laws — you ignore them. You think you're a law unto yourself. But then

watch the same Minister turn the page when Delta signs an agreement

with the National Harbours Board and then the wrath of the Minister

rises up and he says "You can't do that, you're breaking the law," and

all the outrageous words of frustration and anxiety pour out from the

Minister. Where do you stand on this? Do you agree in breaking the

Federal law? Stand up and be counted, for the people will know where

you stand. Break the Federal law when you can do it, but if it's

anything else — don't do it. Now Big Daddy, I mean Minister of

Municipal Affairs, I think you have to go over and talk to those

people. Standing on the Island here and yelling across isn't going to

solve anything.

I'm glad that that Minister (Hon. W.D. Black) is back, because he

reminds me now of something I wanted to tell him, and I'd almost

forgotten about it. He's living down here, the comfortable life, but I

was in his constituency just before Christmas and it was most

interesting. When I toured the Member's constituency I took a bus from

Nelson to Cranbrook. I didn't have a chauffeur, because I wasn't

carrying any films with me, but I took a bus through a number of small

towns on the way to Cranbrook, and in one particular small town, the

name of which I'll give the Minister after I'm finished speaking as I

don't wish to raise it here in the House, the bus stopped in front of

what I thought was a shack. It had nothing more than two rooms, Mr.

Speaker, and in the front yard was a pile of coal covered with a little

bit of snow, and a couple of dogs. As the bus stopped a woman got on

board. She was in her mid-forties — no teeth. A man and three children

came out of the house dressed in rags, Mr. Speaker, and I'm not

exaggerating. That dull, overwhelming look of poverty on the children's

faces, the father standing with a ripped shirt saying goodbye to his

wife, all three children with very, very bad teeth. And that's not new,

we've heard many, many reports of the condition of children's teeth in

the Province. The thing that struck me, Mr. Speaker, was the similarity

of the situation I had found in that shack outside of Nelson to the

trip that I had taken in Mexico this Summer. Rural poverty, Mr.

Speaker, is the same in British Columbia as it was in Mexico, but at

least in Mexico the clothing was better, and if you don't believe that,

Mr. Attorney-General, I'll tell you the place and you can come with me

and we'll go there. The Minister knows that there are some rural areas

in this Province that are so poverty-stricken it makes you wonder

whether or not these people have ever heard of the good life. The kind

of tar-paper shacks that people have to live in in the rural British

Columbia is unbelievable. Mud shacks in Mexico, but at least the

weather is warmer there, Mr. Speaker, the weather is warmer there and

mud is water-proof. I wouldn't have mentioned this except that the

Minister reminded me he was here, and I thought I would tell him how

things were up in his riding, because they're a little concerned that

he doesn't spend as much time as he should up there. But I said he's

doing a good job down here. I praised him up to the skies — I figured

that would cost him a few votes anyway.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we've had some amusing happenings since the

election. One of the most amusing was the announcement by Dr. Gordon

Shrum that there'd be an increase in hydro rates. Now this wasn't news,

Mr. Speaker. Earlier this year, in September of this year, I revealed

that there had been a secret minute of a Hydro Executive Meeting,

indicating that from July of this year there would be an increase in

hydro rates simply because costs were soaring and they couldn't handle

the budget. That was known before the election, Mr. Speaker, but never

a word was mentioned about it. "Well, they didn't tell Mr. O'Brien",

says the member from West Vancouver–Howe Sound. I didn't know that he

had to clear everything, but the interesting thing was after I made the

statement that there was this secret minute, Dr. Shrum denied it.

"That's nonsense," he said, "everything is lovely in the garden.

There's not going to be any hydro rate increase — I don't know where

Barrett gets this stuff from, he just doesn't know what he is talking

about." So I immediately gave the press a copy of the minute, and Dr.

Shrum's reaction was "Oh — the secret minute." Then the Doctor went on

to say, in describing this — and I get along very well with him, I

think I've met him — he went on to say, "You know, a social worker

shouldn't talk about hydro rates." I know I shouldn't, the mess it is

in I'm sure to get a shock, Mr. Speaker. But everybody pays hydro bills

here, and I wouldn't ever lower myself to attack anybody who speaks

about hydro rates, even hardware merchants, they are all free to talk

about hydro rates if they want to. They won't need permission from me.

[ Page 20 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: That's taking a superior attitude.

MR. BARRETT: …not a superior attitude, I'm just trying to

get myself up to the pedestal of Dr. Shrum, because I know that all

good blessings flow from him through the Premier. He has admitted that

all decisions of the hydro are political. But because I said that I

would like to talk about his minutes, Dr. Shrum then admitted that

there were minutes, and that I was correct in quoting him. But he said,

"I'm standing by everything I said in regard to Mr. Barrett's

statement, there never were any secret minutes, if he, Barrett, had

wanted this information he could have asked for it." Isn't that nice? I

was very happy to see that, so what I did, Mr. Speaker, was that after

I saw that report in the paper on the 25th, on the 26th I wrote the

following letter to Dr. Shrum: "Dear Sir: Would you please be kind

enough to add my name to the mailing list for the B.C. Hydro and Power

Authority's Executive Minutes. Thank you for your cooperation." And do

you know what happened? I got two replies. And it's not at all as he

said in the paper. "October 3rd. — Dear Mr. Barrett: (that's very

nice)…. I wish to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 26th of

September asking that your name be added to the mailing list for B.C.

Hydro and Power Authority's Executive Minutes. At the present time

these minutes are distributed to the Director, our division heads, and

a few department managers. However, I shall put your request on the

agenda at the next meeting of the Executive Management Committee and

our secretary will advise you whether or not your request has been

granted." Well, after all, he said in the paper all I would have to do

is ask for them. And then I got the reply on October 14th — "Dear Mr.

Barrett: (Dr. Shrum isn't writing me any more…. it's from his

secretary) Dr. Shrum has submitted to the Executive Management

Committee the request contained in your letter of the 26th of

September. The Committee has instructed me to advise you that your

request cannot be granted." Now who is running things over there, the

secretary or Dr. Shrum? They are not going to give me the minutes, and

I want to say that whoever dropped those previous minutes in the mail

to me for my attention, the leak in the Committee is most welcome, and

I would like to have some more minutes because I can't get them from

the top.

MR. H.P. CAPOZZI (Vancouver Centre): Five more minutes….

MR. BARRETT: Well now, there's the happy voice of the member from Vancouver Centre. I'm glad that that member is back with us this year.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear! Hear!

MR. BARRETT: I'm glad that that member is back with us this

year. If we are going to suffer the 38 of them, we might as well have

the worst one with the bunch…. (laughter)…. if we have to live

through that we might as well go whole hog. But you know, Mr. Speaker,

it's interesting to go along with the power rates. When I said that the

Government knew in June, and Dr. Shrum denied that the minutes were

there, and then he said, "Oh, those minutes." and everything else. The

interesting thing is that Dr. Shrum gives the bad news. All of you who

are students of political science as I am remember the Premier going

out to the little town of Chilliwack after the B.C. Hydro was taken

over, and standing up and announcing, "B.C. Hydro rates will be reduced

every year for ten years."

AN HON. MEMBER: He can't count.

MR. BARRETT: Well, when his prediction came apart, who did he

get to announce it? Dr. Shrum. No wonder Dr. Shrum is piqued, no wonder

he's upset — he had to carry all the bad news. I have great sympathy

for Dr. Shrum, and I'm sure that like the other 36 civil servants he'll

get a gold watch for his many years of service. That was very important

to put in the Throne Speech. No mention of collective bargaining for

the civil servants, but they did throw around a few gold watches. No,

they can't afford an electric watch, as my friend says, but I'm sure

that the Doctor will earn his too. But the Doctor made an interesting

statement: "Political decision Hydro policy." I would like to ask the

Government right now, what are the political decisions? I know that the

hydro directors who are here in this House will stand up and bare the

facts as to what has caused the increase in the hydro rates, and also

we would like to hear how much money they are behind on the Columbia

River deal. They got skinned, Mr. Speaker, and now it's coming home to

roost. There will be a great deal more said about hydro rates during

this Session, but I would just like to share with you this excerpt from

the Dominion Bureau of Statistics on electricity bills. December, 1969,

Domestic power rates across Canada, Ottawa for 500 kw per month: $4.14,

1,000 — $6.52. York, Ontario — $5.75 for 500, $10.25 for 1,000.

Winnipeg — $6.21 for 500, $11.12 for 1,000. Edmonton — $7.00 for 500,

$12.00 for 1,000. Toronto — $7.35 for 500, $13.65 for 1,000. Calgary — $7.45 for 500, $12.95 for 1,000. Regina — $9.35 for 500, $16.40 for

1,000. Vancouver — $9.98 for 500, $15.23 for 1,000. We have the highest

hydro rates for home users anywhere in Canada outside of 1000 kw per

month for Regina. This great Province, abundantly endowed with rivers

and hydro resources, has the highest monthly hydro rate of anywhere in

Canada, except Regina. That's flat prairie with no Hydro resources at

all. It's twice the amount than Ottawa, one-third more than Winnipeg,

and one-fourth more than Edmonton. Some power policy, some reduction,

some help it is to fight inflation here in British Columbia. The

greatest fiasco on the hands of this Government, Mr. Speaker, is its

power policy come home to roost, and when I've written the Ministers

asking for an estimation of the cost of Peace River power, either I

don't get an answer, or I get an answer like the one I got from Dr.

Shrum that is straight flim-flam. We'll spend a great deal more of this

Session, Mr. Speaker, discussing the hydro situation in this Province.

Politics! Politics! Politics! It interfered in every single hydro

decision made by this Province, and the man who tells us this is not

someone in the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, it is the man who is the

chairman of B.C. Hydro itself, and who am I to doubt his word, even

though he didn't send me the minutes.

Now Mr. Speaker, I want to spend

just a few moments more, I'm not going to speak very long today, much

to the pleasure, I'm sure, of the members back there, I want to spare

you the agony. I know how difficult it is for you to suffer through

this, but I thought that I would just spend a few moments talking about

a particular resource in this Province, and how a Government confuses

itself around this resource. Why does confusion happen? How, when they

had the advice of the member of the Opposition to warn them of the

pitfalls of what they were going into rather than listen and heed, Mr.

Speaker, they charged on full blast. It will come as a surprise to some of you that I'm going to talk

[ Page 21 ]

about Cypress Bowl. I've spoken on this subject for five years in

this House, although my friend the Liberal member from West Vancouver

said in 1968 I was just making up this issue…

AN HON. MEMBER: Playing politics.

MR. BARRETT: …playing politics with the issue when I spoke

about it every year for five years. I excuse him if he is going to

sleep through some of my speeches. Mr. Perreault, who used to be a

member of this House, and Mr. Gordon Gibson, who used to be a member of

this House — they both attacked me for raising the Cypress Bowl issue.

I don't want to belabour the member for West Vancouver, Mr. Speaker.

The Liberal members have enough trouble, there they are squeezed

between the two parties they dislike — it's bad enough living in here

without having it hammered into them. But they are the purest, and I

want to show you how they are able to change their position without

even the noise of gear shifting taking place; they are the most

shiftless policy changers that I know…

AN HON. MEMBER: Hydromatic.

MR. BARRETT: …but that's a separate story, Mr. Speaker.

The hydromatic policy switchers. Back in 1965 I was concerned about

Cypress Bowl, and I wrote the Minister of Recreation and Conservation

about the area. You see, I knew that an Order-in-Council existed, that

had been passed in 1944 by a previous Government to acquire this area

for parks purposes. That's why the trade took place, that's what made

it legal. We gave away other timber areas to acquire Cypress Bowl for a

park. It was unique. It was declared by law to be acquired for parks — that's the only way it could have been acquired.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who said that?

MR. BARRETT: Would you like a copy of this? I made a couple

of copies available to the Minister because he didn't seem to know it

was around. That was the great Liberal government, and I hope the

emphasis is correct. Being somewhat innocent five and six years ago, I

wrote the Minister of Recreation and Conservation, and said, "Tell me,

what is the status of this parkland?" This is a letter I got back at

that time from the Minister of Recreation and Conservation — "November

30, 1964. Dear Mr. Barrett: Re: Cypress Bowl. I have your letter of the

19th of November re: the above. This is not park land. The original

reserve was for watershed purposes, and I understand it is no longer

required." That's in conflict with the Order-in-Council. At the time I

raised this in the House, Mr. Speaker, you know what happened? When I

read the Minister's letter to him he accused me of being devious. Can

you imagine anyone being accused of being devious simply for reading a

letter that a Minister wrote. I can't help what was in that letter. The

Order-in-Council stands, Mr. Speaker, and there's been no alteration of

the legal status of that Cypress Bowl area and it should be a park and

it should never have been alienated.

Then, of course, we had the promoters come in with none other than

Bill Clancey, one of the shadowmen who deals with this Government. Time

and time again his name has come up. The member from Vancouver–Point

Grey wants to know who he is. The previous Liberal leader said he was a

fine upstanding citizen of West Vancouver, when the former Liberal

leader was backing this plan.

Anyway, there was a great controversy over logging, and at that time

even our friend from West Vancouver was backing the logging. He said,

and I quote from the Vancouver Province of November 20th, 1968:

"Liberal MLA Allan Williams of West Vancouver jumped into the Cypress

Bowl controversy Tuesday, charging the issue as being a political

manoeuvre by the New Democratic Party." There he is, a member of the

N.D.P. is attempting to further personal political ambitions. Look what

happened to me, my friends, you're wrong again. "Charges that the

project is a profitable exploitation of public land are a smoke screen

to obscure lack of constructive land development problems. Another

spokesman for the Socialists," said Williams, "suggested the

development should have been undertaken by the Regional park

authorities, and" Williams said more seriously, "this statement

indicates clearly that if this development were to be placed under the

N.D.P. the costs would be added to the burden already carried on by the

local taxpayer." Mr. Member, get together with your leaders. Who wants

it placed under the Regional Parks authority, and to even quote you,

Mr. Member, through you, Mr. Speaker, on November 25th, 1969, saying,

"MLA Allan Williams demanded Monday night that West Vancouver halt the

controversial Cypress Bowl project until the Regional Parks District

agrees to develop the area…or let us stay there until the trees

grow back." Oh, Mr. Member, repent now. You know, Mr. Speaker, I don't

like to rough him up on this deal because he was really an innocent.

How anybody in West Vancouver could be an innocent is a good question,

but he was an innocent, and we won't bother with his problems any more.

But I want to narrow the whole thing down to the strange events in

fall of '69, when we found the Bahamas Port Authorities through the

Benguet Corporation, was going to become a partner of Alpine Outdoor

Resources in the development of this area. It started off very simply.

We have a quote from November 17th, 1969 from the Vancouver Sun

saying "Municipal Affairs Minister Dan Campbell has held a secret

meeting with the West Vancouver Mayor Alec Forst in an attempt to bring

complete control of the Cypress Bowl Development into Provincial hands.

Forst and West Vancouver Manager E.G. Barnes revealed the meeting this

morning." Then, on November 18th when people found out who the Benguet

Corporation was, we have the following statement from the

Attorney-General. "Attorney-General Peterson promised Monday to

investigate the background of a Manila-based firm that is involved in

the financing of Cypress Bowl. 'I can say that anything to do with

organized or syndicated crime is not welcome in British Columbia',

Peterson said. 'Even if it's money?' said a reporter. 'Even if it's

money,' Peterson stated." The Minister should talk to his colleagues.

That wasn't the initial reaction of the Minister of Lands and Forests,

Mr. Speaker, his reaction was, we don't have to check out where the

money comes from. Then on November 18th we had a statement from Alec

Forst, the Mayor of West Vancouver. Peterson also appeared to be in

conflict with Mayor Forst. The Mayor said, after Council meeting Monday

night, "We want a ski development in Cypress Bowl. Does it really

matter where the money comes from as long as we get the development we

want?" That's his statement and he can live by it.

The Sun learned that five members of The West Vancouver Council were

told by Municipal Minister, Dan Campbell, Oct. 10 that the Bowl

developers had offered a multi-million dollar performance bond. Exit

the Minister of Municipal Affairs. He

[ Page 22 ]

knows when to get out. The Minister visited West Vancouver October

the 10th, but the Council of West Vancouver did not find out that

Benguet was involved until a month later. Did that Minister know that

Benguet was involved? In a statement from West Vancouver Council on

November 2ist, "After an extraordinary two-hour breakfast meeting

today, the Council said it knew from a visit by Municipal Affairs

Minister Dan Campbell, that further financing was being sought for the

development. But Campbell gave no indication of a change of ownership

and the first the Council knew of the change was a story in the

Vancouver Sun." What did the Minister know and what was he over there for?

Now we begin to see the explanation of the entrance of Benguet, and

remember this was a hot and hectic news item for a number of weeks. It

got a number of Ministers very, very excited, and almost cost a

reporter a shirt. On November the 25th, "Lands and Forests Minister

Williston said today that Wallace Groves, (Wallace Groves is the

President of the Benguet Corporation), Wallace Groves wrote to him in

September asking about development in Cypress Bowl. Williston, talking

to reporters today, said he received a letter sometime in September.

Williston said the letter referred to discussions a Manila-based

company had had with Alpine Outdoor Resources Limited", referred to a

discussion that Alpine had with Benguet. Williston had said Monday

night in Victoria that the leases had not been signed on behalf of his

Department of the Provincial Government, although leases had been

granted which the Minister had denied. He then retracted and said that

it had been signed by his Deputy, Mr. Borthwick. The Minister had said

earlier in the day that he would not grant leases on Cypress land, on

Crown land in Cypress Bowl, while the Attorney-General's Department is

investigating new participants in a company planning recreational

development. The very minute he was saying that, the leases had already

been signed, Mr. Speaker.

Then on November the 26th he explains the error. He goes on to

explain that, "Representatives of Benguet Corporation have been dealing

with the Provincial Government for months on a proposal that includes

the sale of residential lots in West Vancouver's Cypress Bowl…. Lands

and Forests Minister Williston said his Department has granted

three-year leases to Cypress Bowl developers for 632 acres of Crown

land…. Williston had said Monday that no leases had been granted….

Williston said Monday's denial that the leases had been issued was due

to confusion. 'I led to the confusion. I was in error.' He meant to say

that developers had to get approval of a development plan from the

Government before they could go ahead, rather than getting actual

leases."

Williston released the text of a letter from Groves. This is the

letter that Mr. Groves wrote: "Dear Sir: As you know, we, on our behalf

and on behalf of the associated companies, are negotiating for the

takeover of Alpine Outdoor Recreation Resources…. We would like to

make clear to you our position with regard to the present commitments

of Alpine Outdoor Recreation Resources Ltd….

(1) We expect to

complete the major access road in accordance with the provisional

standards…

(2) We intend to develop, construct and make whatever

capital investment is required to create public recreational

facilities…" Then it goes on, it says, "We intend to develop fully

serviced recreational homesites for sale to the public…." That's

what it said in the letter. It goes on to say "We intend to develop all

necessary commercial or additional resort-type facilities…"and

everything else. Then it concludes with this interesting paragraph. "We

wish to thank you and your office for the assistance which you have

given our representatives in developing the background information and

in understanding the Government's philosophy in creating the Valley

Royal complex."

This is what the Minister said about that letter. To a suggestion

that there had been previous correspondence between himself and Groves,

Williston said, and I quote "No previous correspondence." Asked to

explain at what level contacts had been made, he said "A representative

had probably discussed it with a Departmental official." He himself may

have discussed the project in general terms with Departmental

officials. "I never had any long discussion," he said. Asked with whom

he had discussed the outlining of the background of philosophy, he said

"I don't recall specifically, it may have been Eadie." Mr. Eadie was

the principal of the company.

Then, of course, the Government announced that it would reconsider

whether or not Benguet could come in. The Attorney-General's

investigation was still going on, and at that time, on November the

27th, the Vancouver Province

announced that they had been in

touch with a Roland Crandall, the Vice-President of Allen and Co. of

New York City, an investment and banking firm and the third largest

stockholder in Benguet. I think it is coincidental that Allen and Co.

is one of the principals in a consortium that handled B.C. Hydro bonds.

But the interesting fact is that the Minister said that he knew nothing

about the Allen and Co. that's involved with Benguet. Yet he is a

director of Hydro, and I quote, November 28th, 1969, "Williston was

asked if he is familiar with the investment firm, Allen and Co. of New

York, which has been involved in marketing B.C. Hydro securities…and

is a shareholder in Benguet. Williston, a director of B.C. Hydro,

said he was not aware of Allen and Co." I found out who Allen and Co.

was within fifteen minutes, and they are in a consortium that handles

B.C. Hydro bonds, and I would have thought that the directors of B.C.

Hydro would know who is selling their bonds.

Here are excerpts from the Vancouver Province of a

conversation with Mr. Crandall of the Benguet Corporation. "Total

investment in the proposed recreation-hotel-residential complex would

be at least 25 million dollars, possibly as much as 50 million dollars,

with skiing facilities used as a come-on, the way we use gambling

casinos in the Bahamas. A basic idea behind all our projects is to make

a fast return on investment by developing and selling, or leasing,

residential land while hotel and recreational business builds up."

Crandall said "We got 75 per cent of Alpine's land holdings,

developments to date, plans and agreements." What agreements? Who said

that there could be any residential development in that area? Who said

there could be any subdivisions in there? Where in the world did

Benguet get the idea that there could be subdivisions allowed in that

area? "It looks like an exciting development," said Crandall. "I'm not

too worried about the opposition to it."

"Premier Bennett said Wednesday the entire Cypress

Bowl Development will be held in abeyance until the whole matter is

cleared up by an investigation now being made by the Attorney-General."

Then the heat was off for a little while. "The Provincial Government,"

it was announced on November 27th, "has told developers of Cypress Bowl

Recreation and Resources Development to get rid of the Benguet

Corporation which has gambling interests in the Bahamas or the deal is

off." What deal is off? "Resources Minister Ray Williston made the

announcement in a written statement today. He said Alpine can go ahead

with Cypress

[ Page 23 ]

Bowl Development providing they find financing that is acceptable to

the government." In November 28th, "The Benguet Corporation is

considering sending its top men (out of the Vancouver Sun, I

quote) top men to B.C. to try and persuade the government to allow it

to stay in the Cypress Bowl development plan. A Benguet official said

the move was suggested to them today by William Clancey, West Vancouver

public relations man. Clancey has been public relations man for the

Cypress Bowl development since its inception and has had long

association with Premier W.A.C. Bennett…. Roland Crandall said

Clancey had been on the telephone to the company's lawyer earlier today

and had suggested (he, Clancey suggested) the top men of the company

fly to B.C. to try to change the government's mind. Clancey's Vancouver

office said he was 'travelling' and not available for comment."

Then I made a public claim that the leases granted to Cypress Bowl

were illegal. The Minister denied that they were illegal. But then on

reading what I had said in my statement he agreed that the leases were

illegal because they had not been gazetted and, in fact, my information

actually gave him an out. So the leases were illegal, and Mr. R.W.

Redel said on December the 2nd that Barrett was right. The Director of

Lands confirmed that the lifting of a reserve was not gazetted, it was

strictly a clerical oversight, but it could be put in any time he

wanted to do it and that would validate the leases, said Redel.

Now we have all of this confusion around the leases, and we have all

this confusion around residential development, and we find that the

Minister was shocked to learn that an engineer had done a study for

8,958 residential lots in that area. The Minister wanted to know who

gave that electrical engineer the request to go in, the authority to go

in. Who requested him to do that study for 8,958 lots? On November the

27th the Minister said in the Vancouver Province, page 1, he

said and I quote, "I accept responsibility if anything goes

there."…. "I know of no situation that is as tightly controlled

as this happens to be." Williston rejected a reporter's suggestion that

recent disclosure suggests that something is fishy about the Cypress

Bowl development. "It has been spread on the table at all times."

That's what the Minister said. "That is completely unfair. Nothing can

move unless it happens to be approved by myself." Why did that engineer

go in and design electrical loads for 8,958 lots? That's my quote, not

the Minister's. The Minister said nothing goes without his approval.

Does that include plans for the subdivision?

On November the 26th, Mr. Speaker, the Government issued a

three-page statement, signed by the Minister, and the three-page

statement has a number of points. They're numbered. They go up to 26.

This statement was made available to the press and was widely

distributed in British Columbia. Item No. 20 says, and I read, "On June

6th, 1969, following concurrence by the municipality of an interim

logging report, the Minister renewed the cutting permit." June the 6th.

Point 21. "The Minister advised the Municipality by letter dated June

the 20th, 1969, of the current stage of negotiations with the

developers. This letter dealt with clearing the slopes, constructing

the access roads, the user charge, and the issuance of leases…." The

current stage of negotiation with the developers. That letter, too, was

made available by the Minister. You read the letter and there is no

mention of subdivision, there is no mention of developing home sites,

there is no mention of electrical loads going in for 8,958 lots. Where

in the world did Alpine and Benguet and that electrical engineer get

the idea that there was going to be a subdivision in there? This

confused the Minister. You wanted to know what was going on. He said

Benguet has been confused.

Williston was asked, December the 8th, 1969, by the Vancouver Sun

if the Benguet group had not carefully studied the three leases which

Alpine had been granted…. "'Well, they obviously interpreted — I can

only assume they interpreted them to mean that they had these rights

whereas they did not,' the Minister said. Williston said he believed

that the Benguet people were led to understand that the government had

given approval to a large commercial residential development in the

bowl." The Minister said that Benguet had been led to believe that.

That was on December the 8th, 1969, and the Minister wanted to know why

Benguet thought that way. On the same day the headline in the Vancouver

Province said "'Benguet bought the Brooklyn Bridge,'" says

Williston, an accusation by Lands and Forests Minister Williston that

Alpine Outdoor Recreation Resources Ltd. tried to sell government

rights it never had. "'This places a grave doubt on any future dealings

in resources by members of Alpine insofar as I am concerned,"'

Williston told the Province. He said he made his discovery about Alpine

on Friday morning at a brief meeting with the representatives of

Benguet." Benguet came to the Minister, Mr. Speaker, and said they

thought they had bought residential lots, a right to develop

subdivision, and when the Minister heard that, his response was that

Alpine was being nasty and should not have given that impression to

Benguet and therefore Alpine was no longer wanted by the Government in

the Cypress Bowl deal. He said "And I found out in unmistakable terms"

and I quote the Minister, "that what they thought Alpine had was rights

to a fairly large real estate development. In fact a large real estate

development had never been discussed, but they thought Alpine had

cleared all that." Now they thought they had a large real estate

development but the Minister said it had never been discussed, and I

could only gather that this was the basis of their interest rather than

a mere ski development. "I have no confidence in the management of the

Alpine Resources because they have not been acting in a responsible

manner," said the Minister. Who gave the indication of subdivision,

Mr. Speaker? The Minister was asked if somehow a civil servant could

have done that. "By telephone," he replied. On December the 8th, the

Vancouver Sun: "The Minister promised repercussions within his

department if he finds that civil servants indicated approval to Alpine

for a large scale residential development in Cypress Bowl instead of

the intended recreation development."

Alpine then wanted its turn, Mr. Speaker. After reading in the

newspaper what the Minister said about Alpine they came to Victoria and

they tried to clear their skirts. This is what the Minister said on

December the 11th, 1969, in the Vancouver Sun, "'Someone is not

telling the truth about the proposed subdivision of Crown land in

Cypress Bowl: Resources Minister Williston said today. The Minister

held an hour-long meeting this morning with George Reifel and C.H.

Wills, former officers of Alpine Outdoor Recreation Resources Ltd….

"'You have to accept people on their word," Williston told reporters

after the meeting. He said it is obvious that either the original

Alpine directors or their Bahamain executive successors,

representatives of Benguet Corporation, are not telling the truth.

However, he was not willing to say which group he thought it was."

I quote further — December the 11th, Vancouver Sun — after meeting with the Minister Alpine had said to the

[ Page 24 ]

Minister, and I quote the Minister, "They (Alpine) stated

unequivocally on two counts that they never at any time gave Benguet to

understand that they had rights to a real estate development other than

what was completely understood between themselves and myself". Here was

the Minister and Alpine. They had never at any time — that's a truthful

statement — and I'll refer to that later. Williston was asked if he

withdrew his earlier statements about Alpine trying to sell rights in

Cypress Bowl which it never had. "No", he said, "as I told you people,

they were given the opportunity to explain their actions and I have

certainly nothing to disprove their explanation". He said there is no

contradiction in what Alpine said it told Benguet and the understanding

between the Alpine directors and the Government. "Obviously, then,

someone is not telling the truth", a reporter suggested. "That's

right", Williston said. He was asked which group was not telling the

truth and he said "I haven't reached that conclusion yet, I'm just

telling you the situation". He said the only question which he wanted

answered was whether the Alpine group "openly misled me" — Williston.

"And did they?", he was asked. The Minister said "You accept people on

their word — I have no way to prove it".

What is the truth, Mr. Speaker? Who gave the indication that the

subdivisions were okay? What did Alpine have in its possession that

Benguet thought was worth a million dollars? Could civil servants have

given the okay without the Minister's knowledge? The Minister said not.

Why does the Minister blame Alpine for giving the wrong impression to

Benguet, then back off by saying someone is not telling the truth?

Maybe the answer lies in a letter not mentioned in the statement given

to the press and to the people of this Province in the

summary handed

out on November the 26th by the Minister. Between the items 20 and 21

there is another letter, Mr. Speaker, that has not been disclosed to

the public of this Province, and it is a letter sent to Alpine, and I

intend to read that letter now because in this letter lies the answer

to the confusion around the whole question of subdivision in Cypress

Bowl. It is a two-page letter, it is dated June the 17th, 1969, and it

is file No. 02500591. It is to the Alpine Outdoor Recreation Resources

Ltd. and, it is from the Department of Lands and Forests, and it says,

"Dear Sirs,

Reference is made to the studies which

have been carried out in the Cypress Bowl recreation area to determine

the feasibility of development of the subject land for both winter and

summer recreational use. Approval in principle to develop those

portions of the subject lands referred to as Areas 1 to 9 inclusive in

the Valley Rural Development Plan dated June the 4th, 1969, which has

been filed in the Department of Lands, Forests and Water Resources

under Plan 6, Tube 904 is hereby given on the following basis."….

Approval in principle is hereby given — approval in principle to the

plan of development is hereby given on the following basis….

"No. 1: Rights-of-way to accommodate the lift lines

will be issued subject to

section 70 of the Land Act following

completion of a Legal Survey of the same on the ground. Term of the

rights-of-way will be 21 years and the annual rental payable for the

initial five year period will be based on five per cent of the value of

the land over $50 per annum."

(This wasn't referred to in your letter of June the 20th to the Mayor of West Vancouver)….

"No. 2: No formal tenure will be granted over those

areas of Crown lands required for ski runs, trails and other facilities

which are deemed to be of public nature by the Minister.

"No. 3: Any areas required for public parking will be

disposed of on a leasehold basis with no option to purchase. Rentals

will be a nominal sum of $25 per annum. on the understanding that the

Company will survey, construct and maintain such areas at no charge for

the use.

"4: Areas 1 to 9 inclusive of the Plan 6 will be

disposed of on a lease development purchase basis. The leases will be

issued for a maximum term of ten years but the option to purchase may

only be exercised over those portions of the leasehold that have been

fully developed in accordance with the purpose and conditions of the

lease.

"5: No application to lease will be entertained by the

Department until a detailed plan of development and a time

schedule for

completion of same has received approval of the Department. In this

connection it is pointed out that it will be necessary to submit a

detailed development plan acceptable to the Department of Municipal

Affairs for Area 4.

"6: The lease rental will be based on five per cent of

the appraised value of the land at the time the lease is granted and

the development lands will be disposed of at the initial appraised

value, providing the option to purchase is exercised within the first

three year period of the lease. If the option to purchase is exercised

at the first yearly lease the purchase price will be set at the

prevailing price, prevailing appraised value.

"7: Crown lands leased for subdivision purposes will

be subject to all requirements of the Department of Highways, the

Department of Health and other such authorities having jurisdiction in

the area. All subdivisions carried out must be fully serviced with

roads, power, water and must meet the full requirements of the Land

Registry Act and also have the tentative approval of the Subdivision

Approving Officer before the option to purchase may be exercised."

(8,958 lots — these are not simply little cabin lots, Mr. Speaker, because that's covered in the next item.)

"8: Crown lands leased for individual building sites

in isolated areas must be retained on a leasehold basis until the

construction has been undertaken to the satisfaction of the Minister.

It must be understood that the purchase option will be restricted to

those lands required to accommodate the building improvement.

"9: Additional Crown lands within the Reserve Area

will be made available for development where in the opinion of the

Minister such lands may be required to expand the facilities of the

Recreational Area." Copy to the District Forester in Vancouver and to

Mr. E.G. Barnes, the Municipal Manager, Corporation of West Vancouver.

The letter to Alpine, indicating how subdivisions will be granted, is

signed by the Minister of Lands and Forests, Mr. Williston.

That's what Benguet bought, that's what Benguet thought it had bought for its million dollars.

AN HON. MEMBER: Subdivisions.

MR. BARRETT: Subdivisions wasn't mentioned by a civil

servant. Subdivisions wasn't mentioned out of a figment of imagination

by Alpine. Subdivisions weren't made up by Benguet. They were going on

the strength of a letter from the Minister of the Crown.

AN HON. MEMBER: Date?

MR. BARRETT: June the 17th.

[ Page 25 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Then they weren't buying….

MR. BARRETT: Oh, Mr. Speaker, why wasn't this letter put in,

why wasn't it put in the

summary? What did Benguet think they had

bought? The Minister must now explain why this letter was not

disclosed. The Minister must now consider where this letter puts his

career in light of his previous statements…and I want to repeat my

call for a judicial inquiry into this whole matter to answer the

following questions: Why was the original Order-in-Council acquiring

Cypress Bowl ignored? What was the Minister of Municipal Affairs doing

in West Vancouver? What was proposed at that secret meeting? What

knowledge did the Municipal Affairs have in financing for Alpine? How

long has the Provincial Government known of Benguet's interest in

Alpine? What did the Attorney-General's investigation of Benguet show,

if indeed such an investigation did take place? Why were the leases

granted without proper gazetting? What is William Clancey's role in all

this? Why was the Minister of Lands and Forests' letter to Alpine of

June the 17th, 1969, discussing subdivision suppressed? And last, has

Benguet been told that they are out, or are they still under the

impression they can go ahead? Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that I would be

most interested in the Minister's reply, and I hope for a judicial

inquiry.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. PATRICK L. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, we have a new Parliament

and naturally I welcome back the familiar faces, all but one on the far

side of the House, as well as the new members who are taking their

places.

I must say that we Liberals find ourselves in the unusual position

of having the Socialists on our right and Social Credit on our left,

but we hope the new members who are on this side of the House will

catch the spirit of this side of the House. I notice the Member from

Dewdney has been placed on this side of the House and he told us at the

last Session that he was going to fight like a tiger and perhaps this

Session he'll catch that spirit. In any event, there have been some

fighting speeches made from that corner in the past and we look forward

to hearing from that little rump group down there.

Well, Mr. Speaker, we have had an interesting opening to the

Session. I want to compliment the two speakers who opened the Debate.

The member from Delta certainly gave a new twist to separatism in his

opening address because it looks like we've got Canada seceding from

British Columbia and I'm sure that the Federal Government is shaking in

its boots today with the statements of the Minister of Municipal

Affairs — I don't know whether we're going to promote him to the

Minister of War — but certainly it's a turn-around. And I enjoyed the

opening speech of the new member from Revelstoke-Slocan. I thought he

had some excellent ideas. I'm going to forgive his fighting the

election all over again because we've had a lot of that from the riding

of Revelstoke-Slocan, and I can understand the preoccupation of the

members from that riding. I've been in this House for eight Sessions

and in that time we've had five different members from that riding, and

I don't blame the people from Revelstoke-Slocan for being confused.

They've sent three government members and, or two government members

and three N.D.P. members, and it's a riding that needs a lot of

attention, and they haven't discovered the formula yet, but they'll get

the message soon and return a Liberal member and then we'll start to

get some action.

I can't, Mr. Speaker, forgive the member, however, for castigating

the B.C. Teachers' Federation for expressing their views about the

educational situation in British Columbia and being prepared to back

their views up with advertisement — that's what people in a free

society should be free to do in an election.

But I don't think any member from Social Credit, particularly one

who himself publishes a newspaper, is in any position to raise

questions about election expenses, and I wasn't going to do so myself

until I heard that speech. But when I did, I began to gather together

some of the material which appeared during that election campaign from

one city, the city of Vancouver and one medium, the newspaper medium,

and I brought it in today. Here it is. One month's. Mr. Speaker, I said

people should be free to express their views but I don't think this

kind of thing should happen in any election campaign. Each one of these

ads is worth about $2,000. The B.C. Hydro — 2,000; 4,000; 6,000; 8,000;

10,000, 12,000; 14,000; 16,000; 18,000 — day after day these appeared.

B.C. Hydro, that's the public's money being used for your advertising

purposes in an election campaign. Look at them all. And now the rates

are going up.

AN HON. MEMBER: To pay for the advertising.

MR. McGEER: Why, that's what is in an individual paper that's

a captive of the Government. The Attorney-General smiles, Mr. Speaker,

but look what he did during the election campaign. The next time some

company won't hire you because you're a foreigner fight back.

2,000; 4,000; 6,000; 8,000. This is what you took out of the public

purse to get yourself re-elected. I'm kidding, he says. No, Mr.

Speaker, I'm not kidding, because at the same time the Attorney-General

was doing this, the advertisements were appearing in our newspapers in

British Columbia advertising for jobs in the Civil Service, saying only

Canadian citizens can apply. At the same time. Here's more. Greater

protection for B.C. consumers. That's the Attorney-General's

department. That's the public money you took and I am only taking one

city and one medium.

Now we come to the Minister of Health. What did he do to get

himself re-elected? He dipped into the public pocket too. British

Columbia Health Branch water quality standards. Who are we kidding, and

here they are: — 2,000; 4,000; 8,000, and so it goes. Plugged into

God? You're plugged into the people's pocketbooks. That was pretty

obvious, Mr. Speaker.

Some of it isn't so obvious, but when you consider the person it

should be. M.J. O'Brien, there's an impartial man for you. Well, he is

just a little partial to the party in power. Now, there's a question

here that the public should think over very carefully, Mr. Speaker,

because this ran into hundreds of thousands of dollars of the public's

money. It may have stopped short of a million, I'm not sure, but the

questions are on the order paper. This man with his personal ads. Does

anybody seriously think he paid for that out of his own pocket. It

doesn't appear on Social Credit's returns. Certainly, paid for it out

of his own generosity. He was after only one thing and that's the B.C.

Hydro account. Look at what it was worth there and he got it. And he

got it and he got it. This is the most outrageous kind of patronage

we've ever had in the Province.

[ Page 26 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Right after the election he got it.

MR. McGEER: He paid for it, he got it. Some we don't see at

all. Here's a big one. That one's worth three thousand, maybe five I

don't know. We ran one. We still owe the bank.

British Columbia for Bennett Committee. The British Columbia for

Bennett Committee — was that Gunderson and Clancey? That doesn't appear

in your totals either. More and more of these. Pulp mill effluent

control. There's the Lands, Forests and Water Resources. These are not

the only odours that are coming from that Department. The Department of

Education. This was a legitimate one and I want to congratulate the

Minister. It's the only one I found. Then we come to all the ones that

were put in by the Government itself. I'm for Premier Bennett. That's

what the ad says. I'd like to know who it is that's for Premier

Bennett. Did they pay for those ads? Did they pay for those ads?

AN HON. MEMBER: The people paid for them.

MR. McGEER: Or was it all those people who testified before

the Liquor Control Commission? And here they go, page after page after

page of them. Don't say there isn't special favours involved with that

kind of thing because there is. Right directly from the peoples'

pockets. Part directly from the peoples' pockets. Part directly for

patronage and part for privileges from the Government.

The lesson is this, Mr. Speaker: like it or not, elections can be

bought. This is one of the dangers of our times because the media is

very powerful and you can buy the media with advertising. There it is.

And what we must have in this Province. Remember this is where we are

going — this is just an opening round, all of this — no hesitation on

the part of the Government to take hundreds and thousands of dollars

out of the taxpayers' money to use it on advertisements in the media.

No laws broken, what that's done. Does it influence the outcome of

elections? You bet it does. You bet it does. This is why we have to

have limitations on election expenses to end this sort of thing. These

people keep referring to the Sun. The Sun's kept you people in

office. Six times as much coverage as the other parties. How much do

you want? And how much does that member who publishes a newspaper want

in the way of advertising? There are 106 weeklies. They weren't left

out either. They weren't left out either. We want fixed election dates.

We want tight regulations put on election expenses. We want an absolute

ban on Government advertising during election campaigns.

AN HON. MEMBER: Liberals always did want fixed elections.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's an old joke, get a new writer.

MR. McGEER: What happened shortly after the election? All

those advertisements we had — the news that many suspected would come — and that is that the B.C. Hydro rates would increase. The Speech from

the Throne didn't have much to say about it. Pussyfooted around what

has to be the most important economic issue facing the public of

British Columbia. Everywhere governments are urging restraint and the

request is out from responsible people everywhere. Use restraint.

Control inflation. We don't see that in the Throne Speech. Why not? How

can the Government? It's going to reach into the inflationary flames

because that's what this proposed hydro rate increase is going to do.

That's right.

The worst and most costly settlement in Canadian history was that

Seaway Workers' settlement. You agree. I'm sure the Federal Government

rues the day it gave that settlement. I think there were pressures at

the time. If you look just in isolation at that situation you might

have said, "Well, you're a Canadian, and American workers side by side

with a huge disparity in wage rates, grain shipping contracts to

fulfil, most important waterway in Canada." These are pretty

compelling reasons for settling a strike. 30 per cent, yes. That was

the problem because everybody else wanted 30 per cent and that

settlement itself didn't add to our cost of living, but there's a

lesson there. Governments set the pace. Governments set the pace and

the others keep to it. Now are you going to lose that lesson? Because

it was a costly one and this is the whole point. If you don't observe

restraint why should anybody else?

What's this power rate increase going to do? One thing it's going to

do is push rents up everywhere in British Columbia. Do you expect the

landlord to absorb all the cost? Prices are going to go up on

manufactured goods. Unions are going to take all of this into account

next time they come up for discussion of wages.

I have been besieged by mail about this hydro rate increase. Here's

some of it here. Letters from individual people. Listen to what some of

these individuals who got sucked in by all this advertising have to

say now. "Three years ago we built our home and because of its location

we felt that heating it electrically would be a wise choice. At that

time we were told by B.C. Hydro that our Government's plan for

producing so much power through the Peace River and other proposed

projects would undoubtedly lower electrical costs. Now we are faced

with astronomical heating bills." Here's another man at seventy and

still working. "You can be sure it is important that I let you know how

I feel about B.C. Hydro's proposed increased rates and passenger

travel. We've worked hard all our lives, with little or no holidays, to

be self-supporting in our declining years and we can't afford these

increases." Here's one. I was sent a carbon copy of this one. I'd like

to know what the member from Shuswap's reply is going to be because

it's addressed to him.

It puts it pretty bluntly. "Where are the steady reductions in

utility bills promised by the Social Credit party in election

campaigning?" Well, where are they? They're never going to come. This

is his letter, not mine, Mr. Member.

You know, we have a rather strange situation. Amongst the pleas that

I've received are carbon copies of four sent to the Government by

Unions. How often has the Government got up and asked for Unions to

show restraint? Now the shoe's on the other foot, because the Unions

are asking for the Government to show restraint. We know who pays the

bill in the end — the public. Either way they lose out. But this time

the Unions that are asking the Government to show restraint are the

very same Unions whose contracts will come up for negotiation this

Spring. All throughout the construction industry in British Columbia we

are going to have renegotiations of major contracts. In the face of

this, can Government set a 15 per cent pace? Can we learn the lesson

from the Seaway example? I say we can't do this. No matter how grim the

short-term financial picture is, we've got to tolerate it until we can

find a more propitious time.

Items quite apart from the timing of any increase in power rates,

the reason and the amount need to be thoroughly justified. We all know

that the capital financing of Hydro in recent years has been entirely

from captive

[ Page 27 ]

accounts. You don't need to show a balance sheet to get the money

from the Workmen's Compensation Board or the Teachers' Pension Fund or

the Canada Pension Plan. All you got to do is have the Premier initial

the papers. That's how you get your money. So why is it suddenly so

essential that the Hydro has a big profit? What are the Hydro's capital

demands? Where is the current financial statement? What's changed since

last year when there was a profit of $9,000,000?

If Hydro is short of funds, why is it that it's being forced to give

up its railroad? Because, Mr. Speaker, this is the most profitable

railroad per dollar invested, in all of North America. It is going to

operate a toll gate to Roberts Bank, and just when the bonanza is about

to come, it's being taken away from the Hydro. At a time when Hydro has

to go and ask for more money from the public. What could be more

inconsistent, the C.P.R.? The Hydro railroad is profitable and you know

it's making money, so why is it being taken away? Why, when we're short

of money should they take that railroad away from the Hydro? So it can

be put on our electricity bills? The B.C. Hydro has a lease on all that

traffic, they make the profit, and you're going to take those away at

the time when the directors are saying that the Hydro is desperately

short of money and it's going to start losing, and you want to put up

electricity rates for all consumers, and start an inflationary trend in

British Columbia. This is the time to take that railroad away?

Mr. Speaker, the financial operations of the B.C. Hydro have been

shrouded in mystery ever since the Government took over. The only

people who know are the bankers of Wall Street and the Cabinet

insiders. This doesn't speak well of public corporations. In the old

days of the B.C. Electric the rates were justified, in public, in front

of the Public Utilities Commission, and we may not have liked the

financing and the service, but at least we knew what it was. And now

the Government takes it over.

AN HON. MEMBER: Look who's on the Public Utilities Commission.

MR. McGEER: ….That's fine. There is another way of going

about this, Mr. Member, and I'm not suggesting that we go to the Public

Utilities Commission, but I do say we have to know the whole truth

about Hydro's financing operation. That's why I give notice today, Mr.

Speaker, that I'm going to move that a Special Committee of the House

be formed to consider all matters relating to the B.C. Hydro and its

financing, and that the committee of the House, after reviewing all the

financial considerations of the Hydro, should make recommendations back

as to what we could do, and to recommend as well changes in the B.C.

Hydro and Power Authority Act, that will be necessary to give the

legislative recommendations effect.

I was shocked by the revelations of Chairman Shrum, when he called

up to have an interview about the B.C. Hydro. He said this: "The

Government could not have carried on without reducing rates. Political

considerations and economic considerations are not always the same." He

also said that some large-scale users such as pulp mills and chemical

companies got their power at cost until May 1st, 1969. Is that where

all this advertising money came from? The big companies were getting

their power at cost all these years. Who set their rates? Who set their

rates? Chairman Shrum refers to political considerations that are

different from economic considerations. Power at cost. We in the

Legislature didn't set the rates for industry. Dr. Shrum never set the

rates for industry. The Premier set the rates for industry. Those were

the political considerations. That's what causes the rates to be set

and those political considerations mean that the pulp mills get their

power at cost. That's why we have to have a Committee of this House and

begin to examine the proposed rate increase. We want to know who is

going to pay, and we want it to be fair.

We don't know where all this money came from for the sheafs of

advertising, but it wasn't from individual electricity users. Not the

kind who wrote those letters to me that there shouldn't be any power

rate increase, not at this time. The people of British Columbia have

not only borne the operating costs of Hydro, but they have had to bear

the capital costs as well from their savings. Big industry isn't buying

the bonds — teachers, pensioners — these are the people who are buying

the bonds, and they are entitled to a fair shake.

We shouldn't rest there. Any increases, when they come, and it

shouldn't be now, should protect those on fixed incomes, the little

users, the lower income group — that's essential. We have already heard

read out to us this afternoon how much more those people on pensions

have to pay for their power, compared with others across Canada. They

shouldn't be the ones to subsidize the high cost of power in British

Columbia. But I don't think we should rest just with examining the B.C.

Power situation in this House, because, if the increases can be as

easily justified as some of the Directors who sit in the Cabinet say

those increases can be justified, there should be no difficulty at all

in making that case to the Prices and Incomes Commission of Canada, and

proving that the rate increase is necessary and that it's not

inflationary. Until then we must demand, not only that Hydro reveal its

total problems to a Committee of the House, but that it do the same to

the Prices and Incomes Commission of Canada.

Well, Mr. Speaker, the Social Credit government is waging its usual

stiff and continuing war on pollution. Each year it lashes out with a

paper offensive, which is one paragraph in the Throne Speech. I want

the House to listen to some of these devastating attacks. Here's what

was said in 1967 — "With the onrush of industrial development in B.C.

my Government has recognized as one of its cardinal responsibilities

the preservation for all time of the blessings of clean air, pure

water, fertile soil. In this connection, I am happy to know that the

activities of the reorganized Pollution Control Board have been greatly

increased." Well, that was the 1967 offensive.

But it wasn't content, Mr. Speaker, it didn't rest on its laurels.

Next year it struck out again with this sentence in the Throne Speech:

"My Government is continuing to pursue vigorously its programme for the

abatement of pollution in all its forms. You will be asked to consider

amendments to further amend and strengthen the present Act." Well that

was 1968.

The Government didn't rest on its laurels, it launched its third

offensive the following year. This is a paragraph the following year:

"My Government is continuing to pursue vigorously its attack on

pollution wherever it may occur in British Columbia — on land, on

water, or in the air. Scientific air-sampling equipment has been

augmented and improved, and its findings will be processed by computers

in the Government's data processing centre." Now we have the computers

into the battle, full scale and flat out. Shouldn't be long now. Well,

we've launched our next, and most impressive offensive this year. "My

Government will continue

[ Page 28 ]

to work towards the protection and preservation of our total

environment, so that all our citizens may enjoy the beauties and

wonders of our heritage as intended by nature." Now get this, because

this is the key phrase — "Reports will be made to the Legislature

concerning the efforts and progress being made."

Mr. Speaker, these annual one paragraph offensives in the Throne

Speech just will not bring pollution to heel. Sooner or later, some

concrete action is going to have to be taken. That's the way to bring

pollution under control, and I want to talk about the two most serious

pollution problems, these concern sewage and air pollution.

Mr. Speaker, the Province is wallowing in its own sewage. Today in

the Vancouver Harbour, we've got a huge ocean liner which recently has

given up its 60th suspected typhoid case. We don't know the cause of

the epidemic, but it serves as a constant reminder that disease from

water contaminated with sewage is always with us. We've had outbreaks,

happily not of typhoid in British Columbia, but we have had hepatitis,

right down here in the Victoria area has been one of the epidemics.

It's not a disease to treat lightly. We had another in Surrey, and

these are areas where septic tanks lead to open sewers, and the open

sewers lead to areas where people like to swim in the summer time.

I think of the Gorge, and all of the beaches around the Victoria

area that get fed by the creeks, and it is a fact, Mr. Speaker, that

despite these major offensives in the Throne Speech every year, we have

never poured more raw sewage into our lakes, our rivers, our waterways

and our ocean, than we are pouring this very day. What probably is the

largest sewage outfall in British Columbia lies right next to one of

our most valuable parks, right in the park at Brockton Point in

Vancouver. Less than a mile from this very Legislative Building a raw

sewage outfall goes off a park, above the low-tide water mark. Last

Spring, after our Legislature prorogued, there was a flash flood in

Trail. Some of you went up to Trail. A creek went over its bank and

filled basements of business and private establishments in the whole

downtown area of Trail. That creek carried raw sewage from the town of

Rossland.

I was appalled to discover last Spring, Mr. Speaker, the extent of

the sewage problem around the City of Vancouver and in other areas of

British Columbia. It's something that the members of this House had

never really had brought to their attention, either through discussions

in our speeches, or in reports presented to the Legislature.

One report that we should all be familiar with is the Goldie Report,

which is a semi-secret report. People who have asked for copies of that

have been turned down, but it describes the shocking situation that

exists in the Fraser River, where incredible amounts of raw sewage are

being flooded into that river, and where coloform counts have gone up

many fold, between the time the original readings were taken in the

late 1950's, and when the report was written in the 1960's with the

Iona Sewage Treatment Plant being opened in the interim, and many

people from the City of Vancouver were living under the false

impression that their beaches were clean, because of the opening of

that plant, but it barely scratched the surface.

What we have are the most widely-used beaches in British Columbia

ringed by giant pincers of raw sewage. On the one side the flow-out

from Brockton Point in the Vancouver Harbour, and on the other the

north arm of the Fraser River. That open sewer of the north arm of the

Fraser River flows right past two widely used beaches — Wreck Beach and

the University Beach. No warning ever has been given of the hazards of

that. I did some coloform counts myself along those beaches because it

isn't one of the points that's sampled. Oh yes, Mr. Price says the

experts didn't agree with me. Well, Mr. Member….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would remind the member that it is not

proper to appear to refer to a member by his name but by his

constituency, the Honourable member for Vancouver-Burrard.

MR. McGEER: Pardon me, Mr. Speaker.

The figures that were released, Mr. Speaker, were figures taken from

the Department of Health, they weren't mine. They were corroborated by

figures taken by the B.C. Research Council, and the Minister of Health

undoubtedly knows why they were high, it's because at that particular

time of year the Fraser River was in flood. We had had a long warm

spell, and the off-shore winds brought that Fraser River water right in

on top of our beaches. But every day, right past Wreck Beach and the

University Beach, that sewage flows…. they never asked what the count

was in White Rock…. it was very good, I went swimming there myself,

and I want to compliment the town of White Rock. I wish I could do the

same for the City of Victoria and the City of Vancouver.

Yes, that was the Committee that whitewashed the situation on the

beaches, the one the member from Vancouver-Burrard referred to. But, we

began to get at the problem, the beaches all along West Vancouver were

posted because that's where Vancouver's outfall flows by. The beaches

at Lumberman's Arch were posted. Finally a warning sign or two went up

in the Fraser River. But, posting the beaches is not the answer. The

answer is to clean it up, clean it up all over British Columbia, not

just in the City of Vancouver.

The City of Nelson pours raw sewage right out on top of its beach

and that's unusable. The beaches in the Okanagan are threatened, and

recently we had a warning from the Medical Health Officer up there that

they were sitting right at the upper limits of what could be considered

safe and tolerable. We've got to stop covering this situation up, we've

got to begin bringing it to light right here in the Legislature.

I think Dr. Stuart Murray would be turning in his grave if he knew

the fight he commenced years ago under the threat of polio in the City

of Vancouver when he posted those beaches and sparked the Highbury

Tunnel and the building of the Iona Treatment Plant, if he knew how

British Columbia and the City of Vancouver had wallowed behind in that

lead, because the population increase since that time has pushed even

more sewage into all our waterways and we are not catching up. We are

allowing it to deteriorate year by year by year.

Also, there's a disgraceful situation out in Saanich. I support what

Dr. Whitbread has said because he is a dedicated public servant who

knows disease, and he recognizes that the southern end of Vancouver

Island is a danger point. We've already had one epidemic here. But, Mr.

Speaker, Dr. Whitbread doesn't operate the Treasury. He only says what

is necessary from a health point of view. The Minister of Health

doesn't operate the Treasury, either. He knows what has to be done from

a health point of view and, give him credit, he said so.

But the problem really gets down to the Minister of Finance because that is where the message about sewage and

[ Page 29 ]

disease has to come home. The Minister of Finance should be the one

talking to local officials, working out a proper plan to take care of

our sewage, to get British Columbia out of this cesspool into which it

is sinking. The Minister of Health should be bringing in a report. We

should know in this Legislature the amount of raw sewage everywhere in

British Columbia, the coloform counts from an open disclosure. But, the

Minister of Finance holds the key to cleaning it up. He should be

marketing all sewage-treatment bonds at favourable rates. Just as

important as electricity. More than that, he should be putting up half

the cost of primary treatment plants, 75 per cent of the cost of

secondary plants, and 90 per cent of the cost of tertiary plants.

Mr. Speaker, I want to switch now to our next most important source

of pollution in British Columbia, and that's air pollution, and until

we have a province-wide air pollution control law we are just kidding

ourselves that air pollution is going to do anything but get worse and

worse and worse. Who do the Government think they are kidding with all

the ads here about air quality standards? Passing the buck to the

municipalities. What do the municipalities do when the problem is just

outside their boundaries? The Minister without Portfolio for North

Okanagan should be interested in that question. It was right in her

very town or just outside the town that a man lit fire to a huge pile

of sawdust and left the towns of Vernon and Coldstream and Lumby and

Kelowna covered with a pall of smoke for almost a week, and when

somebody asked "What's this all about?" the answer was "Who's to stop

them? It's out of the fire season, anybody can light a fire wherever he

likes and go ahead and smoke up the whole countryside." But, that is

how it is in British Columbia. What good are your air quality standards

when this kind of thing can go on? You have never seen so much

buck-passing in all your life.

Cypress Bowl had the whole of Vancouver and Howe Sound covered with

smoke in beautiful Fall weather last year. So, I called up the

Department of Forestry and said "What's all this about?" and they said

"We don't know, we can't stop them from burning up there, why doesn't

the Municipality of West Vancouver stop them?" so I called up the

Municipality of West Vancouver and they said "We told them not to do it

but they said it is outside our territory". He said "As a matter of

fact there are six members of the Department of Forestry up the

mountain now supervising their burning, and they just told me a few

minutes ago that it was out of the fire season and they didn't have

anything to do with it". So we talk with the company and they said "The

Government ordered us to do it". So then I called the Government back

again and they said "Yes, we ordered them to do it, but we didn't tell

them to do it now". I said "Well, have you got a half a dozen people up

there supervising it?" He said "We had to send them up because the fire

got out of control and we're trying to help them put it out."

(laughter) That isn't even fire protection, much less controlling air

pollution.

But I want to tell, Mr. Speaker, a far more significant story which

really illustrates the nub of the problem here in British Columbia.

Last Spring I had the privilege of being shown through one of the

interior pulp mills. As a former industrial chemist I began to make

some specific inquiries about the huge amount of air pollution that was

coming out of that smoke stack. Now we are not talking about hydrogen

sulfide, we are not talking about kraft mill odours. We are talking

about the other substances that come showering down on top of the cars

so that every union contract has in it the necessity of a free car wash

in the contract to keep the cars clean, to keep the acid from eating

away the paint. There is nothing in it about a free lung wash, but you

get a free car wash if you are anywhere around a pulp mill. Well, I

asked the manager of this pulp mill about getting rid of this air

pollution. He admitted that it was quite feasible to do this, but he

also said he wasn't going to do anything about it, and there was a very

simple reason, he didn't have to. He said if he did he would be wasting

money. It could have been any manager for any pulp mill because it is

true for all of them. It applied to all pulp mills, and this is the

reason, Mr. Minister, the reason is that there are no standards to be

reached and, Mr. Speaker, there are not.

This manager points out, quite rightly, that he can't design the

equipment. Some other engineering firm is going to have to do that. He

wants to know what the specifications for that pollution abatement

equipment are going to be so that he can hold the manufacturer to

account. He says, "If I buy equipment for my mill and later a pollution

control law does come along, then I have wasted my money. I'll buy that

equipment when a Provincial law is passed which says the specifications

that I must meet, and when I can order from the manufacturer equipment

to reach those specifications. That's the story about air pollution in

British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: For a PhD. to say that, that's just rubbish….

MR. McGEER: I am merely passing on what the manager of that mill says, and he's being paid a very high salary to do this.

The head of the Pollution Control Board in British Columbia said the

policy of the Government was to go slow and try and get the voluntary

cooperation of industry, and it was at that point that I called for his

resignation, because clearly we are going to get nowhere. "We can't

have an air pollution control law in British Columbia, it won't work,"

they say. Mr. Speaker, that box is filled with state and provincial air

pollution laws. I've written all over North America to find out what

the laws are, and virtually every State in the Union and two other

provinces in Canada have got air pollution laws and they are right in

this box and any time the Minister wants to get a model law it is here

for the taking. But, don't tell us we can't have Provincial air

pollution control laws in British Columbia. That says it's nonsense.

We'll ask for voluntary controls or we'll force the municipalities to

do it, while what we need is not just a stiff air pollution control law

in British Columbia, we need a $5,000 a day fine or more for offenders,

and then we are going to get the kind of voluntary cooperation that the

head of the Pollution Control Board has said that we need.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the second member from

Vancouver Centre, ah yes, yes, we wouldn't want you to think we were

partisan. (laughter) The second member from Vancouver Centre called for

a Provincial law compelling motorists to have exhaust control devices

on their new vehicles. I want to associate myself with that call, and I

know that he'll be voting for a Bill that we will introduce on that

subject. Perhaps he would like to introduce one himself. But, you have

got to do more than talk about doing these things. Got to back it up

with action. Alderman Linnell in Vancouver has called for these

pollution control devices as mandatory on automobiles and I am with her

on this too because advances have been made by the manufacturers.

States in the United States and the Province of Ontario have

[ Page 30 ]

required that they be installed on vehicles, and all we have to do,

laggard old British Columbia, all we have to do to follow suit is to

just pass a similar kind of law, and we'd be right up with them. So if

we are going to wage this all-out offensive, here is a pretty easy way

to get right in the front rank.

Well, Mr. Speaker, the operative phrase of the coming generation is

"to tell it like it is", and if there is one over-riding criticism of

politicians it's their refusal to do this. But, I consider it a mark of

shame that the people who are sitting up in our galleries today are not

allowed to make notes of what we say, they will be required to leave if

they do. They are not allowed to tape record our words, and yet we are

their servants, the servants of all the people of British Columbia, and

this is the most public of all places in our Province. What are we

trying to hide? Why are we unwilling to tell it like it is? Why haven't

we got a Hansard? No, no, that has nothing to do with us here, we

shouldn't be preventing people in our House. There they are up there,

justify it if you can, justify it to them. Why can't they take notes?

Are you going to tell me that that is wrong? Is there anything wrong

with those people writing down what anybody says?

Is there anything wrong, Mr. Speaker, if this is a public assembly,

and if we are their servants, that this microphone shouldn't be

attached through our radio stations to every home in British Columbia?

Are we trying to hide something from the people who are sitting at

home? We had television in our House the opening day. It went all over

British Columbia and I was proud of what was shown. Why isn't

television allowed here anytime? What are we trying to hide?

What do we have from the Throne Speech? That we are going to tape

record these words or partially tape record them, and what are we going

to do — lock them up, edit them, alter them, erase them, pick out the

good things for the Government, throw away the others? This is a farce,

this is a farce. We should be allowing radio and television into this

Chamber. A Hansard is as old as parliament itself, and we are still

afraid of it in British Columbia. Well, as far as we axe concerned, Mr.

Speaker, we have nothing to hide, and we'll assume that the Government

apparently does have something to hide. Afraid to tell it like it is,

afraid to have the radio and television in this Chamber to see you as

you are, the empty seats, the laughter, the contempt for the public.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: …oh, oh.

MR. McGEER: That's the members on the other side of you, Mr.

Speaker. Count them. You're the ones who vote down Hansard every year — all of you.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right.

MR. McGEER: You ought to be ashamed of yourself. Well, I

think there's more to it than that, there's more to it than that, just

bringing this Legislative Chamber to the people of British Columbia — no, you don't want it to happen! You would do anything to cover up what

you're really like here in this House.

We should be doing other things to try and bring this Legislature

into this century and one of them is just to take a knife to the Throne

Speech Debate, cut it right down, and get on with the real business of

the House. I don't think, Mr. Speaker, there's anything worthy of

debate in this Throne Speech except a debate just cutting down the

debate on it. What are we supposed to debate? The pros and cons of

phrases like this "British Columbia Ferries report that the pattern of

overall growth in carriage of passengers and vehicles continued through

the past year"? "Exploration activity in the oil and gas industry

continued on a similar level to that in 1968"? I say let's just have

one or two speakers and get on with the business of the House. Are we

supposed to debate about the gold watches that are being given to the

civil service? I just wondered if that was one of the Mr. Worley's

recruiting devices for college graduates.

Well, Mr. Speaker, we're going to have a new Motion Pictures Act and

I suppose that means a sequel to the good life. I hope that the

Government will take acting lessons in between and that the public

purse will be spared just a little.

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't get anything less as an actor.

MR. McGEER: But if we're going to have such

an Act, bring it

in. There's no point standing here for two weeks speculating on what

might be in the Act, we can be debating the Act itself. Bring the

legislation in — you've had a whole year. If the Cabinet weren't taking

their vacations in Acapulco and places like that, they'd have had their

programme ready when the House opened. It wasn't my job to prepare the

Government programme or I'd have been here working on it.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I think it's time that the House automatically

referred all its Bills to Committee, that we brought them in early in

the Session. No reason why you can't have your legislation programme

ready. We should have a cut-off date for Bills and that automatically

every Bill be studied in Committee where the public can present their

point of view, with witnesses, and this way we won't have the last

minute legislation put through in the dying days. I hope the present

Attorney-General won't attempt what the last Attorney-General did, in

bringing something like 18 Bills in on one day, two or three

days before the end of the Session. That's a good way to pass

legislation.

Now I want to say one further thing, Mr. Speaker. Once this

Legislature prorogues, for ten months of the year Government operates

in secrecy. There is no board room in British Columbia that guards more

secrets more jealously than are guarded behind the green oak doors in

that room upstairs.

AN HON. MEMBER: Downstairs — around the corner.

MR. McGEER: It's around the corner, but as you come in it's

the one room that has the venetian blinds drawn, covers over the

window. We pass a lot of legislation in this House which has phrases

like "the Lt. Governor-in-Council may set regulations for this or for

that" and I say that Cabinet secrecy should end, that whenever you're — oh, the Minister laughs — you know it's bad enough to semi-expose to

public, but where would you be, my friend, if there were complete

exposure? Well, Mr. Speaker, I say that every Order-in-Council that's

passed should be passed in public, because when the Cabinet passes its

Orders-in-Council it's acting as an extension of the Legislature and

the secrecy that we have right in this Chamber is enough, but to carry

it on to a higher degree into that Cabinet Chamber is even worse. If

we're going to have new politics and tell it like it is then we've got

to expose public business to the public, and that means an end to

Cabinet secrecy. You can have your Cabinet caucuses with policy the way

you have a caucus of your whole party,

[ Page 31 ]

and we don't need to end that as far as policy is concerned, but when it comes to doing public business, do it in public.

Well, I want to salute the Premier, Mr. Speaker, on his return to

the Legislature and I know his great feeling of satisfaction to be back

in the hurly-burly of which he's so much a part. The Premier has a lot

of gifts and I don't think being humble in victory is one of them, but

some people have even referred to the Premier as being arrogant.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh no, oh no!

MR. MCGEER: Now I know that's an exaggeration…(laughter)…

and I know the Premier hates exaggeration, and it's because it is such

an exaggeration, and I hate exaggerations too, that I want to try and

mention some of the things that just might have caused some members of

the public to develop this erroneous impression — not all but just one

— maybe he can refute them and reassure us all. But he does double

duty, and some have referred to him as arrogant as Premier, others as

arrogant as Minister of Finance. Of course, Mr. Speaker, he has powers,

and one of these as Minister of Finance — it's an unusual power, it's a

great power — as salesman.

But one of these powers is to determine what's a religious, a

charitable, or an educational institution. The Premier, no, the

Minister of Finance — you might consult the Premier on this one and ask

him whether the Minister of Finance should have these powers — because

since the time of Queen Elizabeth the First these religious, charitable

and educational institutions have enjoyed a degree of immunity from

taxation, but as it stands now in British Columbia there is not one of

these foundations that isn't severely threatened because one man, the

Minister of Finance, by

section 52 of the Succession Duty Act,

determines whether in fact they are charitable, religious or

educational. What happens is that you rob the poor of their legacy.

I want to refer to the first one — the bombshell — and this was, the

tax imposed by the Minister of Finance of $1,600,000 on the P.A.

Woodward Foundation. When Mr. P.A. Woodward passed away he left his

entire estate to that Foundation. The Foundation itself has completely

changed the picture in the field of health care in British Columbia.

It's made magnificent contributions to the Medical Faculty of our

University, it's made major contributions to schools of nursing, to the

Royal Jubilee Hospital in Victoria, to St. Joseph's Hospital right here

in this city, and it's made contributions to the Emergency Department

of the Royal Columbian Hospital in New Westminster — that one that's

referred to by some members of the Opposition as a fire-trap — but it

would be worse were it not for the donations of that charitable

Foundation. You can't build a better record than that on which to base

your claim of being charitable. It is administered by people who

receive not a penny for their efforts. They include the Chief Justice

of the Appeal Court of B.C., bankers and other people of impeccable

reputation. That Foundation itself contributes to something like 60

charities, and Mr. Woodward himself was the man who year after year

personally put the Red Feather Campaign in Vancouver over the top, and

according to the Minister of Finance this is not a religious,

charitable or educational institution.

Now we could question gifts to the Heart Foundation and the Cancer

Institute. Now does anyone in this Chamber or anyone in British

Columbia seriously believe that these Foundations are not to do good

and would not qualify? How many more institutions like these are going

to feel the talons of the Minister of Finance? How about the Crippled

Children's Hospital in Vancouver? — which was started by the Women's

Institutes of British Columbia. How about the Health Centre for

Children? How about the G.F. Strong Rehabilitation Centre? How about

religious organizations? We notice two of them are exempt — Central

City Mission and the Salvation Army, so is the United Church Training

School at Naramata. But how about the Anglican Church Foundation of

B.C.? And let's talk about that pioneer Foundation, the Vancouver

Foundation, which administers so many private accounts including the

Chris Venture Fund for the education of needy children.

When do universities and colleges get the axe as not being

educational institutions? Mr. Speaker, what's been happening is that

the Minister of Finance has been driving money out of British Columbia

for years, and it all started when we recreated the tax jungles in

British Columbia by bringing in the Succession Duty Act. The result was

double taxation on people who were not citizens of Canada but residing

in British Columbia, and immediately they started moving their money

out. For those who are Canadian citizens and do live in British

Columbia they still face some double taxation, harassment by two sets

of people assessing their estates, probating their wills. There is

inevitable increases in lawyers' fees — they are really the ones who

gain by all of this.

Some of the provinces have come to their senses — Alberta and

Saskatchewan were the first to do this — not only by eliminating the

tax jungles, but by giving forgiveness of the estate in order to

attract development money into their provinces. Now the Province of

Ontario has followed suit, and we struggle along behind.

What's happening is that if we keep amending our Act, trying to

remove double taxation and inequity, we've got something as far as the

charitable foundations are concerned which is not just foolish but it's

primitive. We've got a Minister of Finance who says whether this church

qualifies and that doesn't, whether this foundation qualifies and that

doesn't, whether this medical research organization shall get its funds

or that one won't. What are these institutions supposed to do? Strike

the kind of relationship with the Government that some of our

industries have done? Is that how they get on the list? Because if they

don't, no one is going to leave any money to them. We can't have under

the table dealings in matters like this, we've got to spell out clearly

and unequivocally the criteria by which these Foundations qualify.

We've come to depend too much in British Columbia on work done by

volunteers — the Minister of Welfare knows this, the former Minister of

Welfare. They know how much you depend on organizations staffed by

volunteers and financed not by Government but by philanthropists, to

look after the poor and the needy, to support those things that

industry can't and which Government is reluctant to support — part of

the way our society functions. What's going to happen is that we're

going to slash deeply into this essential aspect of our social

operations in this Province, and I say that we've had an experiment in

British Columbia and it's been an unsatisfactory one. The Minister of

Finance should be shorn of his powers to make decisions about religious

charitable foundations. We should go farther than that. We're losing

out — it's too costly — we should get out of the Succession Duty field

altogether. We should take the 75 per cent here that we now qualify

for, it would bring us more money, not less, because it would start to

attract back to British Columbia all

[ Page 32 ]

the private capital that has left this Province as a result of these

laws. It's all hidden under the surface. You never see it, but it's

there. I know of two huge estates that have recently moved out of this

Province for this very reason. Now you say let's go ahead and soak the

rich, which is perfectly good philosophy, but the problem is, we're not

doing that. We're losing funds that we need in Government and we're

losing funds that these private operations desperately require.

(Applause)

On the motion of the Hon. L.R. Peterson, the debate was adjourned to the next sitting of the House.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I move Motion No. 1 on the

Order Paper, seconded by the Honourable Leslie Peterson, "That on

Tuesday, the 27th day of January, 1970, and on all following days of

the Session there will be two distinct sittings on each day — one from

2 p.m. to 6 p.m. and one from 8 p.m. until adjournment — unless

otherwise ordered."

MR. SPEAKER: You have heard the motion. Are you ready for the question? The Honourable the member from West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

MR. L. ALLAN WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): I move,

seconded by the Hon. second member for Vancouver–Point Grey, an

amendment to this motion, Mr. Speaker. "That Motion No. 1 standing on

the Orders of the Day be amended by deleting from the last line thereof the word 'adjournment' and substituting therefore the figures '11 p.m.'."

Mr. Speaker, in my very brief experience in this House we have had

many, many occasions when the members have sat long past the time when

they were able to conduct a debate responsibly, and it seems to me we

should come to our senses this year.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. BARRETT: I thank my neighbour in his foresight in

preparing the amendment to the motion. I think the member is doing a

very good service to the House and to the cause of Parliament by

proposing such an amendment. In support of the amendment, Mr. Speaker,

it must be understood that the amendment is given on the basis of

making this Legislature work better. We have seen the results of long

hours and its effect on the health of some of the members of this

House. We've also seen the effect that it has had on some of the

debates. It has not been difficult for Opposition members to have good

material, but it's difficult for the Government to sustain itself on

late hours at night. It is noticed that the Premier has found it

necessary to be absent during most of those evening sittings, and we

don't think that it's good for us to keep him away from his House for

so long a period of time. I know that the Premier wants to participate

in all the evening sessions, and if they adjourned at 11 o'clock he

would have the opportunity of spending his time with us at that time. I

want to say further, Mr. Speaker, in support of this amendment, it's in

the tone of the kind of amendments and thrusts we are trying to give to

this House to preserve Parliament. We don't have our question period,

we don't have our Hansard, let's at least have some regulated hours.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Cowichan-Malahat.

MR. ROBERT M. STRACHAN (Cowichan-Malahat): Mr. Speaker, I

join to support this amendment because in an aside the Premier said

"not last year", indicating that there were no late sittings of any

consequence last year. I want to remind the Premier that last year at

3:15 a.m. you called for discussion and debate in this House, the

Estimates of the Department of Mines for the first time — 3:15 a.m. — so don't sit there and look at the press and say "not last year",

because it was last year, as it's been every year since you were

Premier.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Premier.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT: The Opposition is up to its old tactics

again, almost before the House really opens. We see this new alliance

between the Liberals and the NDP — two types of socialism — they were

both defeated in the election and the people of this Province supported

the actions of the Social Credit Government for over seventeen years,

and I want to say this, Mr. Speaker, that I hope that during this

debate we can do away with any night sittings if we get good

cooperation from the Whips and the members of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Honourable Second Member for Vancouver East.

MR. ROBERT A. WILLIAMS (2nd-Vancouver-East): Mr. Speaker, the

Honourable member for Cowichan-Malahat dealt with one of the evening

sessions of last year. During that session we saw Parliament abused, we

saw Parliament abused by the leader on the other side of the House, and

we on this side do not want to see this overwhelming majority continue

to abuse the rights of Parliament, the rights of all the members in

this Legislature to do as we must to represent the people of our

ridings. We don't want to see this overwhelming majority working

against the people of this Province as they have done in the past. The

Minister of Lands and Forests' Estimates during the last session were

dealt with in one day. The economic base of this Province — lands,

forests and water resources — were dealt with in one day, because the

leader on the other side of the House was determined there shouldn't be

a full debate. That's the reason — that leader walked up and down the

aisles and said they were going to go all night because he didn't want

the Minister of Lands and Forests' issues debated during another day. I

expect the same thing to happen from that leader this session, when

that Minister's estimates come up, and, Mr. Speaker, I urge those

concerned with Parliament to vote for this amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the First Member for Vancouver Centre — Order Please!

MR. H.P. CAPOZZI (1st-Vancouver-Centre): Having now heard

from the three candidates for leadership of the party of the

Opposition, and having had as clear as possible an indication as we

could have in this House of the aging of that party over there, when

they are not prepared to sit and do the business of Parliament, when to

earn their indemnity they want to limit the hours that they work,

already in a party perceived to be depleted in their ranks, concerned

that

[ Page 33 ]

they may not be able to match the aggressiveness that they will find

from this side, and the determination that they will find, I can

understand their reason in endeavouring to limit the amount of hours

that we are going to need in this House. I say this, Mr. Speaker, that

if we reach a stage where we will not do the work that has to be done

and over there they are getting together again, leaving again,

constantly, we're not sure at which point the two parties get together

or disappear, but I would think that it would be a shame if we reach a

stage where we are not prepared, those members who have been elected

from across this Province, to sit and do the business of this House

that has to be done, and not be concerned with limitations of hours,

whether it be 10 o'clock or 11 o'clock but are prepared to sit until

that business is done, and I urge every member of this House to vote

against the amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kootenay.

MR. LEO T. NIMSICK (Kootenay): Mr. Speaker, I, more than

anyone else here, probably know a great deal about staying up late at

night along with the Premier in discussing problems concerning the

people of British Columbia, and I, more than anyone else, know how many

nights we have spent, until 3 and 4 and 5 and 6 and 7 o'clock in the

morning. All that this resolution asks for is the fact that we go until

11 o'clock, and then if the House wants to re-convene, they've got to

re-convene. I'm very surprised, Mr. Speaker, that some of the members

on the other side who have talked to me during these long hours, and

were disgusted with operating the business of the people in such a

fashion. Many of those members will vote today against this resolution,

which would maybe give them a chance to voice their opinion in regards

to the limiting the debates until 11 o'clock. I feel that this motion

is a forward step, it's a forward step in the interest of the business

of the people of British Columbia, because you do not have good

business at 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning when everybody is tired. You

cannot function the way the people of British Columbia want, and it

doesn't matter whether you are here two months or four months. You're

here to do the public's business, and if it takes three or four months,

by only going until 11 o'clock, then let's do it. But let's do the job

properly.

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

MR. GARDE B. GARDOM (2nd-Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker,

it has been the practice of the Government to practise legislation by

exhaustion. The most acrimonious debates we have ever had in this House

have been in the tiny hours of the morning. We've considered

legislation as important as Bill 33 at 3 o'clock and 4 o'clock in the

morning, and the reason being, not by virtue of the fact of getting the

public's business done, but because the Government had been so rotten

in its programming of the public's business. If we had had our

legislation, Mr. Speaker, on our desks in time, those night sessions

wouldn't have been necessary, but the Government sits on it, and as

the leader of the Liberal Party spoke today, at times we've even had 19

Bills come in in one day. That's the reason we have ended up in the

middle of the night. Mr. Speaker, if we're going to have these night

sessions, let's ask the Government side to bring in the television

cameras after 11 o'clock, let's have them here at 3 and 4 o'clock in

the morning, and let the general public see the disgusting state that

this Assembly gets itself into. Mr. Speaker, what I'm asking for is

that we have something in here that is efficient, something that works,

and something that is business-like, and it's utter nonsense today to

suggest that people can intelligently discuss and consider the business

of the Province of British Columbia at 3 and 4 o'clock in the morning

when it is totally unnecessary. We know the reasons for it, everybody

on this side, and as the last member who spoke stated, lots of you

people over there talk about it in the coffee shop when you're enjoying

yourselves up there. Why don't you have the gumption to stand up today

and vote? No guts, eh?

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Saanich and the Islands.

MR. JOHN D. TISDALLE (Saanich and the Islands): The member

that just sat down, the second member from Vancouver–Point Grey, I

think for the records should be corrected. If we had the time we could

go through and prove it that when he accused this side of the House,

the Government, of being delinquent in bringing in its Bills, that last

year and the year before when the Bills came in here, it was too fast

for the Opposition to deal with them, and you will find in the record

they moved adjournment over and over again, whe