1975 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, MAY 21, 1975

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

2487 ]

CONTENTS

Presenting petitions

Request for continuance of summer student employment programme.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2487

Routine proceedings

Trade Practices Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 88). Hon. Ms.

Young. Introduction and first reading — 2487

Oral Questions

ICBC strike. Mr. Fraser — 2487

Cass-Beggs successor. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2488

Indian blockade of Vancouver Island highway. Mr. Wallace — 2489

Claims service during ICBC strike. Mr. Smith — 2489

Policy on Indian land claims. Mr. Gibson — 2490

Assistance for bear victim. Mr. McClelland — 2490

Retrieval of accident information. Mr. Curtis — 2490

Committee of Supply: Department of the Attorney-General

estimates.

Division on motion that the committee rise and report progress —

Motions

Motion 3.

Mr. Rolston — 2491

Motion 4.

Mr. McClelland — 2492

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 2494

Division on adjournment of debate — 2494

Motion 6.

Mr. Wallace — 2495

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 2497

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 2497

Motion 7.

Ms. Sanford — 2498

Motion 9.

Mr. Rolston — 2499

Motion 11.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2501

Hon. Mr. Lea — 2505

Motion 13.

Ms. Brown — 2505

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2506

Hon. Mr. Lea — 2505

Motion 14.

Mr. Gabelmann — 2508

Motion 16.

Mr. Smith — 2508

Amendment to motion 16.

Mr. Phillips — 2511

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2514

Mr. Wallace — 2517

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2518

Point of order

Clarification of motion 16. Mr. Gibson — 2520

Mr. Speaker — 2520

Mr. Gibson — 2521

Mr. Speaker — 2521

Routine proceedings

Motions

Motion 16.

Mr. Chabot — 2521

WEDNESDAY, MAY 21, 1975

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Mr. Speaker,

I'd like to draw the attention of the House today to two visitors from the fastest-growing

and most prosperous area in the province — Elkford, B.C. They are Mayor Maartman

and Alderman Grieve.

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): Mr. Speaker, we have in the

gallery today Alderman and Mrs. Dennis Shuttleworth from the

municipality of Sechelt. I ask the House to join me in

welcoming them.

MR. SPEAKER: I might also say I have sent a floral bouquet

to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) who is,

unfortunately, in hospital. I'm sorry to hear that. I'm sure

the House will join me in expressing our hopes that he gets

better very quickly.

Presenting petitions.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to

present a petition.

Leave granted.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON:

"To the honourable Legislature of the Province of British

Columbia, the Legislature assembled, the petition of the

undersigned of the City of Nelson humbly showeth that we

respectfully and earnestly object and protest against the

curtailment of the summer employment programmes, and therefore

present to your honourable assembly a petition on behalf of

residents of the Nelson area of British Columbia, wherefore

your petitioners humbly pray that your honourable House may be

pleased to recommend that the summer student employment

programme not be cut for the summer of 1975, and as in duty

bound, your petitioners will ever pray."

Signed by: myself as their legislative sponsor; Lorena

Frattura; Wayne Glaab; Andy Shadrack.

Introduction of bills.

TRADE PRACTICES

AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

On a motion by Hon. Ms. Young, Bill 88, Trade Practices Amendment Act, 1975,

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

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

Oral questions.

ICBC STRIKE

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Mr. Speaker, a question to the

Minister of Transport and Communications. Will the Minister

confirm that, effective May 21, the RCMP have been instructed

not to prosecute any citizen with an invalid driver's

certificate until the ICBC strike is over?

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and

Communications): I can't give any such assurance. I have no

information that any such instruction has been given and,

certainly, I have neither given nor asked for any such

instruction.

I certainly regret any inconvenience that may occur as a

result of this strike. It's a very complicated situation. I

think the House is fully aware of what is taking place. The

negotiations took place in which the union asked for a package

which would have been a 100 per cent increase in present labour

costs. Right now the salary items alone still stand at about 61

per cent. We have offered an initial 26 per cent which has

since gone to 29 per cent, and that's the way the situation

is.

Now the fact that the motor vehicle branch is involved in

the handling of some ICBC work creates a problem and that was

why instructions were given. First of all, I would say that

management asked the union to make a joint application to the

Labour Relations Board to have it define what picketing and

where, when and how many, because I don't want any problems or

any holdups of any kind in normal government business. For that

reason I gave the instruction that the motor vehicle branch

should not handle or do any business as related to the

ICBC.

This is creating problems which we are examining in order to

see what can be done. But there is that situation that we must

keep the motor vehicle branch and the government buildings

completely free from any reason for any picketing. That's the

problem we are facing. As long as we keep ICBC work away from

the government agency, then, of course, there is no reason for

picketing the motor vehicle branch.

MR. FRASER: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In thinking of the

inconvenience to the public because of the strike, what is the

Minister going to do about the weigh scale operators refusing

to issue temporary permits for unlicensed vehicles? I might say

to the Minister that the logging industry is just trying to get

back to work and they have to move their unlicensed vehicles

along the roads. They have to have

[ Page 2488 ]

temporary permits to be legal, and no one will issue them

temporary permits. What are you going to do about that

situation?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, as I said, we are examining every

aspect where there is any delay of any kind. There is a strike

on. I think you appreciate that. There are those circumstances....

MR. FRASER: The weigh scale operators are not on strike.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, related to the weigh scale

operation for temporary permits there is an insurance factor

because they are moving on the highway. I think you have to

keep that in mind. But there is a strike situation that none of

us are happy about.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): A supplementary

on the same subject — ICBC and the present difficulties. May I

ask the Minister what contingency plans have been implemented

for those accident victims who are receiving ICBC compensation

payments on a regular basis? One case in particular — this man

is entitled to $50 per week. He received it every four weeks,

which I believe is the rule. His next cheque or draft from ICBC

is due this Friday, May 23. He is unable to work at any job as

a result of the accident last year and this is his only means

of income until he can return to work and until full settlement

is made. Will he be able to receive his cheque this Friday? I

am sure he is by no means alone.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, I am quite sure the management and staff will

do everything they can to avoid any person in that situation being without their

regular payments.

MR. CURTIS: I take the Minister to say, then, that accident

payments of this nature described will be given some sort of

priority.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I made my statement very clear, I

thought. I am quite sure the management and staff will do

everything possible to prevent anyone in that situation from

being without a cheque.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): To the Minister of

Transport and Communications on a supplementary: with regard to

ICBC's order to small auto body shops that they must carry ICBC

costs during the current strike situation, has ICBC made

provision to pay interest to the body shops for these costs

that they will be carrying on behalf of the company?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, first of all, Madam Member, that

statement is completely erroneous, wrong and completely

unfounded.

MRS. JORDAN: Do you want to withdraw your letter to

them?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: We didn't ask anyone to carry anything.

The communication and the statement made it very clear; I read

part of it yesterday.

The body shops will be compensated at the same time as they

always have been on an average basis. They know that. In order

to ensure the cash flow to the body shops, we will take this

action because we realize that they can't. I don't know whether

anyone else would have done that, but that is certainly what

this corporation intends to do: to maintain the cash flow to

the body shops at an equivalent amount so that they have that

kind of money to keep on operating.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): A supplementary regarding

the ICBC situation. This noon, a spokesman for the ARA

announced that cars, after being repaired in a body shop, will

not likely be turned over to the owner without full payment of

repairs, which is in direct conflict with statements made by

the general manager of ICBC. I wonder what contingency plan the

Minister has to overcome this serious customer

inconvenience.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, as I say, there is a strike on. If

there are sections of the community who are going to create

more problems, then we will have to face up to them. But I'll

take your question as notice. What I explained to you was my

understanding of what is taking place.

MR. CHABOT: Just one short supplementary. In view of the

lengthy delay of ICBC in refunding overpayments on premiums,

can the Minister, in the event that there is a pay-out by the

customer on the repair for a car before he can retrieve his

vehicle, give us an assurance that there will be prompt refund

of these charges to the customers of ICBC?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I can't make any guarantee. There is a

strike situation on. You know that you can't expect a perfect

organization or a perfect carrying on when there is a strike

situation.

CASS-BEGGS SUCCESSOR

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: To the Premier — and Minister of Finance

with reference to the Premier's statement in the House

yesterday concerning Dr. Cass-Beggs, that he does not

completely agree with

[ Page 2489 ]

him all the time. He agreed to come and stay two years,

which he has done. Finally, now Hydro has to move to the next

step. Can I ask the Premier whether any discussions have been

held recently with a view to selecting a successor to Dr.

Cass-Beggs?

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, that is a matter

between the board of directors and Mr. Cass-Beggs.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Could I ask then, Mr. Speaker, whether

the Premier would indicate, as the man responsible ultimately

for Hydro in the absence of the Minister of Lands, Forests and

Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams), whether or not one of the

points of difference between the government and Dr. Cass-Beggs

is the latter's opposition to reopening the Columbia

treaty?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Whose opposition?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Dr. Cass-Beggs' opposition to reopening

the Columbia treaty.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): A supplementary

to the Premier, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate that this is a matter

between the board of directors and Dr. Cass-Beggs, but I ask

the Premier if he has any knowledge of it. Just a simple

question: has he any knowledge of such a meeting suggesting his

replacement?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Any knowledge of a meeting...?

MR. GIBSON: Of a meeting discussing his successor.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No.

INDIAN BLOCKADE OF

VANCOUVER ISLAND HIGHWAY

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask

the Minister of Human Resources a question with regard to his

involvement in Indian affairs. I am referring specifically to

the action of Indians who have blockaded the only highway in

the northern part of Vancouver Island yesterday, charging tolls

of $1 per car, 25 cents per passenger and $25 for a commercial

vehicle. Has the Minister, or perhaps the Deputy

Attorney-General in the absence of the Attorney-General, taken

any action against what in effect is an illegal action?

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Human Resources): Mr. Speaker, I'll take the question as notice.

MR. WALLACE: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Could I just ask,

though, in light of the fact that the provincial government has

agreed to negotiate with the Indians, whether the Minister has

or will the Minister consider asking the Indians, in the light

of this initiative by government to meet their request for

negotiations, to discontinue this harassment of the public

until such time as negotiations get underway?

HON. MR. LEVI: Mr. Member, you may recall that when we made

the statement, when I read the statement in the House on May 8, I indicated at that time that I hoped that our indication to

meet with them would cool things off. At that time I was

dealing particularly with the question of meeting with them. We

obviously are discussing this matter. There are several cabinet

Ministers involved with it.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Would the Minister

advise the House why a date so long in the future was set for

meeting with them? If you are going to sit down and negotiate,

why so long in the future?

HON. MR. LEVI: I reported to the House that I said that we

would like to meet towards the end of June. On the phone, the

Indian leaders responded: "How about June 26 and 27?" That was

their response to the statement I had in proposing the latter

part of June. The other thing is to enable us to co-ordinate

all of the cabinet Ministers who are in and out of Victoria to

be present at the meeting. We have not yet scheduled a firm

date.

CLAIMS SERVICE DURING

ICBC STRIKE

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): My question is to the

Hon. Minister of Transport and Communications. Considering the

fact that many people will be inconvenienced by the fact that

they will have problems getting claims adjusted by ICBC during

the current strike, is the Minister prepared to use the 87

private adjusting firms which operate in the Province of

British Columbia to do the insurance adjusting during this

particular period of crisis for people who are involved in

accidents?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, the statement I read yesterday

indicated that there should be no problems, and that I was

expecting cooperation from the auto body shops, in view of the

fact that they were being guaranteed their cash flow income. If

the auto body shops will go along with my suggestion and with

that financial protection for them, I can't see that there

should be any problem for any individual

[ Page 2490 ]

to have his needs met very expeditiously.

POLICY ON INDIAN LAND CLAIMS

MR. GIBSON: To the Minister of Human Resources, Mr. Speaker,

I think the late June meeting he was discussing earlier on

relates particularly to cutoff lands. But I'd ask him a

question on the more general case of the so-called B.C. land

question. Since the NDP convention adopted a resolution for the

immediate joining of the provincial government to the

negotiations between the Indian people and Ottawa, is this now

government policy?

HON. MR. LEVI: No, it's NDP policy.

ASSISTANCE FOR BEAR VICTIM

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): A question to the Premier.

Early this month the Premier received a letter from one Malcolm

Aspeslet, a young man who was attacked by a grizzly bear in

1971 in Glacier National Park. This young man lost his scalp in

saving the live of a young woman who is now his wife and has

asked the Premier whether or not the Premier would look into

the possibility of financial assistance to get a permanent wig

and plastic surgery to restore his head to a better condition.

I wonder whether the Premier has taken any action on that and

whether he intends to.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The matter has been referred to the

Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke), where the case is being

reviewed.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary, I wonder

whether the Premier or the Minister of Health would be prepared

to accept a notice of motion offering

an act of grace from this

Legislature to make the money available for this brave young

man.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the matter is under review by

the department. Until a decision is made there, there's nothing

more the government can say.

MR. McCLELLAND: Will you be replying to this man soon? He's

been waiting for a reply and hasn't heard from you or the

government.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, we have the letter and the

Minister's department is looking into it.

RETRIEVAL OF ACCIDENT INFORMATION

MR. CURTIS: Once again, to the Minister of Transport and

Communications with regard to the ICBC situation. Is the Minister, Mr. Speaker, aware of any

problems being experienced by RCMP or municipal police forces

in retrieval of information which is important — vital, indeed — to them in the carrying out of their day-to-day operations?

That is with regard to registered owners, licence numbers,

addresses and so on.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Not that I am aware of.

Orders of the day.

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

during discussion of my estimates I was asked for a copy of an

article that talked about disease in the poultry industry in

the Fraser Valley. With leave, I would like to table this.

Leave granted.

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

ESTIMATES:

DEPARTMENT OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL

(continued)

On vote 21: correction services, $27,501,093 — continued.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and

Communications) : Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise,

report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 27

Barrett

Strachan

Nimsick

Stupich

Hartley

Calder

Brown

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Levi

Lorimer

Cocke

Lea

Young

Radford

Nicolson

Skelly

Gabelmann

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Barnes

Kelly

Lewis

Liden

NAYS — 12

Jordan

Smith

Phillips

Chabot

Fraser

Richter

McClelland

Curtis

Schroeder

Gibson

Anderson, D.A.

Wallace

Mr. Chabot requests that leave be asked to record the

division in the Journals of the House.

[ Page 2491 ]

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports progress

and asks leave to sit again, and further reports that a

division took place in committee and requests that the division

be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, this being private Members'

day, I suggest the House move to motions or adjourned debate on

motions. It gives me a great deal of pleasure to call motion

MR. SPEAKER: I think the Hon. Second Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) is absent today. Should the

motion be dropped from the order paper or...?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Whatever the normal procedure is.

MR. SPEAKER: The normal procedure is to drop it from the

order paper.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Fair enough. I then call motion 3.

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): Mr. Speaker, I move: "That the

division of vital statistics of the Department of Health

consider legislation that would encourage couples anticipating

marriage to take counselling and reflection or attend a

marriage course prior to getting married in British

Columbia."

I believe the operative words are that the division of vital

statistics should at least consider legislation, that they

should encourage couples who are anticipating marriage to seek

what I believe is surely reasonable — some kind of help.

This province has by far the highest divorce rate in Canada.

It is 26.5 per cent. There is only some value in quoting that

statistic when you are discussing marriage preparation. But I

feel it is important that this House at least give some

sanction, some encouragement to the fact that many people are

getting proper training, that people are trying to, I think,

help people in life's most complex relationship, the marriage

relationship.

I would like to think that this motion and this debate in this House would

at least recognize that a lot of people are being certified as teachers and

counsellors, that many of us require three marriage counselling courses or marriage

counselling preparatory interviews now. Some require a course. In the parish

that I work in, I personally require two months, and we have for many, many

years. In fact, there is no church in the city that I live in that will allow

anybody to be married with less than one month's preparation.

I feel that some sense of restraint, some sense of at least

this House recognizing that it's a very beautiful but a very

complex relationship that requires some sense of adjustment. A

period, I think, of getting a licence is reasonable, but I

think it is especially important to help people look at the

issues. Many issues surface that couples who have even lived

together........ Incidentally, in my experience about 30 per

cent of the couples that we marry are living together and have

for quite a period of time, but that doesn't necessarily mean

there is communication.

I think that some of the issues do surface, that this gives

a chance for counselling and reflection. It gives a chance to

look at the strengths, to look at the self-images, to look at

the expectations of marriage, to look at what one values in

marriage, what expectation there really is in being a parent.

We can look at fight training — we can look at a variety of

things.

I believe that the community should also have some input, We

believe that there can be courses in the community to look at

the legal, the credit, the budgeting, the sexual, the

emotional, the spiritual and the whole community input into

marriage.

Many people, of course, are forgoing the parenting aspect of

marriage, possibly because there is a lot of information out

there, but there needs to be a lot of thinking.

I was very impressed with an

article on the editorial page

in The Vancouver Sun yesterday by a physician in West

Vancouver who said that there is a lot of information out there

but there is very little chance to discuss it. We are not short

of information, whether it is on sexuality or other aspects of

simply growing up and entering into marriage. But it is a

chance to, in a detached and, I think, in a professional way,

view that information that I feel is quite, quite

necessary.

So I am glad there is a chance to look at this. I think

that, really, this is a common sense motion. It makes a lot of

sense that we look at helping in life's most complex

relationship, that couples are prepared. We want there to be

communication. We don't want people to take marriage casually,

which I personally feel is the biggest single reason for the

breakdown in marriage — that people do take it very casually.

Of course, in the marriage service you are indicted to not take

marriage casually, and yet people do.

I think we are as strong in our society as our families are

and as our marriage relationships are strong. This is a sound,

human investment. I, again, feel that you can detect

weaknesses. You can sometimes detect people who are not

compatible, who don't really have the full interest of the

other person. As you spend time in counselling, in preparatory

courses, I would even hope that

[ Page 2492 ]

eventually this could be dealt with effectively and

systematically in effective living and family life courses in

the schools.

I feel that this is a very worthwhile chance, and I am glad

to now move adjournment of this debate.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Motion 4, Mr. Speaker.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Motion 4 is a simple motion

that the government should have no difficulty in accepting, I'm

sure. It is one which calls for all of the studies relating to

the petrochemical complex proposed for British Columbia, at a

site yet to be announced, to be made available to this House

right now. (See appendix.)

Based on the fact that the Premier made the announcement in

Ottawa that there will be such an oil refinery-petrochemical

complex built somewhere in British Columbia, it is important

that the people of British Columbia know upon what the

government based that kind of decision.

MR. SPEAKER: Excuse me for interrupting, but I should have

reminded Members to have their resolutions ready, signed by

themselves, to send up to the table. I would ask the Hon.

Member if he would send his resolution up. I should have also

reminded the Member for Dewdney (Mr. Rolston).

MR. McCLELLAND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I really don't see why. As a courtesy,

I've let Members proceed, but I think I should remind you of

the practice. The Hon. Member hasn't sent up his resolution,

which you formally should do before you enter upon your

remarks. However, I'm sure each of you will be ready now. The

Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) will presumably be

getting ready for the same thing.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, not only is it important to the

Members of this House so that we can make some rational

decisions upon which we can base either our opposition or our

support of such a refinery, but it's also important to the

people in those locations that have been mentioned as a

possible site for the refinery: Surrey; Merritt; Clinton now,

which was a late arrival in the stakes race for the refinery;

and now we understand Roberts Bank is no longer being

considered.

Some very significant statements have been made by Ministers of this government

and by members of the petroleum corporation which are in direct conflict with

each other. In making statements to a group of young people in Surrey, the junior

chamber of commerce members in Surrey, members of the petroleum corporation

have said that the refinery will be built, and it likely will be built in Surrey,

where some 1,200 acres of land have already been optioned. People have been

told that that land is being optioned for an oil refinery, and yet the government

maintains the charade that they're looking at other sites. The Minister of Economic

Development (Hon. Mr. Lauk) told this House one day, in the debate of his estimates,

that there was no way that that refinery could be built anywhere but on the

lower mainland of British Columbia, because to build it anywhere else would

take it too far from the source of the market. Well, that indicates to most

people in B.C. that the refinery is going to be built, if it's built at all,

in Surrey, because the other site on the lower mainland has been ruled out.

A group of Victoria consultants was asked to do an

environmental and land-use study on the proposed refinery. The

information I have, and it's never been denied by the Premier,

the Mines Minister (Hon. Mr. Nimsick), the Economic Development

Minister or the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald), was that

that group of Victoria consultants was given only one site to

look at, and that was the site on the lower mainland. They

weren't asked to look at Clinton; they weren't asked to look at

Merritt; they weren't asked to look at any place but the lower

mainland for this refinery. Well, that's hardly an objective

study. We're told as well, and it's never been denied by the

Mines Minister, the Economic Development Minister, the Premier

or the Attorney-General, that the Environment and Land Use

Committee has recommended that the site not be in Surrey, and

recommended very strongly that if a refinery is to be built in

should be in some other area than the Surrey area. That's never

been denied, and yet all the evidence that we get from the

government indicates that they're going ahead pell-mell with a

site in Surrey, if there's to be a refinery built.

The site that's being proposed is the Hazelmere Valley area

of South Surrey. It's one of the most aesthetically beautiful

spots in British Columbia. It's a narrow valley which can't

stand any more pipeline development or any more corridor

development of railways, and I think it's a foregone conclusion

that if that refinery goes into that Hazelmere Valley, the

railroad tracks that presently go down the beach in White Rock

will have to be relocated through that narrow corridor in the

beautiful Hazelmere Valley in order to service that refinery.

That would be over the, strong, vigorous objections of the

Surrey council, the regional district and every person who

lives in that area. Yet here we are with this government

forging ahead without any concern for the people in that area

or the council.

The petroleum corporation assures us it will be the

[ Page

2493 ]

highest-standard refinery with all of the latest pollution control measures,

but we're not at all sure that even with those latest pollution control measures

we're not in danger of a serious oil spill either offshore or on the land and

into the rivers, which are already threatened in that area — the Nikomekl and

Little Campbell rivers — which will threaten the ecosystem of that area for

hundreds of years to come.

That's an important waterfowl refuge, it's an important

spawning area for salmon, and it's just too important to be

left to the whims of this government without the proper studies

being made available. We don't know yet whether those studies

have been done or what they say. I think that the planning has

gone far enough now that we must be given those studies today

so that we can intelligently and honestly assess the situation

and see exactly where the government is going.

Environment Canada, in answering a request from the Central

Fraser Valley Regional District for a study into the

possibility of an oil refinery on Sumas Mountain, in the Member

for Chilliwack's (Mr. Schroeder'

s) constituency, has said that

it would take a minimum of one year and probably two to three

years in order to do the kind of environmental study that would

allow them to safely go ahead with the establishment of a

refinery there.

They have to look at fish kill; they have to look at the way

the water flows. It's an important study that would take up to

three years, according to Environment Canada. Yet we seem to be

willing to go ahead with either no studies or, at the very

most, studies which have been done over a period of a few

months — not years, but months — in an area which is far more

ecologically sensitive than that area on Sumas Mountain. Yet

this government appears ready and willing to go ahead without

the kind of studies that are necessary.

The opposition to this refinery in the areas which are

mentioned in the lower mainland is overwhelming. It ranges from

the Surrey council to the members of the regional district to

people in the Langley area who are going to be affected as

well. A huge new city of some 10,000 to 20,000 people going up

in the Brookswood area of Langley is going to be directly

affected by the spin-offs of that refinery if it's built in the

Surrey area. It'll ruin a whole area; it'll alter the

lifestyles of a complete, now urbanizing area of the lower

mainland.

Mr. Speaker, there is a serious conflict of positions among the Ministers as

related to the civil servants who are involved in the petroleum corporation.

The Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) is quoted as saying he doesn't want

a refinery in British Columbia. The Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr.

Lauk) told this House we need a refinery right now. His shocking statement to

this House was: "If you want to eat, you'd better have a garbage can in your

back yard." What kind of nonsense is that, Mr. Speaker?

We say that the people in that area have a right to be

protected from the excesses of this government, particularly in

that kind of an area which is so sensitive and so important to

the balance of life of British Columbia.

I mention again that the Victoria consultants weren't given

any other site to choose from expect one on the lower mainland.

If the government was really serious about honestly assessing

the parts of British Columbia which might be able to stand this

refinery, then it should have opened up that study to all of

the sites that were mentioned — Clinton as well as the Surrey

and Roberts Bank areas. The only area ruled out so far is

Roberts Bank.

You know, it's not even sure that we need a refinery at this

time in British Columbia, or ever. The present refineries —

seven of them — are producing 150,000 barrels per day. The

crude stock that we have, 40 per cent of it comes from British

Columbia and 60 per cent is imported from Alberta. The present

capacity of those refineries, if allowed to expand — the

present facilities to manufacture non-leaded gas — would cover

the B.C. requirements until late 1980 or early 1990s. So why do

we need today to spend what will be probably a minimum of $350

million of taxpayers' money to build a refinery whose economic

potential is, to say the least, very tenuous, and the need for

which is also just as tenuous? We probably don't need it.

Certainly, the Premier has waffled in this House with regard

to the supply of crude oil to sustain this refinery. First of

all, in answer to questions from several Members of this House,

he said that if there was no oil, there would be no refinery.

We attempted to pin him down by saying: "Do you have an

agreement with Alberta to supply crude oil for this refinery?"

The Premier said: "If there's no oil, there's no refinery." Mr.

Speaker, that's in direct contradiction to the other Members of

this House who have said that there will be a refinery. There

is no agreement from Alberta to supply crude oil, and you can

bet your boots there never will be.

Now the Premier waffled the other day and says: "Well maybe

we'll accept oil from Alaska." Maybe. Before in this House, in

answer to questions from us he said: "No way will we accept oil

from Alaska." Mr. Speaker, the waffling by the Premier suggests

to me that when we don't get an agreement from Alberta for

crude oil, we're going to see tankers loaded with oil plying

the coasts of this province with the assurance and the

complicity of that government on that side of the House. That's

a shocking reversal of the kind of ecological pap that that

government fed us in the beginning. They don't care for the

ecology of this province and they never will.

Mr. Speaker, I've talked about the location, the

[ Page 2494 ]

environment, the feasibility and the marketing, but perhaps

most important of all of the questions we've asked in this

motion are the studies which we hope have been done relating to

the social impact.

Just before I get on to that, I'd like to just say that the

Premier also said that if Surrey doesn't want the refinery,

Surrey won't have it. Then he went on to say: "If Surrey will

first of all look at the environmental studies and then decide

whether or not they want the refinery, we'll abide by their

decision." It sounded great when he stood in the House and said

that. But what did the corporation lawyer for the B.C.

Petroleum Corp. say in his letter to Surrey council? Nothing

like that.

I'll just take you back in history a bit, Mr. Speaker.

Surrey council passed a motion in February that it was not in

favour of an oil refinery in Surrey, period. It's as simple as

that. So the petroleum corporation lawyer comes along and

writes a letter to Surrey after the Premier's statement, and

says: "Have you changed your mind about that motion in

February? If you have, we'll let you look at the environmental

studies." What kind of flip-flop is that?

First of all they say to Surrey: "Commit yourself to

accepting the refinery and then you can look at the

environmental studies." Mr. Speaker, the commitment and the

promise made by the Premier was that, first of all, all of

those studies would be made available and they should be made

available at an open meeting so that the people of Surrey could

have a chance to look at them as well — the people of the lower

mainland also, for that matter. But he said: "First of all,

look at the studies. If you don't like them and they don't look

good, then make your decision." And the corporation comes along

and says: "Hey, change your mind first and then we'll let you

look at the studies." Boy, that's some deal for the people of

Surrey. It's a sellout, that's what it is.

But finally, Mr. Speaker, the most important aspect of this motion has to do

with the social impact studies which, if they haven't been done, sure should

have been done before anyone went anywhere near proposing a refinery for the

Province of British Columbia, particularly on the scale about which we are talking.

I have mentioned before that the whole beautiful part of British Columbia is

going to be drastically altered if a $350 million oil refinery complex is plunked

right in the middle of that beautiful valley. It's a shameful concept to begin

with, one which I can't accept and will fight with every source I have available

to make sure that that refinery doesn't go into the Hazelmere Valley. But if

it does, Mr. Speaker, do you know what it will do to that lifestyle of the people

in those communities? Langley will be affected. Delta will be affected. White

Rock will be affected. Surrey certainly will be affected. The City of Langley,

the Whalley area — all of those rapidly urbanizing areas which are now accepting

the people who can't fit into the greater Vancouver core — are now accepting

them in housing, accepting them in hobby farm areas, five-acre plots. A beautiful

part of British Columbia is going to have a refinery jammed down their throats

and there's no way their lifestyle won't be changed.

Policing costs will go

up, as well as pollution-control costs throughout that whole area, because that

refinery is going to smoke and smell and emit a heck of a lot of noise. Those

costs are going to go up. The costs of social welfare are going to go up. The

need to provide schools will be greater. And who's going to pay for it? — nobody

but the taxpayers of the municipality of Surrey. If you've been reading your

local papers lately, everybody knows that on the headlines of every weekly in

British Columbia today, the headlines are screaming: "Twenty Per Cent Tax Increase"

— "Thirty Per Cent Tax Increase" — "Fifteen Per Cent Tax Increase." And here

we have a government which says that it's going to jam an oil refinery and

the peripheral industries which it will attract down the throats of those people

who live in that residential suburb. And they are going to say: "You pay for

those peripheral costs." That's not fair to the people of Surrey either.

So, just in wrapping up, I must say that it's time this

government told the people of British Columbia what it's up to.

It's time the government told the people of British Columbia

where we stand in relation to this oil refinery. And it's time

we had all those studies right here right now.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the time is long past. It

should have been done a long time ago. But the Premier or the

Attorney-General or whoever is in charge of this refinery

should now say: "Okay, here are the studies; let us get at them

and look at them." Right now they've got the blinkers on and

the people of British Columbia are being blinded to what the

truth is in this whole matter.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): To borrow a phrase

from the Member opposite, this House should be protected from

the excesses of the Hon. Member. Due to the absence of the

Minister, the Attorney-General, I move adjournment of debate

until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 28

Barrett

Strachan

Nimsick

Hartley

Calder

Brown

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Dent

Levi

Lorimer

Cocke

Lea

Young

[ Page 2495 ]

Radford

Nicolson

Skelly

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Barnes

Kelly

Lewis

Liden

Stupich

Gabelmann

NAYS — 11

Smith

Phillips

Chabot

Fraser

Richter

McClelland

Curtis

Schroeder

Gibson

Anderson, D.A.

Wallace

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the

House.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Motion 5.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member not being present....

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): On a point of

order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask unanimous leave of

the House to allow this motion to stand in the absence of the

Hon. Member.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Motion 6.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I would like to

move:

"That a royal commission be established to examine the

mining industry in British Columbia with particular reference

to the impact of past, present and proposed federal and

provincial taxation measures on the industry."

AN HON. MEMBER: Where's the Minister of Mines?

AN HON. MEMBER: He retired already.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, in proposing this motion, I am

attempting to find some kind of way in which the present

deterioration of the mining industry in British Columbia might

be mitigated and hopefully reversed.

We have had some long and bitter debates on the whole role of mining in our

economy, and the degree to which this government is entitled to a share of the

revenue derived from the production of minerals. There is obviously a real conflict

of information, of facts and figures, I think, produced both by the federal

and provincial levels of government to try and bolster and support justification

for the legislation which has very recently been applied to the mining industry.

I'm thinking particularly of the recent federal action in disallowing royalties

as an income tax deductible expense. This was discussed in an earlier debate.

All along this government has maintained that this

legislation and its royalty policies are not in effect damaging

the industry. Just on that point alone, Mr. Speaker, I think it

is interesting to look at the first-quarter reports for 197 5

from two of the mining companies in British Columbia.

Lornex Mining Corp. in the Highland Valley had earnings for

the first quarter, before taxes and royalties, of $2.3 million.

But taxes and royalties took $2.2 million, and the company was

left with exactly $113,000. When one considers the investment

of large sums of money to get a mine into production, and the

plant and equipment, and you consider the return that I have

just mentioned, one has to understand why there is very little

interest in encouraging investment in the province.

In the case of Gibraltar Mines, in the first quarter of this

year the company had sales of $5.9 million. After income and

mining taxes and royalties, the company was left with $44,000.

So regardless of political ideology or federal-provincial

wrangling, it is quite clear from the figures available in the

mining industry that it is in trouble and that the revenue

being derived by this government is continually decreasing in

the face of government legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I don't think we can suggest that the easiest

and most appropriate way to tax the mining industry is a very

obvious and easily calculated formula, The socialist government

of Manitoba has admitted its own difficulties in trying to

determine an appropriate return on the revenue from the mining

industry under the Metallic Minerals Royalty Act, and even the

Premier Schreyer himself is on record as saying that his bill

is not aimed at increasing the amount of royalties paid to the

provincial Treasury. But he has admitted that his original

estimate of $30 million from royalties will not be realized and

the actual figure will be around $17 million. As a consequence,

Premier Schreyer has modified the original legislation and

brought in a two-tiered system of mining taxes where there is

the basic tax of 12.5 per cent on profits and an incremental

royalty rate of 33 per cent. Under this new suggestion,

consideration is to be given to the amount of investment

involved by a mining company, depreciation and the rate of

inflation.

As I say, Mr. Speaker, it is quite clearly a complicated

issue to try and reach that middle ground where all the

legitimate goals of government are realized. I hope these

legitimate goals of government are realized. I hope these

legitimate goals could be considered as being mainly threefold:

first of all, we need new mines as a means of continuing to

derive revenue from our natural resources and to use

[ Page 2496 ]

that revenue for social services; I think it is accepted by

all parties that we do need royalties or some form of taxation

on mineral production; thirdly, and it might surprise the

government side of the House to hear me say this, we do need

regulation of the mining industry in terms of conservation and

reclamation, and in order to maintain the least environmental

damage from mining, whether it be strip mining or

otherwise.

We feel that although these three goals are, I hope,

recognized and agreed to by all parties, the manner in which we

are going about the problem of taxation in particular leaves

something to be desired. We felt, and still do feel, that Bill

31 was based on various data and analyses which were incorrect, and that to some extent, at least, the government was letting

ideology overcome its capacity to interpret cold facts and

figures in the business world and certainly in the mining

world. We feel that this Bill 31 represented a very poorly

structured system of mineral royalties.

But we do agree on one point — that the mining companies do

not own the mineral resources, but they have rights to develop

these mineral resources. Surely the real challenge to

governments is to create a climate in which mining development

can continue with the appropriate regulations and controls,

which I've mentioned, and to establish conservation measures

and attempt to minimize the effect on the environment. But

surely equally important is that the systems of federal and

provincial taxation should allow a reasonable return to the

investor and a reasonable return in taxation revenue to the

Crown.

The reason for this motion is an attempt to take this very

complicated and controversial issue out of the strictly

political arena and set up a royal commission of independent,

knowledgeable people in the industry to review mining taxation

legislation of the past, according to which this government

claims that the citizens of British Columbia were ripped off. I

won't even choose to pass judgment one way or the other on

that. But this is a claim frequently made: in earlier days the

mining companies got away with murder.

At the present time we know the immediate impact of Bill 31

and other mining legislation which this government has

introduced, so that is the past and the present. Any objective

citizen of this province looking at the scene today, I think,

could readily come to the conclusion that while all may not

have been well in recent years inasmuch as government did not

derive a fair share of the revenue for the benefit of all the

people, we now know one thing for sure: the money isn't even

there any more, and the share the government is getting,

whatever share it is, is a share of a much reduced total sum of

money.

I forget the figure quoted, but the Premier did state in his budget speech

an amount that had been expected to be derived in royalties. But in the next

fiscal year we can expect only $9 million in royalties from the mining industry

in the current fiscal year. Surely, in the face of these very obvious consequences

of the legislation, we shouldn't be too stubborn to recognize that maybe the

time has arrived to take a serious, independent look at the mining industry

and the whole question of the manner in which it is being taxed. In this Legislature

we cannot compel or perhaps even persuade the federal government to change its

particular position in disallowing royalties as an income-tax deductible expense.

But I do think it isn't just a question of one or another level of government

trying to prove how tough it can be if the consequence is disaster to the mining

industry and a continuing loss of revenue to the province because of the taxation

policies.

So, Mr. Speaker, since we've already had long and bitter

debates on the mining industry, I don't propose to talk at any

great length. But I do think that an overwhelming and very

obvious fact emerges — that as long as the taxation applied to

the mining industry is used as an ideological weapon to further

the dogma of this particular government rather than looking at

the cold, hard economic facts of the situation, then it would

be a tragedy for British Columbia.

It would seem to me, from the complexity of the picture, and

if one has taken the trouble to read Eric Kierans' lengthy

review of mining in Canada and the degree and manner in which

it should be taxed, one can only come to the conclusion that it

is, indeed, a complicated problem, But be that as it may, Mr.

Speaker, it is quite clear that no new mines are being

developed, the source of revenue is continually decreasing and

we have unemployment in what, until recently at least, was our

second most important industry in B.C.

I suggest that rather than just blundering on, as I said a

moment ago, depending upon party ideology to determine how the

industry should be treated, it would seem only to make sense,

since so much is at stake in terms of people's employment and

in terms of revenues available for the vastly increased social

services which the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) said the

other day we couldn't afford.... We couldn't afford

intermediate care because of the excessively high cost.

One thing is quite certain: if we continue because of bad

legislation to derive a constantly decreasing amount of revenue

from the mining industry, then it is certain that we won't be

able to afford the expansion of some of the social services

which all of us in this House, at least, state we are in favour

of in all the debates, particularly in relation to education,

health and human resources.

If, perhaps, any Member of the government side wishes to

make some comments in this debate, probably they could mention

to what degree they

[ Page 2497 ]

accept the argument that, regardless of the method of taxing

the mining industry, it is to everybody's disadvantage if the

net sum of revenue to be derived from the industry is to be

decreasing to the amount revealed by the Minister of Finance

(Hon. Mr. Barrett) in his budget this year.

I suppose we will be told in this debate, "Oh, it's just a

matter of deteriorating world prices for copper," and so

on and so forth. But I think we would be again simply trying to

bolster the political position of this government by making

that statement. I've taken the trouble to talk to various

people in the mining industry and asked them quite clearly: now

tell me to what degree the real problems in the mining industry

are due to taxation measures and what are due to world prices?

There's no doubt in the minds of people in the mining industry

that as long as this government persists with Bill 31, there is

no hope that the mining industry can recover.

For these various reasons, which have all been put forward

before, I realize, in previous debates, I do feel that an

independent review by experts to try to be of some assistance

to both senior levels of government, let alone as a way of

resuscitating the mining industry, a royal commission, makes a

great deal of sense. I move motion 6.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Point of order.

I thank the Member for his very conservative and careful

statement, but under Speakers' Decisions , volume 3, page

64: "The House has no power to issue any royal commission."

Therefore I would ask you....

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Where did you get that

note? Did the Speaker send you that note?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The Speaker sent me no notes, my

friend.

MR. SPEAKER: That's not true. That's absolutely untrue.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I resent that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I would think so.

Under volume 3, page 64: "The House has no power to issue a

royal commission." Therefore I ask you to rule this motion out

of order.

MR. CHABOT: While you're looking up your decision, Mr.

Speaker, maybe I could speak on the motion.

AN HON. MEMBER: No way!

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I'm quite sure I recall that decision,

because I've used it once in the House already...

MR. CHABOT: You were just looking at it.

MR. SPEAKER: ...during the last three years.

MR. CHABOT: You were just looking at it, in fact.

MR. SPEAKER: No, I'm trying to find it. Wrong volume.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Is that volume 3?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Volume 3, page 64.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the Hon. Minister of Transport and

Communications is in error. I've found it in volume 2,

Speakers' Decisions , and it's on page 64. Your note,

whatever it is, is obviously wrong.

Page 64, it says as follows:

"Mr. Speaker Keen: I think the point of order is well taken.

I find, on reference to

section 4 of the Public Inquiries Act,

that it is provided that royal commissions are to be issued

under the Great Seal by His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, where the subject of the

inquiry is not regulated by a special law. I know of no special

law to the contrary. The motion is further out of order

inasmuch as it assumes to dictate the frame and scope of the

royal commission asked for."

So on both counts the Hon. Speaker, Mr. Speaker Keen, ruled

the motion out of order, which was to consider the advisability

of appointing a royal commission to inquire into and

investigate the report upon certain matters regarding the

Pacific Great Eastern Railway Co. That was on March 1, 1920,

the Journals of the House , at page 74.

MR. GIBSON: On a point of clarification, Mr. Speaker. The

ruling, then, of Mr. Speaker Keen, I take it, was essentially

that this infringed upon a Crown prerogative.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes.

MR. GIBSON: I take it that it's not simply because of the

Act itself, because a resolution of the Legislature could

override any Act of the Legislature.

MR. SPEAKER: No, a resolution could not overrule the

prerogative of the Crown unless the Crown consented to have a

prerogative removed.

[ Page 2498 ]

Therefore it follows that it can only be on the initiative

of the Crown that a royal commission could be appointed since

it is a prerogative of the Crown under law.

MR. GIBSON: In other words, it rests on the argument of

Crown prerogative rather than on the statute referred to.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, indeed.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Motion 7, Mr. Speaker.

MS. K. SANFORD (Comox): In motion 7, Mr. Speaker, I am

asking that the government consider acquiring the E&N

Railway, putting it under public ownership and operating it as

a transit service which will benefit the people of Vancouver Island. In addition, I am asking that the government consider

extending that railway from Courtenay through to Campbell

River. (See appendix.)

What I'm actually asking, Mr. Speaker, is that the

government undertake a study because there is federal

jurisdiction over railways in this country and there will be

legal work required in order to determine how best the

provincial government can acquire the E&N.

I would like to give just a bit of history to what is

involved here in the E&N Railway in order to make my point

as to why the government should put this railway under public

ownership. First of all, this whole railway came about really

as a residue from the original CPR plan to build the railway

down Bute Inlet, across Seymour Narrows and from there down to

Esquimalt. The B.C. government was quite unhappy with the fact

that the CPR determined to end its railway on the mainland and

not continue from Nanaimo at least down to Esquimalt.

As a result, they raised some ruckus with the federal

government. In 1875 John A. Macdonald agreed that the federal

government would make a contribution of $750,000 to anyone who

would undertake to build the railway from Esquimalt to Nanaimo.

Robert Dunsmuir, of coal fame, accepted the deal. In 1883 he

and some of his associates built the railway down 82 miles from

Nanaimo to Esquimalt.

He and his associates put up $2.25 million in order to build

that railway. What did they get for it? They got from the

federal government a grant of $750,000 and they got that land

grant that is such a famous thing — 20 miles on either side of

the rail line from Esquimalt right up to a point midway between

Courtenay and Seymour Narrows. Mr. Speaker, that is one-quarter

of the total area of Vancouver Island that was given to

them.

This included all the timber on that land, and also included the mineral rights,

excluding gold. They also got all the materials they would need for the construction

of that railway duty free. Not only that, they didn't even have to pay any taxes.

The railway was completed in 1887. In 1905 the CPR decided

to purchase that railway. They didn't pay very much money for

it — $1.25 million, which included the railway, the land grant,

the timber and the minerals. The CPR then extended the railway

from Nanaimo into Port Alberni in 1911 and in 1916 the railway

was extended through to Courtenay.

That was quite a handsome grant that was first of all given

to Mr. Dunsmuir and then handed over to the CPR for $1.25

million. Some of the people in the Province of British Columbia

said: "Hey, let's have a second look at this. What have we

done?" In 1946 Chief Justice Sloan ruled that the CPR, "shall

no longer be immune from land taxes." He cites at that time the

kind of dollar gains that the CPR had already made from the

land and the timber on that land grant.

By 1944, the sale of timber lands had brought the CPR $14.80

million and they paid only $1.25 million for the railway, the

lands, the timber and the minerals all put together. That was

six times the contractor's original investment. They still

retained timber acreages worth about $12 million. Chief Justice

Sloan said that it was not unjust to tax future timberland

sales, considering that the total timberland sales equal $25

million that had already come in and that the wealth from the

minerals on non-timberland was not even counted. The CPR

appealed. They appealed to the British privy council but lost

that appeal. As a result, after 1947 all future timber and land

sales were to be taxed at 25 per cent.

So what happened? The federal government gave up $750,000

and, in addition, the provincial government, in order to get

that $750,000 grant to Mr. Dunsmuir to complete the railway,

had given up 3.5 million acres in the Peace River to the

federal government. This is what B.C. gave up so that they

could get this $750,000 grant.

Mr. Speaker, the CPR and that whole land grant, the whole

construction of the railway, was a giveaway. A giveaway. I

think it is time that we in British Columbia acquired that

railway and operated it to provide a decent passenger service

on the island. The E&N does not wish to continue its

passenger service. They say it is losing money, although the

figures are now not really clear because they are hidden in

other figures, including freight rates.

In 1968 they appealed to the Canadian Transport Commission

to disband the passenger service. They were not granted that

right in 1968, but a few things came to light at the time about

the operation of the E&N Railway. First of all, it was

generally agreed that the passenger service was going in the

wrong direction. It should not go from Esquimalt or Victoria

every day up to Courtenay and then return

[ Page

2499 ]

in the evening, but should rather start from Courtenay in

the morning to give people up there an opportunity to come to

the big city to do their shopping and then return in the

evening. I compliment E&N at this time, though, for having

changed that schedule. They have met that request of the public

at least.

But what did we find in 1968 when they were applying to have

their passenger service discontinued? Do you know what they

were spending to promote the passenger service? Do you know how

much they wanted people to use the E&N Dayliner? They spent

$150 in the whole, entire year for promotion — $150. I assume

that that is what it cost to print the schedules that they

needed, but they didn't even provide a connection with their

own CPR ferry boat.

MR. ROLSTON: Is that free enterprise?

MS. SANFORD: If people travelled on the CPR ferry coming

across from Vancouver to Nanaimo, they could not even find out

when the train ran. There was absolutely no attempt to have any

co-ordination there. They didn't bother to serve any food or

drink on the passenger lines. The waiting rooms up and down the

island were being closed, one station after another. The ones

that were still there were in a sad state of disrepair in many

cases. At that time they were ordered by the Canadian Transport

Commission to upgrade the railway, to clean up their stations

and to attempt to provide a better service to the people. Not

only that, but the rates are pretty high on the line.

But, Mr. Speaker, this is the wrong way to go. We don't want

to do away with passenger service on trains or buses at a time

when we are all trying to get away from the private automobile,

when we find the cost of fuel going up at such a rate, when we

recognize that there is an end in sight to fuel supplies on

this globe. We must begin to think about travelling together on

buses and on trains.

I recognize the difficulty here as far as the federal

government jurisdiction is concerned, but I would like to see

this study carried out, and call upon the government to do so.

With that, I move to adjourn debate on this particular

motion.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Motion 8, Mr. Speaker.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, the Hon.

Member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly), unfortunately, is not here and

he would like to speak on this motion. I wonder if I might have

leave just to leave it on the paper.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Motion 9, Mr. Speaker.

MR. ROLSTON: Mr. Speaker, I move:

"That this House do protest to the United States government through the Canadian government the

current building of the massive Trident missile base at Bangor,

Washington, on moral, ecological and territorial grounds;

"And that this House send an informed delegate to the Conference for a Nuclear-Free Pacific in

Suva, Fiji, from April 1 to 6, 1976, and that we support the

conference;

"And that the British Columbia government fund a study of industry and research in British Columbia to

determine whether, or to what extent, there is involvement with

United States strategic operations;

"And that this House give moral support to groups protesting the Trident base in Washington and the

Russian equivalent."

Speaking to the first part of the motion, Mr. Speaker, I

think there has been a lot of publicity now. Gradually the

media has really picked it up and even on the national news

there has been recognition that the fear about Trident — first

of all, morally, is that it is really immoral. With respect,

MLAs on all sides of this House have told me that they

appreciate that morally it's very questionable that we as

Canadians allow without any protest both the environmental

damage and also the escalation of the arms race.

Now you get into technical stuff here, but basically the

problem is that the Americans have probably — if you take the

missile size, the number of missiles, the number of re-entry

vessels, the size of the missiles — nearly five and a half

times the capacity of the next nation, which is Russia, and

this is pretty well documented in all kinds of journals.This

is without talking about the Trident. With the Trident that gap

of probably five times, of course, leaps to an immense gap that

would be a decade ahead of the next country, which we assume to

be the Soviet Union.

Morally, I think it's quite redundant. In a time of

recession it's unnecessary extravagance to allow any escalation

beyond what now has been simply a deterrent kind of defensive

position between the western and the eastern or the American

and the Soviet military operations. Morally, it's just very,

very wrong.

Canada is very, very close to the United States, and the

Straits of Juan de Fuca are where the world's largest

submarines will be operating. Certainly we should protest to

Mr. Allan J. MacEachen, Secretary of State for External Affairs — and hopefully he would take this to the American people, if

not to the United Nations — that this is very tragic and very

unnecessary and very dangerous.

[ Page 2500 ]

I think all the legislators and the people in the gallery

realize the two big things that are especially frightening are

that the Americans claim, and I am sure it can be proven,

that they now have the capacity to send a rocket out 6,000

miles. They are the only people who have the capacity to have

the MIRV, or the multiple warhead, which can literally knock

off a huge area. One rocket, I am sure, could knock off the

whole bottom end of Vancouver Island. That leaves out any

possibility of a defence or of the opposition or the enemy

still having some striking capacity back from hard silos in

mountainsides.

The second big fear which I think British Columbians have

realized through our publicity efforts is that the Americans

have a sonar detection capacity. With high-altitude airplanes

they are virtually able to detect submarines in any ocean. So

therefore they are a decade ahead of the next country, which we

assume to be Russia.

You know and I know, Mr. Speaker, that if somebody in your

neighbourhood has a great clout that you don't have, that does

put you in a very precarious and worrisome position. It's

because of that, of course, that if there were a nuclear attack

with the situation as it is now with the Russian subs and the

American subs, it would be logical that the Russians or some

other country would try to knock out this capacity which is a

decade ahead.

That capacity's nerve centre — only its nerve centre — is at

Bangor. Of course, the first sub will come in 1978 and two subs

a year will come until you get eventually 10 subs. It's

reasonable that many of these subs will be working out in the

oceans all over the place, and it would be very hard to locate

them. But it is also true that some subs and certainly the real

mechanism and servicing depot 60 miles from this Legislature

would logically be the place to hit. That, of course, would

ecologically and environmentally wipe us right out.

So Canadians, and I think the legislators of British

Columbia, provincially and federally, must protest to our

federal government. Some of us have written letters. We still

await replies, incidentally, from the Hon. Allan J. MacEachen,

but we have had replies from Mr. Wenman and Mr. Patterson. I

have been on television with Mr. McKinnon. There really is a

tragedy here and we protest.

I also, of course, in speaking to the second part of the

motion, thank the Premier who did grant $1,000 as a matching

grant to send another delegate....

Interjection.

MR. ROLSTON: No, another person to the Suva conference in

Fiji. So that's happened, and we are happy about that.

Legislators and people in the gallery, I'm sure, realize the desire that there

be a nuclear-free Pacific. Of course, Trident will certainly threaten that possibility,

but, as you know, the southern part of the Pacific is nuclear-free now. It is

my hope that all of the Pacific be a nuclear-free zone and that we promote that

and that we be an example to the other parts of the world.

Thirdly, it's in the motion, of course, that a study be done

of industry and research in B.C. We're not placing any blame

here. We're not saying that any particular institution or

company is doing strategic work for the U.S. military, but

there's a possibility; and we're simply asking that a study be

done.

I think we should look to see that our own house in British

Columbia is in order. Are there any possible connections?

British Columbia has an international recognition with the

Greenpeace organization in a peaceful, environmental way, and I

would like to think that we gain a recognition and a reputation

here for the work we have done in looking at our own house,

that we be an example of a very affluent, of a "have" part of

the world that is not complicit in this arms race.

Incidentally, if it's useful, Mr. Speaker, to remind the

House, when I'm talking about the fact that in 1966 in the

United States 8.5 per cent of the GNP was spent on military and

on arms. In 1970, 9.6 per cent of gross national product, or

$75 billion, was spent. But in 1973, Mr. Speaker, that race has

gone to 10.5 per cent of the GNP of the United States, or $88

billion has gone into the military. And, of course, the vast

amount of that $88 billion in 1973 is in land and sea-based

missiles and other systems.

That system, I am appealing to the House, is becoming an

aggressive system — not a defence system but an aggressive,

first-strike system. It's a system by which — if you use the

jargon — America has a distinct "counter-force advantage" which

will increase enormously after the present U.S. missile system

is improved and the Trident is added, a system which right now,

of course, includes the Polaris, the Poseidon, the Titan. Now

they're working on the Minuteman 2 and the Minuteman 3, and

eventually Lockheed in California will, by 1978, if everything

goes right, have the Trident. It's a massive system, a system

by which, Mr. Speaker, you realize, one sub could knock out

virtually every city on this continent.

So there doesn't seem any argument with that. But my point

in raising this — and the discussion, I think, started in this

House several months ago and it's been carried now throughout

the whole continent — is that it really is crucial that we send

a message to the Hon. Allan J. MacEachen and that he will take

the message to the Americans that we are protesting on moral,

ecological and territorial grounds this massive first-strike

capacity down at Bangor.

Finally, of course, this House would certainly

[ Page 2501 ]

support and encourage any groups that are working to protest

this base and any further, I think unnecessary, escalation. I

think there is great, increasing support all across the

country, There is, for instance, in Victoria a survival group,

which is having a meeting tonight at 7:30 in Victoria. Also

there's a group, the Pacific Life Community, in Vancouver with

headquarters at Chalmers United Church on 12th Avenue.

I think groups all across the country are supporting this

and I'm glad to have a chance to raise it. I will be raising it

later in further debates.

At this time, I move adjournment of this debate until

another time, Mr. Speaker.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): You're preventing anyone else

from speaking.

MR. SPEAKER: Do you mean until the next sitting of the

House? Order, please! Does the Hon. Member mean the next

sitting of the House?

MR. ROLSTON: The next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Mr. Speaker, I call

motion 10.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 10. The Hon. Member for Vancouver-Point

Grey is not here.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): I'm sure that the Hon.

Member for....

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I'll ask for leave. Shall leave be

granted?

MR. SMITH: Leave that it stand on the order paper?

Leave granted.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, perhaps by unanimous consent

we may also have motion 2 stand. It was dropped at the very

beginning; but perhaps by unanimous consent that also could be

left to stand.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you moving that?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, I would so move.

MR. SPEAKER: I don't know whether we should back up. We

can't reverse the order in that fashion, so I am advised. But

in future I hope that Members will make that request, because I

have no option but to drop it from the order paper, unless it's

by unanimous consent.

HON. MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I call motion 11.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, this motion is a parallel

motion to a motion in Washington state. For the edification of

the House, I'll read it fairly quickly.

The motion is:

"That a special committee of this House be appointed to recommend co-ordinated legislative action by

both the Washington state Legislature and the Legislative

Assembly of British Columbia to promote a cooperative response

to increasingly complex mutual concerns, such committee to be

appointed by Mr. Speaker and to be composed of six Members from

the government party and four Members from the opposition

parties, such committee to be empowered to sit during

adjournment and between sessions of this House and to report

its findings and recommendations to the next session of the

Legislature;

"And that a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the Speaker of the House of Representatives

and the President of the Senate of the State of

Washington."

Mr. Speaker, I checked this motion with the Clerks and they

assured me that it is in order. Indeed, they helped me rewrite

it. It is very similar to a motion put forward by the

Washington state Legislature which, if I can find it here, I

will also give you some indication of.

Yes, here we have, courtesy of Senator Barney Goltz of the

Washington State Senate, a copy of Senate concurrent resolution

101, sponsored by Senators Mardesek, Clark, Goltz and

Sanderson, of the State of Washington, 44th regular session,

and prefiled with the Secretary of the Senate on January 6,

1975, for introduction on January 13. I will read it in a

moment.

I will just point out that this Senate concurrent resolution

received virtually unanimous support down in Washington state.

I believe the vote was something like 44 to 1 in favour of it.

Apparently it is to come up on the committee agenda very

soon.

Mr. Speaker, I think it would be very appropriate for me at

this stage to read the American, the United States, Washington

state concurrent resolution which matches the one that I have

on the order paper today. It has a little more

preamble, so

perhaps it will give a better indication to the House of these

two motions, one in Washington state and one of mine here,

which I am raising today, and how they mesh together. This is

the Senate concurrent resolution 101 — which reads:

"Whereas Washington and British Columbia lawmakers participated

in a Canadian and American symposium about mutual problems

[ Page 2502 ]

in September of 1974;

"And

whereas the symposium demonstrated the desire of the

law makers to appreciate each others problems through increased

understanding of their respective historical differences,

social and cultural characteristics, natural resources and

governmental structures;

"And

whereas many of the topics of discussion, including

fisheries, oil spills, depletion of natural resources, land use

and energy needs, transcend the 49th parallel;

"And

whereas it has become evident that the solution to

these problems can best be approached through a spirit of

cooperation and informed appreciation of both countries'

viewpoints;

"And

whereas this symposium was not only a first step

towards establishing continuous communication about problems,

large and small, immediate and long-range;

"And

whereas to maintain a constructive dialogue with our

friendly neighbours to the north, we must establish a formal

mechanism for communication between our governments;

"Now therefore

be it resolved by the Senate, the House of

Representatives concurring, that the joint committee on

Washington-British Columbia cooperation be established to

recommend co-ordinated legislative action by both the

Washington state Legislature and the Legislative Assembly of

the Province of British Columbia to promote cooperative

response to increasingly complex mutual concerns;

"And be it further resolved that the President of the Senate

shall appoint five Senate Members, three for the majority party

and two from the minority party, and the Speaker of the House

of Representatives shall appoint five House Members, three from

the majority party and two from the minority party, to serve as

the joint committee of Washington–British Columbia governmental

cooperation;

"And be it further resolved that the committee may

promulgate rules and regulations for the administration of its

duties;

"And be it further resolved that the committee shall report

its findings and recommendations to the 45th session of the

Washington state Legislature;

"And be it further resolved that the Secretary of the Senate

transmit a copy of this resolution to the Hon. David G.

Barrett, Premier of British Columbia, courteously requesting

reciprocal action by the Legislative Assembly of British

Columbia."

Now, Mr. Speaker, that is the wording of the senate concurrent resolution which

is matched very closely by one in the Washington state House.

We have not received any reciprocal action, which was

requested, by the Premier of the Province of British Columbia,

despite numerous statements about the need for joint

cooperation, so I thought it appropriate to put on the order

paper the motion that you see before you.

The motion, Mr. Speaker, would be to have, on a regular basis, the

type of discussions which, as you know well, we enjoyed in Bellingham

last September, and in addition, some of the discussions that took

place here in Victoria during the visit of Governor Dan Evans, and

which I believe took place in January of 1973 when the Premier of the

province visited Olympia at that time.

MR. SPEAKER: I am sorry to interrupt, but I just want to

clarify one thing concerning your resolution.

Would the Hon. Member advise what the sitting between

sessions means in regard to the question of expense? If there

are no funds involved, then of course it would be quite in

order.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, I did not mention

expenses to be met by the government or by the Crown. The

Members, undoubtedly, in view of the importance of this, would

be happy to meet the expenses out of their own pockets from

sessional indemnity.

I consulted with the Clerks many weeks ago, when I

introduced this, and they helped me work out the wording. This

would be entirely within order because there is no requirement

for expenditure in this motion. As I see it, we would simply

appoint these people. You, Mr. Speaker, would of course be

charged with that onerous and heavy responsibility of choosing

worthy people to sit on this committee.

MR. SPEAKER: I have your

interpretation that if they came

dunning me for money, I can refuse them under this

resolution.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I can assure you, I am

absolutely certain that you would refuse them.

MR. SPEAKER: Certainly.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Therefore, as I am absolutely certain

they wouldn't get paid by dunning you, I am sure this motion is

in order. It is not a charge upon the Crown, but because of the

importance of this matter, no doubt we should pass this motion

and allow Members, both government and opposition, to sit, take

part, and later on, as undoubtedly it will be shown to be of

immense public benefit, maybe the government might decide in

some other motion to defray expenses or to have

[ Page 2503 ]

expenses defrayed in the future. But at the present time

this motion is entirely in order from an opposition Member, as

far as I can tell.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention a number of the

subjects that might be discussed by such a committee. First of

all, we have had a discussion by the Hon. Member for Dewdney

(Mr. Rolston), who has left the room after adjourning that

motion of his which he said was so good and then prevented

anybody else from talking about it — such discussion, for

example, as the Trident base. If the American government is to

establish a nuclear submarine and missile base in the State of

Washington, it is a subject of grave concern to British

Columbians. If the Strait of Juan de Fuca is to be used for

vessels which may prove to be hazardous in themselves, let

alone in times of war, it is an area of grave concern to the

people of British Columbia. But we have statements by the Hon.

Member for Dewdney, who adjourns debate and then rushes off and

doesn't allow anybody else to talk about it, no opportunity for

any questioning of the technical information that he brought

forward, no opportunity for Members to register their opinion

on the motion or indeed on the establishment....

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I am talking on my own motion. This

committee, if we had such a committee, would be precisely the

type of vehicle where you could indeed work out some form of

joint approach to a problem of that nature. The Member talked,

for example, of wiring or writing to Allan MacEachen, the

Secretary of State for External Affairs for Canada. It's an

excellent suggestion; I urge it upon those who are concerned

about the problem. But in addition would it not be beneficial,

Mr. Speaker, if Americans living down there who were concerned

had the opportunity of discussing it with Canadian or British

Columbian legislators who similarly are concerned about the

prospects of that missile site and submarine base being

established?

I would like to suggest a second area. We have considerable concern about Americans

buying up Gulf Islands land — and not just Gulf Islands land. They in their

turn are extremely concerned that the Snohomish-Skagit County area and parts

of that border American area are being bought up by Canadians. Do you realize,

Mr. Speaker, that 40 per cent of all the land transactions in that area are

now between Americans and Canadians? Canadians are buying up that little area

just south of the border at a fantastic rate. Prices, of course, are lower than

they happen to be in Canada, for reasons I won't go into but the government

knows well. Whatcom County is having its land purchased at a phenomenal rate

by Canadians who are purchasing agricultural land. This is creating environmental

problems. The Premier mentioned at one stage the problem of Roberts Bank, where

a consortium with some Canadian principals apparently wished to set up a major

development to avoid the restrictions of the Land Act and to avoid restrictions

which British Columbia would place on that development were it on the northern

side of the Point Roberts boundary, the 49th parallel.

What better area for discussion of such a problem than this

joint committee that I mentioned? This committee could then

promote, to quote the wording of my resolution, "a cooperative

response to increasingly complex mutual concerns" and recommend

co-ordinated legislative action. Surely, if we have a problem,

Mr. Speaker, of people flitting across the border to take

advantage of one set of laws which happen to suit them somewhat

better than the ones on the other side, be it north-south or

south-north, we could use this committee which the Washington

state Senate and House feel would be useful. Surely we should

use it too.

Mr. Speaker, a third subject which would be a most important

area of concern would be, of course, the subject of tanker

traffic in our straits. I don't want to go into earlier debates

so unfortunately cut off by the Minister of Health (Mr. Cocke)

on the refinery in Surrey, but there is no question that you

cannot consider the traffic to the Canadian refineries, the

refineries in Burrard Inlet, the refineries on the American

side, which are the four largest — Shell, Arco, Mobil, and

Texaco — in the Bellingham-Anacortes area. You cannot really

consider these in isolation; nor can you consider the Cherry

Point proposal in isolation. We now have a fairly effective

co-ordination at the Department of Transport and U.S. Coast

Guard level, concerning the exchange of information and the

traffic control patterns used by shipping, but there are other

problems within the provincial competence which could benefit

by such a committee.

I'd just like to say a word or two about that problem of

Cherry Point. Washington state has had since 1971 a sevenfold

increase of the amount of oil transported by sea in the Strait

of Juan de Fuca–Puget Sound area. Now within the next three to

eight years the increase will be more than 24 times the 1971

level, We're not talking about incremental minor increases;

we're talking of increases of major proportions, major quantum

leaps. In spite of the efforts made to reduce oil spill risks,

the number of oil spills will undoubtedly increase, and we're

going to find that a catastrophic spill will shortly be on our

hands.

The oil spill contingency force of Washington state, which

is essentially units of the Washington state National Guard,

trained under a programme developed by the Department of

Ecology of Washington state, has an annual budget of $1

million

[ Page 2504 ]

— an in-readiness budget of $1 million. The Province of

British Columbia, as far as I know, has virtually nothing. I

know of no money put aside — nothing approaching $1 million —

and yet this is the provincial and state level. Surely, if we

have a $1 million annual amount and a $3.2 million startup on

the American side to create the Washington National Guard into

an effective anti-pollution force, we should discuss with our

American legislator counterparts the opportunity of having

those guardsmen come across the border — in a friendly manner,

of course — in case of any spills. We have a manpower pool

there, we have a major budget, and we have nothing on this side

that's at all comparable. Yet we have no mechanism for working

out some sort of reciprocal arrangement with them to take

advantage of the work being done in Washington state, and, most

unhappily, not being done in the Province of British Columbia.

There is a contingency fund of $26.5 million in Washington

state for this particular problem. I just feel that in this

area alone this committee could devote many, many hours of very

useful discussion.

So that's a third area which I think we could definitely

discuss. The proposal becomes most timely because of the

intervention of Attorney-General Alex Macdonald and James

Rhodes, the chairman of the B.C. Petroleum Corp., at a meeting

in Washington, D.C., back in August, 1974, where they were,

indeed, quoted as having suggested swaps of Alaskan oil, which

would come into the Canadian market. We still have absolutely

no information regarding the oil supplies for the proposed

British Columbia government refinery. If there was any truth at

all to those stories that came out of Washington in mid-August

of last year that Rhodes and Macdonald are out to get Alaskan

oil for that British Columbia refinery, we think a committee

could well look into that and do a good job trying to work out

some sort of co-ordinated approach.

That headline of The Vancouver Sun back on August 14

by Frank Rutter of the Sun 's Washington bureau was "B.C.

Capitulates on Alaskan Oil Tankers." We haven't heard very much

about it since except one denial by the Attorney-General,

until, of course, it got revived when the government failed to

get Alberta commitments — as yet has failed to get Alberta

commitments — for its proposed refinery. If it is to come true — a very unfortunate thing, in my mind — surely a committee of

the nature I've suggested would be extremely helpful.

The mutual areas of concern we have with Washington state were talked about

at some length on three, separate occasions: once on the Premier's visit to

Olympia; once during Dan Evans' visit to this city and, indeed, his address

to this Legislature; and then finally back in September of last year at Bellingham.

But since then absolutely nothing has happened that any Member that I know about

or any Member that I've discussed this with knows about in terms of having a

permanent mechanism set up for committee discussion of problems of a joint nature.

Nothing has happened at all.

We wonder whether, indeed, the Premier has simply lost

interest in that particular area of concern now that he

realizes that this committee would obviously discuss energy as

well; it would discuss peak power and things of that nature.

Why is it that he has backed off so far from his original

concept of having continuing discussions with the American

state to our south? I'm surprised that he has not followed up.

I'm extremely surprised that it's necessary for an opposition

Member to raise a resolution of this nature when the Premier

himself, in this resolution from Washington state, has been

asked, apparently, for reciprocal action.

Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the government seems

to have dropped its plans for reciprocal action with Washington

state for a joint committee, we're quite willing to push it.

This motion is an attempt to do just that.

I can see no reason whatsoever for the motion to be turned

down. Mr. Speaker, instead of adjourning debate, I will move

the previous question.

MR. SPEAKER: It is my understanding of the rule that the

Hon. Member cannot move the previous question when he has

completed his own remarks, because that would cut off the House

from debating the question. Furthermore, it would be sort of a

hit-and-run tactic, if employed by Members, to make their

speech and then move the question now be put without allowing

the House to debate it.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Therefore the rule is.... May I point the rule

out to the Hon. Member first? The rule is that another Member

must move the previous question, not the Member who has been

speaking.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Up to

now this afternoon we have allowed the mover of the motion,

namely the Member for Dewdney (Mr. Rolston) on a number of

occasions, and also the Member for Comox (Ms. Sanford), to move

adjournment.

MR. SPEAKER: That's quite a different matter. That means

that you will have the opportunity, presumably, to debate the

question when it is again called by order of the House.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Your presumptions are very different from mine as

to what may happen in the future.

[ Page

2505 ]

MR. SPEAKER: I'm not making predictions; I'm only telling

you the rule. The rule is that where a motion for adjournment

is in order — and it is — the matter can come up again for

debate by other Members. But if you put the previous question,

then you've automatically prevented anyone else from expressing

their opinion on the motion that you have.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: No, Sir. No, Mr. Speaker, that is where I

would beg most courteously to differ with you. If you move the

previous question and it is rejected, a second motion could be

made to adjourn. A motion to move the previous question is in

order.

MR. SPEAKER: I would suggest that if you hadn't spoken, it

would be in order. I'll check with the authorities on that.

That is my

interpretation of the rule, because for that very

reason....

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, but what I find curious, Mr.

Speaker, in terms of consistency, is how one can delay a vote,

put the thing on the shelf back on the order paper again, yet

you cannot move that the question now be put. The fact is that

if anyone wishes to speak on this — if other Members wish to

speak — they can reject the motion that the question now be

put. Then later on it can be adjourned in the normal fashion.

But I see a government Minister looking as though he fully

intends to adjourn debate on this most worthwhile motion —

perhaps I'll be mistaken on that. I understand that a motion be

put the previous question was always in order.

MR. SPEAKER: Only by a person who hasn't spoken on the

debate.

HON. MR. LEA: Because it is an important motion, I would

like to leave it on the floor. So I move adjournment of this

debate until the next sitting of the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

Motion approved.

HON. MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I call motion 12, moved by the

Hon. Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan).

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

view of the unavoidable absence this afternoon of the Member

for North Okanagan, I would ask leave of the House to permit

this motion to remain on the order paper.

MR. SPEAKER: You mean the Member for South Okanagan (Mr.

Bennett).

MR. CURTIS: North Okanagan.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it motion 12 we're talking about?

MR, CURTIS: Yes, motion 12.

MR. SPEAKER: It says "Mr. Bennett" here in motion 12.

MR. CURTIS: Mrs. Jordan.

Interjections.

MR. CURTIS: The Queen's Printer and you perhaps....

MR. SPEAKER: I'm going to have a chat with the Queen's

Printer or somebody.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Oh, I'm sorry! I've got the wrong page. It's my

fault and nobody else's. (Laughter.) May I sincerely and

abjectly apologize to the Queen's Printer if he's within

hearing range?

MR. CURTIS: He's on his way, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Oh, oh! Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I call motion 13, moved by the

Hon. Second Member for Vancouver-Burrard.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, this motion is asking: "That this

categorization of Rosie Douglas as a risk to Canadian national security

withdrawn and the deportation order against him lifted."

I'm not quite sure whether there is actually any point in

debating this motion now because since the time that it was

placed on the paper, Rosie Douglas had his hearing and the

immigration board refused to withdraw the deportation

order.

In any event, I would like to give some background

information about this young man who came from the West Indies

12 years ago to attend university in Canada. In 1969 he

participated in a sit-in at Sir George Williams University

which was staged to protest racial discrimination at that

institution. As a result of that sit-in, which included 97

students, a number of them were charged. Five actually went to

jail, Rosie Douglas being one of the five.

[ Page 2506 ]

While his hearing was still in process, and before a

decision was handed down, a deportation order was issued

against him. He served his two years, was released and once

again he was categorized as a national risk, or branded a

national risk by the immigration department. Due to efforts by

Tommy Douglas, the federal Member, myself and a number of other

people, he was allowed to have another hearing. As I reported

to you earlier, Mr. Speaker, the result of this hearing has

just come down and it was disallowed.

There are 100,000 black people living in Toronto, and Rosie

Douglas is one of them. Those people have a lot of respect for

the contributions which this young man has made to this

country, and which he is continuing to make. He is being

deported to return to Dominica, the place of his birth.

I want to tell you about a bill which was introduced in

November, 1974, in Dominica, which is referred to as the

Prohibited and Unlawful Societies Association.

Section 9 of

that bill reads: "No proceedings, either criminal or civil,

shall be brought or maintained against any person who kills or

injures any member of an association or society designated

unlawful who should be found at any time of day or night inside

a dwelling house."

It was because of the introduction of this bill and the

country to which he is now being deported that we appealed to

the federal government on compassionate grounds to allow this

young man who has indicated that he has served his term and is

willing and able to make a valuable contribution to this

country. It is very unusual for Canadian people to deliberately

condemn anyone to death. It's not been part of our history,

certainly not until now. I am sure even the Member for Columbia

River (Mr. Chabot) will agree with that.

Nonetheless, as I mentioned earlier, his hearing was

disallowed. This is why, Mr. Speaker, even though, as I said,

it's probably too late, I would like this House to convey our

feelings anyway. The New Democratic Party of British Columbia

has already done so. But I would like this House to convey to

the federal government that, certainly, at this time compassion

would be in order for this young man.

I would like to move adjournment of this debate.

Motion approved.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Do I

understand that this is an exceptional case? The Member has

informed us that this man is in danger of death, and yet the

motion that might have some bearing on this matter is

adjourned, and on an unlimited basis. I just wish to get up....

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order here.

MS. BROWN: On a point of order, the compassion displayed by

the Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) is quite

surprising. On the basis of that, I would be quite willing to

withdraw my request to adjourn.

MR. SPEAKER: The order has already been made by the House

and it would have to be discharged. Shall leave be granted to

discharge the order for adjournment?

Leave granted.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I rose on this because we

had been informed, in what I took to be a sincere statement by

the Hon. Member (Ms. Brown), that we might be, in Canada,

deliberately sending such a person, Rosie Douglas, to his

death. She then made some reference to the Member for Columbia

River (Mr. Chabot), the purport of which I didn't catch.

Apparently she takes this matter as a matter of extreme

seriousness. I would like, before we vote on this, information

from her as to the background of the appeal and why it was

rejected.

Mr. Speaker, it is Canadian practice not to send anyone to

certain death under the prohibited and unlawful persons Act, I

believe she mentioned, of Dominica or any other country.

Clearly there is some problem here in that the Member who

raised this issue has claimed that the immigration authorities

would be deliberately sending this person to his death if he

was returned to Dominica. I would like to know what other

possibilities there are. As she knows better than I, there are

a large number of Caribbean countries. I understand that many

of them, have already declared Rosie Douglas persona non grata

in terms of even visiting. I understand that the so-called

"million-dollar computer party" of Sir George Williams in which

I understand Rosie Douglas took part, which led to the original

trouble, is in no way the only reason for the deportation order

or the rejection of the appeal, which I believe was this year.

Mr. Rosie Douglas has been declared a risk to Canadian national

security.

HON. MR. LEA: No reason.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: It is fine to say, "no reason," as

the Hon. the Minister of Highways says. He may be quite right,

But simply no information is presented to this House so that we

can form a judgment, an intelligent judgment, on whether or not

he should or should not have the support of the Legislative

Assembly of the Province of British Columbia.

It is just not good enough, Mr. Speaker, for a Member to get

up and declare that someone is about

[ Page 2507 ]

to be virtually legally done to death by

an act of the

immigration appeal board, or illegally done to death by

an act

of the immigration appeal board, and then to leave it the way

it was left. There were reasons given for Rosie Douglas's

deportation in the first instance. Yes, there were.

Interjections.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Look, I can get the material on this if

you like. But surely, when you are asking the Legislative

Assembly of the Province of British Columbia to interfere in

the jurisdiction of another Canadian government, when you are

asking that the civil servants involved, the people involved,

who have given the closest possible scrutiny to this, are

acting upon no reason whatsoever, as the Minister of Highways

has just done, surely we are not being given any more than a

very minor and one-sided glimpse of the case of Rosie

Douglas.

I would ask the Member once more to take her place in

debate. It will not close this debate off. Specify what the

reasons are, what the background of this matter is, so that the

House at least has adequate information to vote yes or no on

the motion. If she wishes to adjourn it, and the government can

give some guarantee as to when it will come back in terms of

the next few days or next few weeks, fine. Perhaps the Minister

of Highways could give such an assurance when he takes his

place that next week at this time we will be able to return to

the discussion of this particular motion.

But I find it the height of irresponsibility, particularly

in the Member who is seeking the leadership of the New

Democratic Party nationally, to make claims like this about

appeal board — to make claims like this about the future

outcome of the Rosie Douglas case, and then to give us no facts

whatsoever on which to base our decision, We are going to have

to have information. We are going to have to have something

more than unsupported assertions. We are going to have to have

something more than allegations about the attitudes of the

Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot), which were highly

uncalled for as well as being quite inhumane in their

intention. We want some facts on this case. Then the

Legislative Assembly of the Province of British Columbia can no

doubt give some reasonable consideration to the request, which

I originally took from the Member to be a serious request. If

it is just a question of adjournment the way she indicated, she

is just playing with us.

HON. MR. LEA: In view of the fact that some Members don't feel they

have enough information to vote one way or another, I think we should have this

debate. I can assure you that it will come on the floor of the House again next

week.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEA: Yes, there is more information.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to the Hon. Members on a point

of order...?

HON. MR. LEA: Or possibly, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member

would like to close debate.

MR. SPEAKER: I was just going to point out that the point of

order is this: if the Hon. Member who presented the resolution

speaks now, that closes the debate.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Point of order. Is there any way for the

Member to make available to us information which she failed to

give in her opening statement?

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): On that same point of order, Mr.

Speaker, what the Minister was suggesting, based on the appeal

of the Member, was that rather than have the Member close the

debate, she adjourn the debate and let the Member circulate the

material....

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Right.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Okay, that's what he was suggesting.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: But, unfortunately, Mr. Premier, what

you perhaps didn't notice from your seat was that the Member

was rising in her place to close the debate.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, not at all, because you rejected his

proposal.

Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, if the House is

agreeable, let us ask the Member to adjourn it and ask the

Member sponsoring it to circulate the information, and we will

call the motion....

MR. SPEAKER: I must point out that someone who has not

spoken yet would have to adjourn the debate, and that's the

Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) who was on his feet a

minute ago.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say

that I would agree entirely to what the Premier said. If he had

only noticed or listened to what you yourself had mentioned,

the caution you yourself gave from the chair about the Member

standing up again in closing the debate, he would have avoided

this hassle we are having now.

[ Page 2508 ]

HON. MR. LEA: It would be impossible for the Member to close

debate when I was on my feet and had been recognized by

you.

MR. SPEAKER: That's correct.

Interjections.

HON. MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I would like to move adjournment

of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I call motion 14 from the Hon.

Member for North Vancouver–Seymour.

MR. C.S. GABELMANN (North Vancouver–Seymour): Mr. Speaker, I

move: "that the report of the Select Standing Committee on

Labour and Justice, presented to the Legislature on April 10,

1975, be adopted."

Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Minister of Labour

(Hon. Mr. King) is not in the House today, as he is attending a

conference, I believe, in Montreal, and in view of the fact

that I know he would like to both listen and participate in the

debate on this motion, I would move adjournment until the next

sitting of the House.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

Do we have to wait for Ministers before a committee's

report is accepted?

MR. SPEAKER: I don't think that the reason for a Member

moving the adjournment of debate is one that need be canvassed

because we don't debate adjournment motions. Therefore the

reasons for it really are not important. The question is

whether the House agrees whether that motion should be

adjourned, and that is the question I have to put.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Hon. Provincial

Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall), I ask leave of the House to have

motion 15 stay on the order paper.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I call motion 16, and I would

like to move this on behalf of the Hon. Minister of Education

(Hon. Mrs. Dailly). I think the motion is self-explanatory. I

call the motion. (See appendix.)

MR. SPEAKER: I wonder if the motion could be sent up? Some

Member should sign it. Is it signed?

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Of course, she's

going to have the Minister of Highways sign it.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I've noticed the same thing

happening on both sides of the House, and I think the Hon.

Members should cooperate.

MR. SMITH: Speaking to this motion, the intent is to extend

the hours of the Legislature by two hours each day on Monday,

Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday so that we sit from 10 in the

morning until 12 noon to discuss or examine estimates in a

Committee of the Whole House.

I think that before the debate is concluded in this

particular motion, we should have some indication from the

Speaker or from his office as to how the rules of procedure

will be handled in a Committee of the Whole House — whether, in

fact, we will be able to move motions in that Committee of the

Whole House and fully and effectively debate the estimates.

I think we would like to know, for instance, how the

government intends to put the motions on the remaining votes

before that Committee of the Whole House, whether the

committee, in fact, will return to debate, at least before the

Committee of the Whole House, on the motions and votes that

were passed without debate, including a number in the Minister

of Agriculture's (Hon. Mr. Stupich'

s) estimates and a number in

the Attorney-General's (Hon. Mr. Macdonald'

s) estimates which

have been passed at previous sittings of the Legislature, under

protest from the official opposition, but passed without

debate.

Will those be brought back before this supposed Committee of

the Whole House? Will we be entitled to debate them then? Will,

in fact, the Committee of the Whole House have any useful

purpose if the whole procedure of examination of a Minister and

his estimates is to debate properly the votes under his

jurisdiction, to make the Minister in each and every department

accountable to this Legislative Assembly, to not only have the

opportunity to probe and discuss but also have an opportunity,

if it was the desire of any Member of this House, to move the

traditional motion of non-confidence in that Minister by

reduction of his salary, or by the reduction of any other vote

if it was the pleasure of any Member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I would hope that during the course of this

debate today some direction will be given to this House as to

how we would proceed in Committee of the Whole House and as to

the rules that would

[ Page 2509 ]

apply in such a committee. Is it the decision of the

government that we will sit around in a Committee of the Whole

House and have a nice, friendly little discussion with whatever

Minister happens to be available for that particular two-hour

occasion, and at the end of that time call all of the votes in

that Minister's department at the 2 o'clock afternoon session,

without debate and without comment and without amendment? Is

that the intent of the Committee of the Whole House?

If so, I say that we object most strenuously to that type of

a procedure because we believe that the people of British

Columbia who elected us and sent us to this Legislative

Assembly should have the right to be heard on the supply

estimates through the elected Members of this Legislative

Assembly, and that their rights should never be impeded by a

closure motion such as we have on the books.

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

I'd also like to pose another question, and that is that if

it is proper to accept this type of a motion, is it not also

proper, Mr. Speaker, to accept a motion which would have merely

suspended rule 45A and allowed a full and complete debate of

the estimates on the floor of this House, as it should be, in

Committee of Supply? Certainly, if we accept such a motion,

then I would say that we are transgressing to a certain extent

the rules of the House, or at least we're bending them to

accommodate a situation which the government find themselves

embarrassed by. That is that they have not allowed full debate

on estimates and now they would like to find an escape clause

of some sort — an escape clause provided to them by this

motion.

Would it not have been far simpler, Mr. Speaker, to have the

full debate before the Members during the regular sittings of

this House? I suggest that it would have been more proper. I

further suggest that if we look at the order paper as it is

before us today, there's nothing to prevent us from having that

full debate. And we would have had full debate for a number of

days past if it were not for rule 45A, and progressed along the

way in passing the estimates in the proper manner. We would

have had that debate — at least part of it. But it's foolish,

and I think it's an insult to the Members of this House, to

suggest that we should adopt such a motion when you look at the

order paper as it is before us.

How much time do we really have to look forward to in the debate on the bills

that are on the order paper? A number of them have already passed committee

stage and third reading. How many more government bills will be put before this

House? I don't know and I presume you don't know, Mr. Speaker. If there is no

more legislation than we presently have before us, then it is truly an abuse

of the Members of this House to suggest that they sit an extra two hours a day

to accommodate a situation which the government should have foreseen several

weeks at least or a month a half to two months ago. It's an abuse of the Members

of this House to make that suggestion.

We saw last night, at the convenience of the government, an

adjournment at 6 o'clock. No one suggested to the official

opposition that we would — not be sitting again at 8.30. But as

an accommodation to the government Members, because they

obviously wanted to have a bit of a party, we didn't return to

the House. Laugh if you like, Mr. Premier. You know that the

hours between 6 and 8:30 would have accommodated the Members

for whatever purpose they might have, including watching the

hockey game — yes, including watching the hockey game. But let

me say this. We could have easily returned to this House at

8:30 last night if the government was as interested as they say

they are in the regular hours of debate in this Legislative

Assembly.

Why didn't we come back? Apparently we didn't return because

it accommodated the Members of government to entertain the

so-called leadership candidates in the federal election race

for the leadership of the NDP party. Not so? Well, then, I

presume that somebody else will get up and say so, because

there was no suggestion to any Member of the opposition that last night's session would be called off — none at all. The

government Whip didn't inform us of any such suggestion. We

fully expected, when the House adjourned at 6, that we would be

back here at 8:30. Instead of that, your House Leader decided

to call off last night's sitting merely to accommodate the

wishes of the government Members — not to accommodate anyone

else or the public in this House, but merely to accommodate the

whim of the government Members who wanted a night off for their

own good reasons, I guess.

AN HON. MEMBER: Broadbent.

MR. SMITH: Probably the name was Broadbent.

We feel that whatever this motion will accomplish would be

better accomplished in Committee of Supply before all of the

Members of this Legislature, in the regular sessions, as we

have proceeded up to this point, and extra sessions, if they

are required, if it looks as if the debate is extending.

Certainly you could get unanimous agreement for that.

All that is required is for the government to accept a

motion for the suspension of rule 45A for the remainder of this

session of the Legislature to put the whole matter back before

a full committee of this House and let that committee

investigate the problem. They know it's a problem, they know

it's an abuse of the Members, and they know that 135 hours

[ Page 2510 ]

will not work. Put it back and let them make a report back

to the Legislative Assembly for the next session of the

Legislature.

I think that's the proper way to approach this matter — not

by circumventing the whole idea of debate on the floor of this

House and coming up now with a new procedure which is a

Committee of the Whole House and substituting it for the proper

work of this Legislative Assembly.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for Skeena.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Member's still on his feet.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thought he had taken his seat.

MR. SMITH: I can get back on my feet later, if you like —

nothing to prevent me from speaking more than once.

Mr. Speaker, before I resume my seat....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order. You had taken your seat. The Member

for Skeena (Mr. Dent) got up and I recognized the Member for

Skeena.

MR. SMITH: On a point of order, before I take my seat, would

the Speaker assure me that I have the right to participate

again in this debate before it is closed?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The rules of the House are that you speak

once — 30 minutes.

MR. SMITH: Well, in that case, I'll resume my place in the

debate.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, you sat down.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I did not sit down!

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The Member had taken his seat.

There's no question about that. I recognized the Member for

Skeena. I would ask the Member for Skeena to take his seat now,

and I'm going to ask the House if they're going to give....

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Are you on a point of order?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, let us resolve this impasse

by asking the Member to ask leave of the House to be recognized

again.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, okay. I was in the process of doing

just that. I was just asking the Member for Skeena to take his

seat. He had been properly recognized, but I'll ask the Member

for North Peace River if he wants to ask the House for leave to

continue.

MR. SMITH: Apparently we have a difference of opinion as to

whether I sat down or not. I want that clearly on the record

because I did not sit down, but in order to overcome the

impasse, I ask leave of the House to continue.

Leave granted.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you standing up or sitting down?

MR. SMITH: Well, would the Speaker like me to stand up on

top of my chair or on top of the desk so that he can see

me?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, I'm sure I can recognize the difference,

and I did earlier.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

HON. J. RADFORD (Minister of Recreation and Conservation):

Now you can make the point you forgot to make.

MR. SMITH: Oh, there's a number.

Since it was obvious....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I hope you're on the same timing that you

started with.

MR. SMITH: Well, I don't intend to take up the entire

afternoon on this point, but I do have a couple of more points

to make.

I think it's been obvious to all the Members of this House,

including the government, that the limitation on debate of

estimates in a province that's expanded its budget by $1

billion in one year is completely unrealistic. We know that

other jurisdictions who have used this procedure in the past

have removed it. They find it unworkable.

There's also a matter to consider, and that is the fact that

not only have we increased the size of the budget to be voted

on by $1 billion in one year but we also have to take into

consideration the fact that the size of the cabinet has been

increased substantially over a few years ago. There are more

departmental estimates to debate now. Each Minister is

responsible for his own estimates. We have more Ministerial

portfolios before us than ever before.

[ Page 2511 ]

We should also take into consideration the fact that in the

last two years the government of this province has moved into

the financial field of endeavour in forestry, in ICBC, and in

many other areas where we now have Crown corporations operating

on behalf of the people of British Columbia.

We also have Ministers of government responsible as

directors. The only opportunity that we really have to question

those Ministers about not only their own department but the

departments of government which do not come before the House —

that is, the Crown corporations — is while their estimates are

on the floor of the House. It has generally been agreed, not

only during this administration but past administrations, that

debate on the responsibilities of the Minister not only covered

his department but also his position if he was responsible for

one of the Crown corporations. It's been an accepted practice

for many years.

Therefore, we feel that the 135 hours was completely

unrealistic. We do not disagree with the suggestion and the

idea that the limitation of debate should be 30 minutes for

each one participating at any one time. That effectively gives

everyone the opportunity to make their point, and they can, of

course, engage in debate later on. We do feel that in the

Committee of Supply there