1973 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1973

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 745 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Committee of supply: Premier's estimates

Mr. Richter — 745

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 747

Mr. Wallace — 750

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 753

Mr. Fraser — 754

Mrs. Jordan — 756

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 757

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 760

Mr. Phillips — 762

Point of order

Mr. Curtis. Irrelevant speeches — 774

Mr. Chairman's ruling — 774

Routine proceedings

Committee of supply: Premier's estimates

Mr. McClelland

— 774

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 777

Motions

No. 29 (Hon. Mr. Stupich) Study of marketing system for B.C.-grown

tree fruits — 778

Mrs. Jordan — 779

Mr. Wallace — 779

Reports

Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills.

No.

3 — 779

Nos. 4 and 5 — 780

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1973

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Mackenzie.

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): Mr. Speaker, we have with us

today all the way from Bella Coola, five student teachers

accompanied by their host, co-ordinator of teacher recruitment,

Mr. Philip J. Kitley. I ask the House to join me in welcoming

them.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Cariboo.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Mr. Speaker and Hon. Members, in

the Speaker's gallery today we have Mr. and Mrs. Les Bunk from

Horsefly in the Cariboo. Mrs. Bunk is the chairman of school

district 27 (Williams Lake). I would like you to join with me

in welcoming them.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. First Member for Vancouver South.

MR. J. RADFORD (Vancouver South): Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'd like the House at this time to join with me in welcoming

the students from David Thompson high school, South Vancouver.

They are accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Ellis.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Highways.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Highways): We have in the

galleries today, Mr. Speaker, a group from a college in the

United States that's been coming regularly to this legislative

chamber. I refer to Prof. Balmer and his political science

group from the Lewis and Clark College in Oregon. I'm sure the

House would wish to welcome them.

Orders of the day.

House in committee of supply; Mr. Dent in the chair.

ESTIMATES, PREMIER'S OFFICE

On vote 2.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for

Boundary-Similkameen.

MR. F.X. RICHTER (Boundary-Similkameen): Mr. Chairman, we're

very interested in the various renovations that have taken

place, particularly in the Premier's office. Not that it didn't need some touching up,

but certainly it's gone considerably further than the touching

up. In fact, I think we have an author in Canada by the name of

Pierre Berton who published a book entitled The Comfortable

Pew . Now we have an author in British Columbia who has

published something and I think it's entitled The

Comfortable Few .

Certainly we realize that expenditures have to be made over

a period of time in bringing up the standard of the various

offices. We're not opposed to that.

We do appreciate going to the Premier's office. I

particularly appreciate going to the Premier's office now

because of the number of people who are there to serve us in

whatever capacity. Also, the very comfortable quarters they

have, which should make them more efficient. However, the

efficiency has yet to be evaluated in that we had quite an

efficient operation previously that didn't really cost nearly

as much money as what it's going to cost this year where we

have an increase in that one office vote of approximately

$20,000. I hope that the efficiency can be justified and we

will look forward to this.

About a year ago there was a great deal of concern,

particularly when the present Premier was leader of the

official Opposition at that time. That was in relation to the

PUC (Public Utilities Commission) and its hearings in relation

to applications that were made to install a natural gas

pipeline to this island. A number of hearings were held,

primarily through representations made. The usual process of

the PUC was not adhered to. We opened it up, actually on

suggestion of the now Premier, to all parties who were

tendering on this particular gas line.

What's happened we don't know. We know the hearings were

concluded in August. We have had no report of the proposals and

recommendations of the PUC.

We are anxious in this way: we feel that British Columbia

should get the benefits first of the natural resources here.

The fact is that we do have a great deal of concern as to the

preservation of the environment on the island here. We know the

people want to obtain the use of natural gas. We know that it

could be very expensive for them if there wasn't some means of

equating the price of gas commensurate with that on the

mainland. In view of this, we're anxious to see a natural gas

pipeline put on to Vancouver Island to serve the whole

island.

I mentioned a number of points previously in this House in

regard to the natural gas and the commitments that the previous

government had made in relation to subsidizing in some fashion

to bring about equality of price between the island and the

mainland. The original proposal by the former government was to

have a pipeline bringing gas from the main supply line

somewhere in the vicinity of Williams Lake

[ Page 746 ]

through to Powell River to serve the Sechelt Peninsula along

with the island here. We seem to be a bit cut off from the

mainland and the availability of the use of our natural

resources, and as President of the Executive Council I am sure

that the Premier has given this serious consideration and we

would like to see some results coming from the investigation — the costs that were involved and so on.

We realize that the policy of the present Government would

be to have Hydro install this regardless of whether they were

competitive or not. We disagree with this. The official

Opposition believes that it should be provided at the lowest

possible cost. We know that there are extra imposts that are

going to be made; it is going to increase the cost to the

consumer and we are concerned about this.

There were a very extensive number of promises made through

a publication — I don't know whether it is still in existence

or not — known as the New Democrat during the election.

Because of this multitude of promises we are very anxious to

know the intentions of the Government in relation to the

particular priorities in which these promises are going to be

kept, or if they are going to be kept.

We know that the Premier and his Government are

contemplating very greatly expanded powers in the field of

investing public funds. At the present time I see no particular

guidelines set out or restrictions as to what types of

businesses or what types of investments will be constituted in

which the government might enter.

This gives us distinct concern because of previous

governments within Canada where very great losses were

sustained by the public due to failures of government operated

Crown corporations.

Another point which I would just like to touch on at this

time because of an incident that occurred last June. We live in

a more radical time and have to deal with more radical

elements, particularly the uncontrolled mob violence that

occurs not only in British Columbia but throughout the

continent. We have had a case of a presidential candidate who

was injured through an attempted assassination. We had a

senator who was killed — Senator Robert Kennedy. We had a

president who was killed.

It would be my recommendation to the Government — and I have

had considerable sympathy from some of the cabinet Ministers

who have listened to me — to bring in some form of bill which

would compensate elected Members who in their line of duty

suffer injuries or fatalities. Some means would be undertaken

to assist the family should there be a fatal occasion.

There was a settlement within the last few days that has

hung on for some time in relation to one of our civil servants.

We are happy that there has been something done about that. But

there is no guarantee on a cabinet Minister.

We had an occasion previously where we had to pass a bill in

this House for a Premier who was injured in the line of duty — Byron Johnson. There is no guarantee that any one of our

present cabinet Ministers today could not be injured in the

line of duty.

There is also the fact that, as we contemplate, we are going

to use more of our elected Members for committee work

throughout the province. There is also the possibility of their

injury or something worse happening which we hope will never

occur. It would be my recommendation and the recommendation of

the official Opposition that the Premier give consideration to

introducing such a bill along that line.

I have one or two other small items here that are very

important and one is the position the previous Government took

in relation to the development of Squamish. I think that has

been pretty well covered in the Press. We regret the fact that

there have been differences between Mr. Davis and our Premier

in the development of this all-important port.

As we see it, the Vancouver-Burrard Inlet is becoming more

congested and will become more congested as time goes on unless

the no-growth policy of this Government bars immigration to

this province. I can't help but feel that the amenities that

exist here in British Columbia will induce more people to this

province and we are, by necessity, going to have to have growth

in areas which are probably already crowded.

It was the consensus of opinion among the Members of the

former government and the Premier of the day and also the

Minister of Transport, the Hon. Mr. Jamieson, that Squamish

should be developed. There were criteria set down: Squamish

should be developed for the shipment of coal to Europe; Prince

Rupert should be used for Japanese coal and wheat and mineral

products; the federal port development would have regard for

pollution and environmental control; the provincial corridor

policy under the Environment and Land Use Committee would be

brought into play; the environmental consequences of port

development would be a matter in which there would be

cooperation between both governments; local and provincial

planning representation and municipal authorities would be

brought into play. There were the matters of Port Edwards and

Prince Rupert, for example, where complications have arisen.

These were things that we felt had to be dealt with on a joint

basis.

A joint group was set up; they did come up with

recommendations. Land was provided for the federal government.

The port of Squamish was to have the back-up land and the

facilities constructed by the provincial government. The

federal government was to do the wharfage and, along with this,

the federal controlled railway should operate on the BCR in

terms of the economics involved.

[ Page 747 ]

The rate structures and running rights were considered and

this should be a two-way street, particularly in light of the

fact that we are extending the B.C. Railway northward.

Presently the terminus is at Dease Lake and that was only an

interim destination in the previous government's mind. We felt

that we must go further and Mr. Jamieson agreed. When it came

to the time that we got to the northern provincial boundary it

would come under federal jurisdiction and they would move on

from there.

There was an agreement by way of a handshake between the

then Premier and Mr. Jamieson. There were details set out at

that time and we moved forward. I wonder if our present Premier — I know this is a long list of questions — is in any position

to advise us as to what measures or what change in plans is

being contemplated for the future of the port of Squamish? Is

it definitely settled that Britannia will be the terminus? Is

it definitely settled that there will only be a coal port?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, it's settled. It just has to go through

the public hearing charade.

MR. RICHTER: These are ideas in which I think not only the

official Opposition but the general public, the whole society

of British Columbia, is very keenly concerned.

As we progressively move on to the various votes as they come up, I undoubtedly

will be on my feet again and will have something to say as we move on.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Premier and, next, the Hon. Member

for Oak Bay.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Chairman, there is a number

of points raised by the Member for Boundary-Similkameen (Mr.

Richter). First of all on a question of natural gas to

Vancouver Island, no definite decision has been reached.

The next question was one that I find of special interest;

the question of violence in a North American context. I don't

want to embark upon a long dissertation, but I want to make a

couple of observations on what the Member has said.

There is of course, the very unfortunate case of a former

cabinet Minister, and the government has instructed that a

review of the insurance policies that are held by all MLA's be

undertaken. The first report we've had on that review indicates

that the former Minister may be eligible for a certain period

of coverage — I think it's 104 weeks — and the matter is being

pursued as I understand it from there.

In terms of violence generally, we have the very fortunate experience compared

to our southern neighbours, in that politics in the British Commonwealth is

essentially focused on parties rather than personalities, although you cannot

escape the personality focus from time to time. But we have not had a history

of violence with politicians in this country — other than verbal violence. The

fortunate experience has been that, I think, there has been only one assassination

— it was D'Arcy McGee I think. He's not here to tell us of his experience. Other

than that the violence to politicians has been limited.

There is perhaps a growing tendency, as North American

society becomes more urbanized, to focus hostility towards a

political figure. I think part of the responsibility to avoid

that rests with the parties and the politicians themselves. I

can't make too many comments about the North American

structure. That's something that they have to live with. Quite

frankly, I think the American society is a far more violent

society than the Canadian, and it may be not so much in the

nature of the citizen but the very fact of the pressure of the

population.

The urban problems in the United States have drawn comments

from a lot of Canadian politicians, notably the present Prime

Minister. Early in his period of being Prime Minister he made a

noteworthy speech in Montreal about the fear of the kind of

violence in the United States cities spilling into Canadian

cities. So far we've avoided that.

I don't know what can be done as an individual against the

growth of such violence, but I do think that our political

system has an outlet that should never be downplayed as a part

of good mental health for this nation. We have a party

responsibility that allows the opposition party to have direct

access to those who are making decisions. All cabinet Ministers

traditionally in our system are elected and must subject

themselves to the scrutiny such as we're going through now with

the estimates. I don't think they have that experience in the

American setup.

The other thing is that the opposition is a viable

alternative to governments on occasion. In my biased position I

hope it's not too frequent. But nonetheless within the system

there is a healthy alternative at any given time to any given

government — witness the defeat of the last government and the

number of people who are seeking to witness the defeat of the

present Government.

The opportunity also exists in our political system for a

variety of views to be focused into direct party activity.

There is the escape valve of belonging to anything from the

extreme left to the extreme right in our political system.

Whereas in the United States system the

definitions are not

that clearly defined. Sometimes you can't tell the northern

Republican from a southern Democrat without a programme in

terms of his ideological viewpoint. A northern Republican might

be far more liberal than southern Democrat. Here the definition

is quite clear — Liberals, Conservatives, Social Credit and NDP;

three free enterprise parties and one socialist party. So the

identification is much easier for the voting citizen.

[ Page 748 ]

It would be almost pointless to assassinate a Canadian

politician.

AN HON. MEMBER: Pierre LaPorte.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes. That was a pointless assassination. Tragic and

pointless. Because with the loss of one politician, political parties in our

context being what they are, when one person drops there's about four people

ready to take his place — even in the opposition. So ambition is the spur, Mr.

Chairman, that allows us to replace the person who is gone, for whatever reason

he goes. So there's no point in assassinating a Canadian politician. And I say

that with no self-interest. (Laughter).

Although the Member's point is well taken, I think it would

be a mistake, in my opinion, to consciously enact legislation

protecting politicians, because it would be tacit acceptance of

focusing hostility on the politicians.

On an individual basis we do have that policy — it's

something that I would welcome a review of — but I think it

would be a mistake to go to some form of built-in compensation.

We don't want to encourage people to acts of violence in

political life.

The other point made by the Minister is most interesting — the tragic loss, just yesterday in an automobile accident, of

an Alberta cabinet Minister. That is a valid point and a valid

concern. I would suggest that perhaps a House committee review

the whole matter.

It's unlikely that many politicians are individually

wealthy. Most politicians are not people who are wealthy in

their own right. That's changing more and more every day. As we

allow people more opportunity to get involved in political

life, we're finding people from all walks of life getting

involved and their degree of security, I think in many

instances, is limited. So I would suggest perhaps a motion to a

House committee to review this would be worthwhile.

I want to thank the Member for his comments on the Squamish

port location. He had intimate knowledge of the type of

negotiations and the content of the negotiations that went on

between the B.C. Railway, the British Columbia Government and

the federal government.

It is unfortunate, in my opinion, that the difference between Mr. Davis and

me has been focused entirely on the difference between two people. If you separate

the public statements of Mr. Davis and my public statements, you come back to

what the real facts are in terms of the situation as we found it. There was

an agreement, albeit a handshake agreement. But there was an agreement by the

federal government to locate that coal port in Squamish. The former Minister,

who is now the Member for Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Richter) was the first to

state that publicly.

When we came to office we were confronted with a matter that

was almost a fait accompli. I then proceeded to initiate a

meeting with Mr. Davis and his staff. At that time we disclosed

to him that we would be asking for an independent research

analysis of the Squamish port area as a viable coal port.

The first proposal that was given to us was to move the port

from an already-agreed location to examine the Mamquam Channel — close to the original place, but still in the Squamish

estuary. The report that we received indicated that there would

be serious ecological damage and it was on the basis of that

report that the Squamish estuary as a site for a coal port was

scrubbed. Then the impression was promulgated by the federal

Minister concerned that it was he who ordered the scrubbing of

the Squamish estuary as a coal port; when in actual fact that

was not the case at all. The federal Minister was part and

parcel of the federal government agreement to go ahead in the

Squamish estuary.

I must compliment the previous administration in that every

step of the way the B.C. Railway and the former Social Credit

administration cleared their plans with the federal government

and did not make any moves — unlike other situations — did not

make any moves without first clearing with the federal

government.

When we decided that the report from the Mamquam Channel

area was negative and we must not go there for ecological

reasons, the next alternative was Britannia. We ordered an

independent study of Britannia and first draft that we received

indicates that there is no ecological damage at all to that

particular site. We're thinking of building on an old,

abandoned mine site essentially, a site that Anaconda has

worked over as an industrial site for many, many years.

We have made no firm decision. We are attempting to gather

all the pertinent facts, lay them before the people of British

Columbia, hold a public hearing and then we'll make our

decision. However, you must recognize that all the economics

that were involved in the government preceding this one in

locating that coal port in Howe Sound are still a factor.

That hasn't altered a bit, and the economics are sound

because the great bulk of that coal to be shipped from the

Sukunka project is to go to Great Britain. I might say that the

very fact that we have an alternate market for coal, not just

the Japanese, but the potential of an alternate market for our

coal in Europe is a good thing for British Columbia because it

gives us some leverage in terms of the bargaining that we're

faced with. Coal is a non-renewable resource but according to

the best information we have, there's a 400 year supply of

coal. Forbes was the last indicator that I took of it. So we

are in a competitive position in terms of selling coal.

[ Page 749 ]

I've said publicly that we would not agree and do not agree

with the former administration's royalty of 25 cents a ton.

There is no way that that will be a factor, and I know that the

Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) was concerned about

me bargaining too severely in that particular matter. Well, I

want to tell you, and I want to tell the House, that as a

social worker I can't accept 25 cents a ton, and I don't see

how any business man could either. There's just no way.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, I appreciate the Member's concern, but

we are in intimate negotiations at this point. But the figure

is not around 25 cents a ton. It's a figure that we think is

reasonable and that the industry can pay.

The location is a factor in the economics, because the

location is closer to the European market, and it also is a

matter too, of the economics of the B.C. Railway. Now, before I

go on to make any further comments about that — I am going to

come back to that point — I want to point out too that the

federal hue and cry now for the development of Rupert is a new

found concern in my opinion, because up to the time when we

took over, the federal government had the position of going

full blast for Squamish.

AN HON. MEMBER: With a handshake.

HON. MR. BARRETT: With a handshake. All right, we'll just

leave it at that.

Now, the interesting thing is that as much as we disagreed

with the former administration, it must be said again that in

one aspect, in terms of the publicly owned railway, my

predecessor as Leader of the Opposition and myself have never

been critics of a publicly owned railway. As a matter of fact a

publicly owned railway was one of the greatest things done by

the previous administration. No question about it. It's a form

of socialism, but I suppose that the free enterprisers who

practise socialism get less heat for that practice than do

avowed socialists who try to practise free enterprise. That

will come later when I discuss your comments about

investments.

I will say this, that the research that is available in

terms of ecological protection of the Prince Rupert estuary

indicates that there have been only two studies done. One a

major one, and one a minor one.

The major one was done on the basis of fisheries

examination. It was close to Ridley Island, as I understand it,

and it was a certain fishing bank.

AN HON. MEMBER: Flora Bank.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Flora Bank, that's correct. Thank you, Mr.

Member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea). It indicated that if we went in there with a coal port,

there would be massive ecological damage. Since that time,

there's been another brief study on which only a memorandum has

been produced. It was not a full scale study and only a

memorandum has been produced. That was a 28 point study of

collecting areas around Ridley Island and the other areas.

There is no conclusive report available by the federal

government that indicates that any area around Rupert is

ecologically safe to handle a coal port. Certainly, nothing

like the environmental protection that Britannia offers.

Now back to the economics of the railway. It is a fact that

since coming to office we have discovered quite a great deal of

correspondence between the previous administration and the

federal government, asking that the people of British Columbia

have the same benefits that other provinces have had and other

jurisdictions have had when they built railroads. As a matter

of fact, the former Premier totalled an estimate re the federal

government, that the federal government owed British Columbia,

on the basis of equal treatment to British Columbia in terms of

its railroad construction, a total of $19 million in a minimum

and perhaps as high as $27 million right now.

Now I say this as a British Columbian, along with my

political philosophy, that I agree completely with the position

of the former government. The federal government does have a

responsibility to pay its fair share of what we're doing here

and what was done here in British Columbia. I have made this a

condition, and I'll say this publicly now, that before we

complete any arrangements with the federal government on

integrated use of the railway in the north, and the

northwestern

section of British Columbia, there must be a lump

sum payment of the people of British Columbia to make up the

money in the past that they owe the people of British Columbia.

That's my position. It was the position of my predecessor, and

I agree with him completely, because there is no reason why

other provinces should receive cash supplements for expansion

of railroad routes or for ferries, for that matter, without

British Columbia receiving those as well.

Now we are negotiating with Ottawa, and we are continuing

the negotiations started by the previous administration. There

are some alterations. There are some differences of opinion,

but the mood of the negotiations is very, very good. The

economics are such that the outlet at Squamish, or at other

than Howe Sound, is a factor, and the market is a factor as

well.

The last thing that I want to elaborate on re the markets is

what I mentioned earlier about an alternate market. Up to now,

the Japanese have had very good coal deals out of British

Columbia. Kaiser has lost a bundle in their contract with the

Japanese.

[ Page 750 ]

Now that's on their head; that's the way it goes, But the

tragedy of it is that not only has Kaiser lost a fortune as

they interpret it, and not only Kaiser been involved in inside

trading, which was less than frank, I think, with the previous

administration, and certainly with the people of British

Columbia, but the return from that Kaiser deal which we are

locked into, is that we have scarred landscapes that are a

brand new experience in terms of open pit mining. All that

we're getting out of that Kaiser deal is a volunteer 10 cents

to 25 cents a ton. Kaiser doesn't have to pay us anything. We

have discovered since coming to office that Kaiser didn't have

to pay a nickel on that coal. It's a volunteer assessment of 10

cents to 25 cents a ton.

That's a matter, Mr. Member, that is currently under review

by the government. We have the commitments from Kaiser on the

basis of hopefully more than good faith, that they'll restore

the area, but I certainly hope that their good faith is not

conditioned by the experience we had in terms of their inside

trading, because that wasn't good faith. That was sharp

practice. Now, we're locked into Kaiser, but we hope that

something better will come out of that. But as it stands now,

the economics are that Howe Sound is the area.

What is the question left with Howe Sound? The question

really narrows down to one of aesthetics. There is a great deal

of shipping in Howe Sound now. We have absolutely no intention

of further industrial expansion in Howe Sound. If we go ahead

with a coal port, although there appears to be more land at

Britannia than at first glance, it will be limited to the coal

port. The other land, if we go ahead, will be developed for

maximum recreational use. We want to embark upon a growth

concept, and a no growth concept, but a growth concept that

incorporates both industrial use and recreational use.

The coal itself will be handled as was planned by the

previous administration. The previous administration agreed to

have the coal loaded in silos, which is a better method than

anything that exists in handling coal on this coast right now.

It is expensive, but we've agreed that if we go that route, the

coal will go through the silos fashioned by the previous

government, and the coal cars will be covered, as was agreed to

by the previous government, and accepted by the federal

government. So the new cautions are related to the location,

and I've made it as clear as possible. I think that covers the

Squamish thing, Mr. Member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before we proceed — Mr. Member for Oak

Bay (Mr. Wallace) please be seated for a moment — I just want

to make a couple of observations. It's our first day in

committee of supply, and I just draw your attention to a couple

of points regarding the rules. The first one is that if a Member is suggesting or proposing legislation, he should not

do so in this kind of discussion but rather should have a bill

on the order paper or a motion on the order page.

I'll just read the

section in May which applies: "The

administrative action of a department is open to debate, but

the necessity for legislation and matters involving legislation

cannot be discussed in committee of supply." So if you are

suggesting or proposing a bill, the remedy is to put it on the

order paper in the usual way.

The second point is that if you wish to speak, each time a

person is finished you may stand and I'll try to apportion the

speaking order as fairly as possible. The Chairman reserves the

right as to who he will recognize. Therefore I would just ask

you to stand in your place and I'll make a mental note — we

don't keep formal notes — to ensure that you get your chance to

speak.

Also, I would request that Members, so far as possible, keep

their remarks brief and, if possible, extemporaneous. This is

in keeping with the rules of debate. Otherwise, the rules are

the same as the rules in the House. I recognize the Hon. Member

for Oak Bay.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I must

say I very much appreciate the comments of the Premier, with

particular relation to the Squamish–Howe Sound controversy. I'd

like to comment on that in a moment. I'll try to be brief, Mr.

Chairman.

In commenting on the Premier's office, I think the immediate

question one asks is with regard to the increased expense of

the office. By my calculations, we have increased the staff by

an administrative assistant, a press secretary, one secretary

and one clerk. Travelling expenses are up by $5,000. I'm not

saying, Mr. Chairman, that I disagree with that. I think that

government is a very complicated and difficult business. As is

demonstrated in situations such as the Sukunka coal, Squamish

situation, governments need more and more information to reach

intelligent decisions. If we can be assured by the Premier that

this is not the start of an ever-increasing retinue — such as

happened in the Liberal administration in Ottawa, I might say — and that the main reason for the Premier's increase in staff is

the open government which he wishes to demonstrate to the

Members and to the people of British Columbia, then I think

this may well turn out to be money well spent. But I would

sound a note of caution from our side of the House that if we

come back next year and find another four or five on the

Premier's staff, or maybe a few appointed between terms or some

such obvious steady increase, we will be most anxious.

As I've stated already in this House, while we're only two

seats in the House, we also find it extremely

[ Page 751 ]

difficult to function over the whole range of government

business without any assistance. I don't reject the reason

given to me that because we only have two seats out of 55,

we're not entitled to a research assistant. But I think that

the progressive attitude which the Premier is showing to

getting adequate staff in his office might — and I say this not

jokingly and without bias. I really feel that for any party,

however small, in this House to function to the peak of its

ability really depends on some form of research assistance.

Other than that the Members are certainly working day and night

seven days a week trying to keep up. That's a little off the

point, Mr. Chairman, I'll leave it right there.

I just would like to comment on the subject that was raised

regarding the risk to politicians of violence in our society. I

agree with the Premier that I don't see that we should expect

any special protection. But I think we should expect the same

kind of safeguards that apply to other citizens in other walks

of life. If each of us is not at the present moment legally

covered by compensation, perhaps there should be mechanisms

brought into play whereby this can be done.

I would like now just to make some remarks about the B.C.

Railway. I think that the actions of the Government in

investigating in the way that has been done, first of all,

whether Squamish is suitable or not and, having found that it

is not ecologically advisable, deciding to seek another outlet,

is very commendable and must surely give the people of this

province some confidence in the election promises — that in

fact ecology would be given serious concern in this

province.

The more I thought about this whole issue of Sukunka coal

and Squamish and Prince Rupert over the weekend, the more it

seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that this raises this whole big

issue that we've touched upon many times in this session

already. That is the equating of the need for continuing

economic and industrial expansion but in such a limited or in

such a supervised manner that the ecological end results are

acceptable to society, in the light of the standards which

society is now demanding. In an earlier debate I mentioned that

the people in the Howe Sound area were very naturally concerned

about the idea of a coal port interfering with the tremendous

recreational and aesthetic beauty which exists there at the

moment.

As an aside, Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to say that while I

commend the Government for the rational way in which these

studies were set up, I really was just a little annoyed when I

read this report by Paish about the terminal at Britannia

Beach. I think with respect, Mr. Chairman, that Mr. Paish

should stick to the professional field in which he's

employed.

While I respect and accept his professional judgment and the fact that there

appears no likelihood of ecological damage if the coal port is located, he goes on to say on page 13 for example:

"The vital role of a Howe Sound outlet for the B.C. Railway

Company has yet to be adequately explained to the people of the

province. Long-term direct benefits to British Columbia as a

result of coal haulage revenues and other direct benefits

related to the whole coal shipment operation should be spelled

out in order that people are able to place the scenic and

recreational aspects of Howe Sound in a total perspective."

All I'm saying, Mr. Chairman, is that I think that's a valid

observation but I don't think it has any place in this kind of

report. If he wants the Government and the people of British

Columbia to weigh up the pluses and minuses, I think really

that all he was asked to do was to give any opinion as to

whether the coal port would, in fact, damage the ecology. He's

found that it doesn't. I won't take up time but there are other

statements. I won't take up time to quote the other one, but on

the report on Squamish he even goes into quite a lengthy

discussion about whether we're on sound ground or whether our

policy is wise to consider exporting coal at all. Again, he

makes some very valid observations, namely that coal is

becoming a more valuable resource and that perhaps we should be

keeping all the coal in our own province as a source of thermal

energy for production of electricity.

So, in passing, Mr. Chairman, I think we should perhaps

recognize that the expert called in to give us an ecological

opinion should have it made plain to him that that's all we're

asking. We don't need any political debate in his report.

To get back to the point, it seems as though this whole

question of coal development and where it should be shipped

from and so on, really is the best example of this

philosophical argument that the two sides of the House have had

to some degree in both the throne speech debate and the budget

speech debate. Here we have undoubtedly a natural resource

which should be developed and, if developed, should provide

royalties. How much more than 25 cents a ton, I have no idea,

but I think everyone agrees that this is a development of a

natural resource which makes good sense. It could only make

sense if there's a deepwater port through which it can be

exported. There's the rub — we have to decide where and under

what circumstances the coal can be transported and exported

with least damage to the environment.

I feel that the arguments that have occurred between the

Premier and Mr. Davis, the Minister of the Environment, were

unfortunate. But I appreciate the Premier's explaining exactly

what has happened and the role of the former government. I

think this has put things more clearly on the record than I've

been able to decipher from news reports.

With regard to Howe Sound, many people have contacted me.

Again, because we only have two seats, we don't have a Member

from that area. Their

[ Page 752 ]

concern is very real. With respect, Mr. Premier, it has not

always been the custom of former governments to live up to

their word. While you, through you, Mr. Chairman, reassure us

that there is to be no expansion beyond the possible coal

terminal, I think, with respect, that the people of this

province and the people in the Howe Sound area will be very

difficult to convince. Their feeling is that this is just a

foot in the door.

Inevitably, if we start exporting coal, next year or the

year after or the year after that, there will no doubt be

demand, or some attempt will be made to export many other

products, giving some simple explanation that they have no

alternative and that, having developed the Britannia site, why

not expend it and use it.

In fairness to the Paish company I think, having criticized

them, I should also say that he makes one point very plain, and

it should go on the record; that he feels the public concern is

that the coal port would be the thin end of the wedge. He says,

however, that the built-in limitations of the site should be

pointed out and that the land-use plans that have been set out

already accommodate environmental aspects, and that the flat

ground in the region of Howe Sound is being largely committed

to recreational and park use.

Once again, although we would prefer that Howe Sound be not

used at all for this kind of development, when the whole total

picture and whole issue as regards the use of resources and the

best thing for the people of British Columbia in the total

context — when we look at it this way — certainly I personally

have to say that there is a great deal to be reconsidered,

compared to the point I made in an earlier speech, that we were

totally opposed to any development of an industrial nature on

Howe Sound.

In reconsidering all the points that have been raised, and

in listening to the Premier today, I would have to say that I,

in trying to be objective and non-partisan, would consider that

with the safeguards the Premier has given: (1) that it will

only be a coal port, not to be expanded for other exports;

(2) that the coal will be covered. I understand that from leaving

the mine — it's not only on the loading on ships but the whole

process — I believe it is agreed with the company that the coal

will be covered. On that basis I think we will reserve any

further comment on the pros and cons of that controversy.

I agree also that if the federal government is providing

subsidies to other railways, I think we should press very

strongly that we should be treated as equals in British

Columbia in the case of the B.C. Railroad.

I would just make one small criticism, Mr. Chairman, in that I notice that

the annual report of the B.C. Railroad is dated January 23, 1972. Yet I had

some difficulty getting a report to study it today. I understand it was filed

with the House. Through you, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask the Premier is it

not customary that as soon as reports are filed with the House that each Member

receives a copy? I would like to have the Premier's explanation as to why we

had to search around and get the one copy with the Clerk's office and get it photostated.

Interjections by an Hon. Member.

MR. WALLACE: I've got the 1971 report. I don't remember

having this much trouble getting it. Anyway, it's simply a

question I am asking for information.

I think there are some interesting facts in this report, Mr.

Chairman. The net profit seems to remain much the same — in the

region of $1 million. That raises another philosophical point I

think worth mentioning; that I don't think the railroad should

exist necessarily to make a profit. I think if it can make a

profit then this is something we would appreciate. But I hope

it will never be a case of insisting that certain products be

transported on this particular railroad, let us say, if there

were good reasons why it should go out through Prince

Rupert.

Certainly it is a policy we feel in this party, that while

the railroad is an integral part of the continuing expanding

economy of British Columbia, it should not be given

pre-eminence in any considerations in the total context of what

is best for the people of British Columbia. There may be times

when the railroad would in fact be earning revenue in certain

ways in transporting certain products. But if it is altogether

better that we should export using the CNR out of Prince

Rupert, then I would hope that the total picture would be

considered in the same light in which you've considered ecology

and economy in the case of Squamish.

I think one point that's worth mentioning, Mr. Chairman, is

that — and I don't know if this is a misprint — the total

payroll is $28 million and the average income per employee in

1972 was $10,102. It's worth making plain on the record that

this railroad is not only a source of employment for many

people but they are obviously received good salaries, which is

much to be admired.

The report also gives some very useful data on the upgrading

of the railroad. The one and only time I travelled on the B.C.

Railroad to Prince George, I was really amazed at some of the

wooden trestles. Considering the weight of the train on these

wooden trestles and the vibration as you went over them, I

sometimes wondered if we'd make the other side. But I

understand that in the last year you've replaced eight

trestle-bridges with concrete structures and that there are to

be at least another eight replaced next year. I wonder if the

Premier would comment on this particular aspect of the

railroad, namely the upgrading and replacement of worn-out

track.

[ Page 753 ]

The last point I would like to make relates to the

philosophy of the railroad. I'm told by some people who know a

little bit about railroads that this railroad is viewed by

other railroads in the North American continent as having been

built predominantly at low cost. The cost of the bed is kept

down on the clear understanding that the trains will not travel

at high speeds, the theory being that you're minimizing capital

investment and getting maximum return out of the railroad.

Since I'm no expert, and I don't claim to be about

railroads, I think this is an interesting opinion that was

expressed. I wonder if this has had anything to do with the

accident rate in the past and whether the Premier could explain

a little more about this. There's very little stated about

safety or accidents in the 1972 report. I would hope that means

there hasn't been any accident.

I notice that the tunnel in West Vancouver is to be

constructed. About a year ago when we were all in this House

there was very considerable concern about a landslide which

severely damaged the track in West Vancouver. Since then a

decision has been made to build a tunnel. I wonder if the

Premier would comment on the safety record in the last

year.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I'll go through the items as

they were raised by the Member (Mr. Wallace).

First of all on the question of increasing staff in the

office: the staff in the Premier's office is far lower, I would

venture, than that in any other Premier's office right across

the country. There has been an increase and the increase has

been brought about by two matters — first of all, the fact that

all correspondence is now being answered from the Premier's

office;

whereas it only took one person to dump all the

correspondence in the wastebasket that now takes a number of

people to deal with.

As a matter of fact, Mr….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's an irresponsible statement? It's a reflection

of an irresponsible policy that I found was being carried on. As a matter of

fact, a significant segment of the mail is still being answered by myself. I

find that to be a very onerous task and I am contemplating the addition of one

other person to assist in the mail, The mail now is running at 250 to 300 separate

pieces of correspondence every day in the office. At the very least we get out

an immediate acknowledgment and we are setting up machinery to ensure that people

get answers. Whether they're happy with the answers or not is another matter;

but they are entitled to answers when they write the Premier's office, whether

I'm there or someone else is there. That's my opinion.

The other part of it is that there was a practice in this

province that people outside the public service were accepted

by practice as either spokesmen for the Premier's office or

"arrangers" for the Premier's office, or "facilitators" for the

Premier's office. I don't have to use any names; they're well

known.

No one outside of government employment says anything for

the Premier of this province, arranges anything for the Premier

of this province — that is, appointments, visits or anything

else. I have my own staff and if people wish to see the Premier

or to write directly to the Premier, they come through my own

staff. I do not use outside public relations people or outside

anything else.

There has been an increase in staff because of that, Mr.

Member, and I hope that I'm able to keep it down. There is, as

I say, a consideration to take on one more person in terms of

the load of correspondence that we're handling.

The Paish report: the Member has raised a very interesting

point. When I asked Howard Paish to take this job on, I asked

him myself as president of the railway. I gave him no direction

that would confine him. When Parish's report came in — the last one you referred to, on the Britannia site — there

were the pages of gratuitous remarks put in by the

consultant.

There was a moment when I hesitated and was of the opinion

for a moment that I should phone Paish up and say, "Look, take

that out of there. That's not what I asked for." I resisted the

temptation by knowing that if I asked that that be taken out, I

would have mental reservations in discussing the report from

that point on. I could safely be questioned, if I asked that to

be taken out — the proposition could be, "What else are you

going to take out?"

It is the policy of this Government that we will be asking

outside consultants to prepare a report. When we hire outside

consultants, we want a professional opinion. If the person who

is hired feels motivated in their own true conscience to add

gratuitous analysis of facts or factors or impressions as they

see them, then we must accept that because we are buying a

professional report. Mr. Paish did go beyond what was

suggested, but I made a conscious decision to leave every

single thing that he said in there. That will be the same with

any other consultant.

There are reports from economists and from engineers that

we've received that I've gone through that, with the change of

a word here or a comma there, would be most beneficial. But

once you start down that route, you're compromising yourself

and you're compromising the consultant. I'm glad you raised

that, Mr. Member. I want it clearly understood that in the

future, when we hire consultants, what-

[ Page 754 ]

ever they put in there is on their head. We will release it

because it's a public document and that's it.

I must say that I did have the temptation for a moment to

say, "O.K. Rip this part out." But I resisted it because there

is that absolute necessity to be able to stand in this House

and say, "I have not interfered in any way with that report or

any other report." I didn't like the gratuitous comments

myself, but nonetheless they were there. That's fine. I don't

want to restrict consultants in any way.

The BCR report, Mr. Member — I have a copy here. I've

learned that it came in last week. Rather than wait till this

evening, I'll file it right now with the House. I did file the

main part during the budget speech. I understand that that's

the only copy we have. Is there another copy? We'll file both

and then perhaps, while we're going through the estimates, with

the permission of the Clerk…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, Hon. Mr. Premier. You cannot

file documents when we're meeting as committee of the

whole.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Could I move suspension of the rules with

leave? Cannot suspend the rules in committee? O.K. I'll file it

at the earliest possible opportunity.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: As soon as my salary goes through, says

the Attorney General. (Laughter). He's picked up some bad

habits from earlier experience, I must say.

The question of profit. It's quite right that the primary

motivation of a public agency or public utility should not be

one of profit. I have been concerned about the use of B.C. Rail

essentially as an industrial route. Incidentally, people have

said to me, "What are your qualifications for being president

of a railway?" Well, I do have some qualifications. I spent a

whole summer cooking and washing dishes. I must say that that's

the most dramatic rise in the history of railroads; right out

of the kitchen to president, with a few intervening years.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Thank goodness it's a government-owned

railroad. Anyway, be that as it may, I've asked the railway to

examine the whole area of passenger service.

In my opinion, passenger service on the B.C. Railway has been very poor. For

those people who have had to use the B.C. Rail as access to services, the food

services have been really pretty bad. There has been an upgrading since we came

to office. Also, the use of the railway as a tourist expansion: as you know,

I was successful in buying an old steam locomotive for $1 and we are seeking

other locomotives. I've asked for a report on the whole concept of using the

BCR as a tourist attraction in itself.

The kind of circuit routes, for example, that I've asked

them to study is, for instance, a day trip on an old sternwheel paddler down the Fraser — getting on the BCR in North

Vancouver, travelling up to Lillooet and then taking the bus

over, coming down to Hope and taking the sternwheeler down. A

one-day circle tour or a two-day circle tour. It would be a

great tourist boon, I think, and let people have a good view of

British Columbia. I don't see the railway as only an industrial

railway. I see the tourist potential and also the service to

passengers.

I have ordered a review of the auditing procedures of the

railway. I hope that the report will in fairly soon. As I

understand it, it's in the works now. The question of safety

was a matter of concern when we were in Opposition. I asked for

a report. I've received a preliminary report indicating that

the locomotives the railway purchased were beyond the capacity

of the men responsible for controlling them in terms of the

kind of railway we have. So there has been a cutback on the

power of those locomotives.

The rail upgrading has been a problem. It is a continuing

process and they are upgrading the weight of the track. When we

were in Opposition, and I'm sure the Member will remember, we

received many briefs from the running trades on the railway

expressing their concern about the weight of the steel. A

decision was made before we came to office to change large

sections of track with higher grade steel and that is

continuing. I think that covers all your questions.

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

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Mr. Chairman, I have a few

observations to make on the vote for the Premier's salary.

First of all, I might say we're pleased to see you have the two

portfolios, where you always said you wouldn't have. I know,

being in a more junior office, it's very nice to control the

purse strings and keep control. That's what you'll be able to

do by keeping both these portfolios.

We don't appreciate on this side, as we said before, the

increase in taxes, really, for our political philosophy. It

appears also that revenues are underestimated. I want to,

though, make an observation about the Premier's salary. I don't

really think that anybody in the province is that concerned

about the Premier's salary. Certainly he should be well paid as

the Premier of British Columbia and the Minister of Finance,

because it's probably the largest, most responsible job in the

province. Certainly if it were in the private enterprise

sector, it would probably pay

[ Page 755 ]

even more than is recommended here.

One thing that I would like to observe, Mr. Chairman, is

this. The salaries for the elected people have been computed on

a basis of "catch-up", as I see it, at roughly 6.5 per cent per

year. Of course, this applies to the Premier's salary as well

as the MLA's and the other cabinet Ministers. The observation I

have is that I think you're pulling a little steal here, Mr.

Premier. Because you weren't Premier in 1971 and 1972. You're

going to get the catch-up on the basis that you were the

Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I voted for the foreman. (Laughter).

MR. FRASER: I think there's something there to be

observed.

I'd like to now discuss the areas of jurisdiction for a

moment, as I mentioned in my budget debate. I refer to the

Public Utilities Commission as such. I could never understand,

as I said earlier, why this administrative body is under the

Minister of Finance.

I suggest to you, Mr. Premier, that this should be

transferred administratively — certainly and definitely the

motor carrier division of the PUC — to the commercial transport

division. Because you have the citizens out there, as public

carriers, quite confused. I think that we should be thinking of

serving the public. Now they have to deal with so many

jurisdictions.

As I said before, I think this transfer should take place to

relieve the responsibilities to some degree of your office of

Minister of Finance. The commercial transport is really the

police department of the highways department. They do

everything for the motor carriers.

We then have the motor carrier branch of the PUC controlling

the rate structure of all public carriers, whether they be

public or freight carriers. I can't see the sense to this at

all, and I would like you to seriously give it some thought.

You've had briefs from the industry on it since you've become

Government. It seems to be a logical and sensible move to be

made.

On the B.C.R., on which by the way I'd like to make an

observation that I still don't like the name. I wish we had the

old name. I get a real kick out of the people who discuss the

BCR. For the information of the House, I've lived in Quesnel

all my life. It was the termination of the railroad for many

years. When I was younger, I've ridden the railroads from

Quesnel to Squamish and then taken a cattle scow to come from

Squamish to North Vancouver. Of course, I've seen what's

happened in the last 20 years. Believe me, it is the main thing

that has opened up the whole interior and north of this

province.

When it was the PGE it had a lot of nicknames — "Please Go

Easy," "Pigs Going East," "Prince George Eventually," and it was the laughing stock of the

whole country. Now, of course, we don't hear any more of that.

It's been built into a fairly modern and certainly very

efficiently operated railroad.

I'm tickled to death to hear the Premier say here today that

he has asked the railroad to look into the passenger service.

There is a lot left to be desired in the passenger service, Mr.

Premier. I congratulate you for having the management of the

railroad look into this. I think there has been a feeling in

the management of the railroad in the past to downgrade the

passenger service in preference to the freight service, which

is enormous, the business they have now. But I can tell you the

people of the Cariboo — those in my riding and I'm sure those

in the north — would support the passenger service if it was

upgraded to a better quality than they presently give the

general public.

I would like also to congratulate you — and by the way I

don't want this to be an admiration society — on what appears to

be your stance on supporting the citizens of British Columbia

over Sukunka coal and that the BCR should haul that coal. I

certainly think that the BCR should be given top priority and

it appears you are giving it that; but as you well pointed out,

most of the coal apparently is going to Europe and therefore it

is the shorter distance to bring it.

I don't buy all this "gas" about how much damage it is going

to do the ecology and environment of Howe Sound. There's been a

lot of smoke caused about it but, as you well know, the

proposal to haul this coal — if and when it ever happens — is

in covered hopper cars and in silos when it gets down to be

unloaded. I don't think in any way it will affect the

environment of Howe Sound or I wouldn't say that.

While I am on the subject of BCR, I am still upset about the

remarks made by the Hon. Member for Fort George (Mr. Nunweiler)

the other day about insinuations about what is going on within

that railroad. I happen to have a lot of respect for the

management of that railroad. I want to ask the Premier, as the

president, to please clear up the particular inference that was

made regarding contracts let for construction of right-of-way

extensions. I haven't the figures exactly in front of me, but

different contractors were named, one in particular, where the

contract was let for $5 million and they were eventually paid

$11 million.

For the information of the House, Mr. Chairman, this is

going on in government every day all the time, no matter who's

government. I refer to highway contracts and so on. All the

quantities are estimated by the staff, in the railroad in this

case, or the highways department, The bidders are then asked to

bid and the low bidder usually gets it. But they get into

individual slide conditions and so on, and further yardage has

to be moved. Certainly they're paid for

[ Page 756 ]

the additional yardage that was estimated, but based on the

original bid per yard. I don't think it's cricket where a

Member of this House gets up and infers the contractor got

double what he bid. If he wants to go on, he should analyse all

the contracts, because very few of the contracts let by the

government — in the past or the future — will show that you can

get off with paying the exact price of the original low tender

that is awarded.

The other thing is about the roadbed. I'm fully aware of the

roadbed of the BCR. It runs through my riding for a distance of

250 miles. I want to tell you they are continually upgrading

the roadbed with heavier steel and so on. I would like to see

them lay off a bit because I'll tell you, Mr. Chairman, every

time they upgrade 10 miles of the roadbed in the Cariboo, they

raise the level crossings on all the farms about two feet with

new ballast and new track. Then the farmer can't get home. He

gets locked on the tracks and he phones me at 2 o'clock in the

morning and wants to know what I'm going to do about it.

I don't like the inference made by the Member that everything has gone to pot and this railroad is not being

looked after. I want to say that they are upgrading all the

time, not only last year, but during the last five or seven

years. Quite frankly they have to with the amount of freight

that that railroad is hauling out of the central and northern

interior.

I think we've had enough on the BCR for now. There'll

probably be another opportunity when maybe the management is

also here.

I would also like in your office, Mr. Premier, to give

serious consideration to opening the government offices, as I

spoke earlier, during the lunch hour, again to give better

service to the citizens of British Columbia.

Regarding your office as Minister of Finance in bringing in

the budget, I am very concerned that possibly, Mr. Chairman,

the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) doesn't understand

the role of municipalities. I am not saying that critically,

but they didn't come out very well in this budget. Actually

their share of the budget this year is 3.3 per cent of the

total while last year it was 3.6 per cent.

The per capita grant, I notice one of the Members even said

that it should go to $36. Well, I'm not sure what it should be,

but it certainly should be more than $32 to at least keep up

with inflation. They have their problems in the municipalities

with that, as well as all levels of government.

I am a little dubious of what I see going on about

legislation — I know we can't discuss it — but when the

legislation is finally passed, and I say this to you as the

president of the council, Mr. Premier, than once the

legislation is passed it delegates it to bodies outside of this

House. I don't like to see that trend taking place in this

government and Province of British Columbia.

One other thing and then I'll sit down for the time being.

Again, you as the Minister of Finance, Mr. Premier — I think a

lot of the citizens of this province, and certainly I am one,

are concerned about no tender calls. Now it has happened

already and a reason has been given. But I'd like to hear a

statement from you as to whether you are going to continue the

tender call basis or philosophy, or whether you're going to

decide when the government wants something whether it will

actually be tendered or not. I think this is a very bad

departure.

I'm going to have a lot to say about the Purchasing

Commission, the way they're operating. I'm not happy about that

at all. I'll deal with specifications and so on, because in my

opinion they're not calling their specifications properly and

the public purse is not being served because of this.

Without any further ado, I hope that I have raised a few

points of interest in this debate. Thank you.

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

Okanagan.

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

I just want to refer back to a statement made by the Premier

earlier on the B.C. Railway. Other Members are speaking in

terms of technicalities, which I don't intend to do. I sort of

had a feeling he was filibustering his own estimates. Also, he

took half my speech. But I do compliment him.

Looking at the B.C. Railway from the family point of view, I

would suggest that there are railways all over the world today

increasing their passenger service. While I don't agree with

the Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) in his approach to

subsidization of the railway service, I think from the

industrial point of view that there is a real place in British

Columbia to look at the passenger service on the B.C. Railway

with the idea that it is going to have to be subsidized for

many years.

I think if the railway undertook a number of accompanying

factors that this would encourage its use. The obvious

advantage to having the B.C. Railway used as a passenger

service is to ease, even slightly, the heavy pressure on the

highway from the north, particularly during the tourist season.

Its potential I think during the winter season would be great

if you would do a number of things.

First of all, I agree with you that the food — and this was always a pet project

of mine when I was in Government — the food service was non-existent. Then it

was improved slightly, but to my knowledge it still hasn't been improved enough.

I think one of the areas to improve the food service, is to improve the attendant

service and to make it very clear to people, particularly in the lower mainland,

who are using the B.C. Railway as a passenger service, that it is

[ Page 757 ]

a long trip.

In spite of the fact that they look at the map, I think mothers with children

getting on the train don't realize that it can be anywhere from 8, 10, 12, 14

hours or overnight trip. To make this very clear, we should perhaps put out

a little folder that explains fully what provisions are provided on the railway

and also what they should be mindful of that isn't provided.

I would agree with the Premier, and I am glad he is taking

it up, again I was going to bring it up, that much can be done

to encourage the use of the B.C. Railway as an internal tourist

attraction for our own people in British Columbia as well as

for visitors coming to British. Columbia.

I think one of the things that you might do, as far as the

railway itself is concerned, is use it as a means of summer

employment for young people. It's a long trip. Perhaps there

could be some entertainment on the railway itself by young

people — I don't mean anything too formal — but I think a

guitar or two would be entertaining to the children.

In company with this there could be a baby sitting service,

or a mother assistance service to help mothers with young

children — they're very hard to control on the railway. Perhaps

if you ever get around to ordering new passenger cars, there

might in fact be a very small play area for children that

crawl. They're a major concern, I think — where there would be

some carefully selected toys that they wouldn't hurt themselves

with, but that would serve as a diversion for them from time to

time. It wouldn't have to be very big, because they certainly

wouldn't be in there all at the same time.

Another thing, Mr. Premier, does relate a bit to the tourist

industry and the Minister of Tourism, but I think it should

come under yours. He might use his good offices through the

Tourist Advisory Association to encourage people in the tourist

industry in the north to put together, through the B.C.

Railway, three day or week package family programmes. I think

that people hesitate to go to the north without their car

because they don't know what's going to happen or how they're

going to get here to there.

You could utilize all the forces of the free enterprise

system certain motels putting on a programme, fishing

programmes, and perhaps there's a little theatre such as at

Fort St. John that is putting on summer programmes. This would

be included in their package programme, but it wouldn't

necessarily be so tight that they were running from spot to

spot. I believe that this would encourage people from the lower

mainland to go up and perhaps spend a week in the north. This

would be good for the tourist industry there as well as being

good for the people of British Columbia in the lower mainland

to find out more about British Columbia.

I don't think this necessarily has to be in the summer months. With the new

school system that the Minister of Education announced there's going to be a

spring vacation period, and this might be a good time for a mother and her children

to go north. She would venture to do this if she knew she wasn't going to be

confronted with problems of transportation and what to do. I would ask the Premier

to explore this.

Something that I think might be done to encourage people to

use the passenger service in the winter time, as well as in the

summer, would be to enter into dialogue with the Rent-a-car

services, to see if they would not make available very low cost

cars in Vancouver or in the lower mainland, so that when you

come down on the railway there would be a bus service by the

railway to the various hotels, but there would be an

arrangement to pick up small cars like Volkswagens or Datsuns

or Toyotas, so that you could use them roughly for a cost of $5

a day. This is really all that a business man needs or that a

small family needs when they're in the lower mainland area.

They don't need a great big expensive car. They could arrange

this when they leave the north. It would be at the station for

them and they'd know it would be about a maximum cost of $5 to

$7 a day. I think this would encourage them to use the

passenger service, more than it would their own car. In the

long run it would probably be a good deal cheaper for them.

On that again, I know the plan that the Premier mentioned

regarding the sternwheeler approach and the two day trip, and

it was one I was interested in. I hope that he really will look

into it. I think that we must do more of this in British

Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: Does anyone know where there's a

sternwheeler?

MRS. JORDAN: Well we have one docked in Penticton. I don't

know whether it could be re-floated. Yes, there is one if I can

remember and I'll be glad to look into it. There's one in B.C.,

I think that is repairable.

AN HON. MEMBER: We looked at two at Whitehorse.

MRS. JORDAN: That's all I wish to say, Mr. Chairman, on this

part. I hope the Premier has made note of some of these things.

I know baby-sitting isn't important to the over-all economy of

the province but it is important to the family.

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

Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am

happy to rise in this debate. Some comments — it has been

mentioned earlier that the

[ Page 758 ]

number of people employed in the Premier's office has

increased, and I have no quarrel with the increase, inasmuch as

I think it has been adequately explained by the Premier.

However, approximately half of the increase in expenditure

in this Vote 2 deals with increases either in salary or travel

of the Premier himself. I was wondering perhaps if the Premier

would indicate how it was determined that he required extra

from $23,000 up to $28,000, merely for purposes of the

record.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) was in

the House…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's the formula we passed in the

previous House.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The formula passed in the previous House,

the Premier mentions. So we can assume then that increases of

this nature will be taking place on the same basis as — since

the last increase to the Premier's salary. On the basis of a

formula.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The formula was passed last session.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Then that will continue to operate in

effect in future years.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Not necessarily.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'd just like to straighten our

procedure. When you put your questions, would you put them all

first and then let him rise and answer them in his place? Or

one at a time as you wish, just so that we observe the

rules.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I understand then that the increase of

the $5,000 in salary is on the basis of that formula. The 50

per cent increase in travel expenses is, I believe, not

calculated the same way. I may be wrong on this but, in any

event, in a government happy to depart — and I quote their

statement of policy — happy to depart from "acquisitive North

American values," it strikes one as curious that 50 per

cent of the increase under this vote, and there are 10 people

involved in this area here, goes to the Premier's salary or his

travel expenses.

Perhaps we are to continue to follow formulae arrived at by previous governments.

It's clear that this has happened before, both in the way the budget was written,

and in other matters, but at some time I expect the government to be announcing

when it is going to get away from the previous practice and start living up

to the words such as "departing from acquisitive North American values."

I'd like, at this time, to say one or two other words on the

question of coal and royalties and transportation. First, if I

understand the Premier correctly, he has indicated that there

is no possibility of backing down from a Howe Sound port,

because of previous decisions by the previous government. The

Premier shakes his head so I will then proceed, as I apparently

am wrong in that assumption. What I would like, Mr. Premier, is

some explanation not only of the environmental aspects, but

also of the economics of the two routes.

Articles have been written on this. We've been given, of

course, a number of reports on the environment, but the

economics are interesting. Friday's Province gave us an

article by Norman Hacking, but it's quoting a transportation

economist by the name of R.D. Chestnut. He's talking about the

two routes. He says that the CN route is longer but better for

a number of reasons. Mileage, he says, is not the critical

factor. There is alignment, gradient and condition of track

and, in the case of the single track lines, the length of

passing sidings. "The CN route is superior in these factors,…and this means a lower capital cost for equipment and

significantly lower operating costs thereafter." He indicates

that the B.C. Railway would require four trains with 65 cars

per train, totaling 260 cars and 17 locomotives. The Canadian

National would require three trains, 85 cars per train,

totaling 255 cars and 10 locomotives. The net capital saving is

approximately $2.2 million, a difference for BCR of $11.6

million and CNR of $9.4 million. Therefore it does appear on

the capital account there's an appreciable saving by delivering

Sukunka coal to tidewater at Ridley Island, instead of

delivering it by way of Howe Sound.

Comments were made, of course, about the curvature.

Evidently 2 per cent as opposed to .5 per cent — four times the

grade. Curvature of the track — BCR has 12 degrees of curvature

and CN has 8, which means, of course, a great deal more wear on

equipment.

The statement was made, Mr. Chairman, through you to the

Premier, that the coal would be going to Great Britain, and

therefore it would be shorter. But the difference in length of

routes is dealt with, about 300 nautical miles shorter if you

are going down to Panama and about 50 miles greater if you are

going to the Far East.

Translated into cost — and this is the important thing

because distance means little unless it is related to cost — this means Britannia has an advantage of about 20 cents per

long ton on shipments to Europe and a disadvantage of about 25

cents per ton to Japan.

He goes on to say, "However, because of the other advantages

this distance advantage is of no particular significance as to

which port should be used."

The sum total of this economic study goes on to

[ Page 759 ]

point out that the rail transportation cost through Prince

Rupert is probably 75 cents to 1 dollar cheaper per ton. In

view of the fact that we in the province wish to take over

royalties and we don't want any company to make too much profit

on the export of a raw material, the difference means that that

75 cents or dollar a ton could go directly into provincial

coffers. It would be an obvious increase in royalty.

If the present royalty is 25 cents and we can make a savings

of anywhere from 75 cents to a dollar, obviously you can have

the royalty increase four or five times what it presently is

and yet the company would suffer no loss because essentially

the savings would be in the transportation costs.

On this question of royalty — and I think it is important — the royalty may be set at 25 cents a ton, it may be set up at

five dollars a ton. But if the province or the provincial

taxpayer is somehow subsidizing the transportation of the coal

in any other way, the royalty figure may be totally irrelevant.

On the one hand, 50 cents, a dollar will be taken away in terms

of royalty; on the other, the province will be slipping into

B.C. Railway, somewhere along the line, perhaps half as much

through some subsidy. The net result is that your royalty

figures are simply irrelevant in terms of calculating the

returns to the people from the exploitation of that particular

resource.

Well, that is the economics of the question of port site. We

haven't had a proper explanation of the economic analysis of

the two port sites as yet in this debate and I request the

Premier give it later. He's taking notes; I'm sure he will.

I don't guarantee that these views of this transportation

economist are exactly correct. I don't know. There has been a

great deal commented and written; perhaps the time has come

now, as this debate as has developed along this line, for the

Premier to lay out what the economic advantages are to the

people of British Columbia as a whole — not just those living

along the line — of having a southern delivery system.

After all, we know that there are two other coal ports

within 40 miles of Britannia. It seems curious that we are

putting a third port within 40 miles of the other two in the

south when we have no port at all for delivery and export of

coal in the north.

My own feeling is that in the process of decentralization of

the Province of British Columbia there is a great deal that

should be done and can be done in the north. In particular, in

the northwestern area: Prince Rupert, Kitimat, Terrace. I feel

that those people there are owed an explanation for this

decision. The Premier has indicated that he was not bound by

previous decisions of the former government. Therefore he must

have made his own mind up to choose a southern route. As yet,

we really haven't had an explanation as to why he chose it from

an economic point of view.

The next area I would like to deal with just briefly is the

environmental one. The question of environmental reports, which

I've had a fair amount to do with in the last three years, is

interesting. An environmental report is rarely, if ever,

definitive.

I see the Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources

(Hon. Mr. Williams) is looking up at this point. There are

always the possibilities of new studies being done and the

scientists, in their desire to be as precise and 100 per cent

accurate as possible, are always calling for more time to deal

with other aspects which they didn't discuss in their initial

studies. They are always trying to follow up the leads which

they come across when they are making their initial

studies.

But in the case of the Rupert area there was a proposal by

the CNR back, I believe, in 1970 — it may have been even

earlier; perhaps in '71, but around that time — to set up a

bulk loading port at Flora Bank, which the Premier referred to

earlier.

Initial studies were done by the federal Department of the

Environment at the request of the CNR, I believe, although it

may have been the Department of Transport. I believe it was

directly asked for by CNR and certain studies were made. These

indicated pretty clearly that Flora Bank was a productive area;

not a good area to put in a port. It also naturally led to an

examination of the other nearby areas and some, indeed, some

distance away.

These studies were continued and, if they ever terminated, I

guess the date we could use is August 22 of this year.

Although, as I mentioned, they never really have been

terminated because there is talk of carrying on from there.

Anyway, in the summer of '71, a preliminary study was done

and it was indicated that Flora Bank was not a desirable

area.

Now I will comment a little further on this. The cursory

study of 1971 was greatly expanded in 1972. The effort was to

determine the utilization by fish of all the major bank areas

and passages in the entire estuary and to hopefully define

alternative site locations for boat loading facilities which

would not have a negative impact.

This was done. Data was gathered and I'll quote from a

memorandum that I know at least one Member of the Government

has and I believe the Premier himself also has, where he goes

on to say, "The data and samples gathered are currently being

analyzed. Present indications are that area D is a major

rearing area for juvenile chinook, chum and coho salmon while

area C is predominately utilized by sockeyes and pinks. Area A,

Ridley Island, was the least productive station of all the 28

stations."

This information confirmed the earlier work done in 1971 and

I'll quote directly from this report. The Premier nodded his

head, so he obviously has a copy too. It goes on to say, "The

study was conducted just

[ Page 760 ]

about the same time as the National Harbours Board received

the Wright Engineering report which recommended the utilization

of Ridley Island for a bulkloading port and Fairview as a

general cargo port. The utilization of Ridley Island as a

bulkloading site would not, on the basis of our studies, appear

to be inimical to the interests of fishery resource

maintenance."

That is the type of work that has been going on in the area.

It has been extensive over many years. True, the Premier is

dead right in saying there is no conclusive report on this, but

the information is available. While this conclusive report has

not yet been bound, printed and put in his hands, this type of

information was certainly available all this past fall and

winter. It is the type of thing, if the Premier was not bound

by previous decisions, was available to him if he requested

it.

I find it curious that we are in this battle by way of Press

statements between himself and the senior federal Minister for

the province when it really isn't necessary. This type of work

is being done. It's well-known. It was known years ago. I can

remember when the Headland-Menzies report first came out. As a

member of the federal British Columbia caucus we were very

interested in the northern studies and the transportation

potential. It was obvious at that time that the normal

procedure would be for environmental studies to be done when

anyone zeroed in on a particular port proposal.

So we have both on the economic side and on the

environmental side a fair amount of information. Also a large

number of questions.

The report of Mr. Paish, one that has been referred to

earlier both by the Premier and by the Member for Oak Bay (Mr.

Wallace), I think is correct in saying that the major

objections to a coal port located in Squamish — he was

referring to the earlier study — do not lie in the immediately quantifiable aspects of possible

environmental damage. Rather, the main concern is that the

scenic, aesthetic and recreational attributes of Howe Sound and

the lifestyle associated with them will be impaired by further

industrial development.

This is the point I think we should be zeroing in on. Do we

or do we not want such development in Howe Sound. The Premier

stated that this will be the last ever but this type of

argument I have heard so often before especially when the

environment is being considered. I tend to question it.

First, he might not always remain the Premier of the

province and it may be that his successor may well have

different views. Naturally, this possibility has not occurred

to him so he feels willing to bind the government for all time.

But not so long ago there was a change of government in this

province and in some areas a change of policy, although many

fewer than I expected.

It is a question that has to be looked at fairly carefully.

If we want this thing to develop as a port we cannot simply

assume that because the Premier says here and now it's only going to be one development

there will be nothing following it. Let's remember that when

that area was developed for copper no thought was then given to

using it as a coal shipment port. The same type of development

occurs once you have ships coming in and loading facilities. Of

course the likelihood of an increase in traffic is fairly

certain.

So this question must be considered. It really has not been

considered yet, as people argue back and forward whether or not

a report is a report, or whether or not a study is a report, or

when is the study completed and things of that nature. There is

information, regardless of what formal nature it has — information on economics and information on the

environment.

I think it behooves the Premier, who has stated just in this

House a short time ago that he was not bound by previous

decisions, to face up to the fact that he has, if he easier for

us in this party than it is for the official Opposition to put

this point to the Premier.

I don't think that he was locked in to any previous

decision. He has said that he wasn't locked in. Therefore, if

both economics and the environment and aesthetics seem to

indicate that there is a potential other route, I think we

should know more about it. Certainly we should get more

information than we've had today on this particular point.

Perhaps on this point, Mr. Chairman, of whether it should be

Howe Sound or whether it should be the north of Ridley Island,

I'll request a few answers from the Premier.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I'm never amazed at the

presentations given by any Member in this House. I've been in

Opposition and now I'm in Government. But I find it somewhat

less than consistent, coming from that Member to rely on the

memorandum he referred to as a basis for some kind of

scientific decision to be made as an alternative to Prince

Rupert.

I know the Member wouldn't purposely leave with this House

the impression that that page-and-a-half memorandum is a

sufficient scientific evaluation of Rupert and Ridley Island

and Flora Bank. Because it isn't.

I think it should be made perfectly clear that I telegrammed

Mr. Davis just last week, asking him for clarification of a

statement that appeared in the newspaper a week ago today, that

final reports were completed on Prince Rupert. To this date I

have not received a reply to my telegram asking Mr. Davis for

those final reports. All that we have is the memorandum that

you refer to.

I tell you this: if the Member is telling this House in any

way that he would make a decision based on that memorandum,

then I think you damage the image that you're trying to create

as a great ecology

[ Page 761 ]

protector. As a matter of fact, Mr. Member, for your

information, there are many memoranda available, geared on

preliminary studies, to indicate that the decision that's

already been made is all right.

If you want a case in point, just examine the file I

submitted to you, Mr. Chairman — the file on Squamish — when we

arrived in office. There was an agreement between the federal

government and our predecessors in office that the Squamish

estuary was O.K. — not only in memoranda, but in letters

directly from Davis, one of which was released by the mayor of

Squamish dated last August.

So, please don't submit to me or to this House that in any

way that page-and-a-half study that says "perhaps, maybe," is in any way a clearing statement for the ecology of

Rupert. All right. Now, we do have a clear statement on the

ecology of Britannia. That's a fact. Let's deal with facts.

No one is going to submit to this House — and I'm sure the

Member didn't intend to — that that memorandum was somehow a

clearance for Rupert. No complete environmental impact studies

have been undertaken in Rupert, to my knowledge. There have

been fisheries examinations and there have been conflicting

statements from the Minister of the Environment, Mr. Davis, as

to the results of those.

The two documents you refer to we have too. Everything else

that we've done is also available publicly. We've rejected

completely the Squamish estuary. That included the original

site that was agreed to by Mr. Davis. It was agreed to by him,

except that you move the loading facilities back 1,000 yards.

Read the letter from Mr. Davis to the mayor of Squamish. Then

we looked at the Mamquam Channel and then we said "no" to the

Mamquam Channel.

So the Rupert situation, in terms of ecology, does not

compare with the Britannia site. It's not an "either-or"

situation, Mr. Member, through you, Mr. Chairman. It's not an

"either Rupert gets the coal, or there's no port." That

impression, unfortunately, may have been left with this House.

There's a great deal more that can and will be shipped out of

Rupert. There's a lot more to be said in terms of the kind of

studies that must be properly done before the federal

government makes a commitment to building a port in Rupert.

We're the government of all of British Columbia, not just

Rupert or not just the Howe Sound. The aesthetics are just as

important a matter in Rupert as they are in the lower mainland.

But I also want to point out to you that the ecology is just as

important in Rupert as it is in the lower mainland. Surely

you're not suggesting out of that one memorandum that we make a

decision that that area is safe.

"Work from that memorandum," the Member suggests. Well, where is it?

We've asked the federal government for it. We've had two documents: one, the

Flora Banks study that says, "No, no, no," and this memorandum. Secondly, the

question of economics. The Member makes a case based on presumptions. He reads

two newspaper clippings and asks questions based on presumptions out of those

newspaper clippings. The economics are wrong that are suggested there.

I submit to you, Mr. Member, through you, Mr. Chairman, that

the suggestions made by the authors of both, either the

article

or the report, differ from the information we have. There's not

a difference of $2.5 million in capital. That's incorrect, just

simply incorrect. The presumption is made that the CNR would be

a cheaper travelling route. I submit to you that one of the

factors that must be considered, if you're going to examine

hard economics, is what I discussed earlier. That is that there

is a back payment owing to the people of British Columbia of

some minimum of $19 million plus interest, or a maximum of $27

million, that the facilities were paid by the taxpayers of the

province in constructing that railway.

If you're going to look at it on that basis, then that is an

economic factor too. That's an economic factor — that we're

running a railroad and so is the federal government. We want to

cooperate but why should the British Columbia taxpayer be used

to subsidize the federal railway in terms of getting services

to it, without the federal government having paid their proper

share of developing the BCR? It's just as simple as that.

You say I sound just like Bennett? Well, I suggest to you

that whether it is me or the former Premier, anyone who is

president of that railroad has an obligation to ensure that the

people of British Columbia have their fair return on their tax

dollar. I make that very clear.

If the Member wants to put it off as an aside that I sound

like my predecessor, it just so happens that on occasion your

vote has been recorded — and so has my vote been recorded — in

favour of certain government policies. Perhaps your vote will

be recorded in the future in favour of some of the things we

do, although that may be even more difficult for you. But the

simple fact is that the former government did have a position

that we think is correct. We're not going to alter it just

because they were Social Credit and we're NDP. We happen to

agree with that particular position that they had.

That's a matter of fact. I have no apology to make for that.

There were times that we agreed. We agreed with a

publicly-owned railroad. But that's not the factor. That's a

conditioning matter. We've discussed ecology, the economics.

Now we talk about the development of the north itself.

The whole thrust of the development of the north has been in

the north-central area. This was an agreement that was reached

between the former government here and the federal

administration. But we're not bound by that agreement. There is

a whole shift to the Pacific northwest that must be examined.

We're in the midst of intimate discussions with the

[ Page 762 ]

federal government on an amiable basis — on a very friendly

basis — on a review of the thrust of the economy in this

province.

I must say that as a government we've abandoned the idea

that it is a manifest destiny of the government to build to the

north come hell or high water or another election. We have a

whole region in this province that we can look on from a whole

new framework. That framework is getting as much input from

industry, from regional people and from the government in terms

of the best development of the resources of the north and

access to those resources.

I must say that I'm favourably impressed with the level of

sincerity that both Mr. Jamieson and Mr. Marchand are bringing

to those conversations, along with my colleague, the Minister

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

The question has not been finally made at Britannia, but we

have completed all of the ecological studies. There is no

question that the matter is now confined to an evaluation of

the aesthetics. We will hold a public hearing and that's what

will be discussed. I have said that if we go ahead we will

develop the Britannia site, which is an old departed mine site — a blighted sore there now. We will redevelop that in terms of

both an industrial and a recreational use, if we go ahead.

But on the basis of current information, I'm sure this

Member would not like to leave, through you, Mr. Chairman, the

impression that there is an opportunity to immediately go ahead

on Rupert. Because there isn't. The vital ecological

information is not in and is not available. You cannot have it

both ways. You cannot fight for the ecology of one area and

dismiss the ecological protection of another area.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for South Peace

River.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Thank you, Mr.

Chairman. I would like to comment for a few minutes on the

sales ability of our Premier this afternoon. He has been able

to calm the House and smooth over the troubled waters. I don't

know whether he put any Members to sleep or not because there

aren't too many of his Government Members on their benches, but

I can see when the chips are down and the Premier's salary is

up for a vote that he certainly has the ability to come forward

in this instance and really put everybody at ease and really

lay everybody down. It's really nice. It's a fantastic

performance, Mr. Premier. I want to commend you for that.

However… (Laughter).

Now we've heard from the president of the CNR this afternoon and we've heard

from the president of British Columbia Railway. I've been able to stand here

unbiasedly and assess the arguments of both of the presidents and I must say

that I'll have a few words a little later in some of my comments on that particular

subject.

Mr. Chairman, it's certainly an opportunity for me to be

able to stand in this House this afternoon and make some

constructive suggestions one of which, if adopted, Mr.

Chairman, will arrest the slide, the downhill slide, that this

province is taking towards economic disaster.

I hate to say that, after all the kindness that's been

spread around the House this afternoon, Mr. Premier, but I

think we have to do something. And you are certainly the man,

as I intend to point out, Mr. Premier, who has to do something

to save this province from complete economic collapse. If it

keeps on going the way it is, that is exactly what is going to

happen, Mr. Chairman. Make no mistake about that.

If just a few of the suggestions that I am going to put

forward this afternoon are adopted — not all of them; just a

few of them — we can at least arrest the trend that this

province is taking.

We are standing here this afternoon in this chamber, Mr.

Chairman, debating the spending estimates, the salary and the

office and all the other costs that go with the top executive

in the biggest business in British Columbia — the Premier and

Minister of Finance.

Make no mistake about it, Mr. Chairman, and other Members of

this Legislature, this is the man who makes the final decisions

in this province. I want to establish that very firmly.

Regardless of what the Premier says, he is the man who makes

the final decision. He is the top executive. He is the man who

runs the province, and he is also the man…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, your wife. I notice your wife up there; a

very charming wife. She may have the say at home, Mr. Premier.

I hope that she influences some control over you. I'm glad to

see that she's here this afternoon, Mr. Premier, because I know

that if you don't care to listen to me, your wise wife will.

(Laughter). When you get home tonight she will say, "Mr.

Premier…. (Laughter).

HON. MR. BARRETT: You're wrong already. (Laughter).

MR. PHILLIPS: She probably calls you "Dave", does she?

She'll say, "Dave…."

HON. MR. BARRETT: Only in the good moments. (Laughter).

MR. PHILLIPS: She'll say, "Now you listen to that man from

South Peace because he knows what

[ Page 763 ]

he is talking about. He has some good firm suggestions and

you listen to him."

I know that she's going to listen to the suggestions I have,

Mr. Premier, through you, Mr. Chairman. I'm glad she's here

because I hope that she can talk some sense into you.

HON. MR. BARRETT: She's given up.

MR. PHILLIPS: As I said before, Mr. Chairman, this is the

man that holds the purse strings in this province. I don't want

anybody in this Legislature to get any other ideas.

The Premier has said, and it has been said, that he's no

longer running the province. His cabinet Ministers run the

province, and his cabinet Ministers run their own

departments.

But I've noticed otherwise, Mr. Chairman. I've noticed that

when something important comes up, anybody who wants to make

any decisions on the British Columbia Railway or on the

petroleum industry or the mining industry goes to see the

Premier in his new suite that cost the taxpayers of this

province $24,000 to renovate.

They get right into the executive suite. They don't get

shuffled off to see any Minister and that's as it should be. I

have no quarrel with that. The only thing I have a little bit

of quarrel with, Mr. Chairman, is when a Member of the

Opposition wants to see the Premier, the Premier says, "Go see

my cabinet Minister. He runs that department."

HON. MR. BARRETT: Who wants to see me? Which one?

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, the problem is that when there

is more than one department involved, it has to be the top

executive in this province who makes the final decision. It has

to be the top executive in this province who can pull his

cabinet Ministers together if two of them are having an

argument.

Supposing the Department of Lands, Forests, and Water

Resources is saying one thing and the Department of Highways is

saying something else and they can't get together to solve a

pressing problem in this province, there's only one man, Mr.

Chairman, who can pull these two together and make the final

decision and that's the way it has to be. He has to accept this

responsibility. That's the way it's got to be.

That's what I'm trying to establish. I don't want him to say

that he's shuffling everything off on to the cabinet Ministers.

Make no mistake about it, it isn't so. He's the man who

controls this province. He's the man who makes the final

decision — and if he doesn't, he shouldn't be where he is. I

want to establish that very firmly. He's top executive. He controls the money. And in all fairness I want to say he's a

bit of a dictator, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please,

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes. Certainly. I think that's in order. (Laughter). I

certainly agree with you. And I think that's probably as it should be, Mr. Chairman.

If he's going to do an effective job he's got to be a little

harsh, hasn't he, Mr. Chairman? Certainly he has. You know

that. You'll find out in dealing with him, I'll …

MR. CHAIRMAN: I wonder if the Hon. Member means it in the

most kindly way?

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes. Certainly. We're talking about the

Premier and we're talking about how he should run the province.

Right, Mr. Chairman?

The Premier also likes to travel a bit …

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance):

How about quitting the personality stuff and getting on with the business of

the House?

MR. PHILLIPS: I'll have you know, Mr. Minister of Health

Services and Hospital Insurance, you spent the money in this

province. You're in a portfolio that spends money.

HON. MR. COCKE: I'm a dictator.

MR. PHILLIPS: If you're going to spend the money you want to

spend, Mr. Minister, I just suggest that you listen to my

suggestions and maybe you'll have a little more money to spend.

If the economy of this province doesn't continue to grow, you

won't have all that money to spend on your health services. So

you just let me continue on and maybe you'll learn something

too. You maybe want to become Minister of Finance one day

yourself. Instead of just spending the money you may have to

learn what it takes to make money.

I would suggest, Mr. Minister of Health Services and

Hospital Insurance, that you just sit quietly in your place and

leave me be.

Now the Premier likes to travel, Mr. Chairman. I would like

to think that if he's going to travel he's got to be a bit of a

travelling salesman. I always feel that no matter whether

you're in politics or business, you're still a salesman. You've

got to sell your ideas. You've got to sell the ideas, isn't

that right? The Premier acknowledges that. So he realizes, and

let me establish that fact, fact number two: he realizes that

to be an effective Premier of this province that he has to be a

good salesman.

The Premier came out very shortly after being

[ Page 764 ]

elected Premier and he said, "We're going to have a new era

of cooperation with Ottawa. No more of that damning Ottawa; no

more of saying that they're not cooperating with us and that

we're not getting our fair share. We're going to go down to

Ottawa."

So he took a trip to Ottawa, Mr. Chairman. He travelled down

there in great style and I sort of thought, "Well, it may be a

new era and maybe he's going to get along with Pierre Elliott

down there and things are going to…."

Madam Chairman, I'm pleased to see you in the chair.

(Ms. Young in the chair)

HON. MR. BARRETT: Don't look so pleased to see me on my

feet. No favours.

MR. PHILLIPS: The Premier went down to Ottawa and it was

fantastic. The Press coverage was just out of this world. You'd

have really thought, Madam Chairman, that there was a new era

in British Columbia. His friends down there in the CBC had him

on nation-wide coverage so that all the people down there in

Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and all over this great nation of

ours could see him.

He did a fantastic job really, you know. He smiled and he

talked about a new era in Canada and a new era of cooperation

and I'm telling you, he almost had me convinced. Madam

Chairman, he almost had me convinced.

But then he came back and he said, "It's great, boy! Ottawa

is a little out on their semantics," and he was talking

about getting some cooperation in his new Mincome. He said,

"Everything's great. They're going to look at it. The new

era."

But then, after he's back a few days, lo and behold, Pierre

Elliott came out and he said, "No way are we making any special

deals." And I was disappointed because I thought when the

Premier came back that he had everything all fixed up down

there in Ottawa.

I'd like the Premier to comment on it because he sort of

misled me. Maybe he didn't mislead the other people. I won't

say he misled me, but how shall I phrase that? You sort of gave

me the wrong impression? I thought that you were going to come

back with some good news, because you went down there with such

earnestness and you came back feeling great that you had made

so many accomplishments.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: However, to date we have no signature. I would like to ask

the Premier, did the Minister of Finance in Ottawa tell you, while you were

down there, that he was going to increase the old age assistance in this budget?

Now, that's a very good point, Ms. Chairwoman, a very good point. So that you,

last October, could stand in this House and say what a great thing you were

going to do and you were going to get Ottawa to do this and all the time you

knew it was going to come out in the federal budget. I would like you to comment

on that, Mr. Premier, when you stand after I have finished my short remarks.

He also went down to Ottawa to deal with the Columbia River

Treaty. He dealt with Ottawa on the Skagit Valley. He went down

to Washington to deal with the Governor of Washington on the

oil tanker business. He was going to get Ottawa to increase its

share of the social welfare programmes, and he has been dealing

with Mr. Davis on the Squamish port.

I really, in all sincerity, cannot see that there has been a

great deal of change in British Columbia's dealings with

Ottawa, in spite of what the Premier said, in spite of the

high-handed statements he made, and in spite of all of his good

intentions. I cannot really see that you have made any progress

whatsoever, Mr. Premier, and I would like you when you stand to

make a few comments to tell me what progress we have made in

dealing with Ottawa.

So far as I am concerned, the relations with Ottawa have not

improved one single bit and I wonder why. I think you still

have to accept the fact we are a "have" province. Ottawa

realizes that, and they want to take all we have or as much as

they can possibly get out of this province. No, as a salesman

and as a traveler, Mr. Premier, you haven't really shown

up that great so far.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, as a travelling salesman he hasn't shown

up that great either. This is a disaster, because if you had

exercised the same influence on the people in Ottawa and the

people down in Washington as you have been able to exercise in

this House this afternoon, I would suggest that you would have

made a lot of progress.

Then the Premier takes off for Washington on another sales

jaunt. He is going down and he is going to create a new era of

cooperation between the State of Washington and British

Columbia. I would like to point out to you, Mr. Premier, that

if you are going to sell something, you keep a few cards under

the table — you don't shoot your whole wad at once.

You go down to Washington and take your cabinet down, and

you are supposedly going to try and delay or do away entirely

with the shipment of oil down the British Columbia coast. What

do you do? You tell the Governor down in Washington that,

"Well, the shipment of oil from Alaska down to Washington is

going to be inevitable." I would suggest, Mr. Premier, that you

go to the bookstore and get a book on how to sell, because if

that is the way you are going to handle the affairs of British

Columbia, I don't know whether I'm going to vote on your salary

or not. I think some improvements are needed.

I want to go back to what I established. You are the top

executive in this province. You are the top

[ Page 765 ]

financial man in this province. You do make the financial

decisions. You do all the negotiating, basically on a top level

with all the other governments — Ottawa, State of Washington.

Now you are going down to the capital of Washington. I would

suggest, Mr. Premier, that if you are going to be the top

executive, if you are going to deal on behalf of this great

province of ours, you are going to have to sharpen up on your

techniques.

Now I would like to discuss one other phase, Mr. Premier. If

you are going to be the top executive in this province, you

have got to be a diplomat. Do like you did this afternoon. You

have been very diplomatic in the House — kept everything very

calm. We'll vote your salary in without rippling the waters.

You are going to have to be a diplomat when you deal with the

business people in this province.

Last October, Mr. Premier, you said that you were going to

have a "love feast." From the Vancouver Province October

14, 1972: "Premier David Barrett this week invited business

from British Columbia and other places to what he calls a 'love

feast'."

Well, I say that's some love feast and some love affair,

because four months later nobody has reached a climax.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. PHILLIPS: No decisions have been made and you haven't

sat down and had this love feast with business that you

promised.

Mr. Premier, if you don't sit down and have this love feast — put any terminology, any nomenclature on it that you want, I

don't care what you call it — I would suggest that you start

making a few positive approaches to the business community. You

haven't done it yet and, as I said a few moments ago, the

economy of this province is on the downhill slide. All you have

done to the business community is prove to them that you are

going to take a big gluttonous salary yourself while 90,000

unemployed people live on the dole. That's exactly what it

is.

Since you became Premier of this province, you haven't taken one positive step

to arrest this increase in unemployment — not one positive step, Mr. Premier.

There are 90,000 people on the soup line; they live on the state. I want to

point out to you, Mr. Premier, what could be done with the dollars and cents

that are being paid out in unemployment. Did you ever stop and think about that?

While you condemn what you call bonanzas in natural resource industries, you

haven't mentioned one thing about the union rip-offs in this province, about

the money that is going out of this province to the United States of America.

Isn't that a bonanza? Isn't that a rip-off? I haven't heard the Premier say

anything about that. You are the chief executive officer in this province. I

would suggest you give us some indication of what you plan to do about this

rip-off.

If you are going to stand here in this House and talk about

business rip-offs and resource rip-offs and resource bonanzas

by companies that are doing business in this province, I would

suggest that you give us some indication of what your comments

and what your thoughts are on the union rip-offs. I would

suggest that some of the elected Members in this new Government

with the large salary increases they are taking could almost be

termed as political rip-offs. It is a very serious matter

because it is very inflationary and the example is not being

set for business or for industry or for the working man in this

province.

AN HON. MEMBER: What did you make last year?

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you accepting your raise?

MR. PHILLIPS: How has the Premier been at keeping his

promises? I would like, for just a few minutes, to mention a

few of the promises the Premier made to this province before he

became Premier. I'm talking about one of the most important

matters in this province today, unemployment. The Premier, on

July 24, 1972, was talking about what he considered the most

important, economic problem in this…

I wish you would move your mike down, Mr. Premier, I can't look at you. I have

to have contact with you — I can't see. Would you move your mike down please?

That's better.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I want to thank the Member for the compliment.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I do like to have contact with man on

whose salary I'm voting. Would you please put that speaker

down. I'm serious. As a favour to the Member from South Peace,

would you put that speaker down. It gets in my way.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Does it really hide you?

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, you're hiding behind it and I can't have

contact with you.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, I want to thank you.

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you very much, Mr. Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Some people say that I'm portly.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Premier, on July 24, 1972, you said, and

I'm quoting you, "Jobs will be the most

[ Page 766 ]

important election issue.' Opposition leader" — at that

time, Mr. Premier, you were Opposition leader — "David Barrett"

July 24. I want you to put that in the back of your mind for

just a moment.

Then again, further back in history, September 24, 1971 — and we're talking about unemployment again, Mr. Premier — "NDP

leader Dave Barrett called Wednesday for the provincial

government to put $75 million into a winter works programme in

B.C. municipalities." Quoted in the Vancouver Province

September 24, 1971. The government must lay out its plans to

deal with unemployment, he insinuated, and he said, "If the

money isn't there, go borrow the money."

The unemployment rate on September 24, 1971, Mr. Premier,

was nowhere near what it is today. I suggest that you either

eat your words or that you take $75 million out of the finances

of this province and put them into spring employment. Winter is

just about gone, but spring is coming.

Interjection by an Hon. member.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'll talk about the winter works programme in

just a moment.

Now let's go in history to just recently and see what the

top executive officer in this province had to say about

unemployment on January 9, 1973. He says, "To date I have not

had a response from the Prime Minister. However, I expect

action shortly." That was on January 9. Today is February 26. I

don't know whether you'd call that "shortly" or not.

"We haven't had any injection of all of those federal funds,

" he said, "the $37 million. We just didn't receive the

money in time."

The Premier was down to Ottawa last fall. The Premier knew

that it was going to be a heavy unemployment winter. Did the

Premier, while in Ottawa, discuss unemployment with the

Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Turner) while in Ottawa? Did the

Premier think ahead to what is happening today? Did he make any

plans? I'm afraid not. And it bothers me, Ms. Chairwoman, that

the Premier, the top executive officer, the man who controls

the finances in this province, was not able to see what was

going to happen this winter. He sure had lots of vision when he

was in Opposition. He knew years ahead what was going to

happen. But now that he has the responsibility of his office,

his vision seems to be narrowed down somewhat. And I'm

concerned for the unemployed in this province.

Today is February 26, 1973. There are over 90,000 people

unemployed. Unemployment in December was 79,000 people; 85,000

in January, over 90,000 in February. I would hope that before

the Premier gets his salary voted on that he stands in this

Legislature and tells us where we're going. Because, as I said

before, if we continue on this downhill slide, if we continue on this uphill climb so far

as unemployment is concerned, I fear for the very economy of

the Province of British Columbia.

Will we have a return to the 1930's where the investments

will be lost; where everybody will be in the soup line; where

farmers will lose their farms; where businesses will go broke?

Mr. Premier, you owe it to the people of this province to tell

us what you're going to do. You have the answers…

MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Hon. Member, kindly address your remarks to the Chair,

please.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'd be most happy to address my remarks to

you, Ms. Chairwoman, and through you, Ms. Chairwoman, I would

like to ask the Premier what he is going to do. What concrete

steps are you going to take? Because if you're not going to

explain to me what you're going to do, Mr. Premier, I'm not

going to be able to vote on your salary.

Mr. Premier, you have stood in this House since August 30,

you and Minister of Industrial Development, Trade, and Commerce

(Hon. Mr. Macdonald) and said, "Oh, everything's going along

fine. We're going to have another good year." I wonder if we

are going to have another good year. I certainly don't want to

frighten the business people in the province, but I do want to

point out some facts to you, Mr. Premier. If we don't do

something this year of 1973 will be a disastrous year for the

Province of British Columbia. The decisions that you make

during this session, while unrolling your economic programme,

are going to affect the province not only in 1973, Mr. Premier,

but are going to affect the province for the next decade.

If we don't want to be in the same position as the have-not

provinces, where we're going to Ottawa begging for more money,