1975 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 1975

Night Sitting

[ Page

107 ]

CONTENTS

Night sitting

Routine proceedings

Throne speech debate (amendment)

Mr. McGeer — 107

Division on amendment — 113

Mr. Wallace — 113

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 1975

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

Orders of the day.

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued debate)

On the amendment.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, I feel

very flattered to be the one this evening to initiate the first

of our evening sittings during this session. I notice the

turnout isn't quite what it is in the afternoon sessions…

MRS. D. WEBSTER (Vancouver South): We're glad to have you

here.

MR. McGEER: …but I was here this afternoon, Mr. Speaker,

and I was here the afternoon we had to dispense with the

proceedings because the public address system wasn't working

well.

I noticed that the subject under discussion before we

adjourned for dinner was one of eggs, and I knew that would

bring the Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) out. I want to tell

you that this matter of eggs isn't really a preoccupation with

the Liberal Party. Because of the national interest in this

we've a very particular interest in the problems of marketing

boards here in British Columbia, and I certainly intend to deal

with that before I sit down. But, Mr. Speaker, since I am also

speaking to the throne debate itself, there are one or two

other matters which I believe deserve consideration.

I want particularly to talk about the CBC film that was

aired a week ago Sunday night. The commentator….

HON. P.F. YOUNG (Minister of Consumer Services): Mr.

Speaker, a point of order. The Hon. Member is not speaking to

the amendment.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, would you explain the rules of the

House to the Hon. Minister? I think she misunderstands the

traditions of the House.

MR. C. LIDEN (Delta): Take another day off, Pat.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out that the Hon. Member who is

speaking is the seconder of this amendment to the main motion,

and therefore he's entitled….

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, there is.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: No, I must disagree with the Hon. Member when

he consults his standing orders.

At any rate, Hon. Members, the seconder, in this case the

Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer), is

entitled to speak at large on the main motion before embarking

upon any remarks he has upon the seconding of the amendment.

This is true, as it was before, with the previous amendment;

it's true in this case as well.

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, are we entitled to ask that this

banter here be deducted from the time of the speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: I think it only fair. (Laughter.)

MR. McGEER: In any event, Mr. Speaker, this commentator for

the CBC…and I don't want to add further embarrassment

tonight to the problems of the CBC, but I do want to draw the

attention of the House to the fact that the man who was the

commentator was also a former member of the press gallery of

this House. He was a member of the press gallery at the time

there were rather hot debates about the Columbia River treaty.

He did say that when the government changed in 1972, the awful

truth came down. I am quoting from his commentary in the film:

"The new government of Premier Barrett found the money we were

paid under the treaty was nowhere near enough to do the

job."

While that's absolutely true, that the money was

insufficient, the answers had been given on questions to the

order paper, long before the government changed hands. We knew

prior to the 1972 election that there had been an enormous

shortfall in the moneys paid by the Americans for completion of

that treaty.

I mention this little discrepancy because it might apply to

another comment made during this film. It said that "by 1967" —

I am now quoting from the commentary — "the Bennett government

was trying frantically to cover the costs. In the B.C. Hydro

building a secret committee was put together to unload costs

into other departments: Highways, Forest Service and others

were to be tapped for the funds, and the public knew nothing

about it."

It was this comment in the film that provoked a question

from my colleague, the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound

(Mr. L.A. Williams) as to whether, in fact, a secret committee

did exist. The Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources

(Hon. R.A. Williams), also a director of B.C. Hydro,

established an Olympic record in bringing down so-called secret

minutes of such a committee.

[ Page 108 ]

MR. R.T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver–Little Mountain): No wonder

you're not a senator — or ever will be. (Laughter.)

MR. McGEER: His speed was watched by the relations men, or

whatever they're called in the Premier's office, who hastened

to get out a press release stating that such a committee had

indeed been formed. I quote from page 2 of the press

release:

"The documents the Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water

Resources tabled showed that Dr. Hugh Keenleyside, then

co-chairman of B.C. Hydro, appointed the committee on September

26, 1967, to carry out the following two assignments." Now I'm

quoting from the press release:

"(1) [Discover] Mica and Arrow Dams' cost that could be

attributed in whole or in part to other projects.

"(2) [Discover] Arrow cost that could be isolated and

recommended to the government as area or regional development

expenditures by the government itself."

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to draw your attention to the actual

documents that were tabled in the House. First of all, the

cover that we had of that document said on it "confidential."

Just a simple cover sheet, not in any way attached to the

minutes that detailed the meetings which were then held.

Nothing on this document says "secret." There is nothing on

page 1 saying "confidential" to indicate that within Hydro

itself it was confidential at all. The terms of reference were

given in minutes recorded of the meeting of that particular

committee.

In a notation from the minutes of the first meeting, held

September 25, 1967, the assignment to this committee is

described as follows: "

(1) Mica or Arrow costs that could be

attributed in whole or in part to other projects." Nowhere does

it mention the word "discover;" nowhere does it mention the

word "secret." "

(2) Arrow costs that could be isolated and

recommended to the government as area or regional development

expenditures by the government itself." Nowhere is the word

"discover" used. Nowhere anywhere in the minutes is it filed

that this was a secret, or even confidential, committee.

There is no doubt, Mr. Speaker, and this has not been denied

by the co-chairman of B.C. Hydro, Dr. Hugh Keenleyside, that

the assignment given to that committee was to reallocate, or to

study how costs of the Columbia could be reallocated; nor is

there any mistake about the understanding that the people who

served on that committee had of their assignment. If we look at

the first minute, prepared by Mr. Kennedy in a memo, he says in

part D, with regard to their assignment and the possibilities

of reallocation, that:

"It would enable us to argue that the capital cost of, say,

the Mica storage project is less than the actual storage cost by virtue of allocation

of some of the cost to other plans."

And part E:

"It would enable us to argue that the system cost of

generation is lower than the true cost by virtue of allocation of

storage costs to future plan."

I could go on quoting from the minutes, and many of the

Members of the House have now read them. The point I want to

make is that, at least within the committee itself, there must

have been an understanding that their assignment was to draw up

a plan which, in fact, would deceive the public of British

Columbia about the true costs of these dams. That much is

evident in the minutes itself. But what we don't have, Mr.

Speaker, in what was tabled is whether, in fact, this plan was

implemented.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Are you saying, in your opinion,

this committee was established to deceive?

MR. McGEER: I'm saying that, as prima facie evidence right

here, the understanding that the committee had was that it was

to draw up a set of figures which would deceive the public

about the true costs of the Columbia. They say it right here in

D and E. But, Mr. Speaker, this was a committee within B.C.

Hydro itself. That committee could have misunderstood its

assignment, and even if it didn't misunderstand its assignment,

it was still an in-house committee, and there was no evidence

of any kind that that in-house committee was doing anything

improper for an in-house committee.

So what has to be established, Mr. Speaker, is simply this:

what was the origin of this study?

There is no minute in the information tabled by Mr. Williams

saying what were the terms in writing. Dr. Keenleyside has told

us that he did this entirely on his own initiative. There is no

information at all as to what happened to that report after it

was filed with Dr. Keenleyside.

If it became official Hydro policy, then it must have been

discussed by the board of directors. There are extensive

minutes of the board of directors. None of them can recall this

matter ever having been discussed. It may have been; it could

have slipped their memory.

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

Shrum said there was no committee.

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: He may have had no knowledge of it.

[ Page 109 ]

Interjections.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, come on, level with them.

MR. McGEER: It's quite possible that something did go

forward from Dr. Keenleyside through some route to the

government that did not reach the board of directors of Hydro.

That is conceivable. After all, we know that Mr. Gunderson had

a direct line in the B.C. Hydro office to the Premier, which

was something that Dr. Shrum and Dr. Keenleyside never had.

There was daily contact between Mr. Ganderson and the Premier.

That would be a conceivable route for communication outside the

board of directors. But we have no evidence at all that there

was such communication, no evidence at all.

Mr. Gunderson was asked, but he said he couldn't remember

what he ate yesterday, much less what took place in 1967. If I

were Mr. Gunderson there would be an awful lot of things I'd be

trying to forget, and this might be one of them.

But in any event, it is conceivable that there was a

relationship between the powerful men in the cabinet and the

powerful men in the Hydro that never saw the light of day in

the minutes of the board of directors' meeting.

Or it's conceivable that the Minister really didn't have

time to research this matter carefully, though one suspects

that he had been in conversation with Mr. Halleran for some

time before that movie was aired. It's conceivable that he

didn't have time to research the matter thoroughly and that

there is, in fact, a direct link between the report prepared by

this committee, however confidential or non-confidential it

might have been.

Certainly, Mr. Speaker, one can understand a motive on the

part of the government. They had won an election, so they

thought, on the basis of a two-river policy which would give

the Columbia free to the people of British Columbia. As a

matter of fact, there were two elections won on that

propaganda.

It's quite possible that when the pigeons came home to roost

in the late 1960 s, the government was terribly keen to protect

the reliability of its word. After all, there had been one

embarrassment in the late 1960 election when the Premier had

gone up to the clearing at Summit, felled a tree, and said that

the Pacific Northern Railway wouldn't stop until it reached the

Yukon border. Six weeks later, just after the provincial

election had been won by Social Credit, the Pacific Northern

Railway stopped for all time.

There was a credibility gap there that was beginning to widen with each subsequent

election. One could certainly appreciate that a Premier who had won three elections

on the basis of information that was turning out to be incorrect would be rather

anxious to reallocate costs. So I wouldn't deny that there was a motive there.

But, nevertheless, the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources has failed to prove the case in the documents he has

tabled before the House.

What we have now is the honour of the government versus the

honour of the Crown corporations and former high Ministers of

the Crown in this province.

We must have an inquiry, because until we do we cannot

decide the outcome of this issue. It's obvious, Mr. Speaker,

that the Minister of Lands and Forests (Hon. R.A. Williams)

cannot carry on in his capacity as a director of B.C. Hydro if

he has levelled false charges at people who formerly directed

that corporation and has improperly used the files of that

corporation to bolster a political case. He either has to prove

in front of an inquiry that his allegations were correct or he

must resign as a Minister of that corporation.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Put up or shut up!

MR. McGEER: On the other hand, he cannot, Mr. Speaker,

continue to serve as a member of the board of directors of B.C.

Hydro when he has improperly taken information from those files

and improperly charged former officials of that

corporation.

Now, Mr. Speaker, on the other hand….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. A point of order?

HON. MR. BARRETT: The Member has stated that the Minister

improperly took public files and brought them to this

Legislature. There is nothing improper with that and I ask the

Member to withdraw.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Your colleagues requested the

material.

MR. SPEAKER: I don't think the Hon. Member can attribute

improper motives for doing what he was requested to do.

HON. MR. BARRETT: By his own colleagues.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, the Member for West Vancouver–Howe

Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) merely asked whether there was a

secret committee. We haven't established that. He asked whether

there was any evidence of juggling of funds. We haven't

established that. All the Minister of the Crown did was to

bring forward a series of minutes taken out of the files of

B.C. Hydro that didn't establish the case.

[ Page 110 ]

Someone was wrong. Now it may be, Mr. Speaker….

We want the full story. We don't want a smear, Mr. Speaker…. (Laughter.)

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): You've sure changed.

MR. McGEER: It may be that former Hydro officials and former

high officers of the Crown must be held to account for most

gross misdemeanors, because if, in fact…

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): The Unity Party is not

dead.

MR. McGEER: …there was a conspiracy initiated by the

government and later adopted by the government to present to

the public false information about the Columbia and cover up

with regard to the true costs, then that does amount to a gross

misdemeanor, and those people must be held to account.

Mr. Speaker, someone is wrong. The Minister has acted

improperly or the former officials of B.C. Hydro and the former

government have acted improperly.

And yes, Mr. Speaker, we demand an inquiry to decide between

these two.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): But not a legislative

committee, I hope.

MR. McGEER: I suppose, Mr. Speaker, in the stretch of

history moral issues in government will perhaps always

supersede anything else that legislators discuss. Roads and

dams and all the other physical things that governments have as

their responsibility during their terms of office pale into

insignificance compared with the manner in which they conduct

their affairs, and over the long term issues such as this will

rise above physical works and the financial considerations that

surround them.

But I can't let the opportunity pass, Mr. Speaker, to remind

the government and the public of British Columbia that there is

another issue lying behind all of this. The people of British

Columbia and the people of Canada were suckered by the Columbia

River treaty. We took a financial pasting because we didn't

understand enough about engineering and water flow. I know I've

sounded tiresome on this subject in the past, and as long as I

stand here in the House, I'm going to be tiresome on this

subject because there's a lesson here.

Mr. Speaker, has anybody asked how it could possibly be that

the value to Canada of downstream benefits declines with each

year of the treaty when the value of power is increasing?

Doesn't that anomaly strike people as strange?

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): That's A plus

MR. McGEER: And yet these were the terms of the treaty. It

was supposed, Mr. Speaker, that we had studied this thoroughly

and that all those that are criticizing now are gifted with

hindsight. But in 1961, in a public meeting in Revelstoke, a

perceptive British Columbia Hydro engineer, named Bartholomew,

made public to the people of this province a United States

engineering document which declared that the United States

would save $120 million a year from water storage above the

Grand Coulee Dam.

The reason is a very simple one: before Canadian storage

came along, the bulk of Columbia River water flowed during the

months of May, June and July. When the run-off came, it spilled

over the dam. The Americans argued and the Canadians accepted

the argument that if they were to install extra generators on

the Grand Coulee they could use all of the water that ran

through during those three months and therefore, once those

extra generators were installed, there was no value to Canadian

storage.

That's not what's happening at all, Mr. Speaker, What's

happening now is that with the water neatly stored behind the

Canadian dams, an area of British Columbia larger than Rhode

Island inundated forever, we're regulating the American flow so

that tonight, between 4 o'clock and 9 o'clock, when everybody

goes home and switches on their television sets and turns on

their stoves, there will be water available.

You can run the reservoir down 60 feet in one day, fill it

up again the next day from Canada. Run it down; fill it up; run

it down every day of the year, and when the Americans want

power, they've got it because we've put the water behind the

dam.

Mr. Speaker, they get that free. There is no provision

peaking power in the Columbia River Treaty at all. Think of

that value to the Americans in 1980, 1985, 1990, when we get

nothing for it. How valuable it is for them every day to get

that water coming down from Canada so that when the peak demand

comes, they can run through these enormous generators that

they're installing now. What good would it have done to have

that power available at 3 a.m. on June 21? None. So the

Americans were able to install enormous peaking power and get

all of that for nothing.

When I stand up and say we must renegotiate the Columbia

River treaty, it's because the Americans pulled the wool over

our eyes. We were told that by Bartholomew and others who could

understand the dynamics of water flow. Apparently it was

something that former Ministers of the Crown here couldn't

understand and, I regret to say, our federal colleagues

couldn't understand.

MR. CUMMINGS: They were Liberals, too.

[ Page

111 ]

MR. McGEER: And Conservatives, both.

MR. CUMMINGS: They were an all-Liberal government.

MR. McGEER: Yes, I quite agree — the Liberals missed the

boat on the thing. But, Mr. Speaker, the responsibility of the

government that holds office in British Columbia today is to

rectify that situation, not to try and uncover alleged scandals

of the past, but to rectify. The problem is that the government

of today has got no guts. They refuse to press this issue.

Even the former member of the press gallery, who should know

better, and did that beautiful national documentary, never

brought forward the fundamental point. All he did was interview

a friend of the Minister of Lands and Forests who said it

couldn't be done.

We have routes, and I spelled them out in this House before.

The first of these is to go directly to the IJC and explain

that there was a fault in the treaty. That fault gives an

unfair advantage to the United States, because they have

derived tremendous financial benefits from peaking power which

they denied would exist in the treaty.

Now we have a second route, which may be better, but which

at least is available. That route is to go to

article 15 of the

treaty which says that there's….

MR. CHABOT: There is only one Minister left over there.

MR. McGEER: Oh, yes, I'm sure they don't want to hear this.

These aren't welcome words, because a government without

backbone isn't going to deal with this issue. Yet, Mr. Speaker,

we're talking about more money each and every year than would

be involved in all of this Columbia recalculation. It amounted

to about $80 million, but in 1961 dollars what the Americans

were saving was at least $120 million a year. We could recover

everything we've lost in the Columbia, and more, from a

renegotiation each and every year. That's the size of the

financial stake we have.

The other approach to it is to, say, take advantage of

article 15, which said that we should investigate and report

with respect to any other matter coming within the scope of the

treaty at the request of either Canada or the United States of

America.

There is a permanent engineering board established under the

Columbia River treaty that must investigate any matter brought

to its attention by either government.

So these are two direct routes. Mr. Speaker, the Government

of British Columbia must use its mandate, given by the public

of this province, to seek justice under the Columbia River

treaty. The Minister and this government have failed to do

that. They have got no backbone. Instead they've drawn attention to the

mistakes of the past, and I am quite prepared to agree with

them that there have been mistakes. We have no evidence to date

whether they were willful or whether they were accidental. They

were mistakes. Even Dr. Keenleyside would admit that. But, Mr.

Speaker, those mistakes of the past do not equal the mistakes

that are being made today by ignoring this much larger

financial issue.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to speak very briefly about

another matter in which I am pleased to say that at least at

first I backed up the Premier in his efforts to go to Ottawa

and seek a better deal on natural resources. I did send the

Premier a telegram of support, Mr. Speaker. I had hoped when he

went to Ottawa again he would display some backbone on behalf

of the people of this province.

In my view, Mr. Speaker, the new taxation policy of the

federal government in taxing the resources of the west is an

invasion of the historic rights of provinces. I don't see how

the east can hope to have it both ways for very long. We have

lived 100 years as a province in Confederation — 104 now, I

guess — in which we have accepted the disadvantage to the west

of a Canadian common market. All this time we bought expensive

manufactured goods from Toronto, protected by what to me are

unreasonable tariffs, and in the west, in order to buy those

manufactured goods, we sold off our birthright at world market

prices.

This is nothing new to British Columbians. They've

complained about this for 100 years — buying dear from the east

and selling cheap to the world. On the basis of these resources

we've managed to win for ourselves in British Columbia a

reasonable standard of living.

But now, when those resources suddenly become valuable and

conceivably we could win income from the sale of those natural

resources that would allow us to build our own secondary

industry, manufacture for ourselves, hopefully sell a little

bit to Ontario, and perhaps some to the world, we are told no,

we can't have the full value of those resources. Instead, now

that those resources are valuable, we must pay further tribute

to eastern Canada — a creaming off, if you like, of our natural

resources once they obtain a premium value.

Mr. Speaker, thank heavens for the Economic Council of Canada, because for

the first time a responsible body has studied the relative value to Canadians

of entering into free trade arrangements around the world. We really have never

been afraid of it in British Columbia because we've really traded with the goods

we produce at world market prices. We've got nothing to lose and, if my calculations

are right, possibly as much as $3,000 per family per year to gain by free trade

arrangements. So for us the stakes are very high to change the ground rules

[ Page

112 ]

Confederation.

I suppose if we were to have free trade in manufactured

goods there might be more excuse for evening out on resources.

But even then I think the only tolerable long-term position for

Canada to take is to sell at home and abroad at world market

prices and let the most efficient people win.

Mr. Speaker, I think the only Premier in western Canada with

any backbone is Premier Lougheed.

AN HON. MEMBER: A Red Tory.

MR. McGEER: I must say that the Premier was full of

headlines when he left. Then when he got back to Ottawa, he got

in a room behind closed doors and he said: "Let's make a deal."

He came home with his tail between his legs and repeated a

pattern that we've seen for too many years in British Columbia.

That's the easy headline with the local press, suggesting that

we're sending a big hitter back east. Then he gets back there

and he takes three strikes. He never lifts the bat off his

shoulder. He comes back and says he's had a victory.

That's the first government where we've had that kind of

thing. They've come to expect it in eastern Canada, Mr.

Speaker, sending back a Premier who simply can't hold his own

with the better prepared people in eastern Canada. We shouldn't

send these delegations back without having studied thoroughly

our position and having a delegation who are smarter and better

prepared than the counterparts they'll meet in eastern Canada.

Only when we begin to do that kind of thing in British Columbia

are we going to get the kind of deal that the people of this

province deserve.

I'm embarrassed, really, Mr. Speaker, at having sent the

Premier a telegram. I did it in good faith. I hoped that he

would be able to represent me and other British Columbians in

our belief that we should get a fair shake out of

Confederation. He's failed to do that. For the life of me, I

can't understand how he could return and be interpreted as

having had a triumph. He made Neville Chamberlain look like a

bold and aggressive representative of Britain in his famous

sojourns into Europe.

MR. GIBSON: Gas in our time.

MR. McGEER: Gas in our time. Mr. Speaker, I'd just like to

conclude by lofting a couple of eggs across the floor.

It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that an independent tribunal, the Supreme Court

of Canada, which has heard people under oath, has really substantiated the charges

levelled by the Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson). As I understood

the judgment, the Premier and Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) were

guilty as charged by the Liberal leader, the good Member from Victoria. I think

the Liberal leader was restrained this afternoon, Mr. Speaker. You might even

think so.

MR. LEWIS: You mean strained, don't you.

MR. McGEER: He had an overwhelming case in his favour and

presented it with delicacy and much greater restraint than he

did in the time before he was vindicated. But, after all, he

was right, wasn't he, Mr. Speaker? You read the judgment. He

was right.

MR. SPEAKER: I don't know what you're talking about. I think

that you're not on the topic of the amendment now. You must be

talking about something, but I don't know….

MR. McGEER: Come on, Mr. Speaker. You know what I'm talking

about, and you know the Member was right. I'm certainly going

to support the amendment enthusiastically — not just the exact

wording of the amendment, which regretted the fact that His

Honour hadn't mentioned egg marketing, agricultural products,

and those sorts of things. I would think, Mr. Speaker, though

he may not have said so in so many words, that His Honour was

pretty unhappy as well at the embarrassment he must have felt

because his first Minister had been found, in a court of law in

British Columbia, to have said things and done things….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I don't think that the Hon.

Member is staying within the amendment when he says what he's

saying. Indeed, I think that what he's saying does do precisely

what was restrained this afternoon.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, as I said, I'm trying to be

restrained myself. I thought the Liberal leader acted with

unusual decorum and restraint in dealing with this delicate

subject. I'm only speculating on His Honour's true feelings,

because it's got to be a labour of love to get through a Speech

from the Throne of the calibre of this one. There must have

been regrets. We're only anticipating those by suggesting this

amendment and perhaps reading a little bit between the

lines.

But I think that a judicial inquiry into the conduct of the

Premier and the Minister of Agriculture would be just as timely

and as appropriate as one into the conduct of the Minister of

Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams). And if

these Ministers, Mr. Speaker, given a chance to clear their

names, were able to do so, nobody would be more prepared to

offer them congratulation and apology if we've wronged them

than the Members of the Liberal benches.

On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, if it's been found

[ Page 113 ]

that they have been indiscreet, then, of course, for the

honour of parliament we would have to demand their resignation.

So we look forward to these inquiries, Mr. Speaker — I can tell

you I am looking forward to them — and we expect that after

their conclusion this Legislature will be a better place.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 16

Jordan

Phillips

Richter

Smith

Chabot

McClelland

Bennett

Fraser

Curtis

Morrison

Schroeder

McGeer

Anderson, D.A.

Gardom

Gibson

Wallace

NAYS — 31

Hall

Macdonald

Barrett

Dailly

Nimsick

Stupich

Hartley

Brown

Sanford

Cummings

Dent

Levi

Lorimer

Williams, R.A.

Cocke

King

Young

Lauk

Nicolson

Skelly

Gabelmann

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Barnes

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Lewis

Liden

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the

House.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, it's a real thrill

to stand up in prime time (laughter) and have to compete with

"All in the Family." I should make it very plain I'm the

designated speaker, too. (Laughter.)

I would like to say it is a pleasure to take

part in the

throne speech debate….

MR. CUMMINGS: Stand up when you speak, Scott.

MR. WALLACE: I am standing up. (Laughter.) I notice Roy's

back at his best. (Laughter.) I thought probably the break

might have done him some good, Mr. Speaker, but….

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: Things are usually so peaceful at this time of

night, Mr. Speaker, but the whole audience seems to be very

keen to participate.

I would like at the outset to add my tribute to E. Ned DeBeck. His example

is one which I hope we can all emulate in this House since it exemplified dignity

and service of a high order. Indeed, Mr. DeBeck brought something to this chamber

which one could almost describe as serenity.

I didn't ever have the opportunity to meet Senator Laing,

but I recognize the tremendous service which he contributed to

this country, and our party takes cognizance and pays tribute

to Senator Laing also.

We also want to recognize International Women's Year, which

is a concept our party completely supports. For the

Conservatives, Mr. Speaker, in the United Kingdom, the year has

got off to a great start with the new leadership of the

Conservative Party under Margaret Thatcher. I think this is

symbolic of the fact that the Conservative Party in the United

Kingdom, like the party in British Columbia, is very

progressive.

By comparison, Mr. Speaker, Harold Wilson, who, in case you

don't know it, is the leader of the Labour Party, has been

described beside Margaret Thatcher as having all the popular

appeal of a faded, well-worn bedroom slipper. Who knows but

what we may have a mantle of leadership conferred upon a very

fine lady in the Conservative Party of Canada; and with a name

like Flora Macdonald, I have to think that that has a lot to

offer.

MR. FRASER: What about the NDP?

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, this tremendous interest by the

audience tonight really….

MR. CHABOT: We are just trying to help you.

MR. WALLACE: Well, when I need your help, Mr. Member for

Columbia River, I'm really in trouble. (Laughter.)

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Oh, there's the "chirp, chirp, chirp" from

North Okanagan. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: And how anyone could be so impatient at 9:30

tonight when we really weren't planning to have a night sitting

at all I don't know, but I was just getting to the point of

being fair to the NDP…

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WALLACE: …on the subject of women's rights and

International Women's Year. I want to recognize the tremendous

efforts of the Hon. lady Member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms.

Brown) because she also, like Margaret Thatcher, has expressed

[ Page 114 ]

serious interest in taking on a leadership role at the

national level.

Certainly, Mr. Speaker, the jaded and decimated group of

federal NDPers could certainly do nothing but gain from the

energy and the intensity of purpose which the lady from Burrard

brings to her political role.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WALLACE: Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, her move to the

federal scene would certainly delete one of the front runners

from the provincial cabinet sweepstakes. (Laughter.) It seems

that International Women's Year is assured of success.

I was also interested in another position that's been

decided recently — that was in the shadow cabinet of the

official opposition where one of the Members was designated

Minister of Transportation shadow. I thought that seemed most

appropriate for a political tourist. (Laughter.) Sometimes it

crosses my mind that that Member might indeed be looking around

at the situation and wondering if a tourist should have taken a

one-way ticket or probably arranged for a round trip.

(Laughter.)

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: No, we are fresh out of tickets for round

trips.

I think, Mr. Speaker, however, that this is a serious

session and that the people of the Province of British Columbia

expect us to take a positive and constructive approach to this

session of the Legislature.

The year, in our opinion, and although the Premier is

yawning and I can't blame him for that….

HON. MR. BARRETT: Not at your speech.

MR. WALLACE: I think the year is unlikely to be an election

year, and is certainly a time when this province and the people

are hoping that we can avoid extremes in either legislation or

debate. One of the Members interjects that that is a faint

hope. But I seriously feel that after two and a half years of

the socialist government, the people of this province are

looking for something a little less extravagant, less

experimental and less socialistic in dealing with the

priorities of the province.

We feel that the government has already moved to the left

too far and too fast and too much and too fully. But on the

other hand, we are not here to indulge in mindless attacks on

any and every programme brought forward by this government just

because it happens to emanate from a socialist administration

with which we differ in philosophy.

We feel that the province has nothing to gain from the bitter outbursts of

bitter claptrap that British Columbia is on the brink of depression, or that

we are all facing ruin.

We believe that the management of this province could be

vastly improved and that many basically sound ideas could be

better implemented. But we also feel that all British

Columbians will be the losers in any negative, opportunistic

attempt to so undermine public confidence in our economy that

Big Daddy politics can be reintroduced by the back door into

British Columbia.

We feel that if the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett)

genuinely wishes to build a new Social Credit, we, the people

of the Conservative Party in British Columbia, feel that the

Leader of the Opposition should stop depending on the same old

gang.

There are problems in our province, Mr. Speaker, but there

is also an immense physical potential and human capacity by

which we feel that the problems can be overcome and that we can

convert them into productive, fulfilling opportunities for the

people of the province.

We believe that there are some serious tensions in British

Columbia, largely fostered by somewhat extreme positions taken

both by the government and by the official opposition. But

there is also a sense of community purpose in British Columbia,

a basic sense of decency and the spirit of goodwill among the

citizens, and there is the capability to provide a framework of

well-being, stability and equity for all.

I have travelled fairly extensively in the province since

July of last year and I would have to say that it is most

impressive that wherever one goes in British Columbia today,

and in recent months, if there is one issue which concerns the

people of the province it is inflation. And since the

government unfortunately is contributing considerably to

inflation by its spending habits, one would have to take that

as the primary point that this party should make in this

debate. The government has attained the reputation for reckless

spending, for a lack of supervision of its own spending and the

impression that it has its finger in too many pies.

I've never in this House stood up and made accusations of

any kind that I can't back up, and I do feel that the memo from

the Treasury Board, dated December 20, 1974, very clearly backs

up that very fundamental criticism which many people in this

province have of the present government. I won't read the

Treasury memo, Mr. Speaker, but there was a subsequent memo

sent, as far as I can determine from this copy from the parks

and recreation department, to all staff, and it reads as

follows:

"The following is a memo received from our Deputy

Minister regarding resolutions passed by the Treasury Board. Please

ensure that all your supervisory staff are aware of the contents:

[ Page 115 ]

"The Treasury Board directive of December 20 reflects a

somewhat tighter economy and consequent closer surveillance of

our expenditures. This will come as a surprise to some of our

newer employees not formerly exposed to the cyclical nature of

Treasury Board restraint on spending.

"A good many people now on our staff came in at the top of

the cycle" — which I think is rather a delightful phrase — "and

tend to regard this more affluent period as the norm, rather

than an abnormal situation. This attitude is reflected in

frequent requests for travel to various events, sometimes of

dubious benefit to the department, requests for expensive

equipment, when less exotic equipment will do just as well, and

a generally relaxed attitude toward expenditure of public funds — a relaxed attitude towards the expenditure of your money and

mine.

"It is clear from this latest directive and other trends

that these days are over, for a period at least, and a far more

stringent attitude will be taken by Treasury Board towards

overruns of budgets.

"In view of the above, it is absolutely essential you advise

your supervisors that they must stay within budget allocations.

Overruns will be looked upon as serious mismanagement."

Mr. Speaker, I won't quote any more because I think that

these phrases that I've emphasized make the point. It is very

interesting that the Premier, all through my quote, has been

agreeing completely with the points made. He said "Right on!"

about three times.

MR. LEWIS: Responsible government.

MR. WALLACE: And the gentleman from Shuswap says this is

responsible government. My question is very simple. Why did it

take two and a half years to become responsible in the handling

of taxpayers' money? It's all very well to say that this is now

a responsible government, but even in this memo….

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Economic Development): We're

doing so much.

MR. WALLACE: Well, you didn't expect me to stand and pay you

compliments all evening, did you, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. LAUK: We deserve it.

MR. WALLACE: Well, that was just the bait. Now we're giving

you the hook!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, oh! Just throwing out bait, huh?

HON. MR. LAUK: Misleading evidence.

MR. WALLACE: Part of this memo, Mr. Speaker, says that these

days are over for a period, at least. In other words, as soon

as the government of today has sufficiently calmed the anxiety

of the taxpayers that they've recognized the errors of their

ways, then they can go back again at a later date to the

extravagant spending of the taxpayers' money.

Mr. Speaker, there is a big problem with inflation. There

are difficulties in a number of our economic sectors,

particularly in mining and forestry, and of course there are

continuing needs that are unmet, especially in housing. But we

believe that this assembly in this session has all the power it

needs by means of legislation to deal with each of these

problems and to bring the kind of benefits to all of our

citizens.

Increasingly the government is, indeed, faced with cost

overruns in a number of key departments, and we believe that

this reflects uneven Ministerial performance which runs the

gamut from good to the inadequate and irresponsible.

We believe that in Health and Labour and Agriculture we have

Ministers with an objective sense of public responsibility

regarding their roles and who have the willingness and the

capacity to perform. There are departments, however, which are

disaster areas, and we would have to pick out Human Resources

and Education as being two departments which would quite likely

make this government go broke if costs and programmes are not

more adequately supervised and controlled.

In education we admit that the problems are complex, but

after two and a half years we have to say, with some regret,

that there is still no clear policy on educational values or

standards. We had a White Paper which did little other than

spell out the problems without giving any kind of direction as

to how the solutions should be found. Those of us, in the

course of the last several months, have come to the conclusion

that the lack of direction in the Department of Education and

the confusion which obviously existed there have become more

and more obvious, first with the episode which occurred last

year when the director of research, Mr. Bremer, was dismissed,

and subsequently a similar episode on the part of one of his

successors.

But there are those of us on this side of the House who

would like to take

part in finding the answers to the

educational dilemma in this province. We think it nothing less

than shocking that highly skilled professors have to spend

their time with first year

[ Page 116 ]

and we don't feel that all these desirable, but otherwise less

important, issues of creative writing, for example, should be

given the priority they are apparently being given when the

students in university can't even write plain and simple

last session of the Legislature, and we feel with great regret

that the situation today is no more improved that it was when

we met here last spring.

In Human Resources the problems, we feel, Mr. Speaker, are

those of impulsive enthusiasm coupled with bureaucratic

expansion and a fair measure of mismanagement, After two and a

half years there is a basic degree of measurable relief for

those who really need it, but there is also an array of grants,

aids and handouts to those who do not need it.

There has been a proliferation of agencies and boards with

intrusion into jurisdictions and areas in which this government

has no mandate. There is a depressing lack of incentives for

those who are able to get off welfare and go to work, and an

even greater lack of recognition and appreciation of those who

are already in steady employment.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

We believe, Mr. Speaker, that what is so seriously required

is a commitment to individual dignity and a decent basis of

life and quality of living for those who are truly in need; a

commitment to give income support for those unable to support

themselves on a basis fully adequate to cover the basic

essentials with a little extra. This basis of decency and

dignity is a commitment that the vast majority of productive

taxpayer citizens of the province would readily accept. But

they certainly don't want to see this commitment abused, and

they don't want the system administered in any capricious

fashion, nor do they want to be discriminated against simply

because thy prefer to work.

We feel that it is time to direct the Minister (Hon. Mr.

Levi) concerned back to this one fundamental commitment. The

rest is up to the legitimate personal goals and values of the

individual people of British Columbia themselves.

As for Housing, we feel there is a serious lack of any

effective programme because there is no comprehensive

co-ordinated policy. The province needs housing and in this

session we will have to start all over again constructing a

co-ordinated and comprehensive policy designed to meet the very

serious need in the total housing field, both privately owned

residences and rental accommodation. I would like to offer some

suggestions from this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, towards

an effective housing policy, which I would hope the government

would not reject solely on ideological grounds.

We feel that the land freeze should commence to be phased

out because of the urgent need for ample, low-cost, serviced

land. The comprehensive land freeze was initially necessary to

prevent the further destruction of agricultural and

recreational land.

Had the blacktop-paving, tree-chopping, ill-planned housing

development encouraged by Social Credit laxity not been

stopped, Abbotsford, Saanich, Mission, Winfield and many other

municipalities near major centres would now be gobbling up

agricultural land at a rapid rate. But the land freeze has done

its work and one of the points one uncovers in travels….

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Isn't it the First Member for Victoria (Mr.

Morrison) who drives the Cadillac, the Member for the Social

Credit Party?

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: But as one travels around the province, it is

quite obvious that the well-intentioned effect of Bill 42 has

resulted in many areas of marginal agricultural land being

retained in the land reserve when, in the total picture, that

land could be of much greater value to our society if it were

available for housing.

The need is for proper land-use planning and regulation with

substantial delegation to regional districts and

municipalities. The creation of an adequate land supply is

certainly a top priority and we believe there should be a major

contribution of land from the provincial Crown in several

areas, as well as a continuous financing programme to increase

substantially the reserve bank of serviced land. We feel the

government's emphasis on leased land and cooperatives is an

incomplete and narrow approach to solve what is a much wider,

larger and complex problem, The government appears to have ignored the financial plight

of the municipalities. We feel this government, like the former

Social Credit government, has downgraded local government and

school boards through stronger, centralized provincial control.

This has certainly occurred in the housing field where

government has shown substantial reluctance to deal with the

private sector and with local governments.

I can only quote the kind of example in Saanich where, on

Roy Road, the assembly had reached the point where construction

was almost ready to go when this government was elected. The

whole plan has been worked over on several occasions by the

provincial department, and the project is still not underway.

There have been hearings and further review of the Roy Road

project, but it seems to us

[ Page 117 ]

that there is a lack of adequate consultation with local

governments and respect for regional and municipal plans which

may or may not fit in with government planning.

We feel that consultation with local governments is very

often after the event, when local opinions and wishes can have

minimal effect in altering the outcome. We feel that the

ultimate insult lies in the amendment which we debated in the

House in the fall session to the Laws Declaratory Act, in which

the government sets itself above its own land-use legislation

by stating…

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: I'll get to you, Mr. Member for Delta (Mr.

Liden), in just a moment.

…that any enactment regarding land

use and improvements does not bind the Crown.

I'm going to ask the Member for Delta if he thinks that that can be justified because it was always that way. I don't know.

But let me remind the House, Mr. Speaker, that the people of

this province elected this government to do a better job than

the Socreds. They did not elect this government to go on making

the same arrogant mistakes that were being made for 20

years.

For the Members of this government and for the Member for

Delta and for the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall), who

spoke in the debate in the fall, to say, "Well, we're simply

doing what's been done for the last 20 years," is a

pathetic way to justify a government which is said to respect

the individual, and to respect rights and freedoms, and to say

that one of its main philosophies is to preserve agricultural

land and to look upon land use as a vital responsibility of all

governments in an enlarging population. That is true, and we

agree with that. But for the government then to turn around and

amend legislation which, in effect, puts the government above

its own legislation I think is disastrous and hypocritical.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: If the Premier will look at the record, he will

find that we supported the principle of Bill 42 and said so in

the debates in this House.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Did you vote for it or against it?

MR. WALLACE: We voted against Bill 42 for the simple reason

that it contravenes some of the very rights and freedoms that I

talked about a moment ago.

HON. MR. BARRETT: But you supported the people there.

MR. WALLACE: it ignored the regional and municipal

governments until it was amended to the degree that it was

hardly recognizable as the same bill.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You're not nearly as good as the Liberals

at standing on both sides of an issue and running down the

middle.

MR. WALLACE: There's one thing I know about this people's

government, as far as land use is concerned: there's one rule

for the people and one rule for the government.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would remind the Hon. Members that the

hon. leader of the Conservative Party has the floor.

MR. WALLACE: I thought maybe we should recess for five

minutes to let the gentlemen on either side of the House have

their little conversations.

I would like, Mr. Speaker, to say a few words about the

plight of the municipalities. When the Premier came forward

with his initial proposal about the increased income to be

derived from natural gas, it seems to me a figure of $180

million was mentioned. This was to be split three ways, as I

recall: $60 million for the federal revenues, $60 million for

the provincial revenues and $60 million for the

municipalities.

It seems to me that by that proposal the Premier certainly

recognized that it would be at least just and fair and

desirable to provide something on the order of $60 million to

the municipalities, whether or not that money might be derived

from the revenue of natural gas. We wonder, after the Premier's

less than triumphant joust with Messrs. Macdonald and Turner,

whether, in fact, we can look forward to Friday's budget speech

and find that that $60 million will still be made available to

the municipalities.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Macdonalds all over the place.

MR. WALLACE: These Macdonalds are all over the place —

there's Donald, Alex, Flora, and goodness knows how many

more.

We do feel that the municipalities — as, for example, right

here in the capital region where we have a strike at present

with a wage dispute centering

[ Page 118 ]

around 16 to 20 per cent — that the municipalities, with a

limited tax base, certainly have to be given help in one form

or another, They have to have some altered legislation to give

them a greater taxing capacity, other than simply property tax,

which would be one route. And frankly, this is the route which

we believe offers a great deal of flexibility and potential for

greater harmony between the municipal and provincial levels. Or

the municipalities simply have to be given greater per capita

grants from this province at this time.

As I say, we look forward to Friday's budget because we

believe that the Premier as Minister of Finance has

acknowledged through his earlier statement that something of

the order of $60 million of addition to the municipalities

would not be out of line.

We believe that the government must work as hastily as

possible towards the removal of rent controls, since they

inhibit the creation of much-needed rental accommodation. As a

temporary measure, rent controls may have some merit, but as a

long-term measure we believe they're nothing short of disaster.

The rent controls were an attempt to protect low-income

families and prevent gouging, but they are becoming

counter-productive and inevitably will make the situation

worse.

We also feel that they should be replaced by a rentalsman

operating under reasonable guidelines, where rent review, the

word "review," really means what it says. We favour

financing and mortgage rate incentives combined with a

programme of provincial mortgage insurance and guarantees, and,

if necessary, some form of profit limitation.

We believe that sales tax on building materials for housing

must be repealed, and a portable lease-to-purchase programme

should be set up in which any tenant at any income level can

freely participate. What we are proposing, in effect, is that

housing be put on a public utility basis with government as the

catalyst and regulator, with the private sector playing its

full part.

The intervention of the government into the private sector

by such measures, which we believe just to be token measures,

as acquiring Dunhill and possibly the Yorkshire Trust, is bound

to fail in achieving the grandiose objectives presented to the

people by the government.

Dunhill is much too small to start with and Yorkshire can

only make picayune attempts at lowering mortgage rates, and

neither is a substitute for creative legislation.

We believe that the government must regulate and set guidelines, but government

alone cannot produce results. What will make money available for housing and

what will lower mortgage rates is a larger total pool of money available, channeled

by a broader range of solidly based financial institutions in British Columbia.

I know the Premier, Mr. Speaker, is very interested in

financial institutions in British Columbia. We feel that the

institutions which could channel the funds into housing should

be trust companies, near banks, investment trust cooperatives

or credit unions. They can draw from government, corporate and

union pension funds, from company treasuries, banks and

individual citizen investors.

We believe that charters can be so legislated that the

public will be fully protected at all times. And we believe

that it is absolutely fundamental that the housing problems can

only be solved by creating a greater pool of financing than is

presently available.

This government often seems to take a perverse pride in the

claim frequently made against it that it has succeeded in

driving money out of British Columbia. Even a socialist

government should see the sense of succeeding in getting more

money available for housing in British Columbia. We don't think

that it's just enough to criticize the federal government, as

the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson) has done. The

former government in this province failed miserably to match

the federal dollars which were often left on the table after

federal-provincial conferences — the Premier nods. I can well

remember in this House that statement being made, when this

government was the official opposition, that on many occasions

if the provincial government, under the Socred administration,

had been willing to match the dollars available at the federal

level, there would have been at least some more money available

for housing. And I hope that this government will certainly not

leave federal dollars on the table and will show some of the

initiatives which have been mentioned.

In the area of social policy, while I have recognized the

excellent performance by the Minister of Health (Mr. Cocke), I

do find it incredible that after two and a half years there is

one particular area where this government and this Minister

have failed miserably to meet what was a priority commitment in

not only the '72 election campaign, but in preceding campaigns.

I'm talking about the lack of intermediate-care coverage and

intermediate-care facilities.

On the night of August 30, 1972, this government was elected

to undertake certain reforms. Reform in 1972 had a precise

meaning, and the mandate which this government was given was

very clear. Reform meant that from now on social development

was to have the same priority as economic development, and that

in provincial policies, social development and economic

development were to proceed in a rational manner together.

In this area of intermediate care, it is clear from the

Premier's statements and from financial statements that the

money is available, Mr. Speaker, to provide fair and just

services and facilities to all

[ Page 119 ]

senior citizens in need of nursing care. We have to

criticize this government for a distorted sense of priorities.

When we talk about the mandate being given to correlate social

development on an equal basis with economic development, we

have to make our position very plain about the dollars spent in

various other directions in the economic field and the

acquisition of companies in the private sector and government

dollars used to purchase Westcoast Transmission and Panco

Poultry and so on. We believe that while that has a purpose,

the priority now must be given to meeting that commitment,

which was such a major part of the election platform, to

provide coverage and facilities to the senior citizens who

require nursing home care or some similar level of care.

It is strange to me that this government, which presented

itself very much as the party of the people, when it came down

to it didn't really have the faintest idea in any consistent

way of what it wanted to achieve. It proceeded to move hastily

in a variety of directions without any comprehensive

co-ordination of these efforts.

I feel we should speak frankly on this point, particularly

since there are many areas of social reform by this government

which I have supported from this side of the House, In the

field of social development, it is quite clear that in region

after region this government inherited a situation that was 5,

10 or 15 years behind the times. But I would say to this

government now that, in addition to the shortcomings in your

economic policies, you also have an Achilles heel in the field

of social policy. The best example of that big gap and that

serious shortcoming must be in the realm of intermediate

care.

I mentioned earlier that the people of this province are

very concerned about how the money is being spent. What the

cost overruns mean for the budget we'll know soon enough. We're

really talking about two budgets: the revenues and expenditures

for fiscal 1974-75 and the balance, or lack of balance, for the

fiscal year 1975-76. Mr. Speaker, we do not feel that the

people can be unduly comforted by anything the Minister of

Finance may say about a surplus or, for that matter, be overly

alarmed by what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett)

claims and predicts. But we do know that $157 million has been

spent by government warrants since the budget was

presented.

We believe, after sober consideration, that the present fiscal year will be

in balance and there will be a surplus. The anticipated revenue from stumpage

and mineral royalties will, of course, be down. That's a subject in itself which

I'm sure will be debated this session. But we believe that the decrease will

be more than offset by increased revenue from corporation tax, income tax, sales

tax, liquor tax, gasoline tax and all the other taxes and charges.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: I'm coming to that, Mr. Premier. You're all so

impatient tonight. It's already 10:10.

AN HON. MEMBER: Even Harvard knows about that.

MR. WALLACE: We believe these other taxes that I was

reciting when I was so rudely interrupted will in fact result

in a surplus, never mind the extra revenue derived from the

increase in natural gas prices. Had there been proper

management and supervision of departmental expenditures, the

Minister of Finance should have been…. And those who are

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: The Minister of Finance should have been in a

position to declare a surplus of $150 million for the present

fiscal year, but not, as matters stand, for the next fiscal

year. The increase in natural gas prices was supposed to

cover the cost overruns of Human Resources, Education and aid

to municipalities. If I might use the expression, Mr. Speaker,

these "windfall profits" of $100 million a crack will not occur

again, and there is no major source of incremental revenue in

sight, barring tax increases in any form.

That made the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi)

look up and adjust his spectacles — when he said there might be

tax increases. Mr. Speaker, should there be tax increases, this

government would so lose any residual measure of public

confidence that they would be lucky to come back as an

opposition party with a dozen seats after the next election.

This government was not given a mandate to waste money. What it

was given was a mandate to redirect an increased portion of

available money to those areas which had been neglected for 20

years, or in large measure ignored. The mandate to this

government was to take that new direction and spend the

available money productively and wisely.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's right. That's why we have Mincome

and Pharmacare.

MR. WALLACE: This and only this — without preconceived

notions of some vague Utopia, without dangerous bias of

ideological fervor and missionary zeal and, above all, without

new power centres erected in place of those the voters

themselves tore down. This and only this was the mandate which

the government received on August 30, 1972. And in the term of

office which remains to this government, that is the duty it

must discharge, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 120 ]

I know how keenly the Premier believes in Hansard and

most of us who like to stick by our words do believe in

Hansard . It is very interesting to look back in

Hansard and read from the throne speech of January,

1973, when there is a very genuine exhortation to eliminate

profligacy and waste. That's right — profligacy and waste. That

word is a little difficult to get out at 10:10.

HON. MR. BARRETT: His Honour was right on that day.

MR. WALLACE: His Honour was completely in tune with the

thinking and philosophy and direction of the new government.

What was meant to apply then, generally, Mr. Speaker, should

surely now apply specifically to this government.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Budget day is Friday. You should save it,

as you might want to alter it.

MR. WALLACE: Well, we'll be ready to alter it in the light

of events, but I think it shows a little more insight and

courage to put your money where your mouth is before the budget

speech than to sit and wait and be the smart alec

afterwards.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You're the only opposition who has taken

that approach.

MR. WALLACE: Well, I've done a few novel things, I

suppose.

I can't seem to get the point across, Mr. Speaker, that this

government's in trouble because it's wasting taxpayers' money.

The sense of priorities with which this government spends the

money is out of tune with many of the voters who put this

government in power. That's not to knock Mincome or Pharmacare,

which I agree entirely is a direction of social reform which I

support, and the reason that many voters in this province in

'72 voted for the NDP.

All we're trying to tell you…and you should be glad

we're trying to help you this way because I don't think you

folks over there have got the message. Your loss of support at

the present time is related primarily to your mistaken

interpretation of priorities in regard to government expenditures. It's that simple.

Anyway, as the Premier knows, he and I recognize the importance of being able

to agree to disagree, and the function of an opposition isn't just to oppose,

although facetiously I said a moment ago that it was. I think the importance

of the opposition is to ensure for the voters in the province that those who

have a views differing from the government in power can be ensured that these

views are being aired in this Legislature. Whether or not the Premier, or

anybody else over there, listens, I think the function of our democratic society

is to ensure that these differing points of view are expressed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'll tell you, if there wasn't an NDP in

B.C., I'd vote Tory.

MR. WALLACE: Well, I'd rather not comment on that.

(Laughter.) But I would say this: what will never be forgiven

this present government by the majority of moderate,

fair-minded citizens of British Columbia, and that includes

thousands of Conservatives who voted for the NDP — and we can

smile and joke, but this, I honestly believe, is a fact, that

many of these moderate, fair-minded citizens who really even

have the gall to come to me and say that they call themselves

Conservatives but they voted NDP because they felt that your

programmes were reasonable, and in a number of ridings the NDP

had the best chance to get the old gang out.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Right. Look what happened to Saanich and

the Islands; they were buffaloed.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The leader of the Tory party has the

floor.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Correction — Conservative Party.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Now what are you going to tell those

Conservatives in Saanich?

MR. WALLACE: We're going to tell them a lot. Mr. Speaker,

the point I was trying to make before the….

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member proceed

with his speech, please?

MR. WALLACE: Oh, I'm trying, Mr. Speaker, I'm trying ever so hard.

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, despite that body of goodwill and

support from many Conservatives, if his NDP proves to be so mild in its mismanagement, and so

misguided in its dogma and ideology, that it allows the dark

ages of Social Credit to be brought back into British Columbia,

then the Premier and this government will have a great deal to

answer for. It would, indeed, be sad for the people of this

province if this government allowed the power-hungry Social

Credit Party to take office by default.

[ Page 121 ]

Mr. Premier, through you, Mr. Speaker, if you will not move

back from your present position, and if you will not show a

more competent performance in the administration of this

province, and the swing is reactive all the way back to the

Social Credit right, it will be then, and not now, the people

of British Columbia will pass a very bad judgment on David

Barrett, the former Premier of British Columbia.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the Hon Member please

proceed, and would the other Members please not interrupt?

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the Hon. Members please

be quiet and allow the Member to proceed with his speech?

MR. WALLACE: As we have always tried in this House to be….

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Can we have quiet for the

hon. leader of the Conservative…?

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please! I would ask the Hon. Premier

and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) to take their

debate outside in the corridor, or shut up.

Will the Hon. Member proceed?

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I feel that we should put forward

some of the positive proposals which we believe would assist in

the recovery from some of our economic problems and lead to the

enrichment of the living conditions of many of the people of

the province, because this province is not, in our belief, as

the Leader of the Opposition has stated, in a condition of

disaster or in pending blue ruin; nor has confidence in British

Columbia and, even more important, the self-confidence of

British Columbians been destroyed.

The ground rules have been changed by this government.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. WALLACE: And in a number of cases the change has been radical and

ill-advised. But we believe that these can be revised.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): By this government?

MR. WALLACE: Yes, by any government that cares to look at

the situation and recognize that like all humans and human

organizations they make mistakes. There are enough politicians

on both sides of this House to recognize that a government can

only go as far as the people will allow. But the magnitude of

the intervention of this government into the private sector

must be rolled back immediately. In due course much of the

government intervention will have to be undone.

I will recall for the Premier, Mr. Speaker, that this party

in its measures to stabilize Canadian Cellulose and Ocean Falls

supported the government policy, but we believe that a

partnership arrangement involving both the private sector and

the province for the Ocean Falls–Bella Coola region is a more

desirable approach for a logical, phased development.

The original stated objectives of the province respecting

Canadian Cellulose have been achieved, but now is the time to

begin a much broader programme with a larger number of B.C.

citizens as shareholders and the province retaining a minority

interest. Had the acquisition of Plateau Mills and Kootenay

Forest Products come to a vote in the Legislature, as they

should have, we would have voted against these acquisitions, as

well as similar acquisitions.

Government must be a catalyst where participation for

effective action is required. We believe that government should

provide stability or support where enterprises that are

inherently economically worthwhile would otherwise fail, but

where these tests do not apply we feel that government has no

right or business to intervene.

We would commend the government for seeking a fairer share

of the total revenues generated by the resource industries of

the province, provided…

HON. MR. BARRETT: …that big business gives it to us first

without asking.

MR. WALLACE: …that total revenues are adequate and

provided we have an agreed understanding on what share is fair.

The Crown provincial is the owner of the resources on behalf of

the citizens of British Columbia and, like any other owner who

leases out the use of its property, it is entitled to its

rent.

By the same analogy, in relation to the gross revenues and

net income derived from the use of Crown resources, the rents

should reflect fair, competitive market value. Any increase in

existing royalties means at the same time, in our view, a

[ Page 122 ]

greater responsibility and obligation by government to

ensure the economic health of those industries against which

higher royalties are being levelled.

Any tenant paying a fair competitive rent is entitled to

have the landlord maintain his property in good reasonable

condition. If the Crown is landlord of the resource industries

and it is to charge the fair competitive rent, then the

government has the obligation to see to it that the viability

of resource industries is maintained in good and reasonable

condition. Over the past year this obligation by the government

to ensure the viability of the resource industries has been

seriously neglected, resulting in untold hardship for thousands

of families where the breadwinner has been denied and deprived

of his gainful employment.

We would like to know from the Minister of Lands, Forests

and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams), if he is still awake — and I see from his grin that he is — why the decline in

lumber prices and lumber demand was not anticipated or, if it

was anticipated, why more rapid action was not taken. We also

want to know why the B.C. Forest Service was so slow in

dropping the level of stumpage once the decline had become

apparent. We would like to know what advance monitoring system

has been set up on both prices and volume demand, since these

downturns have occurred before and, unless something is done to

cushion their impact, will certainly occur again. We want to

know what the government is doing to prepare for future

cyclical declines in wood product markets so that the sawmill

and plywood industry, logging contractors, and the loggers and

woodworkers themselves, will not be left in such a vulnerable

position.

We also feel that there is an urgent need for an equitable

and simplified stumpage appraisal system, and the same concern

applies with equal force to the Minister of Mines and Petroleum

Resources (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) as these questions relate to the

mining industry. We would like to put forward some basic

propositions.

In industries that are cyclical because of exposure to world

markets, it is essential that the maximum amount of production

and employment stability within British Columbia be achieved.

We feel that you could use stumpage as a stabilizing device

instead of allowing stumpage to bounce around from $30 a

hundred cubic feet to the $1.10 minimum. The fair average

royalty for saw logs and plywood logs over the life of a cycle

is at present about $15. In the high price, high production

years, our policy would certainly be to take more, but in the

downturn years, such as the one we are now in, we would give

some of this extra stumpage back from a stabilization fund to

be established. In other words, we would consider a policy of

negative stumpage.

Such a stabilization programme, we believe, would have been enough today to

cut the present level of unemployment in the forest industry by about half.

The amount to be paid out of the stabilization fund in the lean years would

be relatively insignificant compared to the benefits of maintaining employment

of people in the forest industry. These people, in turn, would be paying income

tax, sales tax and other taxes, and the saving on expenditures in the form of

unemployment insurance and welfare could be considerable.

Exactly the same principle applies to mineral royalties in

which a fair, average royalty over the life of a market cycle

should also be fixed with positive or incremental royalties

charged or, accordingly, negative royalties being paid back in

the lean years. After all, Mr. Speaker, no landlord receives a

rent when the property is not being used.

There are some other measures, Mr. Speaker, we would like to

suggest. One is to work out stockpiling arrangements with the

forest and mining industries, including buying wood products in

advance for the housing requirements of British Columbia. The

second measure would be to offer working capital loan

guarantees to independent, non-integrated producers with a

claim against production in the event of default. Since the

U.S. market, which buys 70 per cent of our lumber, is

cyclically unreliable, a third measure must be made to start

working out stable, longer-term marketing arrangements with

Japan, Western Europe and other off-shore markets. And, of

course, a fourth measure — which I notice, strangely enough,

even the opposition ignored the NDP request for this in years

gone by — a fourth measure would be to encourage B.C. resource

industries to specialize to a greater extent in higher-value

products, for the right specialization within a world market is

one of the best safety cushions of all.

These types of programmes, we feel, will have to be worked

out cooperatively between government and industry with

consultation with the labour unions involved. Planning for

these programmes, we would like to think, is already underway

by this government.

There are certainly two basic principles which we believe we

must state very clearly in this debate and at this time.

The first is very simple. Unlike the salad days of Social

Credit, no government of this province is ever again going to

be allowed to say: "Here are our resources, boys. Come on in

and take 'em all." There may have been times early on when

Bennett the elder had to give the kitchen sink away. But his

son must be even more inept and more ill-informed than he

appears to be if he believes the electorate will allow B.C.

resources again to become the prize for any big corporate

election support.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Never again.

[ Page 123 ]

MR. WALLACE: I would like to repeat that in case

Hansard missed it: "…if he believes the electorate

will allow B.C. resources again to become the prize for any big

corporate election support." There must be provincial control

over provincial resources, and there must be a fair provincial

rent.

MR. LEWIS: No more giveaways.

MR. WALLACE: The second principle is equally simple. It is

that the resource industries of British Columbia, those which

are here and those which can be developed, are entitled to a

fair rate of return on capital investment, with due

consideration for risk involved.

AN HON. MEMBER: That guy behind you — he'll get you a better

job.

MR. WALLACE: What is a reasonable definition of capital

employment?

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: To develop these thoughts, we can ask the

question: what is a reasonable definition of capital employment

during the current period of double-digit inflation?

The Premier suggests that I should not be making some of

these comments until I see the budget. But during the budget

debate we will be making proposals for a shift to an

inflation-accounting basis for all companies under B.C. law.

This shift would show that most resource-based public companies

in the province are overstating their net income and grossly

understating their balance sheet assets in current

inflated-dollar terms.

It might also be an appropriate time to give notice that we

will introduce a private Member's bill entitled Natural

Resources Financial Disclosure Act. It would require all public

and private companies operating on Crown provincial resources

with annual revenue in excess of $5 million to file properly

audited income and balance sheet statements with the registrar

of companies. Such statements would be available for public

inspection. Privately owned companies thus obliged to report

would include the B.C. subsidiaries of all oil companies, a

number of B.C. subsidiaries of major mining companies and, in

the forest industry, such companies as Canadian Forest

Products, Eurocan, Intercontinental, Northwood, Prince George

Pulp and Paper and Weyerhaeuser.

The principle involved is quite simple. We do not believe that any company

should operate in this province and be invited to lay out capital expenditures

in this province unless there is a reasonable assurance for an adequate rate

of return to provide for dividends and for the necessary cash flow to improve

productivity.

What this fair, average rate of return should be and how it

should be applied are matters which we would like to develop

from this side of the House during the debate on estimates.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Are you asking the government to fix the

rate of return?

MR. WALLACE: No, I'm asking both sides in the contract to

understand what is mutually agreed to be a fair rate of

return.

We shall also be proposing that each contractual agreement

respecting resource tenures be made available to this House.

This is the practice in certain other countries, such as

Western Australia. It seems to us to be a sound principle.

We agree with the statement which has been made by this

government that British Columbia should not be a place for

uncontrolled or excessively profitable investment. British

Columbia should be a place for solid, secure, long-term

investment. Certain measures could implement this principle and

establish a greater degree of economic stability.

We believe in the application of positive incremental and

negative royalties. We believe in a policy of making

unallocated resources available at a steady, controlled rate.

We believe in the judicious application of regional development

incentives which reflect higher startup or operating costs. We

believe in the proper application of fair, equitable

regulations.

The present economic situation in which we find ourselves

makes it very plain that, being a seller in a global market, we

cannot control world prices for base metals or forest products.

British Columbia certainly cannot regulate U.S. government

policies affecting housing starts, and it certainly cannot tell

the economies of Japan, the United States, western Europe or

eastern Canada to get off the pot and grow.

We believe that in the year ahead the economies of our

trading partners will start to recover, but before this happens

the housing industry in the United States will start to

recover. Along with this recovery, sawmills in British Columbia

will reopen, second or third shifts will be added and forest

industry employment will rise again.

We'd like to ask the question. Just because we have

struggled through this present economic trough we cannot afford

to pretend that it will not or may not happen again, and the

obligation by this government is to demonstrate that it has

long-term planning to ensure stability of employment in our

resource industries, which in our view has been sadly neglected

in the past year.

We believe that rational economic development for all

productive sectors in British Columbia can only lie in a sound

policy, which represents a long-range,

[ Page 124 ]

integrated economic and social development strategy. We feel

that it is incredible that after two and a half years the

government is still making stupid, insensitive, uncoordinated

mistakes similar to those made by the Social Credit regime.

So often voters are asking the difference between the government and

the opposition, and the differentiating features between the opposition

parties. Certainly the difference between us and the government is that

the business of the private sector is to provide productive capital and

the business of the public sector is to provide, where required, social

and infrastructure capital.

The job of the public sector is to establish an equitable

and stable framework for economic activity and development in

which those matters of concern to the public interest are

regulated and controlled, and the job of the private sector is

to operate within that framework and abide by the regulations

and controls. The duty of the private sector is to pay its fair

share; the duty of the public sector is to make sure at all

times that the private sector can pay its fair share. And these

are not ideological issues; they are practical matters which

intimately affect the economy of this province, because the

province has tremendous potential, and I think both sides of

the House have agreed on that.

There is great scope for development in many of the sectors

of our economy, and we believe in our party that we can be

selective. We do not necessarily need a six-million-tons-a-year

basic steel mill producing semi-processed ingots for Japan, and

we do not necessarily need a gigantic refinery and

petrochemical complex in the lower mainland, particularly when

it is against the stated wishes of the community concerned, as

in the case of Surrey.

We can pursue a strategy of higher-value resource

development or regional manufacturing development or

transportation and trade development or financial and

commercial-social development or any combination of these. But

we cannot absorb them all, certainly, in the immediate future,

and we take the position that it may not be necessary that we

even attempt to do so. But the basic development route we would

wish to follow is the one which pays the highest wages, confers

the greatest revenues to the province, permits the highest

social benefits, affords competition and a choice of work and

which can be environmentally controlled.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that in this session we can find and

implement some of the strategy, and I would hope that some of

the points that we are making tonight will be part and parcel

of the policy outlined by the Minister of Economic Development

(Hon. Mr. Lauk) when we are debating estimates in this

department.

Inflation, as I mentioned at the outset, certainly has to be the primary concern

of every citizen in Canada today, and it certainly is not the sole responsibility

of Ottawa. But on the other hand, we cannot blame it on some vague international

malaise, as the federal Liberals would try and have us believe.

It is the responsibility of government, which is the initial

cause of inflation and the chief beneficiary from inflation, to

protect the wages and salaries of all workers at all times from

inflation. Organized labour can bargain for cost-of-living

adjustments, and this is their right. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the

single and most important reason today for legal and illegal

strikes, walkouts and other disputes is the attempt by unions

to catch up with what has been lost in purchasing power due to

inflation.

Most other employees who are not organized do not have

adequate means to obtain protection against these increases in

the cost of living. In either case, individual citizens on

wages or salaries usually get their cost-of-living adjustment,

if any, last after prices and payroll deductions have already

been increased. If the worker is entitled to protection from

inflation, so too are those on fixed incomes, for society owes

a debt to the aged and retired, which at the present time no

employee pension plan can guarantee.

We will introduce

an Act entitled Maintenance of Incomes Act

which will outline our proposal by which we would require

cost-of-living adjustments to all wages and salaries in British

Columbia to apply where provincial jurisdiction or control

exists. We recognize that this Act would still leave

approximately 10 per cent of the labour force and their

families unprotected from inflation, since their collective

agreements fall within federal jurisdiction, but if John Turner

and his friends don't like it, then maybe they can start by

controlling the overspending and wasting of so much of the

taxpayers' money at the federal level.

We believe that this kind of maintenance of income Act

would, in fact, result in greatly reduced numbers of industrial

disputes and strikes, because it would act as a preventive

measure in removing the cause of so many strikes, which is the

legitimate desire of workers to try and catch up with the loss

of purchasing power in their income.

We also intend to introduce a bill, Mr. Speaker, which will

enable every citizen in this province to build security for his

or her retirement through portable, inflation-proof pension

plans.

We also believe that we must formulate a policy which will incorporate an essential

services Act, which we would define as limited strictly to public safety, human

protection, emergency-, acute- and chronic-health care and some aspects of public

utilities. We realize that such

an Act would be a gross injustice if it deprived

by law any worker of the right to strike unless these workers are adequately

protected by the Maintenance of Incomes Act and an inflation-proof pension plan.

[ Page

125 ]

Mr. Speaker, the longer I take

part in the political process

in British Columbia, the more I think of two phrases: "deja vu…"

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Better than

Stanfield.

MR. WALLACE: …which, of course, means "seen already"; and

the second is "plus ca change, plus chest la meme chose

" meaning that the more things change, the more they stay

the same. I'm sorry if I said it with a Scottish accent.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Just say Bennett inherits Bennett.

MR. WALLACE: As I mentioned earlier, this government is

trying to justify its land-use policies on Crown land by

stating it is only repeating what the Socreds did for 20 years.

We have this government reintroducing the B.C. News ,

which it criticized so severely when it was published by the

Socred government.

On the other side of the coin, Mr. Speaker, I witnessed a TV

programme the other night putting forward the Social Credit

position and, for the very life of me, it sounded very much

like the speeches I used to hear from the former Leader of the

Opposition. He spoke strongly of the need for secondary

industries and for the processing of primary ores — a sound

proposal which was completely ignored by the government of that

day.

The current leader of the official opposition (Mr. Bennett)

also spoke of the need for political parties to stay away from

financing by large companies and to be financed by the

membership. He implied that this party's Jonathan Livingschmaltz multi-coloured brochure and other literature was being

financed by 40,000 members at $10 a crack. Now, Mr. Speaker, it

seems to me that not so long ago they were selling $5

memberships for four years. In other words, what you pay is

what you get: cheap membership in a cheap party.

HON. MR. BARRETT: What about that education fund?

MR. WALLACE: But the people of British Columbia, I think,

have been around the Social Credit race track too often to

gamble their future one more time on the funny-money gang and

to fall for the blandishments of a dynasty whose primary goal

is the acquisition of raw political power, not the service of

the people in this province.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

MR. WALLACE: And if such a claim seems rather strong in the ears of

some of the listeners tonight, let me mention another vital issue which the

present Leader of the Opposition in his interview said his party would consider:

namely the system of having a preferable ballot, an alternative form of balloting

on which the voter expresses his order of preference for all candidates on the

ballot.

HON. MR. BARRETT:

(1) McClelland;

(2) Bennett.

(Laughter.)

MR. WALLACE: Citizens of British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, will

recall that the Social Credit leader of 1952 (Hon. Mr. Bennett)

acquired the position of Premier through the provisions of the

preferred-ballot system. He no sooner gained political power

through such a vehicle than he abolished the system in order to

perpetuate that party in power. The voters of British Columbia

today will likely conclude that the professed support of the

preferable ballot by the current leader is but another

ploy.

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): You can't even

listen right.

MR. WALLACE: Well, I must admit that I had difficulty

getting the script from CHEK television, who said I could only

get it from Mr. Bennett. If I had been allowed to obtain the

script, maybe I could have got things absolutely and totally

accurate. But I wasn't aware, Mr. Speaker, that CHEK-TV or any

other television station had the right to refuse a member of

the public a script of a programme which had been peddled to

the public only 24 hours before. But if the leader is a little

concerned that I haven't got everything absolutely tickety-boo,

perhaps he would be kind enough to let me have a copy of the

script of that programme. Then I can get every syllable

right.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the word was the "transferable…" — for Hansard .

MR. WALLACE: I think the phrase he used was "an alternative

form of balloting." But we all know what we are talking about.

Let's not get all mixed up in semantics.

Mr. Speaker, it does make one feel that one has seen it all

before and heard it all before. I would like to ask the leader

of the Social Credit Party (Mr. Bennett) where he was these

last 20 years.

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: And in the crunch, the voters of British

Columbia are going to have to choose between that approach and

the approach of other parties who offer, indeed, a more open

and participatory

[ Page 126 ]

approach to the functioning of their parties. In a democracy

the people choose freely and without coercion. I am confident

that every single B.C. voter is looking very carefully and very

knowingly at the B.C. political scene today.

It seems to us, Mr. Speaker, that in the age of Mincome and

mini-skirts and mini-cars and Minnie Mouse, the official

opposition has a leader who can best be described as Mini-WAC.

(Laughter.)

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: Did you miss that?

Mr. Speaker, there are just a few more points that I would

like to touch upon. The hour being as it is, I would move

adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the

House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:44 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1975, 2001, 2013: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada