1979 Legislative Session: ist Session, 32nd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, JULY 25, 1979

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

1001 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral questions,

Shaffer report on proposed transmission line. Mr. Lockstead –– 1002

Unbilled government revenue. Mr. Stupich –– 1003

Housing cooperatives. Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm replies –– 1004

Resort Municipality of Whistler Amendment Act, 1979 (Bill 34). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 1004

Mr. Barber –– 1005

Mr. Lorimer –– 1008

Mr. Nicolson –– 1010

Mr. Lauk –– 1010

Mr. King –– 1011

Mr. Mussallem –– 1013

Mr. Howard –– 1014

Mr. D'Arcy –– 1015

Mr. Barrett –– 1016

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 1019

Mr. Levi –– 1022

Mr. Gabelmann –– 1024

Mr. Cocke –– 1026

Constitution Amendment Act, 1979 (Bill 35). Hon. Mr. Curtis.

Introduction and first reading –– 1027

Presenting Reports

Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts and Economic Affairs Report

No. 1.

Mr. Hall –– 1027

Appendix –– 1028

WEDNESDAY, JULY 25, 1979

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I

would like all members of the House to bid a special welcome to a

gentleman who's visiting Victoria from Victoria. He is the Hon. Haddon

Storey, QC, the Attorney for the State of Victoria in Australia. We'd

like to bid him an especially good welcome today.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce to the House some distinguished

Victorians who, through your courtesy, are on the floor of the assembly

today. They are representatives of the Victoria Budgets fastball team,

which recently won a gold medal for Canada at the Pan-American Games in

San Juan, Puerto Rico. As most Victorians know, the Budgets have been

carrying on a tradition of Victoria fastball supremacy, inherited in

1978 from the predecessor team, Victoria Bates.

Without too

much detail, Mr. Speaker, I would wish to recite some of the impressive

victories won by Victoria Bates and Victoria Budgets in the last

decade: British Columbia champions, 1969, then 1971 through 1979;

Canadian champions, 1975 through 1979; world champions, 1976; gold

medalists, Pan-Am Games, 1979. It's an impressive record, Mr. Speaker.

I think, sir, if I may say so, Victoria has obviously one of the best,

if not the best, fastball teams in the world. I'm sure all members will

join me in welcoming to the House Harvey Stevenson, field manager; Jack

Bell, general manager; Bob Holness, shortstop; and Mark Scott, sponsor

of the gold medal-winning Victoria Budgets.

MR. BARBER:

On behalf of my colleague for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) and every member of

the official opposition, I'd like to add our congratulations to the

Victoria Budgets team. I'd like to add, if I may, a word to that of the

Provincial Secretary, who congratulated them for their skill. I should

like to congratulate them for their stamina. I was invited to attend an

exhibition game on Saturday last. It started at 7 o'clock. Ordinarily,

it would run seven innings. It ended at five minutes to twelve, 21

innings later. They are an amazing team — tremendous guts — and they

won the game at the top of the twenty-first inning. Congratulations!

MR. KING:

I would like to introduce a distinguished gentleman whom I spotted in

the Speaker's gallery today. He is Mr. Les Keen, president of the

Social Credit Party of British Columbia. I understand that Mr. Keen has

arrived today to watch his flock, and he has a roll of patching tape in

his pocket. I welcome him to Victoria.

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

Next week in the municipality of Richmond the British Columbia Summer

Games will begin. They will be held on August 3, 4 and 5, with the

official opening on the evening of August 2. All members of the

assembly have been invited to attend either the opening ceremonies or

the days of the events.

On behalf of the 1,700 volunteers from Richmond who are working to make the

games a great success, I'd like to introduce two distinguished Richmond

residents: Mrs. Irene Vennard, who was president of the Richmond Summer Games

Society, and Mrs. Barbara Gresczmiel, a director of the Summer Games.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

I'm very pleased and honoured to have with us today my terrific son,

Jeff, and his wonderful and beautiful wife, and my daughter-in-law,

Cheryl. I ask the House to bid them welcome.

MR. KEMPF:

It is my very great pleasure to introduce three individuals in the

Speaker's gallery this afternoon. Mrs. Pat Euverman is a resident of my

hometown of Houston. Pat is the daughter of a gentleman who was a very,

very the Speakerclose friend of mine, and who was the first mayor of

the district of Houston when it was formed a few years ago. I ask the

House to give a very special welcome to Pat this afternoon.

Not

to be outdone, I too acknowledge our esteemed president of the British

Columbia Social Credit Party. With him this afternoon is Mr. Daryl

Anderson, president of the Coquitlam-Moody Constituency Association. I

ask the House to make all three of these people very welcome.

HON. MR. CHABOT:

We have in the galleries today a group of people from the community of

Kimberley: Mrs. Myra Farquhar and her two children, Janet and Grant;

Mrs. Elsie Jones and her daughter Tanya; Agnes and Sonny Nomland,

formerly of Kimberley, now of Victoria — an unsuccessful candidate for

the NDP nomination in Columbia River in the last election; and we also

have Mrs. Martha Herron from Kimberley. I'd like the House to join me

in welcoming them to this House.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr.

Speaker, it is not often that I have the privilege of having any of our

family in the gallery, because we live rather a long distance away; but

today is very special because in the gallery are members of our family

from Englnd whom I've not yet met. Visiting here today are Mr. Len

Holding, his daughter, Mrs. Rita Kirby, and Mrs. Kirby's son and

daughter-in-law, Mr. and Mrs. John Kirby. They are visiting Canaa from

Benfleet, Essex, England, and I would ask all the House to give them a

very warm welcome.

Should anyone in the gallery have been

omitted from the welcomes today, I would welcome all of you on behalf

of the members of this Legislature.

MR, BARRETI : I have four friends in the gallery today, Mr. Speaker:

Mr. and Mrs. Kennedy from Nanaimo, and their relatives, Mr. and Mrs. Kennedy

from London, England. I ask the House to welcome them.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

In the gallery today are good friends, Don and Virginia Shwery of North

Vancouver, their son, Dr. Ken Shwery, and Louise DuPerron of Windsor,

Ontario. I would ask the House to give them a warm welcome.

MR. ROGERS:

It seems that today everyone will be introduced. Those who are on the

front line of the political process, out there where the rubber meets

the road, are the constituency secretaries. This being summer, we give

our constituency secretaries a day off, and they are allowed to come to

Victoria for the day. I would ask the House to

[ Page 1002 ]

welcome Susan MacLeod, who is our constituency secretary for Vancouver South, and who is having a wonderful day off in Victoria.

MR. SEGARTY:

Mr. Speaker, in your gallery this afternoon are some guests from

Cranbrook in the Kootenay constituency: Miss Lisa Moore and her sister

Lara, who are here visiting with their aunt, Kathie Walsh, and her

daughter, Kendra. I would like the House to join with me in welcoming

them this afternoon.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Not to be

outdone by all the distinguished guests we have, I would like the House

to welcome Mrs. Mae Ross, a distinguished British Columbian and a

strong supporter and friend of mine.

MR. HOWARD: I'm sure the House will join me in welcoming all those visiting the Legislature today who have not yet been recognized.

Oral Questions

SHAFFER REPORT ON

PROPOSED TRANSMISSION LINE

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I have a

question for the Minister of Environment. Was Dr. Shaffer telling the

truth when he said that he prepared a report for the Environment and

Land Use Committee secretariat and the government which dealt with the

economic justification for the proposed 500-kilovolt transmission line

to Vancouver Island?

HON. MR. MAIR: As the member opposite is so often, he was half right.

Interjections.

HON. MR. MAIR: Give a straight question and you'I get a straight answer.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: On a supplementary, can the minister confirm that Dr. Shaffer was paid approximately $8,000 for his report?

HON. MR. MAIR:

Mr. Speaker, this is probably a good time to explain a few facts to the

member opposite. I'm not surprised that the member opposite does not

want to learn the facts. It wouldn't be as much fun if he knew the true

situation. The Environment and Land Use Committee is a committee, as

the member might know, made up of a number of cabinet ministers — eight

or nine in number — of which I happen to be the chairman. There is also

an Environment and Land Use Committee secretariat, and this secretariat

is chaired by Mr. Dennis O'Gorman. The secretariat sometimes takes

directions from the Environment and Land Use Committee, and sometimes

does things on its own initiative. That's the strength of the

committee. It isn't always at the behest of the government, but it is

there for the government when it needs it.

On its own initiative (I'm instructed by Mr. O'Gorman) sometime earlier

this year it decided to investigate the question of the Cheekye-Dunsmuir line.

I emphasized the words "on its own initiative," Mr. Member. I am

now instructed by Mr. O'Gorman that among other people whom he talked to

was a Dr. Shaffer. I've never met Dr. Schaffer. I don't know the man.

I wouldn't know him if I ran into him wearing my clothes. But out of the

funds made available to the Environment and Land Use Committee secretariat,

Mr. Speaker, so that they can do their thing, as it were, I'm instructed

that Dr. Shaffer was indeed paid $8,000 for a report he submitted to the secretariat.

That report has never been made available, nor should it have been. I haven't

asked for it, nor would I ask for it.

Interjection.

HON. MR, MAIR: But I am. If you'd shut up for a minute you'd get the full answer. Didn't you get enough applause at your minstrel show?

MR. SPEAKER: Order please, hon. members. We have a question. Let's hear the answer.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, I'm instructed....

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please. Hon. members, it has become fashionable in question

period to be rather disorderly. I would suggest that we desist from the

practice and make question period an enjoyable 15 minutes.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

HON. MR. MAIR:

To complete the answer, Mr. Speaker, during my estimates the member for

Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) asked me about a document — and he'll correct

me, I'm sure, if I'm wrong — I believe on June 6 or 7. I'm advised by

Mr. O'Gorman that document, which is a memorandum between the

secretariat and myself — once again, as I say, on its own initiative —

does indeed incorporate some of the things he was told by Dr. Shaffer.

Dr. Shaffer's name is not mentioned in that report. I think you

probably have a copy of it. You certainly seem conversant enough with

it. Dr. Shaffer's name is not mentioned in that, and until the member

opposite mentioned Dr. Shaffer's name to me during my estimates, I

believe I'd never heard of the man. But I do understand that this

report was based, at least in part, on the service rendered to the

secretariat, not the government, by Dr. Shaffer.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

I have a further supplenientary. Can the minister tell us why he told

the residents at Sakinaw Lake just last Monday, some three days ago,

that no such report, memorandum or document existed?

HON. MR. MAIR:

First of all, Mr. Speaker, I might observe that the member for

Mackenzie wasn't there. Secondly, I did not say that. What I did say

was that to my knowledge no such report existed, and to my knowledge —

other than what Mr. O'Gorman told me this morning — no such report

exists today.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I have a further

supplementary, Mr. Speaker. First I want to correct the minister's

statement. I did ask the minister for an opportunity to ride in

[ Page 1003 ]

his airplane with him. He said there was no room for the MLAs.

Can the minister now confirm that this report advises against the proposed project?

HON. MR. MAIR:

First of all, I should advise the member opposite it was a no-smoking

airplane and that's probably one of the reasons. Secondly, Mr. Member,

I have never seen the report and there is no reason why I should want

to see it. I don't know how many times....

Interjections.

HON. MR. MAIR:

May I have the protection of the Chair, Mr. Speaker? I take exception

to the remark made to me by the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr.

Lauk) which implied that I was not telling the truth. If he did imply

that, I ask him to withdraw.

MR. SPEAKER: I must ask the hon. member for Mackenzie if indeed he was imputing any....

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Yes, I was telling the truth.

MR. SPEAKER: Sorry, hon. members — I misunderstood. Was the first member for Vancouver Centre imputing any improper motive?

MR. LAUK:

No, I wasn't, Mr. Speaker. He sought protection of the Chair, and I

said, "Seek protection in the truth," which is good advice to all hon.

members.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, I find it

surprising that this is a satisfactory answer, but I yield to the

Chair. Before I was so rudely interrupted by the members opposite, I

said that the report that the secretariat sought, and apparently

received from Dr. Shaffer is something that they are entitled to get

involved in on their own initiative, and they did so on their own

initiative. They reported back to me quite gratuitously, but I'm

thankful for the report based on what Dr. Shaffer told them. There is

nothing sinister about that. The Environment and Land Use Committee

secretariat often resorts to outside experts in order to help it with

the problems that it is trying to resolve. Once again, it seems to me,

they protest a little too much.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I have

a further supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Now that the minister has agreed

that the report exists, will the minister agree to table the Shaffer

report, and/or the memorandum, in this Legislature? Will he make public

these facts about economic justification for that line? This government

is hiding behind that report. They are afraid of what's in that report.

Make it public — we paid for that report.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I cannot accept the question in that it asks for the future activity of the minister.

UNBILLED GOVERNMENT REVENUE

MR. STUPICH:

A couple of weeks ago the Minister of Finance observed that was the

first question he had been asked in the session. He then took it as

notice. A week later he was asked another question he took as notice. I

would now like to try a third time.

This is a question about

the unbilled revenue of $26 million as of March 31, 1978, which the

auditor-general commented upon. We found out this morning that the

amount as of March 31, 1979, was in excess of $80 million, which

doesn't seem to tie in with what the Minister of Finance said a week

ago to the effect that those problems are long behind us. The current

figure is still in excess of $50 million, and we were also told this

morning that the main factor is an important person in the B.C. Systems

Corporation being taken away from Forests and given to Mines to do some

work there. I am wondering what work was going on in the Ministry of

Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources that was more important than

catching up to this $80 million of unbilled revenue. That's the

question. Surely the Minister of Finance is the minister responsible

for B.C. Systems Corporation — he's a director of B.C. Systems

Corporation; the decision was made by B.C. Systems Corporation.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the minister has the question.

a matter of fact, the practice of the House is that when questions are

taken as notice it is the prerogative of the minister to determine at

what time he wishes to bring the answer to the House, and it is

improper to ask the minister to even state a time when that will be.

Next question, please.

MR. STUPICH: This is a brand new question, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

The member has asked a question which relates to the transfer of people

for various duties throughout various ministries. This is not uncommon,

and I'm sure he realizes this. He would also realize, Mr. Speaker, with

regard to comments made about stumpage and the collection of timber

dues, that this is the responsibility of the Ministry of Forests. But I

think we should all appreciate the fact that notwithstanding what has

been said by the auditor-general, the moneys referred to have been

collected. There are no moneys that have not been collected. But the

whole situation here surrounds the collection of stumpage on timbers

which are cut and the delay which takes place subsequent to that before

it's possible to arrange for billing.

The member should be

well aware of the fact that during the tenure of the previous

government a new system was devised, Mr. Speaker, under which a further

delay was created in this process inasmuch as the fact that rate

determination.... Under the existing system, created by the former

government, a new system for delay in terms of the rate determination

was introduced back some five or six years ago, and this is no small

part of the current situation with regard to timber dues. We are

looking at this situation in terms of the time element involved in the

cutting of timber and the creation of the revenues in the hands of the

government. We are considering such means as interim billings and so

on. But I want to say that we're actively pursuing this matter, and the

money that has been referred to has been collected. It's just a

long-standing matter that the collection of timber dues has been

involved in a delayed process.

[ Page 1004 ]

MR. STUPICH:

Mr. Speaker, obviously the minister didn't hear my question. I'm asking

him as a director of B.C. Systems Corporation why this important person

was taken away from his work in forestry, where the billings were in

excess of $50 million behind, and transferred to the Ministry of Mines.

I'm wondering what was going on in the Ministry of Mines that was more

important than catching up on this backlog, which has got steadily

worse.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I think the

member is well aware of the fact I was not in attendance at the meeting

he is referring to. I would not have the information that he is

referring to. There was a delay in the transfer to a computer system

about a year or more ago, which I am advised is not currently a

problem. There are many more serious problems involved in the delay in

this total system which go back a long way.

MR. STUPICH:

On a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, I once again ask the minister

responsible for B.C. Systems Corporation, who is also a director of

that corporation, what the important work was in the Ministry of Mines

that meant that this person had to be taken off his very important work

in forestry, where they were $80 million behind in billing revenue, and

transferred to work in the Ministry of Mines. That's all I want to

know. What was going on in the Ministry of Mines that was so important?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Tell him, Bill.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The member for Nanaimo has a new question.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I would at least invite the minister to take the question as notice, if nothing else.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Thank you very much.

MR. STUPICH: Will he offer to look into it?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Okay.

HOUSING COOPERATIVES

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Mr. Speaker, I would like to provide an answer to the question posed by

the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) yesterday with respect to

co-ops.

Firstly, no letter was received by my office from

the manager for the city of Vancouver, Mr. Fritz Bowers, regarding

homeowner grants, but instead he corresponded directly with the

assistant deputy minister, who has been in contact with the manager.

Also,

the law is that the co-op owners receive homeowner grant cheques

indirectly. They are eligible, but under statute it must be paid to

co-op development rather than to individual owners.

The Vancouver city legal department brought forward an opinion stating that

a number of cooperative associations were ineligible for the homeowner grant

because of a clause in their memorandum of association which in effect states

that they can rent as well as sell to members. This opinion was confirmed through

the research by the Ministry of the Attorney-General. The cooperative association

will need to change their memorandum of association in order to qualify. I am

pleased to advise that cooperative associations favourably amending their memorandums

of association in 1979 will render their members eligible for the 1979 homeowner

grant. They need only make application in January 1980 under the retroactive

provisions of the statute.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Wrong again, Charlie!

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: I ask leave to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call second reading of Bill 34, Mr. Speaker.

RESORT MUNICIPALITY OF

WHISTLER AMENDMENT ACT, 1979

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please. Hon. members, the style of debate during Committee of

Supply is one where there are quick interchanges, and it quickly leads

to, perhaps, a noisy House. We are now moving into the debate on second

reading, in which we discuss the principle of Bill 34. I'm giving this

information particularly to those who are new members, and trust you

will remember that there's a different style of debate in principle.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's a pleasure to introduce Bill 34 and to

give, firstly, some explanation of it. The purpose of the Act is to

permit the formation of a resort association for the promotion and

development of facilities within the resort municipality of Whistler.

It has been requested by the resort municipality of Whistler, and the

resort municipality of Whistler is promoting a village for tourists at

the foot of the expanded ski facilities there.

For your

information, the first phase of the development is to provide 4,000 new

tourist beds, and the second phase is to provide for 9,000 additional

tourist beds. By 1980, 2,000 of these should be completed. There is

also, of course, the proposal for shopping centres and pedestrian

malls. The facility can provide for 10,000 skiers a day by 1980-1981.

That is the capacity of the ski lifts.

The members of the

Whistler council and their staff have very carefully studied all the

other resort areas in North America, particularly to try to provide us

with the most ideal situation and ensure we have the greatest

destination resort anywhere in North America. They have identified the

need to coordinate the efforts of the individual businesses to

establish an effective approach to marketing and sales management,

including such things as, possibly, a Zenith number to make it

convenient for people calling from other parts of North America, or

perhaps from Asia or Europe, to make reservations anywhere in the

Whistler area, and to find out what the facilities are, what is

available, or what the weather might be like at any particular time.

[ Page 1005 ]

[Mr. Nicolson in the chair.]

The

essential requirement for a resource association to assume

responsibility for the common area and maintenance is also of

particular importance. In order for this to be a quality resort we

should be in the position of providing a very high level of maintenance

and care within the common areas, particularly within the resort area.

Such should not be at the expense of the ratepayers within the Whistler

area, who are the normal taxpayers resident there. They are not

requesting a grant from the provincial or federal government. Instead

they want to do this promotion through their own efforts and in the

best way possible. It will perform similarly to a strata corporation,

and any voting structure developed within the corporation will be done

by way of bylaws. Such bylaws must be approved not only by the

municipal council but also by the Lieutenant-Governor-in Council. All

members of the association will determine the budget for promotion, for

sales, and for operation. All members will be assessed their portion of

those costs. It will be their decision. They will determine exactly

what is required and how they might contribute.

If you join

the association you will be aware of the responsibilities of membership

before joining. Notice of such will be on the certificate of title in

the land registry office.

I see here a great opportunity for

us to establish a resort that could well compete with any other in

North America or, possibly, in the world. I think all members on both

sides want this to be a tremendous success, not only in providing a

tremendous facility for those who live in British Columbia or in the

greater Vancouver area, but for people from any other part of Canada or

from North America who wish to visit British Columbia and enjoy its

beauty. We want it to be a success. Such success will be largely

dependent on the quality and extent of their promotion.

Again,

I think all members should be grateful that these people are willing to

take it on, that they are not coming with their hands out to seek

grants. Unified, they are prepared to assure us that this occurs, and

that it occurs effectively.

I move second reading. I'm proud to do so, and I hope I'll gain the support of all members here.

MR. BARBER:

If only this bill were as simple and straightforward as the minister

makes out it is. If only the bill were a simple attempt to promote

tourism and recreational opportunities in British Columbia. If only the

bill were a simple, clear and above-board device for doing some things

in public which publicly interested people would want to have done in

the first place. The problem is, it is no such bill at all. The problem

is, it is being promoted by a government which has found a very curious

means for supporting their friends in the real estate speculation and

development business.

This is not the ordinary bill we would

expect to see when a group of individuals want to incorporate. If that

were the case, they would have brought forward a private bill. As does

the Vancouver Stock Exchange, or any other group of people in British

Columbia, they would have promoted a private bill at their own expense,

the purpose of which would be to allow them to band together in some

corporate fashion to do something or other for themselves. But no,

that's not what we have. It isn't the expected private bill. Rather it

is a government bill. I'll get back to that in a moment.

Referring

to the minister's brief opening remarks, it should be made very clear

that this is a bill the like of which we have never seen before in this

Legislature. The sole purpose of this bill is to promote the private

interests of private developers — period. The public interest, the

public advantage and the public good is utterly ignored in this bill.

No attention is paid to it whatever. Only private developers will

benefit.

There were a number of other routes this government

could have taken, and I will discuss those in a moment. The fact that

they took this one betrays more of their real intent than the minister

will ever care to admit. It's the opinion of the official opposition

that Bill 34 is the single most dangerous, defective and mistaken bill

the Social Credit government has introduced this session.

will pass. This bill will pass. They have the votes to make it pass.

But it is a bill which betrays the public interest in several

significant ways. It betrays the public interest and sells it out to

private interest, private benefit and private profit. It is a

dangerous, defective and mistaken piece of legislation that calls into

question the commitment of this government, if any, to doing anything

other than supporting and giving whatever they want to its friends.

This

bill betrays a scheme that involves huge numbers of people, that

involves a huge scale of enterprise and that involves huge profits.

Thanks to this bill, no public interest and no public profit will be

guaranteed.

In a moment we will get, as will my colleagues

as well, to ask who really wrote this bill. Who really designed Bill

34? It will surely and clearly benefit private interests — foreign

interests as well, it should be noted — and private developers. We have

a number of questions we'll be asking in committee about who really

wrote this and on whose instructions. We'll be asking questions of the

MLA for Whistler, the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams), who is no

longer in his chair. We'll be asking questions about stories we've

heard about affidavits that have had to be signed. We'll be asking

questions about the unusual secrecy precautions this government took

right up until the moment they dropped the bill. It is a very curious

piece of legislation. It does nothing but sell out the public interest

to private and foreign interests in the field of recreational

development at Whistler.

The first reason this bill is

dangerous is because it turns over for private gain what should have

been retained for public benefit. These foreign interests, as well as

private interests, it should be understood, include the firm of

Twentieth Century-Fox, incorporated in Delaware in 1952, which owns the

Aspen Skiing Corporation. It paid $50 million a year and a half ago for

that privilege. Aspen Skiing Corporation is itself the 50 percent

owner, together with the Federal Business Development Bank, of Fortress

Mountain Resorts Ltd., a Calgary-based company which operates four

skiing operations in the province of Alberta.

Thanks to a

decision taken by the former Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr.

Nielsen), Fortress Mountain Resorts Ltd. will be the principal

beneficiary but not the only beneficiary of this Act. The minister, in

his introductory remarks today, failed to tell us that the half-owner

of this company is an American corporation, Twentieth CenturyFox.

[ Page 1006 ]

failed to tell us, as well, that a Canadian company applied for the

development rights at Whistler and Blackcomb. The Canadian company was

turned down. Fortress Mountain Resorts Limited, half-owned by Aspen

Skiing Corporation, which is 100 percent owned by Twentieth

Century-Fox, an American corporation, will be the principal but not the

only beneficiary of this most curious piece of legislation. That's the

first reason it's dangerous.

Secondly, this bill is

dangerous because it sets an incredible precedent, one which we've

never seen before. This bill creates for the first time in British

Columbia a private corporation that has taxing authority. It creates a

private corporation with taxing authority over an area of land in this

province which has enormous potential wealth and value.

Section

22 of this bill provides that the private corporation known as the

Whistler Resort Association may levy charges against its members. It

may levy charges against, as will inevitably result, every landowner in

the area designated under

schedule A and the new

schedule B as provided

for in the former and the current legislation. This has never been done

before in this province.

The minister will no doubt reply:

"Strata corporations can levy charges and fees." That is utterly

irrelevant to what will happen under

section 22 here. A strata

corporation that owns 40 units on Heywood Avenue in Victoria is nothing

compared to what will happen at Whistler and Blackcomb if this bill

goes through. You have created a private taxing corporation, and you

have at the same time denied any protection under other statutes that

ordinarily are found to protect the residents of strata corporations.

We'll get to that in a moment.

Thirdly, it is dangerous

because you have created a system of weighted voting. It's a matter now

of public record, and I presume the minister won't deny it, that this

bill will allow persons who have enormous wealth to exercise enormous

voting privileges and enormous numbers of votes in the day-to-day

decision making of the Whistler Resort Association. If the minister

cares to deny his own comments, saying that weighted voting will not be

the result of the creation of the Whistler Resort Association, let him

so deny it; and let him deny it to the press that he told it to three

days ago; let him deny it to the people who have his words on tape.

This government proposes to create a system of weighted voting; this

government will thereby permit a system that once again will

disfranchise the small, single, private owner at Whistler and instead

further the sell out to massive development and speculation interests

and the foreign interests of a company like twentieth Century Fox

Limited. If the minister cares to deny today what he admitted three

days ago about weighted voting, let him deny it.

It is

further dangerous, because sections 17 and 19 make it perfectly clear

that the inevitable result of this bill will be to require — not

permit, but to require — participation in the Whistler Resort

Association. How will it do that? It will do that by such bylaws as are

passed with, no doubt, the full consent of the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, and by such economic pressure as can be

brought to bear on those few people who may choose to hold out against

the awesome authority you've given to this private taxing corporation

of Whistler. However, you needn't take my word for it; you can read the

explanatory note in the bill. What does it say? The second sentence

says: "The bill requires participation in the association in order to

further the association's goals." Now we didn't write that; this is the

explanatory note provided by legislative counsel. The bill does not

permit or simply allow participation by property owners at Whistler,

schedules A or B; the bill requires it. Your own explanatory note makes

clear the inevitable outcome of sections 17 and 19.

MR. BARRETT: There goes democracy.

MR. BARBER:

Precisely. What kind of democracy is this for the people at Whistler,

for those individual landowners and homeowners, for those individual

business operators who may not care to get caught up in this giant

cartel involving foreign interests? What democracy is this?

The

bill looks even more dangerous when you read

section 18. Not only have

you created a private taxing authority that will allow foreign

interests and developers' interests to make enormous profits from the

enormous numbers of people who will be using this private facility, but

you have also denied the very minimal basic protection that any other

citizen would be entitled to if he were confronted with this kind of a

scheme. You have denied the protection of the Municipal Act and you

have denied the protection of the Companies Act to the people at

Whistler.

Now why would a government choose to do this? If

it were an ordinary bill, creating an ordinary corporation for an

ordinary purpose, you would think they wouldn't be afraid of the

Companies Act; you would think that this government might not be afraid

of the public reporting and public decision-making provisions in the

Companies Act. But no, Mr. Speaker, it appears they are afraid of that

because they have specifically exempted the corporation they propose to

create from those provisions. Indeed, all we see is that the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may order that certain provisions of the

Companies Act apply. There is no binding requirement to do so; it's our

guess that none will ever be made to apply. To the extent that Social

Credit favours big developers and foreign interests, it is to that same

extent that they will never take advantage of the one remaining

protection that the Companies Act provides, which is that they may

order application of its provisions.

Now why does the

Whistler Resort Association need this kind of protection? What business

do they propose to do in secret that they would rather not do in

public? Why do they want exemption from the Municipal Act and the

Companies Act if everything they're going to do is above board, if all

of the connections this secret society has are with people whose only

interest is the public good? Is it possible that there are people who

will benefit from this curious piece of legislation who would rather

not be known about, who would rather their connections with the

governing party were not understood, who would prefer that the

enlightening provisions and the public accountability provisions of the

Companies and Municipal Acts did not apply to them? Is it possible they

need protection because they've got something to hide? Is it possible

that this most curious piece of legislation is designed to protect the

names and the interests of those who will happily read under

section 18

that they are exempt from the provisions of the Companies Act and the

Municipal Act and, in fact, the Societies Act? We'll get to that in a

moment as well. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, if the bill were as simple

and straightforward as the minister pretended it was in his

[ Page 1007 ]

opening

remarks, no simple, straightforward corporation would ever ask for such

exemptions; no straightforward government would ever grant them.

The

bill is defective in a number of areas as well. This bill sets up a

brand new corporation, the authority of which is totally unrelated to

the authority of the corporation set up in the original Resort

Municipality of Whistler Act, 1975. In most amending bills — in all

that I've ever seen as a member of this House, and in all that my

colleagues can recall — that bill changes the language of some earlier

legislation, amends and alters it to make it more contemporary and

appropriate. We don't dispute that; that is fair and reasonable. An

amending bill amends an original bill. What do we find in this bill,

Mr. Speaker? Surprise, surprise! There are actually no amendments at

all — not one single amendment to the old Act. The old Act ran from

sections I to 13; the new Act runs from sections 14 to 22. Not a single

provision in the old Act is altered; not one genuine amendment can be

found in this bill.

There is some question raised,

therefore, Mr. Speaker, as to whether or not this bill offends against

the rules of the House and the requirements that are ordinarily

obtained and applied to an amending bill. Precisely because Bill 34

amends no previous legislation, but rather creates a brand-new

corporation in a brand new way, you have to ask why they would try to

do it under the cloak and the subterfuge of an old bill.

MR. LAUK: Ask the Speaker for an immediate ruling.

MR. BARBER: I won't do that at this time. [Laughter.]

But

you have to ask about the strategic intent of a government that doesn't

have the honesty to do what they should have done, which was to bring

in a separate bill and not pretend that it has anything to do with any

other bill. Your new bill doesn't amend a single word in the old Act.

You might as well have brought in an amendment to the B.C. Hydro Act

for all that this relates to any earlier legislation. In that regard

this bill is defective; it doesn't amend a single word in the previous

legislation.

The bill is defective in another regard.

section 14 tells us that resort land, a brand-new category that we

don't find in the Assessment Act, a brand-new term which we find in no

other law, to the best of our knowledge.... If I'm wrong I'll stand

corrected, but our researchers can't find any other reference to resort

land in any other statute. It creates something called resort land.

What's the definition, defective as it is, of resort land? Well, it's

simply this: it is the land described in

schedule B, and land deemed to

be resort land under

section 17(2), or a lot, stratalot, or other

parcel into which the land is subdivided.

What that tells

us, Mr. Speaker, is precisely nothing, and precisely this: resort land

will mean whatever the government wants it to mean. Later on my

colleagues will be talking about the extent to which beneficial

taxation and beneficial assessments may come finally to be applied to

resort land, and we will discover that not only is that giant scheme

denying the public interest, but this giant cartel will, in fact, be

given preferential consideration when it comes to tax time. Because now

they've been the beneficiaries of this new term "resort land" that

exists, to the best of our knowledge, in no other Act, but exists, to

the best of our knowledge, here only for a most curious purpose.

There

is a further aspect of this bill which, in our judgment, demonstrates

that Bill 34 is simply defective as well as dangerous and mistaken as a

matter of policy.

Section 17 provides, as far as we can tell, that any

land anywhere may come under the jurisdiction of the Whistler Resort

Association. Let me read to you, briefly, Mr. Speaker, subsection

(3) section 17: "An owner of land in a municipality that is not

described in

schedule B may, in accordance with the bylaws, become a

member of the association, and on becoming a member his land shall be

deemed to be resort land."

It could be any developer

anywhere, by the way, not just literally in the land around the

Whistler-Blackcomb Mountain area. It could presumably be land in the

Fraser Valley; this doesn't prohibit it. It could be land on Vancouver

Island. There is prohibition. Your bill is defective. There is no

prohibition. There is no prohibition against, by bylaw, the Whistler

Resort Association determining that someone somewhere or other....

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Come on, read the bill.

MR. BARBER: I just read subsection 17(3) to you.

That

someone somewhere may be deemed to be the owner of resort land, and

because of the taxing advantages that resort land may offer, she or he

will be able to take further public benefit from this very strange

piece of legislation.

Section 17(3), again, says: "An owner of land in the municipality...."

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes — "in the municipality."

MR. BARBER:

Just a minute. You have expanded under

schedule A and

schedule B what

that municipality shall constitute. and you may do so again in the

future.

schedule B into which we've been digging most intimately, may

itself be expanded by the provisions of 17(3), so you may go on and on

to amend the Act. Indeed, it should be pointed out that the ordinary

provisions of the Municipal Act regarding boundary expansion of a

municipality specifically don't apply. So don't tell me it's any

protection that just because it says "in the municipalities" you won't,

in fact, be including people who own vast holdings outside the area in

consideration, who own the mountain next to Blackcomb, the mountain

next to Whistler. Don't tell me that because you've exempted the

Municipal Act and the ordinary binding provisions of it from the

Whistler Resort Association you have any protection at all against the

legitimate fears that many people have, including us, as to what it is

you intend to do here, and what it is you intend to take advantage of.

"The

land shall be deemed to be resort land, " indeed. That is defective

legislation. You can amend the municipal boundaries any time you like.

This Act does not provide any of the protections that ordinarily would

be provided. It's defective legislation to that extent as well.

is further defective because this bill may well create preferential

taxation for resort land. I made that point before, but let me make it

again. If you have a

schedule of taxation for resort land, introduce it

during second reading and we'll withdraw that objection. If you have a

specific

schedule of taxation for resort land as you intend it to be

applied under the provisions of Bill 34 when enacted, bring

[ Page 1008 ]

those schedules, tell us what the taxation will be, tell us how you

propose to tax resort land. If you don't do that, if you're not

prepared to tell us whether or not you have any intention of granting

preferential taxation to the owner of resort land, we can only conclude

that you just might. We can only conclude that just maybe you'll find

it to some advantage later on to create a new section, a new resort

land apparatus, under the Assessment Act or some other Act. The door is

wide open here for taxation abuse, for creating preferential tax status

for the owners of resort land, or those who "shall be deemed" to own

resort land. The bill is wide open for the further abuse of the public

purse in British Columbia.

The bill is defective in another

regard. It isn't a private bill; it isn't a bill sponsored by those who

propose to take advantage of its provisions. It isn't a bill like the

Trinity bill, like the usual Vancouver Stock Exchange bill, like the

UVic foundation bill. We have under our law more than adequate

provision for private persons or corporations to come forward and ask

for a charter, through the device of a private bill, for a new

corporation. Why, one has to ask, would this Whistler Resort

Association and its backers not want to choose the ordinary route if,

all they had in mind was the ordinary outcome?

It may have

something to do with the fact that when a private bill comes forward,

it comes forward to a committee of this House, and that committee has

the authority to call witnesses and documents. That committee has the

authority to bring into its debate people whom we cannot bring into

this debate here. If it had come forward as a private bill, the

opposition might actually have asked to meet with some of the

principals of Fortress and Twentieth Century-Fox. We might actually

have asked for documents. We may even have tried to subpoena documents

about the real intent of the owners of land described in

Schedule B of

this Act. So one presumes, Mr. Speaker, that the reason it didn't come

forward as a private bill was because the authors of this bill didn't

want to be grilled in the committee room where we have an opportunity

to call witnesses and documents. We are denied that opportunity here.

One wonders whose interests are being served when the ordinary course

of legislation is not followed.

Let me say again now what we

said at the outset. If this was just an ordinary bill, simply serving

ordinary purposes, it would have come forward as a private bill. It

would have gone to the standing committee on private bills and orders.

The authors of the bill would have been subject to examination and

cross-examination by the members of that committee. It's clear that

they prefer not to be subject to such questions. It's clear that they

prefer, instead, to get Social Credit to run it by for them.

This

bill is mistaken as a matter of public policy. It is mistaken because

all of the opportunities for public participation, all of the

opportunities for public gain and public benefit from this resource,

are denied. The minister tells us that tens of thousands of people will

be going up there paying, what I read in one document, $11 a shot for

the privilege of using that ski lift. Think of the profits involved,

Mr. Speaker, at $11 a shot — tens of thousands in a day. This bill will

return to the private purse, and to the foreign investor, millions of

Canadian dollars that could have come back to the public purse for

public good and expanded public facilities.

It's a matter of

public record that the previous government, in 1975, very late in its

term when it created the Resort Municipality of Whistler Act, proposed

as well at that time public development for all the people, and not

just private development for some of them, of the vast recreational

resources at Whistler and Blackcomb. Our government got kicked out in

December, and that plan came to nothing. What's the plan we see four

years later? Simply this: a plan in Bill 34 that will benefit foreign

corporations, that will benefit private developers, that will benefit

private speculators, on a scale we haven't seen in this province for

years. It has been years since we saw a Cypress Bowl go ahead under

Social Credit. It's been years since we heard talk of Wenner-Gren and

his trans-mountain trenches and all the private profit that would have

resulted if that lunatic scheme had proceeded. Now this year Social

Credit, up to its old tricks, is back here with what they pose and

pretend to be the most innocent of bills. Were it so, it would have

been brought forward as a private bill. But it is not. It's a

government bill. It's a government bill because the government is

paying off its friends and supporters. One can draw no other

conclusion. If it were not so it would have been a private bill. But,

no. Here it is, a government bill that amends no other piece of

legislation.

It's already a matter of public record that the editorial pages in this province, specifically that of the Vancouver Sun ,

as recently as yesterday, have found something wrong, defective,

mistaken and dangerous about this bill. Already it has become perfectly

clear that this bill will do more to create suspicion about the real

motives of its real authors, to create doubt about whether or not

Social Credit ever intends to protect the public interest, than almost

any other bill we've seen this government bring in previous, or current

forms.

It's a dangerous bill. You've created a dangerous

precedent. It's a defective bill. You have not met the ordinary

requirements of legislation and precedent, as far as presenting a

private incorporation of this sort. It is a mistaken bill. You have

betrayed the public interest and sold it out, instead, to private

developers and foreign developers.

This bill cannot be

supported by any person concerned about the proper development of

recreational resources in the province. This bill cannot be supported

by anyone who cares about the democratic rights of homeowners and

landowners of Whistler. This bill cannot be supported because we have,

to say the least, misgivings about who the real authors are, and who

the real beneficiaries shall be.

This is, by no means, the

first set of arguments the official opposition will present. By any

means, if the government had the courage and the good sense, they

should withdraw the bill. They won't, of course. They don't have the

guts. They are too much in hock to their supporters. They are too much

beholden to the real authors of this legislation.

It is a

bad bill that does no good thing except for those few private

corporations that will benefit from it. A government that genuinely

cared about the public interest would never have brought in something

like this in the first place.

MR. LORIMER: Mr.

Speaker, I want to congratulate the minister on his introductory

remarks. He gave his remarks with a straight face and he didn't break

up at all. I

[ Page 1009 ]

think the minister should be commended for his original remarks.

This

is an odd bill. One might even suspect it is an unconscionable bill.

What it does and what it doesn't do, what it says and what it doesn't

say, are very interesting things to contemplate. What is not said is

much more important than what is said.

Who wrote this bill?

We can be assured it was prepared by the developers of Whistler. It was

brought down to Victoria, probably in a brown manila envelope, and the

legislative counsel here were forced to redraft it down in size. But

the principle was not altered in any way.

MR. LAUK: They cut out the part about giving them power over criminal law.

MR. LORIMER: I think that's correct.

This

bill ruins a very good bill that was brought in during the previous

administration a bill that was preparing the Whistler area for public

involvement, for public benefit, and benefits for all the people of

British Columbia. There has only been a slight change in this

amendment. The thrust now is to give the benefits to a few private

operators. This bill amends nothing, and it doesn't at all deal with

the original bill. It is put in here as an amendment in order to

legitimize the amendment instead of having the amendment stand on its

own feet.

The Act will consist of 22 sections, and in those

22 sections there's the creation of two separate corporations. There is

the corporation of the village of Whistler and a private corporation

consisting of unknown people, unknown developers, who are intending to

use the great public resource for their private purposes.

I'm

very disturbed at the member for Whistler. The Minister of Labour (Hon.

Mr. Williams) is not here to make sure that the bill is properly put

through and to listen to the arguments that are presented in regard to

it. There is quite an absence of cabinet ministers in the House during

this debate. There is no other precedent in any British Columbia

statute for the government to give a private corporation the extensive

powers which this bill includes.

This is not the only resort

area. The next step we'll see is possibly Victoria. The merchants and

the developers in Victoria will want a private bill to help them to

make more funds out of the natural, public areas of Victoria.

What

about Penticton? What about the other ski resorts in the Interior? Why

can't they benefit in the same way as the developers of Whistler? This

is a bill which has only one principle, and that is a giveaway of the

rich recreational areas to the developers. It is welfare for the rich.

The control will be in the hands of the very few. Not only is the

control bad, but the fact is that the property will soon end up

possibly with foreign interests. We will find that Whistler is

completely controlled by absentee landlords.

The small

businessmen, the residents and the others who enjoy Whistler will be at

the mercy of the big boys. They will be dictated to, and the control

will be in the hands of a very few people. This is what you would pass

as jackboot legislation. It certainly means the end of democracy as far

as Whistler goes. Weighted voting will mean that the smaller people in

that area will have no say in the development of that community.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

The

other problem, of course, is that the municipality will be completely

controlled by the large interests of Whistler, and instead of

developing in a healthy way it will merely legitimize the desires and

the wishes of the large developers in the area.

I'd like the

minister to advise us why it was necessary to prepare certain

affidivits for people to sign. What was in those affidavits? I'm going

to ask him to table those affidavits, the ones that he had signed. I'd

like to know who didn't sign the affidavits, although requested to

sign. Maybe he can tell us all about the affidavits, and I'm sure,

before it goes into committee stage, the affidavits will be tabled. I'm

sure the minister will do that.

We hear reports of

dissension in the ranks of the cabinet in regard to this. Of course, I

am not sure of the truth of these vicious rumours. But before I go into

that in further detail, I want to mention a few other things. I want to

discuss the bill in a cursory manner, and I want to deal first with

resort land. It says that "resort land" means the land described and so

on, but it doesn't say what resort land is. What is resort land? Are we

going to expect another bill next year to give certain tax exemptions

or reductions for those areas which have been described in other bills

as resort land? Maybe the minister will tell us if there is going to be

some further legislation. Maybe the second boot will drop next winter,

the second jackboot, and we'll find that the concessions are put into

legislation. We don't know this. We'd like the minister to keep us

advised of what he intends to do.

There's an interesting

section here dealing with cornpulsory membership. I know of no other

corporation which involves compulsory membership whether you want to be

a member or not. The closest thing to it may be strata title, but

certainly before you go into the area, you know you're bound by strata

title. But here the people who are already residents are going to be

stuck and be bound by membership. Of course, this will not be subject

to the rules or the terms of the Companies Act, unless otherwise stated.

Interjection.

MR. LORIMER:

Yes, we've got the powers that be, those that drafted the bill, and

those that are presenting the bill in communication. So we should be

able to get all the answers.

Another

section deals with the

making of bylaws. There are going to be bylaws here and they are going

to set out how the operation is going to work. I'm sure that the

minister is going to table the proposed bylaws for us to review before

the bill goes into committee stage so that we can be better able to

understand what this giveaway bill is all about. So let's have a look

at it. Let's have some open government here and let's have a look at

what we're doing.

The weighted voting is an interesting one

as well, where those with the money have control of the destiny of

Whistler. My colleague has already dealt with that. I won't deal any

further with it, but it's an interesting concept. I don't know of any

other democratic organization where you have weighted voting.

Now

what happens to the little fellow who's caught up in the bill? He's

stuck by the decisions made through weighted voting by those two or

three operators who have control of the whole bundle.

[ Page 1010 ]

But

there's one thing to be said about this bill that's good, I think. It's

section 20 of the bill, and it says — this is a good one: "Where a

member of the association alleges that the affairs of the association

are being conducted or the powers of the association are being

exercised in a manner oppressive to one or more members, including

himself...the member may apply to the supreme court for relief." Now

that's a new twist. At least they can go to court. That's really the

something that's in this bill that looks good. But we don't know what

the bylaws are going to say about this, because I don't think that this

section fits in with the rest of the bill.

But as I

mentioned earlier, we do hear stories about dissension in the cabinet,

and those are distressing to me. I would hate to see this happen. But

there are a number of ministers running to the press, as I understand,

telling them: "Well, about this bill, I don't support it myself, but

I'm going to vote for it to keep cabinet solidarity." In other words,

they're making peace with the press, telling the press: "Don't blame

me, I'm clean."

I wonder what this bill is. Is it a Liberal

bill or is it a Social Credit bill? Now I'm convinced it's not a Social

Credit bill, because in the 20 years of Social Credit I never saw a

bill like this. I'm convinced it has to be a Liberal bill, and I'm

wondering whether the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams), being the

member for Whistler, is the designer of this bill. I'm sure that the

Minister of Labour will get up and address the House with reference to

this bill later on in the debate. He'll be able to tell us how and when

this was drafted.

I want to give some sympathy to the Social

Credit members here. I realize that this isn't one of their bills that

they would like to see put through, but they've been told they have to

vote for it. I just want to say that certainly coalitions are somewhat

bothersome, aren't they?

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker,

this is a most extraordinary Act, and I think that it has to be looked

upon as something that is being brought in under extreme pressure. I

was very disturbed to notice earlier that the member who represents the

geographical area of Whistler was not in the House. I'm pleased to see

that he has returned and will be here.

The whole treatment

of this Whistler area in the last couple of years is rather

extraordinary. One has to look at the announcement some months ago of

the TIDS agreement. At the time of that announcement it was announced

that of the $40 million or $50 million to come to British Columbia, $9

million was already committed to Whistler. When one thinks that at the

time of that announcement.... Others had to wait months for the

regulations to be drafted, in order to find out whether or not they

could apply as travel generators. It made me rather suspicious of what

activities might be taking place up there, and what special privileges

might be being conferred, and to whom.

When this bill comes

into the House, I think it is absolutely remarkable. I can only say

that I thoroughly agree with the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber)

that this should have been brought in as a private member's bill, and

that people should then have been brought before the committee,

subpoenaed and cross-examined, in order that we could get to the bottom

of this very sorry mess. I'm sure that the people of this province will

get to the bottom of this mess, but I'm afraid it's going to happen

after this bill has been passed and after British Columbia has

experienced another one of those sorry debacles comparable to the

Cypress Bowl issue.

I want the members of the back bench,

who are being told to get up and support this thing blindly, to be

fully aware that each and every member of this House — even those who

vote against it — is going to be tarred with the brush of favouritism

and patronage. We are all diminished. Even those who fought against the

Cypress Bowl issue bear that stigma. Whenever one of these sorry things

is passed through a legislature or passed by an order-in-council or by

some Act of government, it reduces the esteem in which politicians are

held by the public.

I now intend to take my seat, in the

hope that the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) will get up and

explain why he has brought pressure on his government, and why he has

seen fit to create a division in cabinet in order that his wishes can

be fulfilled in bringing this piece of legislation before us here today

in this manner.

MR. LAUK: I'll be brief with respect

to this bill. I want to associate myself with the remarks of the first

member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) and with the other speakers on this

side of the House with respect to the motivation behind this bill and

the critique of the bill, which has already been so eloquently stated.

think that we should perhaps retitle the bill "A Bill to Create the

Sovereign State of Whistler." As of 1857, the laws of Canada and the

laws of this province were to be passed in a democratic fashion. It

would be worthwhile to cast our minds back and recollect our history

lessons about the colony of British Columbia and the colony of

Vancouver Island prior to 1857. Who passed the criminal laws and the

civil laws? Who appointed the judges, the tax collectors and the

police? Was it a democratically elected body? No, it was the board of

directors of the Hudson's Bay Co. who appointed the governor of the

colonies in this area. A private corporation ran the colonies by

imperial letters patent.

Not since 1857 has an attempt been

made to return to that kind of system. A Hudson's Bay governor could

hang employees. They are creating a sovereign state. Maybe they should

appoint a king of Whistler. Maybe that king should be the MLA for

Whistler himself. It is a sorry thing indeed, Mr. Speaker, that a

member of this chamber can be so pressured by his friends — unnamed so

far — to push for this statute and bring it into this House to benefit

those few friends at the expense of democracy and fair play.

are told by some of the principals involved whose names we know that

many land deals are now in process, and this bill has to be gotten

through the procedures of this chamber as quickly as possible so that

when the registration of those deals comes before the land registry,

they will not have to deal with the ordinary laws of this province, but

they can deal in the backroom fashion provided for under this statute.

MR. BARRETT: Switch, switch. Turn out the light.

MR. LAUK:

Yes, the lights are going out, Mr. Speaker. A small municipality in

this province in the Minister of Labour's constituency is now beyond

the sovereign jurisdiction of this Legislature when this bill passes.

And there has been press speculation that this bill was brought in the

[ Page 1011 ]

twilight

hours at this session of the Legislature for the very reason that they

had hoped to catch the opposition napping, that we would be here asleep

as the member for Whistler and his willing servant bring the bill into

the House. He's sort of a houseboy for the member for Whistler.

The

serious aspects of this bill already mentioned in debate cannot be

characterized in any other way than as a deliberate attempt on the part

of this government — and particularly the member for West

Vancouver–Howe Sound — to slide through a bill that would defeat the

democratic process at the municipal level. The appointment of the king

and council of Whistler, as set out in this statute in secrecy, with

the power to tax and penalize homeowners and residents in Whistler, is

a travesty, Mr. Speaker, and it should be considered totally

unconstitutional. It should be struck down by the courts of the land.

This kind of attempt by this government — and particularly the MLA for

Whistler — is a shabby performance indeed and cannot be condoned by the

Legislature on this side of the House or the people of British Columbia.

MR. KING:

I really felt that the Minister of Labour would get up and take his

place in this debate. I believe, and I feel that the rest of the House

knows, that the Minister of Labour is really the architect of this

bill, that the Minister of Labour, with his Liberal confrères who have

parachuted into that remnant of the Social Credit Party on that side of

the House, has flexed his muscles, because there is a slim plurality

for that government, and demanded as the price for their continued

support of the coalition that this bill to benefit their developer

friends be pushed through this session of the Legislature. The Minister

of Labour apparently lacks the courage to get up and state his position

on this bill, to defend it and to own up to the fact that he has been

guilty of trampling over the interests and the point of view of quite a

number of his colleagues within that group over there, that coalition

over there.

One of my colleagues made the point that some of

the ministers have gone to the press. They've gone to the media and

said: "Look, we don't agree with this approach. This approach is all of

the things which the opposition has characterized it as. It reverses

and abandons the democratic principle of one person-one vote; it

completely abandons the principle of one person-one vote." It provides

instead that the rich, the developers who have the property and the

money, will be in a position to dictate and control and set levies on

all of the residents of that Whistler area.

Who are those

people, Mr. Speaker? I believe they are people to whom the member for

that particular constituency owes political debts. I believe that the

Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) and his seat mate

both know better than to go this route. I believe that as remnants of

the old Social Credit populist group they do not believe in this kind

of oppressive treatment of small individuals, individual taxpayers.

They are being put at the mercy of the large developers. But they have

compromised themselves to the Minister of Labour and his Liberal

friends. They must rely on them for their support in this chamber to

retain power. The price of retaining power is to sell out principle and

to deliver this absolutely scandulous power to a group of developers

and millionaire foreigners. I don't think there is even a car dealer

among them. It is bigger money than that. Much of it came from outside

British Columbia and Canada. Were it not for the need of support to

retain power in this institution, I don't believe that the Minister of

Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) and the Minister of Economic

Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), who had some conscience as Social

Crediters, would tolerate this bill at all. They would be opposing it.

They would have used their influence in cabinet to ensure that those

slick, Liberal downtown lawyers didn't run over their interests and

didn't scandalize this Legislature with this kind of bill. It is an

absolute insult to democracy in the province of British Columbia.

Where

is the Minister of Labour? He's sitting back there silently, blushing,

apparently not even deigning to give counsel to his poor confrère, the

Minister of Municipal Affairs, who has the misfortune to be charged

with the responsibility of piloting this bill through the Legislature.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs is now a throwaway commodity on that

side of the House. He is tarnished because he locked horns with the

Minister of Human Resources. He was admonished and sanctioned by the

Minister of Human Resources for his intemperate comments regarding

ICBC. He was admonished and repudiated by the Premier in his office,

and he is saddled with having to do the penance of piloting a bill

which is the start of erosion of democracy in the province of British

Columbia. What is going to be next, Mr. Speaker? What community is

going to be next? The rich landowners and the large, corporate

businesses that control the economic destiny of the community receive

weighted votes and use that muscle, granted to them by their friends in

the Social Credit government, to dictate to the majority. It is no

longer one person one vote. How can anyone in 1979 defend that archaic,

retrogressive approach to democracy in the province of British

Columbia? It is a crime and a sham. I am just appalled that the

Minister of Municipal Affairs would allow himself to become the pawn in

this kind of game.

This is a bill which is purely and simply

the repayment to the developers who put up the front money to get the

Minister of Labour elected in West Vancouver–Howe Sound; that's the

kind of bill it is. Why else would the government grant to a private

group of developers the authority to not only run the affairs, set the

rules, but to apply assessments on the people who happen to live in

that designated community? This is the power to print money, Mr.

Speaker. It is the power to write money that is being handed over to a

private corporate group. It is a licence to write money, and if that is

not a payoff, a repayment of Social Credit Party debt, rammed through

this Legislature because of the obligation the Liberal members feel to

the people who have supported them and provided them with succour in

their spotted and checkered political careers, then I don't know what

it can be characterized as. It is a ripoff of major proportions.

The

thing that alarms me about it most is the principle and the precedent

established with the passage of this bill. What and who are next? Which

other MLA in this Legislature, on the government side, is going to find

that there is no adequate way to pay back the debts he owes to those

who, behind closed doors, have provided him with the front money to get

elected? He will have to provide a private reserve so they can assess

taxes, as it were, print money, control the community and decide who

shall stay in business and who shall be out of business. Those are the

implications, Mr. Speaker. It is easy to put a small enterpriser out of

business. You simply adjust his assessment, and that is the power they

are handing over. Which one is going to be next?

AN HON. MEMBER: How many votes does he get?

MR. KING:

How many votes will they get under the weighted voting system? Is it

going to be that the corporation that has a $50 million investment in

that community has 1,000 votes to the 1 vote of the small developer?

They are going to set their own bylaws. The principle of weighted

voting is established by statutory authority in this legislation, and

those people have the audacity to say that they stand for free

enterprise, for competition, for private property rights. I say that

this bill is a complete repudiation of private property rights.

Individual landowners in the Whistler area will only be able to retain

their property ownership by the sufferance of the large monopoly

enterprises which set the assessments with their weighted voting

control — and the groundrules and the bylaws that would be applicable

in that community. That's what is being handed over, Mr. Speaker. I

don't wonder that there is a lot of consultation going on that side of

the House. This bill is a scandal.

I challenge the Minister

of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) to get up and confess that he is the one

who insisted that this bill be brought before the Legislature. I demand

that he get up and identify where he stands on this issue. I demand

that the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), who, I

believe, has gone to the press and said, "Well, I don't really agree

with this bill; I'm a nice person, and it flies in the face of

everything I believe in as an old Socred," quit trying to play the nice

girl. Get up and speak in this debate on this bill and tell us where

you stand. Have the courage, you and your colleague from North Peace

River.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Are you saying I'm not a nice girl?

MR. KING:

No, I would leave that to the judgment of the Speaker, but not the

Minister of Labour. Mr. Speaker, I think that the minister might suffer

by that assessment.

I challenge the Minister of Labour

particularly to get up and enter this debate. I believe that the

Minister of Human Resources and her colleague from North Peace River

oppose this bill. I believe it's a fact that they went to the media and

said: "Look, we disagree with this, but we have to maintain cabinet

solidarity." Now I suggest that no one can be a little bit pregnant.

You have to stand for something. If you do not believe in this bill,

then have the courage, have the commitment and the dedication, to stand

up and say so. If that means that there is a show of disagreement and

discord in that cabinet, I would say that they could at least walk away

from that shambles with their heads held high saying that they stood

for principle and stood for the interests of the citizens of British

Columbia, rather than their own narrow political interests. That would

be refreshing.

The other aspect, Mr. Speaker, is that if

that kind of rift exists, that's nothing to be ashamed of. Everyone

knows you're a coalition of varying brands of political philosophy, and

in some cases none at all. You've come together as diverse elements for

negative purposes. And if you're starting to create a shambles over

there and fight with each other in public and in this Legisature, it

would be far better that you protect the public interest than go to

these lengths to hide the degree of disagreement fraught within that

cabinet.

AN HON. MEMBER: Well, there's our next leader.

MR. KING:

We have all kinds of leaders on this side, my friend. The problem is

that on that side of the House they don't even have one leader. Where

did Billy-boy run to? He should be in this House facing the music. All

you have, Mr. Speaker, is a runaway Premier who, when confronted with

something controversial, has consistently, ever since he assumed

leadership of that party, run away from every issue and hid in his

office.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Who does he leave to take the

heat? Poor little Bill, because at one time he was viewed to be a bit

of a challenge to the leadership of the Premier. Not any more; he's

been repudiated to the extent that now he's made the whipping boy and

the scapegoat for this kind of deplorable legislation. Shameful!

MR. SPEAKER Order, please. To the principle of the bill, please, hon.

member.

MR. KING:

All I'm asking is that minister pull the wings off this bill. Have the

courage and the fortitude to say you're not going to carry the can for

Mr. Clean, your Liberal colleague, who is the architect and the

designer of this bill and who sits there serenely letting you take the

heat for it. He wouldn't stand up and try to justify this kind of

legislation when he has a colleague who is, I suppose, gullible enough

to be charged with this seedy responsibility a very shameful

performance.

It's not a laughing matter by any means. The

people of British Columbia should be aware and they should be on notice

that this is a very serious and profound precedent to establish in the

year 1979. Weighted voting, indeed. We have the idea that the rich have

more votes than the average homeowner. The corporate giant is able to

flex his muscles by commanding more votes at the polls than the

individual property owner in British Columbia. And these birds say they

belong to free enterprise, that they believe in competition and in

democracy. You've abandoned the whole concept. Some new lawyers in that

group over there who should have more respect for the basic fundamental

concepts of justice and democracy — they're all hiding back. Not a

government member has spoken on this issue today, Mr. Speaker. They sit

there, struck dumb, in sombre silence.

Only the poor

minister who is in disgrace with the power echelon of that group is

charged with the responsibility. He's going to be remembered as the man

who refused to pull the wings off this bill. He's going to be the man

charged, and remembered, because he brought back the basis of saying,

"Every man for himself in a democracy," and by turning the elephants

loose in the dance among the chickens. That's what the principle means.

The big boys are going to dance around. They're going to exercise their

muscles, and their votes, and all the little landowners are going to

get flattened in the process. That is the Social Credit calibre and

standard of democracy.

[ Page 1013 ]

have the nerve and the colossal gall to make this kind of guarantee

under the statutory power of this province to a group of your rich

millionaire friends is a disgrace and an insult to your election, as

well as the traditions of this parliament, Mr. Speaker. It's doubly

scandalous to see a grown man, a minister of the Crown, an intelligent

man with legal training and past political credentials that were pretty

honourable, sit there with his head in his hands and sulk, rather than

get up and enter this debate. That's a sad sight. That's a pitiful

sight when you remember the traditions of a once useful Liberal Party

in the province of British Columbia. And it's worse when we understand

the significance of this, one of the most important debates that has

faced this Legislature in the last five years. And where is the

government leader? He's down hiding in his office again. Mr. Speaker, I

think the Premier should be up here. He should tell the people of

British Columbia through this Legislature, in debate, how he reconciles

the powers granted to private institutions under this bill with his

campaign slogans that he believed in free competitive enterprise, that

he believed in the right to individual ownership of land when this

bill, in fact, challenges that very fundamental right of British

Columbians to own and control their own land.

It's a sorry

day, Mr. Speaker. I feel really sad about it, and I wonder what the

backbenchers are going to do. It's not only the Minister of Labour

(Hon. Mr. Williams) who has used his political leverage to thrust and

push this bill through this Legislature. I suspect some of the new boys

on the back bench don't really appreciate the full implications of this

tarnishing of their political career for the rest of their lives

either. Get up and enter this debate. Try to find any rational ground

of argument or reason to defend it, and I'd be most interested — and I

would applaud you. Your silence, your embarrassment, your complete

disarray, tell us not one person on that side of the House is pleased

or proud of this legislation. Rather, it's a political repayment to

friends who have provided service and favours for individuals on that

side. And now they're coming back for repayment. Now they're coming

back for the pound of flesh they demand in return for their backdoor

favours. It's a sorry day in the political history of British Columbia,

Mr. Speaker.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Speaker, as the

applause dies down, and the innuendos and the insults are quickly

forgotten, because they have no consequence, we forgive them for what

they say because they know not what they say, because they have not

read or understood the principles that are involved in this bill. They

would give you the impression on that side of the House that some

member of government.... And they refer so ridiculously to the hon.

Minister of Labour. There's a man that would never sully himself with

one speck of what he was saying. I think those words by the previous

Minister of Labour (Mr. King) were certainly beneath his standard, and

I regret that he found it necessary to tter such remarks in this House.

The innuendoes are not called for in honourable debate.

tell you here that there is nothing mysterious about this bill.

[Laughter.] The mystery is that the opposition does not understand the

purpose and the intent of the bill. There is nothing new about the bill.

Interjections.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

You know, laughter and derision are an instrument used to confuse

certain people, but they do not confuse me at all. The shining light

intended in this bill is plain to be seen. Elements of this bill are

found in the professional societies Acts at various times; they're

found in the Strata Titles Act. Elements of this bill are in the strata

councils' Act and....

AN HON. MEMBER: The Criminal Code?

MR. MUSSALLEM:

And in the Criminal Code. [Laughter.] All of this, because from the

mouth of babes the truth comes out. Certainly the elements are in the

Criminal Code because they are subject to the Criminal Code; they are

subject to the laws of British Columbia; they are subject to the laws

and the edicts and the regulations of this Legislature. All these

things are common. What we have here is simply an amalgamation of the

municipal jurisdiction and corporate jurisdiction. That's a simple fact

— amalgamation as necessary.

Now what is the purpose of this amalgamation? I will tell you what the purpose is. It is time that this province....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. Let's hear the man who has the floor.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your kind words on keeping order.

will say this: what is the purpose? It is time that British Columbia

had an area of world standing. We have the physical property in

Whistler to engage this world standard operation. It takes large

amounts of money, millions of dollars.

I read in the press

that the council of Whistler asked for this bill and want this bill.

This is not for the purpose of protecting the people's millions but for

maintaining a status for this corporation that will have the high

standard and status only found at this time in Europe and the United

States. It will be a great ski resort that will bring in people from

the world. We need this in British Columbia, but no one is going to

invest $100 million so that at some time their assets will be diffused

by some unthinking people. They have to have the right to protect their

investment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BARRETT: Oh, special protection!

MR. MUSSALLEM:

They have the right to protect their investment, and to bring

people.... Airplanes by the score will be bringing people to Whistler

from all over the world. People will flock to Whistler, and this will

be a big centre. It's time we had a world centre of this status.

words are misunderstood; what I say is not misunderstood. What I am,

saying is that it is needed. We need this corporation. No one will

gamble their money by chance. This is in an area....

Interjections.

[ Page 1014 ]

MR. MUSSALLEM:

You have got to give some reasonable assurance that they have tenure,

that they have responsibility, because this will bring millions in to

the coffers of this province. It is time that we recognize that we've

got to get into the big league. British Columbia has possibilities, but

we have to have the vision, and that is what our opposition is lacking.

This

bill is a good bill. They have no vision. They have to have the vision

that this is a great prospect for the future, to bring people from all

over the world to British Columbia.

MR. LAUK: Wenner-Gren, Cypress.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

Wenner-Gren was a great project, but it didn't work out. This is a

great idea; this is a bill that will make it so. It also may not work

out; no one knows. It may not work out, but we must open the doors, we

must create the possibility....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please, hon. members. The standing orders of our House provide

that a member who stands in his place is recognized and makes his

speech and is not to be interrupted. I say again that once or twice in

an afternoon an occasional outburst perhaps could be condoned. But let

us not interrupt the man who has the floor. Please proceed.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

This project of a world standard that every British Columbian can be

proud of, and the scores of millions of dollars that will be poured in

there from people from all over the world, needs some protection, needs

an Act, the same as the professional engineers need

an Act, the same as

chartered accountants need

an Act. They need some protection. They're

subject to the Societies Act. As we discuss the bill, clause by clause,

this will come out. The regulations are all there, but we need to give

assurance if we're going to produce a production of this magnitude. We

cannot do it by skip and by chance. It's got to be put on a solid

foundation. This is the door that opens the way. It may never come, but

I hope it will, because British Columbia, as I say again, needs

something of a world standard to attract people to our gates so they'll

know this province, so they'll know Canada, not only in the United

States, but in Europe and Asia and beyond — from Australia. There's

nothing like Whistler in all the world. Would you let it sit there

empty? Would you? I say no, we must open the gates, we must open the

doors. We must make it possible for the corporation to build a great

standard on Whistler so that we can bring in the people and the

millions of dollars with them to the coffers of this government. It

could be one of the biggest, this road we're on. The moving-picture

industry is moving in here in a great........

Interjection.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

Well, I just heard the other day that they will budget this year over

$100 million for moving-picture production in British Columbia. This is

just about a drop in the bucket. Now with Whistler added to all these

things, tourism could be our biggest money maker. It could one day even

be.... Is it possible it could be ahead of forests? Well, I hope so,

because then we've got something greater than I thought. But it

certainly will be our number two industry, It's the responsibility of

this Legislature to see that the doors are open to make these things

possible. Until the doors are open, it cannot be done by luck and by

chance. I commend the minister in bringing forth this bill. It's a good

bill, it's a right bill, and it opens a new door and creates a new

vision for the future of tourism in British Columbia.

MR. HOWARD:

Mr. Speaker, I think the House owes a debt of gratitude to the member

for Dewdney for really relating to us in truth exactly what the bill is

all about. I only wish that it had been the Minister of Labour (Hon.

Mr. Williams) that stood up and explained that to us in his very clear

and inimitable form.

But yes, the member for Dewdney is

right. This bill will open the doors. It will open the gates. It will

open the windows. It will open the whole house and the thieves and the

robbers will be able to come in and take hold. That's exactly what it

does. He talks about amalgamation between a corporation and a

municipality. That's what he said. Under the Criminal Code that would

be classified as prostitution. That's an illegal act, an improper act:

amalgamation of a corporation and a municipality. The member for

Shuswap Revelstoke (Mr. King) talked about the elephant dancing among

the chickens. That's what the corporation's and the municipality's

relationship will be. And who do you think will be the elephant? The

one with the big trunk full of dough — that's who the elephant will be.

The

government Whip — I've elevated him somewhat now from just being the

ordinary member from Dewdney — tells us that this bill's purpose partly

is to ensure that those who have put up the money should have the right

to protect it.

AN HON. MEMBER: No risk.

MR. HOWARD:

I heard that: "No risk." What happened to this pure form of capitalism

and free enterprise that everybody embraced here not too long ago? Risk

capital — when a corporation and when anybody else is given the right

in law to protect their money that they have invested, the other phrase

in a political sense for that is Facism. That's what the state does.

Interjections.

MR. HOWARD:

Somebody opposite identified that as a cheap shot. It's a true shot,

correct and accurate, and I stand by it, because that's the philosophy

of the Facist movement. Let the state protect the moneyed class. Let

the state protect the investment.

Now I'm not indicating

that the government Whip has those philosophies within himself, nor

that anybody in this House has those philosophies and those ideals. But

that's the essence and the fundamental thing of what he was talking

about.

I know that this province had a period in history

when the Hudson's Bay Company had a system of private law unto itself,

and was in fact government. I thought we had got away from that with

the establishment of the Crown colonies, the merging of the Crown

colonies into a democratic system and the movement of British Columbia

[ Page 1015 ]

into

Confederation under a democratic constitution and the rule of law. I

never thought that we would see the day when this Legislature would

take steps to revert to a system of private law in this province. And

this is what this does here.

The first member for Victoria

(Mr. Barber) properly said that, in terms of the rules of this House,

it should have come in by way of a private bill. Well, it didn't; it's

a public bill, handled on behalf of the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr.

Williams) by the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm).

But I think there is an obligation and an opportunity for the

government — and on the Premier who, I noticed, scurried out of the

House as soon as the bill was called to get out of the way, to abandon

his responsibility of leadership on this question — to come into the

chamber and say to the House that they recognize that this is in

essence a private bill, that the rules are such that the time for the

introduction and petition of private bills has passed, that it had to

be brought forward by a government member, but in that essence it's a

private bill, and therefore declare it to be a free vote, so that

members throughout the chamber can express their views about this

particular bill in a free way, as free individuals in a free society,

and so that the cabinet can vote as the conscience of each individual

cabinet minister dictates and not as they have been almost ordered to

vote.

AN HON. MEMBER: They can do it anyway if they want to.

MR. HOWARD:

They can do it anyway if they want; but we know that there is a

question of cabinet solidarity regardless of how many ministers in the

cabinet disagree with this piece of legislation. We know that cabinets

operate as a unit. We know that so long as this piece of legislation is

looked upon as a government bill with the full force of cabinet

solidarity behind it, every member of the cabinet, even though his

heart will tear out of him when he does it, will stand up and vote for

the bill. The only salvation they have, and hope for freedom of

expression, is that the Premier shows the leadership that so far has

been lacking on his part and says: "Yes, we'll have a free vote; people

can vote as their conscience dictates." If that passes the Legislature

on a free vote, it will have a much greater impact than appears to be

the case now.

I look upon this as being partly an

experimental piece of legislation, albeit a piece of legislation

specific to an area, and specifically introduced in response to one

member of cabinet. It's on experiment to discover a way in which

government can move into a future which ensures a greater and greater

authority over this province by foreigners, by people who don't live

here, by people who have no political allegiance to the province, and

by people whose moneyed interest is elsewhere. That's what this piece

of legislation really is; it is not just a bill relating to a

particular area of the province identified as Whistler Mountain.

Many

members have within their constituencies recreational facilities of

differing natures. In my own constituency — and I fear that this is

where we are headed if this bill passes — we have some recreational

facilities that will equal Whistler in terms of skiing. Maybe they're

not of the same size and magnitude, and maybe there won't be 1,000

planes flying in there every day and 10,000 skiers going up to the

mountain and so on — but are still, in terms of attraction, equal to

Whistler. As of July I the Crown received some parcels of land

surrounding the Lakelse Hot Springs just a few miles south of Terrace

that at one time had been gradually given away to private ownership.

The succession of private owners had reached the point where they

couldn't make any profit, the facility declined and it was not used —

they had a watchman there and that was all. An arrangement was worked

out between the government and the owner of that particular land and

those particular facilities whereby the owner would give them to the

province as a gift. The gift, of course, was tax deductible. So,

really, the person who gave it to the province was writing off about $1

million or $2 million. I've forgotten the figure. The person, or the

corporation, who gave that land back to the Crown is in a 60 percent

tax bracket. So whatever value was established for that piece of

property, the person gets a direct gain of 60 percent of it. Otherwise

he would have paid that in income tax. That's a minor part.

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD:

Someone said: "He's still paying 40 percent." I'm not arguing that

point. If my friend would just curb his impatience I'11 tell him what

I'm trying to say.

AN HON. MEMBER: It takes you so long to say something.

MR. HOWARD:

Well, it may take me long to say something. It's because the gentlemen

opposite are so dense it's necessary to take that length of time to get

the point across. When there are those, as there are on the other side,

who are unable to understand clear thought and clear logic, repetition

is necessary. Even then, many times, it doesn't work.

We now

have this recreational facility in the hands of the Crown. The Minister

of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) is embarking upon a

program to examine what might be done to develop that particular

recreational facility. The hope of everybody in the surrounding area is

that it will be retained under public ownership. That seems to be the

only serisible and amenable way to develop those facilities so they can

be used in a multipurpose way. But as sure as I'm standing here, I fear

very much that this experimental piece of legislation we now have

running roughshod over the concept of public ownership, and running

roughshod over the concept of democracy, is entirely preserved to

enable private entrepreneurs to reap the profits off the top. I see

Lakelse Hot Springs coming under the same type of legislation sometime

in the future. I see the Smithers ski hill facing that possibility. I

see recreational facilities all over this province facing the same

possibilities so long as this government stays in office. Those

possibilities are: have the general public put up all the funds, and

have somebody else reap the profits.

I tend to agree with

the declaration made by the Premier early this year, or late last year,

and reiterated during the campaign, that B.C. is not for sale. I agree

with the Premier there. This bill is living proof of that. It isn't for

sale. It's to be given away.

MR. D'ARCY: It's a pleasure to join this debate. It's not

a pleasure to see this bill before the House.

[ Page 1016 ]

want to add a few words about the principle of public money going into

a private development. Over the last few days we have heard the

government and the minister tell us he assumes people are going to live

longer than 99 years. He can't accept the principle of homeowner grants

for leases even though they are 99 years long. We all know that the use

of something over a period of time constitutes effective ownership.

Surely we are not going to live that long that we're going to worry

about what may happen to something we would like to get benefit from.

Here

we see a situation where the government of B.C. is giving away a

mountain; indeed, two mountains. For more than 100 years it has been

the assumption of British Columbians in Canada that major recreational

facilities — air, water, rivers, beaches — are public property. You

can't own a beach. It has been the policy of several governments,

Social Credit and New Democratic, to make sure that beach access and

access to recreational facilities continue to be available to all the

people all of the time. This is an abrogation of that principle.

see the government not only giving away a mountain or two — and Lord

knows what else down the road — but they also have been in the process

over the past few years of effectively giving away $9 million to $12

million of public money to developers in the area, through the travel

industry subsidiary agreement.

I think that is a good

agreement. I congratulated the federal Liberal government and the

provincial government of the day in consummating that agreement. More

than two years ago, before negotiations properly commenced on that

agreement, the cabinet of this province made a commitment that a large

amount of public money was going into development at Whistler. As has

been pointed out earlier, before the terms of reference or the

regulations were established around that agreement, funds had already

been committed to the Whistler area. In fact, even as we debate this

bill today in the House, there has not been a single public application

for money under the TIDS agreement for planning — let alone development

— that has been approved by the travel industry subsidiary agreement

technical committee. Not a single one.

There has been money

released to private development, and in my opinion they were good

developments and correct disbursements. But there has not been a single

approval for public planning under this agreement. Yet we had this bill

come before the House after the fact, after a commitment already has

been made which is going to release millions of dollars of public funds

for recreational facilities in what are effectively going to become

private lands. Mr. Speaker, I don't believe in selling let alone giving

away mountains, rivers, streams, beaches or anything else in this

province. I want to add my deep and sincere opposition to the intent of

this bill and everything that it stands for.

MR. BARRETT:

I had anticipated that the alleged author of this bill, the Minister of

Labour and the man who represents the area in question, would stand up

and speak on this bill. I'm more than anxious to share my time

available in this House in order to know whether the minister is going

to speak when I give up the floor.

One of the strangest

things about this debate is that the Minister of Loud Noise and General

Diversions for Defence hasn't said a word. The member for South Peace

River (Hon. Mr. Phillips) — who is there with those general foghorn

blandishments about all the opposition's wrongs — hasn't said a word.

Don't encourage him. I was going to repeat some of his statements when

the land bill was brought in by the New Democratic Party. He screamed:

"Sweeping powers. Let the people at the local level have the vote. One

man, one vote. "

We see in front of us for the first time in

the history of British Columbia legislation that says that we are now

changing democratic rights. If you're poor and you own a single lot in

here, you have one vote. Goodo on you. But if you've got more money,

you can buy as many votes as you can pile up and influence the

direction of that particular area. It's based on how much money you

have.

No one in this province should be surprised at this

legislation. No one in this province or this chamber should be shocked

that it's being brought in by the Social Credit Party. It is a

government of millionaires, by millionaires, for millionaires. They

intend to justify this legislation on the basis that those who have

money know best.

Mr. Speaker, do you know of any

jurisdiction in a democratic society that says we are now going to pass

laws that state in terms of the development of property rights that if

you've got more money, you're entitled to more votes? Free men and free

women in a free society are being told by the Social Credit Party today

that if they're in Whistler and have money, then they've got more votes

than the guys without money.

I love to hear the other

member, the government Whip, get up and throw himself in the breach to

try and deflect the government's hostility. What did he get up to say?

He said: "Well, when people are going to put up that kind of money,

they need special protection." Who needs special protection in the

province of British Columbia? You put up your money and you take your

chance, Mr. Speaker. No one in the private sector should be given any

leg up on anyone else, no matter how much money they've got.

Who

determines who is going to get the advantage? If a millionaire comes in

and says he once knew a socialist, what are his chances with this

outfit? If a millionaire comes in and says he once knew a Liberal who

didn't become a Socred, what are his chances? If a millionaire comes in

and says he once knew a Liberal who was a Conservative who didn't

become a Socred, what are his chances?

This bill is going to

define who are friends of the government, and this bill, in my opinion,

is a direct payoff to the speculative interests of landholders with

money in that area. Somebody said Twentieth Century-Fox is a company.

That's incorrect. It's Nineteenth Century-Fox, right over there.

Mr. Speaker, do you think that this was ever discussed during the election

campaign? Do you think that during those great rhetorical outbursts by cabinet

ministers and candidates for the Social Credit Party they said anywhere in the

province of British Columbia: "Vote for Social Credit and we will ensure

that the rich people have more power at the ballot box in the Whistler area

than the ordinary people."? Did they say that during the campaign?

AN HON. MEMBER: Not publicly.

MR. BARRETT:

Raise your hand any backbencher who publicly advocated this policy

during the election campaign. Did you, George? Through you, Mr.

Speaker, did the member who is out of his seat advising the minister —

[ Page 1017 ]

who

needs all the help he can get in his silence — support this concept in

the election campaign? Not on your life. He was running around saying:

"Vote for freedom; one man, one vote." Then they got elected and what

did they do? They brought in legislation in the dog days of July,

looking for a fire hydrant, with this kind of legislation, to really

let the people of British Columbia have it.

What was that

stuff we had, Mr. Speaker, as soon as the election was over, and the

Social Credit Party got a slap on the wrist? It was that ingenuous turn

into the television camera, saying: "Oh, we've learned a lesson. Tut,

tut, tut! The voters have spoken. We almost lost an election. We're

going to be nice, We're going to be humble. We are going to cooperate

and do things on behalf of all the people of British Columbia." What

they forgot to mention is that there is a priority when they do things

on behalf of all the people of British Columbia, and the priority is:

millionaires first; everybody else scramble for a place in line.

very good personal friend, somewhat older, somewhat less wise because

of his lack of accumulation through the years of wisdom of the rights

of each individual in Dewdney, stood up in this House and said: "We

have to have special protection." Then the new member back there from

somewhere up north said: "Special protection for special deals. "

Special protection for special deals, Mr. Speaker, is what he said.

You're agreeing with that. He's actually nodding his head and saying

that's what this bill is about.

Wasn't it the Premier of

this province who went around saying: "We're not making special deals

with anybody; all the legislation is the same for everybody."? It was

even during this very session, when he had some critical comments about

my statements on mining, that he said no special deals with anybody.

Where is he now? Is he within the reach of the many microphones that go

through the offices and the chambers of this building? If you're down

there, Bill, come on up and face the heat in changing legislation. I

really was surprised that so far it has only been one Socred that has

been sent up to take the flak.

AN HON. MEMBER: Poor old George.

MR. BARRETT: Why not good old George?

AN HON. MEMBER: Let George do it.

MR. BARRETT:

He is not the Whip, Mr. Speaker. He is the whipping boy. But the worst

thing is that in putting him up to do the flak, he makes it even worse

rather than better.

Now let's deal with my very long-time

fellow-member of this Legislature, the member for West Vancouver–Howe

Sound (Hon. Mr. Williams), once a Liberal and now a Socred —

politically reborn, having seen the light of A plus B, and now the

Minister of Labour — sanctimonious to the nth degree, and who is, in my

opinion, the real author of this bill.

I want to tell you,

Mr. Speaker, that among the many great things done by the New

Democratic Party was the establishment of a verbatim record of the

debates. known as Hansard . Lo and behold, somebody, who is obviously a masochist, has actually been collecting old copies of Hansard . Buried there in an old copy of Hansard is the very interesting debate, Mr. Speaker, on Bill 42, the land bill.

you remember the land bill — when we were bringing in that legislation

that is to this day still on the books of the province of British

Columbia, not repealed by the Social Credit government? It may be in

danger, but not yet repealed. What do we find but the sage words of the

then-Liberal member before he crossed to join the ship of the Social

Credit Party on the way to power. Why, he said, things that were

threatened in this bill, in a bill that applied equally to every

citizen in the province of British Columbia, every municipality, every

village and every hamlet — no special deals, no special direction for

any city town or village, a bill that applied to everyone.... This is

what he said, Mr. Speaker. I'd like my good friends, especially the

lawyers in the House, to remember these sage words. I quote from March

30, 1973, what the minister said about Bill 42, the effort to preserve

farmland equally — not for millionaires, not for poor people, but for

all the citizens of British Columbia equally in front of the law. This

is what he said:

I know that the legislative

powers of this government, of this province, are sufficient to support

Bill 42. But when you look at the British North America Act, it's

interesting to note that the provinces can legislate for property and

civil rights. I urge you, Mr. Speaker, to recognize the significance of

the conjunctive word in property and civil rights. I suggest that it is

morally wrong for the government to use property legislation to destroy

civil rights.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR, BARRETT:

I quote again. In speaking to a bill that applied equally to every

citizen of the province of British Columbia, the member was attempting

to make an abstract argument that civil rights were inherent in the

ownership of a piece of property relative to value based on changes in

zoning, and when the government was bringing in, in effect, a massive

piece of equalized zoning on farmland, it should not forget civil

rights. It was an obtuse point, but the member made it and made it

firmly, and we answered by saying the legislation applied to all

equally.

I want to read the conjunctive phrase again,

because after all it's not often we get to use words like that. Not all

of us went to law school.

I urge you, Mr.

Speaker, to recognize the significance of the conjunctive word in

property and civil rights. I suggest that it is morally wrong for the

government to use property legislation to destroy civil rights.

Mr.

Speaker, here is example number one. This legislation is specific

legislation destroying civil rights of citizens in the province of

British Columbia to vote equally.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Mr.

Member, because you sanctimoniously got up and gave a misinterpretation

of the land bill, tell me in this House that I'm wrong when I say this

legislation will allow the rich to have more votes than the average or

the poor. Mr. Speaker, I ask that member to stand up and tell me why he

said that it was morally wrong to affect civil rights when a piece of

legislation affected all people of British Columbia equally, but it's

okay for him to offer legislation that destroys civil rights in a

specific area of the province of British Columbia right here in this

bill, A class system of voting, the civil rights of equal voting of

every citizen, free men and free women....

[ Page 1018 ]

read the sections of this bill, and I know, Mr. Speaker, that in your

vast experience there is a rule in this House against speaking to

specific sections. Because of that rule, I will not refer to

section

19. I won't do it because there's a rule against it. But in a

particular

section which I will not refer to by number, there is, and I

read as follows, my friend....

Oh, look at this, Mr.

Speaker. I want to bring this to the attention of the member for

Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem). The first line in the unnamed

section 18: "The

Companies Act does not apply to the association." There's a law for

anybody who has a company, but it doesn't apply to these people. Just

wipe it out; that's number one. Just a stroke of the pen, and it

doesn't apply. Whatever the rules are for everybody else, you put up

your money, Twentieth Century-Fox, and the laws don't apply to you.

That's number one.

Number two is: "The

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may order that specified provisions of

the Companies Act and Societies Act apply to the association." Why, do

you know what that means? When they get together in the cabinet and

close the green door, they roll the dice out on the table and say:

"Whatever numbers come up, we'll pick out the sections of the Companies

Act that may apply." Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, what they would have

done if the socialists had brought in legislation saying that from now

on we will determine in cabinet what sections of the Companies Act

apply to a certain company? Oh, they would have screamed; they would

have hollered; they would have had a fit. They would have called it

"sweeping discretionary powers."

There is an unnamed member

over on that side of the House who came from the extensive background

of selling used cars, who was the greatest freedom fighter this House

has ever known, according to himself, who, upon seeing that kind of

legislation, would have been the first to have a 14-hour filibuster....

MR. MACDONALD: A Phillips-buster.

MR. BARRETT:

That's correct. There has been not a peep, not a murmur, not a sound,

because he's embarrassed by this legislation brought in by his

colleague the Minister of Labour.

Listen to this one; this

is really a dandy. All you folks out there who want to set up something

that's just a little bit smelly — not quite stinking yet, but just a

little bit smelly.... You know how these things start. First they go a

little bit bad, then they smell, then they get a little rotten, then

they really stink. This is just a little bit smelly but it's on the way

to going rotten.

Listen to this one. "The first bylaws of

the association shall be those recommended by the municipality and

approved by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council and shall be filed under

the Societies Act." Do you know any village, city, town, municipality

that is protected by the Societies Act? Can you see the mayor of

Vancouver in trouble over the multiplex saying now: "From now on, we're

going to call the mayor the head of the society and we're going under

the Societies Act and we're not going for elections anymore."

Who's

going to write the first bylaws? The politicians who are already in

power are being asked to write the bylaws that change them into a

society. I bet you the Socred backbenchers would lack that kind of

power. Why, they'd write the bylaws to suit them.

MR. KING: A bloodless coup.

MR. BARRETT: A bloodless coup? Not on your life.

Listen

to this one, Mr. Speaker, the one that follows. "The bylaws may only be

added to, amended or repealed in accordance with their provisions and

with the approval of the municipality and the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council." How do you like that? There is my good

old commie-pinko friend from Yale-Lillooet. He's working on some chips

he's been chewing, Mr. Speaker, and he just made a strange noise. I'm

glad to see him in the House; strange noises come from strange people.

Mr.

Speaker, I want to talk to you about this one more than anything else —

this subsection and this paragraph brought in by the Social Credit

true-blue founder of Major Douglas' A plus B theorem. The secret closet

Socred who nurtured his whole political career in the Liberal Party

waiting to burst forth as a butterfly in the Social Credit cabinet is

none other than the Minister of Labour, and this is what he's

endorsing. Listen to this one. "The association may make bylaws that

include provisions for classes of membership." They want to structure

the class society up there, and who is in the head of the class, Mr.

Speaker? The friends of Social Credit and the millionaires.

Mr.

Speaker, that's the same member who said: "I ask the Speaker to

recognize the significance of the conjunctive word in property and

civil rights. I suggest that it is morally wrong for the government to

use property legislation to destroy civil rights." I suggest to you,

Mr. Speaker, that the author of that very statement is the author of

this bill today that is going to destroy civil rights in the province

of British Columbia.

Even an editorial in the Vancouver Sun is critical of the government, and you've got to go a long way as a Socred to get an editorial against you by the Vancouver Sun .

It stinks, Mr. Speaker. It smells a little bit and it's beginning to

stink. Who are the people that you're favouring in this particular

specific legislation, saying that whatever goes in any other

municipality doesn't go here? "You can make your own laws, protect

yourselves, your own taxation." Is there a single homeowner in the

province of British Columbia who wouldn't like their own authority to

set their own assessment?

I'll bet you there are people in

the gallery who are going to go away today and say that if a company

and a group of big shots are allowed to set their own assessment on

their property, why can't I have the right to go home and write in and

tell the government what I think my assessment should be? And I would

bet citizens would go even further. They'd write the government and

say: "If you give me the same rights to assess my property you're

giving the millionaires, I promise not to tell my neighbours how much I

assess my property at, if you promise not to tell them either."

It's

incredible, Mr. Speaker. In this day and age we've got legislation in

front of us that is going to allow a group of property owners to have

more votes than other members in the same group, simply because they

have more money. They're going to allow a group of property owners to

set their own assessment and determine their own taxes, and if one

member of the group so much as peeps in complaint, his only avenue of

complaint is to go to the supreme court.

[ Page 1019 ]

And

what can the supreme court rule on? Why, guess what — Catch-22, Mr.

Speaker — it can rule only on the bylaws established by the big boys in

the first place.

MR. BARBER: Some protection!

MR. BARRETT:

Some protection; that's hanging you before you even get to court. To

say that this piddly little statement about going to the supreme court

is some form of appeal is blatant nonsense. The supreme court would

have to rule on the fact that the group set their own bylaws, and if

that poor little jerk doesn't want to live by the bylaws, well, he can

sell his property to the big boys. Oh, well, can't someone else buy

this property? Who's going to buy this property if he's squeezed in the

middle and his business is being pressured and his taxes are going up?

If he goes to sell his property, who is he going to sell it to? Well,

guess who's going to come along, Mr. Speaker? Simon Legree. He'll come

right along and say: "How did you get into this misery?" And he's going

to say: "You gave me this misery." "I did? I'll tell you what. I'm

going to buy you out to save you from yourself." And what happens? A

gradual absorption of the power of property ownership into fewer and

fewer hands.

The only other time that I participated in

something close to this in this House was Cypress Bowl. For three years

I argued, for three years I was insulted and called names, for three

years I took abuse from the government, and for three years I fought,

until it became ob