1973 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 1973

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 781 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Corporation Capital Tax Act (Bill No. 63) Hon. Mr. Barrett.

Introduction and first reading — 781

An Act to Amend the Change of Name Act (Bill No. 43) Hon. Mr. Cocke. Introduction

and first reading — 781

The Senior Citizens Home Repair Assistance Act (Bill No. 99) Mrs. Jordan. Introduction

and first reading — 781

Committee of Supply: Premier's estimates

Mr. Williams — 782

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 784

Mr. Chabot — 784

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 788

Mr. McGeer — 790

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 792

Mr. Schroeder — 793

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 794

Mr. Gardom — 795

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 801

Mr. Gabelmann — 801

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 801

Mr. Smith — 804

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 806

Mr. Brousson — 807

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 808

Mr. Brousson — 808

Mr. McGeer — 811

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 813

Reports

Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Privtate Bills.

No. 6

— 813

Nos. 7, 8 and 9 — 814

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 1973

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

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

MRS. D. WEBSTER (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, I would like

to thank the bearer of good gifts who has placed beautiful

daffodils on all our desks.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for New Westminster.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance):

Mr. Speaker, to commemorate their visit, the Langley NDP Constituency Association

who are now in the gallery brought along some daffodils to show that they are

not only non-partisan but they come from the garden spot of British Columbia.

I would like you to join me in thanking the constituency of Langley.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Alberni.

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): Mr. Speaker, I would like the

assembly to welcome today a group of 40 students from Alberni

District Secondary School who are here under the direction of

their teachers, Mr. Frank Holm, Mr. Rick Fears, and Mrs.

Potter.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Labour.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I hope the

House will join me in welcoming to the galleries today His

Worship Mayor Sid Parker of the City of Revelstoke and Alderman

Dan Chernish and Alderman Don Gillespie, as well as the city

administrator, Mr. Bill Eurby. I ask that the House join me in

extending a warm welcome.

Introduction of bills.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Premier.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to

present a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

CORPORATION CAPITAL TAX ACT

MR. SPEAKER: His Honour the Lieutenant Governor herewith transmits a

bill intituled Corporation Capital Tax Act and recommends the same to the Legislative

Assembly, Government House.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I move the said message and

the bill accompanying the same be referred to the Committee of

the Whole House forthwith.

Motion approved.

House in committee on Bill No. 63 — Mr. Dent in the chair.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise

recommending the introduction of the bill.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 63 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be

placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Health Services and

Hospital Insurance.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

CHANGE OF NAME ACT

Hon. Mr. Cocke moves introduction and first reading of Bill

No. 43 intituled

An Act to A mend the Change of Name

Act .

Motion approved.

Bill No. 43 read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the

House after today.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North Okanagan.

THE SENIOR CITIZENS HOME

REPAIR ASSISTANCE ACT

Mrs. Jordan moves introduction and first reading of Bill No.

99 intituled The Senior Citizens Home Repair Assistance

Act .

Motion approved.

Bill No. 99 read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the

House after today.

Orders of the day.

[ Page 782 ]

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

ESTIMATES, PREMIER'S OFFICE

(continued)

On vote 2.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for West Vancouver-Howe

Sound.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Thank you,

Mr. Chairman.

I wish to direct a series of questions to the Hon. Premier

but before doing so I wish to make a few brief introductory

comments so that the questions will perhaps be more meaningful

to him and will indicate the point of view that I take on the

matters which I wish to raise.

The matter I wish to raise is the apparent decision of

British Columbia Railway to proceed with the development of

port facilities at Britannia Beach. I say "apparent" because as

I understand the remarks of the Hon. Premier yesterday and on

previous days, no final decisions have been made.

First of all, I would, Mr. Chairman, recall to you the

exciting words that were delivered in this House a week ago by

the Hon. Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr.

Williams) when speaking about the activities of the government

and of the Parks Branch. In making reference to Hansard

he said and I quote:

"We'll be establishing major new parks in the magnificent

shoreline areas of the Queen Charlottes, which have been so

often ignored. We will be establishing other major parks in the

northern gulf, a very important area. We will be establishing a

major park on the Alberta border in the Kootenays. In fact:

"We'll be establishing at least three parks in the east

Kootenays.

"We will be preserving some of that magnificent landscape of

this province that for two decades that administration

continuously refused to consider. For two decades they cut down

on parkland by millions and millions of acres and continuously

refused to preserve some of the most magnificent landscape yet

untouched on this planet. For two decades the Parks Branch

suffered the frustration of that inadequate administration, and

this is only the beginning of righting the wrongs in that

particular territory."

This is the statement, Mr. Chairman, made to this House by a

Minister who has a specific responsibility and it is a

statement which I assume he made expressing the point of view

of the Government with regard to the preservation of the

environment, of the aesthetic beauties of British Columbia.

In view of that statement, I say to the Hon. Premier and my

first question to him is: In his capacity as Premier of this

province, yesterday he said the only question so far as the

development of a port at Britannia and Howe Sound was one of

aesthetics.

Would the Hon. Premier indicate whether or not, in view of

the statement of the Minister of Recreation and Conservation

(Hon. Mr. Williams), he will in his capacity as Premier of this

province appear at a public hearing and state that it is his

position on behalf of the Government that the aesthetics of

Howe Sound should be preserved?

Will he also state at such a public hearing that he is not

prepared to sacrifice the beauties of Howe Sound as the result

of some handshake make before by the former Premier of this

province (Hon. Mr. Bennett) and some as yet unnamed

representative of the federal government, with regard to the

establishment of a port facility in Howe Sound?

I would say, Mr. Chairman, as well that it must be of

concern to all Members of this House to find that the Premier

in his capacity as president of the B.C. Rail has satisfied

himself on the economics of the proposed development of a port

in Britannia, and has apparently satisfied himself on the

narrow ecological ground based upon a report made by Howard

Paish and Associates — a report which surely came as no

surprise to anyone familiar with Howe Sound, and in particular

the Britannia area, on the narrow grounds of the ecology. But

on the larger grounds of the impact on the environment of Howe

Sound and the aesthetics, that report is silent. Therefore I

ask the Hon. Premier, if we are to have a public hearing as

announced, in connection with the Britannia port, what is the

purpose of such a hearing? Because the decision on the matter

of aesthetics can be made by the Hon. Premier and the Members

of his cabinet.

The Premier says, "As it now stands the economics are that

Howe Sound is the area. If the only question is aesthetics then

obviously the public hearing must be limited to that matter."

Therefore, I ask the Hon. Premier this question: Have you

completed all of your studies into the economics of the

development of a port facility at Britannia? Is that decision

to be a matter of discussion at the public hearing or is it

not? And if the answer to that question is yes, that the matter

of the economics is to be discussed at the public hearing, then

are we to have a clear statement from British Columbia Rail as

to the basis for its economic decision in advance of the public

hearing, so that the people who will have opposition positions

to take may know the case that they must meet?

The Hon. Premier yesterday, as he was reported in the paper,

in dealing with the matter of construction of a port at Prince

Rupert is quoted as saying that: "The federal government has

some new found concern for the development of a port in

[ Page 783 ]

Prince Rupert." May I remind you, Mr. Chairman, that the

decision of the federal government with respect to development

at Prince Rupert was made as a result of a report which was

delivered to the federal government in 1971. And may I also

remind the Hon. Premier, that in July of 1972, the federal

Minister of Transport announced in extensive detail proposals

for the expansion of the road and rail systems in British

Columbia and the Yukon on a basis of joint financial

contributions from the provincial and federal government. This

was announced in the Vancouver Sun of July 24, 1972. And

subsidies are provided for the development of B.C. Rail

facilities and other facilities which will improve the

economics of the north of this province in that federal

plan.

My question in this respect to the Hon. Premier is: Do the

present statements regarding British Columbia Rail and its

development of Howe Sound mesh with the proposals made to this

government and to this province by the federal department?

And an ancillary question on the same matter: Are discussions still continuing

between the federal and the provincial government for just such a rail and road

transportation programme?

Now, dealing specifically with the matter of coal and its

relationship to Sukunka, I wish to pose further questions: Is

the Government committed to a policy permitting the mining and

export of coal from Sukunka? Does the Government adopt that

same policy with respect to the export of other energy

resources? With respect to the mining and export of coal from

Sukunka, what royalty is the Government demanding?

The Minister in the Press this morning is reported as saying

in his comments yesterday that, "Our coal reserves in British

Columbia will last another 400 years, and therefore we must

sell our resource." The Minister is shaking his head. If this

report is wrong I hope he will correct it.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): The world coal reserves.

MR. WILLIAMS: The world coal resources can last another 400

years.

But you suggest that British Columbia must sell its

resources in the competitive market.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I didn't say it must.

MR. WILLIAMS: The Minister, Mr. Chairman — and I would like

this record — indicates that it's not 'must". At any rate, if

we must be competitive with other sources of coal available in

the world, will the Minister indicate what price per ton of

coal at the mine will make B.C. coal competitive with other

sources of supply?

My next question, Mr. Chairman, through you to the Premier

is: Does the British Columbia Railway have a firm contract to

transport coal from Sukunka? And if it does, what is the cost

per ton which B.C. Rail will charge for the rail transport for

that coal?

If we are to transport the coal by rail to a British

Columbia rail port facility in Howe Sound, to store it and then

load it onto ocean-going vessels, would the Premier indicate,

in his capacity as president and chief executive officer with

the British Columbia Rail, if he is satisfied about the

economics of this programme, what the cost per ton will be

charged by B.C. Rail for storing and loading that coal into

ships? How many tons of coal will British Columbia Rail

contract to transport and load on an annual basis?

It has been suggested by the Hon. Premier that the

development of a port in Britannia would result in the arrival

and departure of one ship per week. And yet, there is other

evidence to show that the initial movement of coal will be in

the neighbourhood of 2 million tons annually, involving some 44

or 45 ships, but that the anticipated volume is 10 million

tons, involving many more ships.

Would the Premier please indicate how much coal B.C. Rail

will contract to carry? How many unit trains will be required

to carry the coal? How many cars per unit train? How many

locomotives per unit train, in order to move these unit trains?

What is the cost of each unit train, including the locomotives

required? What will be the cost to British Columbia Rail to

build — the spur line facilities into the Sukunka coal deposit

at Chetwynd?

What is the cost to British Columbia Hydro for the

construction of any power transmission lines into the Sukunka

coal deposit? What will be the cost to British Columbia Rail

for additional rail facilities at Britannia? What will be the

cost to British Columbia Rail for the construction of the coal

storage facilities at Britannia? What will be the cost for the

construction of the port and the loading facilities at

Britannia?

Mr. Chairman, the significance of these questions will not

escape you because these costs will be borne by British

Columbia Rail, which is a company owned by the citizens of this

province — a Crown corporation which, over the years, has had

significant amounts of taxpayer dollars made available to it

for capital construction projects. The answers to all these

questions must surely have been taken into account in arriving

at the decision that the economics are in favour of

Britannia.

May I ask the Hon. Premier, in his capacity as president of

British Columbia Rail, how many new jobs will be created in

British Columbia Rail if the carrying and loading of this coal

is proceeded with? Specifically, how many new train crews will

be required; how many employees will operate the

coal-loading facilities; what will the additional payroll

[ Page 784 ]

be for British Columbia Rail? Lastly, Mr. Chairman, with

respect to this matter which must have been one of the

fundamental issues bearing upon the economic decision that Howe

Sound is the right place, what investigation has been carried

out into the assessment of alternative routes for the transport

of the coal and the use of alternative port facilities for the

loading of that coal into ships?

Mr. Chairman, if we are looking at only the problem from the

point of view of British Columbia without considering any of

the other alternatives that are presented, then we must be

looking at this problem from the narrow, selfish view-point of

British Columbia Rail. We must truly be engaged in this

conflict between governments and between railway companies — using the Sukunka coal resource and its possible export merely

as an instrument to carry on a debate which has continued in

this province and this country for too many years.

What are the alternative studies? What are the alternatives

for the movement of this coal? Has British Columbia Rail

considered them all?

It is interesting that yesterday in this House the Premier

said, when dealing with the matter of whether the Canadian

National Railway should be cooperated with in its construction

of facilities at Prince Rupert, and I quote from the Vancouver

Province of this morning: "Why should the B.C. taxpayer

be used to subsidize the federal railway in terms of great

services to it without the federal government paying their

proper share. " Why should the provincial taxpayer, Mr.

Premier, be obliged to subsidize the private companies which

will mine and remove Sukunka coal?

AN HON. MEMBER: They won't be.

MR. WILLIAMS: Because if you have not made the economic

studies and if you cannot answer the questions which I pose to

you today, then you run the risk of the British Columbia

taxpayers subsidizing the movement of coal to Howe Sound.

Now, the Premier smiles and nods his head to suggest that

there will be no subsidy. I would remind you, Mr. Chairman,

that the announcement with respect to the development of port

facilities at Britannia came hard on the heels of the

Government's announcement that there would be no coal

facilities, no port facilities, developed at Squamish.

The first news of that came as a result of a telephone call

which the Premier made on January 26 to an official of Anaconda

Mines — a short telephone conversation, indicating that the

provincial government was considering Britannia as a site to

load coal for Japan. That is the Press report.

On January 29 the Hon. Premier announced publicly that

Britannia was a possible port site. By yesterday, Mr. Chairman,

sufficient studies had apparently been made to prove the economics of Britannia.

But, I suggest to you that there is another factor which has

not heretofore been adequately considered. I find that on the Dow-Jones wire service of February 1,

1973, this news release was published, and I quote: "Brameda

Resources Limited and Mikas Oil Company Limited of Calgary, a

unit of Brascan Limited, said that the deadline for Mikas to

decide whether to put Brameda's coal property in the Sukunka

area of British Columbia into production has been extended to

June 30, 1975. The deadline had previously been scheduled to

expire yesterday…" That's January 31, Mr. Chairman…"after having previously been extended from September 30,

1972."

The report goes on to point out that, under the option

agreement which has been extended, the Mikas Oil Company

Limited rights to acquire interest for providing financing

would go up from 5 per cent to 52 1/2 per cent.

I quote again from this wire release: "The company said that

the extension was made because of a number of outstanding

matters which must be clarified, such as location of a loading

port. The company said that in the meantime development, mining

and market research and certain other aspects of the overall

feasibility study are continuing, although at a reduced rate."

I stop my quote there.

Mr. Chairman, it's obvious that by February 1 an arrangement

had been made between Brameda Resources and Mikas Oil,

extending its option for three years. Coming, as it does, hard

on the heels of the Premier's public announcement on January 29

that Britannia was a possible port site, it must have a

connection. Therefore my last question to the Premier:

Was there any consultation between him or senior officials

of British Columbia Rail and Brameda Resources and/or Mikas Oil

Company Limited, with respect to making Britannia available as

a port development to handle Sukunka coal? I want to know, Mr.

Chairman, from the Premier, is there a deal which is going to

result in the sacrifice of Howe Sound and the environment of

that area on the altar of British Columbia Rail's financial

supremacy?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, the questions are interlaced

with assumption and then the assumptions are used as a basis

for further questions. I suppose it is excellent courtroom

style, but it is not appropriate to keeping with the basic

fact.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, I recall he was

[ Page 785 ]

attempting to become a lawyer but, thankfully, he was not a

success at the attempt. He became a successful politician as a

consequence of failing as a lawyer.

There is no firm deal on Sukunka coal. That should be

clearly understood. Now, two-and-a-half to three weeks before

the election was called there was a deal announced by the

former government related to Sukunka. That whole matter,

including all of the questions raised by the Member, is under

review.

Now I will say this: there is no absolute decision on

Britannia, and there is no absolute decision to ship that coal

out. If you will recall, Mr. Member, a statement I made during

the election campaign and I've had occasion to make a number of

times since then: if we couldn't make a better deal with the

resources under the ground in the Province of British Columbia

than what we had been confronted with in the past, then I would

prefer to see the resources stay in the ground until a

generation came along that had far more sense in dealing with

those resources than we have had up to this point.

The Member frames his question in a rut that reflects his

political philosophy. I'll extend on that by saying…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I didn't interrupt you; don't interrupt

me. You frame your question, in my opinion, in a way that

reveals your political philosophy; one of free enterprise.

There is a presumption through your statements or an assumption…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, there is an assumption through your

statements in one of your questions that asked, "Is there going

to be a subsidy to the private company developing this coal?"

Must there be an assumption that the company has private and

exclusive rights to that coal? — and you can interpret that any

way you want.

The coal belongs to the people of British Columbia, and if

the coal is to be developed, it will be developed not to the

advantage of a private corporation. The negotiations are going

on in the framework of development for the best interest of the

people of British Columbia, and unless we get a deal we want,

there won't be a deal at all.

Now the Member asks the question of how much for royalties.

We are in negotiations on the whole deal.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: All right. I'm not going to tell you what the negotiations

are, that would be irresponsible of any government, whether it was you or us,

in the midst of negotiations to start a public debate around the particulars

of the negotiations. We've been elected to govern, and in instances like this

it's obvious that the Government must assume the responsibility of making the

decisions.

The question of a public hearing on the economics is absurd,

and the Member knows it. No government anywhere in Canada, any

provincial jurisdiction or any federal jurisdiction, takes a

basic matter of economic policy to public hearings. Does the

federal Minister of Finance have public hearings on the

taxation policy before he implements it in terms of specifics?

Not at all, In general, yes, but not in specifics. And the

Member suggesting that we take specifics to a public hearing is

absurd in my opinion. It would be a dereliction of the

responsibility that we have as a Government to start throwing

around figures while we are in the midst of negotiations on a

deal that may or may not go through. I want to tell you very

clearly, through you, Mr. Chairman, as I've said on many, many

occasions, the previous commitment of 25 cents a ton will not

hold as a royalty.

MR. WILLIAMS: How much are you asking?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well I'm asking. No, you'll find out.

You'll find out whether or not they're willing to accept. And

if they're not willing to accept it, then I'll let the public

know exactly how much we asked, why we asked for it, and why

they turned it down. If they accept it, we'll let the public

know exactly how much we asked, what they've accepted, and why

we asked it.

But I'll tell you this, the image that the preceding

Government was "business like" is absolute nonsense. Absolute

nonsense. There is no way that I'll be party to coal leaving

British Columbia with a royalty of 25 cents a ton. I say it

over and over again. Now, even if that means that the deal

doesn't go ahead, and in terms of jobs, Mr. Chairman, I make

that clear — and there are a large number of jobs involved.

Now in terms of the questions of aesthetics, what are we

dealing with? We are dealing with the position that the

Government has taken that we would hold a public hearing before

we made a decision at Britannia. There are ships plying the

waters of Howe Sound. There are ships plying the waters of

Park every day. It's a matter of aesthetics. In some people's

opinion, one of the most attractive things of going to Stanley

Park is to watch the ships go by. That's a matter of

aesthetics. My friend, the Member from Point Grey laughs, but

it's a fact. One of the most attractive things about a harbour

as a tourist attraction is to see harbour activity.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

[ Page 786 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: All right, out of Howe Sound. Is it a

position of the Liberal party that every private operator who

is shipping in Howe Sound now get out? Is that your position?

If so state it. Is it your position that Woodfibre shouldn't

exist because ships go up there, or that Squamish shouldn't

exist because ships go up there? Then you must be consistent,

Mr. Member. If Howe Sound is to be pristine, then the Liberal

party must say that not just the coal…

MR. WILLIAMS: We want you to answer the question.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well certainly. I'll tell you what my

position is on aesthetics; that it's a decision that has to be

made based on somebody's values. But it can't be conditioned

politically by a position with absolute purity and ignoring

what's already going on in Howe Sound. Somebody has to accept

the responsibility of inherited situations, and we've inherited

one. I've said there will be no deal, if it's not a good one

for the people of British Columbia.

Now the question of the pressures of the CNR versus the BCR.

It's an easy argument if you care to follow into it, then

that's certainly your decision, not mine. But it's an easy one

to fall into — that it's a fight between the CNR and the BCR.

It's not a fight between the BCR and the CNR, none. If you're

asking that any government of the Province of British Columbia

surrender its responsibility to the taxpayers of this province

by suggesting that they not get a fairer deal in terms of

what's available in other parts of the country, then you're

making a mistake. That's my opinion.

There's no way that this Government will make that mistake

in the same way that the previous administration took the same

position. It has the responsibility to fight for the people of

British Columbia within Confederation. I can debate that

position with you any time. You're not going to change my mind

and I'm not going to change your mind. But I'll tell you, all

things being equal, and in this case they are not; all things

being equal, in this case the economics are in the advantage of

the BCR, but all things being equal…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well you'll have to wait because we're in

the midst of negotiations. If we're not satisfied with

negotiations then there will be no deal. If the deal is made on

our basis, then it will be a good one for the people of British

Columbia, It will be economically the soundest one in terms of

the choice of routes.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): I'll ask the question on

economics.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, a very straightforward question, and

I'll give you a very straightforward answer. The negotiations

are continuing, and that's all you're going to get at this

point. The negotiations are continuing.

Now the alternatives that can be checked and have been

examined are two. One of which was discussed very clearly with

the Minister of Environment, Mr. Davis — that was the use of

Neptune Terminals in Vancouver. It would have been economically

feasible, a slight increase in hauling rates, to move the coal

to downtown Vancouver and ship it out of Neptune Terminals. In

facing that alternative, which was given serious consideration,

we're aware of the fact that we would have to ride those coal

trains through West Vancouver.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Neptune Terminals have indicated that they

would welcome the additional business. The decision was

consciously made that we would not go through West Vancouver

and Mr. Davis heard that decision in my office.

The other alternative is to ship the coal down to Roberts

Bank. Again it's a matter of carrying the coal not just past

West Vancouver, but right through Vancouver on the way down.

There's the alternative of loading it on barges and taking it

down to Roberts Bank, but that means a coal port somewhere in

Howe Sound to take it to Roberts Bank.

You may not agree with the decision, and that's your right.

You may not agree with the direction we're going, that's your

right. But we are the Government and we must make decisions,

and we're making the decisions based on the hard facts that we

have plus the commitments that were made by the previous

administration which we said had a basic germ of a good idea in

that Sukunka export. But there will be no deal, as I've said

time and time again, unless it's a good one for the Province of

British Columbia.

I think you should reflect, you should think carefully and

cautiously about a basic difference between this side of the

House and your side. Rail transport publicly owned doesn't

necessarily have to confine itself to the service of privately

owned industry, and I'll leave that as it stands.

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

River.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Yes, Mr. Chairman, a few

questions. The Premier has made statements in the last few

months that he has given consideration to engaging outside

economic consultants. A few names have been bandied around,

such as Eric Keirans and John deWolfe. I'm wondering

[ Page 787 ]

whether he's prepared to tell the House whether he is going

to engage either of these individuals or whether he is

considering engaging someone to advise him on a master or

otherwise economic policy. Does he consider the type of

economic advice being given to him by his department

inadequate?

There's very little doubt, and I'm sure everyone realizes

this, that the business community in this province was shocked

by the flippant remarks made by the Premier on the question of

takeover of private companies in the province.

Their confidence certainly has been shaken. I wonder whether

the Premier believes that these remarks will result in

investment capital not coming to British Columbia. I wonder if

the Premier agrees with the philosophy that investment capital

does create jobs.

We've been given evidence by a Minister, speaking about the

growth of the construction industry for the forthcoming year,

in which he has indicated that there will be no growth in the

construction industry. I think that in view of the serious lack

of confidence by the business community in your Government,

that you have the responsibility to ensure that the business

investment capital is welcome in this province.

Your taxation policy as well has had a detrimental effect in

attracting investment capital in this province. As I have said

before, I believe that investment capital, invested in British

Columbia, be it in the primary or in the secondary industries

of our province, does create jobs. I think that we should be

most concerned about unemployment. I don't think that we can

have too much discussion on this most vital and human problem

that this province is facing at this time.

In British Columbia at this time we have 9.9 per cent of our

labour force unemployed — 95,000 people are seeking gainful

employment in British Columbia today. We've heard very little

from the government as to what policies they might institute in

order to alleviate this most serious problem.

The Premier has failed to indicate to us his concern for

unemployment in this province. I think there is a time to act

and the time is now, in my opinion. I am wondering why, in view

of the high unemployment, we haven't had winter works projects

in the province which would help alleviate the temporary high

unemployment which exists in the province. Certainly there are

vast projects in reforestation that could be considered.

I'm not going to go into a whole series of other programmes

because I know that the Premier is just as familiar with where

the needs are as I am.

In British Columbia we have over $200 million of parity

bonds. Later this year $50 million of these bonds will mature

and which will have to be refinanced. I am wondering whether

the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) can tell us whether there is a

substantial investment in these parity bonds by insurance firms

or mortgage firms; whether some of his legislation might be a

deterrent in attracting this type of capital into our province;

whether the type of take-over legislation will affect the

interest rate which he'll have to pay when these bonds are

converted.

I believe, and I am sure that the Premier does as well, that

the Minister of Finance is the custodian of the purse strings

of this province. I want the Premier to indicate, whether this

philosophy that he is the custodian of the finances of this

province will continue, or whether he will delegate to some

board or some organization or some commission the right to

spend the taxpayers' dollars.

We've heard the Premier talk about a new direction relative

to the investment of pension funds. The Minister of Finance is

responsible for the handling of hundreds of millions of dollars

of pension funds, when one considers the Canada Pension Plan,

the civil service and the teachers' pension plan. I am

wondering whether the type of investment he is considering is

that of Crown corporations. I think this is the time in which

we should have a clearcut indication from the Premier whether

there is some consideration being given to the usage of pension

funds for funding of Crown corporations.

Last year, when the Premier was in Opposition, he made a

suggestion that we should market apples in the liquor stores. I

am wondering whether he is going to pursue the suggestion that

he had put to the former government, that is marketing of

apples in liquor stores.

The Premier has indicated that he intends taking over the

B.C. Telephone Company, and he has indicated that it is not at

the top of his priority list. I am wondering if he could tell

us where it stands on his priority list; whether it's item

number 6, item number 8, or item number 5, or item number

There is very little doubt in my mind, and very little doubt

in the minds of many British Columbians that the actions of

this Government in the last few months have accelerated

inflation in our province. We had evidence just yesterday when

an announcement was made that milk will be increased at the end

of this month by 2 cents a quart. It was increased by 1 cent a

quart on February 9. So within the course of two to three weeks

we find that there's been an increase in the price of milk of

10 per cent. It's a most necessary type of food product. I am

wondering whether the Premier has any intention of regulating

any of the prices and regulating the type of inflation which

British Columbians are facing today.

Certainly he has had meetings with the gas and petroleum

industry. He didn't roll back any prices but nevertheless he's

had some discussions. I hope that the discussions he has had

there will be fruitful as well.

[ Page 788 ]

As the fiscal agent for B.C. Hydro, I'd like to ask the

Premier whether he has established a new B.C. Energy Board. He

has indicated that a new B.C. Energy Board will be established

in the province. I'd like to know whether the Premier could

name the individuals who will be members of this board, and if

not, whether he could give us some timetable or some idea as to

when the new B.C. Energy Board will be established.

That's all I have at the moment, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Premier.

HON. MR, BARRETT: I'll try to deal in order with the

Member's questions.

First of all on businessmen being frightened of the New

Democratic Party, I read this with some embarrassment and

perhaps a bit of modesty.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes. (Laughter). From the Vancouver

Province of Friday, February 23, I quote a well known non-New

Democrat, who says:

"If the New Democratic Party continues along its present course in British Columbia, business will have

nothing to fear. James Pattison, president of Neonex

International told the Victoria Chamber Of Commerce. In an

interview later, he elaborated that the government take-overs

and high taxes were the only things that dampened the

expansion. He said there was nothing in the provincial budget

in terms of tax measures or philosophy statements that would

frighten any business out of the province."

Mr. Pattison is not a member of the New Democratic Party and

to this date I'd never heard that his application was being

submitted to the party — although there are a large number of

people joining the party. We're in a little backlog of keeping

up with the memberships, as I understand it…

AN HON. MEMBER: The price has gone up.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The price has gone up too, I

understand.

On the question of expenditures of public funds, the Member

for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) yesterday, who gave a 1

hour 20 minute dissertation of something and then ran out of

the House before he got his answers, was on the air calling us

Communists. That's the report I had. I am sure if the report is

incorrect the Member will correct that.

He wasn't here for the answers. He posed the speech and then

took off. Then he was on the airwaves explaining to everybody

why we were the names that he called us.

He posed the same question as the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) did, that is as to the decisions

by this government around the use of funds for job creation.

That Member referred to an earlier statement of mine while I

was Leader of the Opposition, in training for this job. He

mentioned that I suggested the use of surplus funds for job

creation when I was in Opposition and that's exactly what we've

done in Government.

In the budget speech we announced an expenditure of $50

million in second mortgages to stimulate housing construction

in the Province of British Columbia. We've even spent $10

million on land accumulation to go along with that policy, $5

million for reforestation, $5 million for parks development and

$10 million for the development of community recreational

facilities, all of which expenditures involve labour-intensive

projects throughout the Province of British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's not enough.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Not enough? I agree. But certainly it was

the use of the surplus. As I said during the budget speech, if

we have underestimated income — and I said that we were

conservative and cautious in estimating income — if during the

year it's necessary for us to spend funds to stimulate the

economy and there are surpluses, we will not accumulate the

surpluses to present a great big figure to the House next year.

We will spend the money, if it is available, on projects to

stimulate employment in this province.

Since we came to office we also immediately released $25

million in school and hospital construction. I'm relating this

to the jobs and the question posed by the Member and the

question of pension funds. It has always been the policy of the

previous government and it continues to be the policy of this

Government that pension funds can and will be invested in Crown

corporations. There's no objection to that.

On the question of the parity bonds. I'm glad that the

Member gave me the opportunity to talk about those parity

bonds, because it begins to dispel the myth that somehow with

the election of the NDP money would evaporate or that our

credit would be bad. I'm very pleased to report that, after six

months of an NDP administration, those parity bonds are a most

sought-after investment, to the point that right now, on the

parity bonds paying a premium of 7 per cent, there is a minimum

of a 0.5 per cent bonus that you have to pay before you can

buy. On the 6 per cent parity bonds there is a 0.25 per cent

bonus. They are very healthy, strong securities that are much

sought after. They are a reflection of the economy of British

Columbia — not the NDP, not Social Credit, not Liberal, not

Conservative — but a reflection of the faith of many people in

the Province of British

[ Page 789 ]

Columbia.

The last question the Member asked was about an energy

board. It was because of my experience with the oil companies

and the requested rollback which was not successful that after

discussion with my cabinet colleagues and a report to our

caucus, we have asked that a whole new energy board policy be

drawn up. The Attorney General's (Hon. Mr. Macdonald'

s) staff

is working weekends now as I understand it. The bill is in the

works.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I know. We need more staff, and if there

are any lawyers listening to this particular debate or who read

about it in the newspapers, we are willing to hire young

lawyers to help the Attorney General in his department — middle-aged lawyers and older lawyers — we need legal help.

The staff in the Attorney General's department have been

working very, very hard. We have no objection to hiring outside

consultants in terms of legal assistance.

Now the question of Mr. John deWolfe. I relate that to the

question about Mr. Eric Kierans, whose name has been mentioned,

I have yet to meet Mr. Kierans.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, I would think he was a good man. I

have had excellent reports about him. I have yet to meet Mr.

Kierans. I am looking forward to that opportunity. I like

meeting people from all over Canada. But he's not advising

me.

As to Mr. John deWolfe, a very fine, outstanding British

Columbia citizen — despite the fact that I've had my political

differences with him, Mr. John deWolfe is also not in a

position of being an adviser to the Premier.

I am using the excellent staff of the civil service in the

Department of Finance, I find that they know their work

thoroughly, they are non-partisan, they are highly-skilled,

able people, and I take their counsel and advice on that basis.

It's given in a non-partisan manner. They were here before I

came and they'll be here after I go. That's the beautiful thing

about the civil service; they serve loyally, no matter who's

hanging around. (Laughter). And that's exactly the way it

should be.

AN HON. MEMBER: You have no intentions of going outside?

HON. MR. BARRETT: No intention of going outside? You mean in

terms of adding people to my staff?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, there will be occasions when

specific projects will be sent out. That's why we set up the $5

million fund. What we hope to do out of that is that as each

department has various problems we intend to hire consultants.

As I said in the budget speech, we will hire consultants on the

basis of their skills, their abilities and their experience. We

will not confine ourselves on the basis of nationality. If

there is a particular person in some country of the world who

has a particular knowledge about a particular problem we're

facing, we won't hesitate to hire him — an American or someone

from Great Britain or from Europe or from France, La Belle

France.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Not necessarily through the London School

of Economics. The London School of Economics has turned out

some very, very conservative people. But we don't hesitate to

go to conservative people. I understand Mr. deWolfe has been

doing some consulting work for one of our departments.

We haven't made the decision on the basis of politics. Why,

we'd even go to a Liberal if it were necessary. (Laughter).

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, we have? We've even gone for a

Liberal.

MR. WILLIAMS: What about Gunderson? He's got ability.

HON. MR. BARRETT: What's that name again?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. BARRETT: There is no vacancy for a bagman at this

time. (Laughter).

There will be a bill introduced before the end of the term

of this Government that will put those people on the

unemployment rolls, I hope. I hope to see the limitation of

campaign funds and full disclosure of the source of campaign

funds. The only regret that I have about that is that it can't

be retroactive.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would like to make a point at this time. If

an Hon. Member has a supplementary question on the same point

that he wishes to put to the person answering his question, he

may do so before another person is recognized. However, just to

regularize the procedure I would ask you to do that

[ Page 790 ]

rather than interrupting while he is on his feet.

I recognize the Hon. First Member for Vancouver Point

Grey.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Chairman, I have

certainly enjoyed the Premier's remarks this afternoon,

particularly the part about how, while he was Leader of the

Opposition, he was learning how to be Premier. He certainly

displayed that well this afternoon, because we're carrying on

in a very charming fashion the tradition that was established

by the previous administration of not getting right to the

point in answering questions that Opposition Members put

forward.

I have six brief questions to place to the Premier, Mr.

Chairman. They relate to his many roles as Minister of Finance.

The first of these is: As trustee for all the trust funds of

the province, how much money do you control as trustee for the

trust funds?

Secondly, as these trust funds are invested by yourself, on

what basis are the interest rates for each investment

established?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, I can save your questions. The

information will be made available to the House but you'll have

to put it in the form of a question on the order paper and I'll

give you a return. I can't give it all to you right now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. Premier, I would ask you

to…

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I'm not asking…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member just be seated and I'll

just make a point of order.

I just want to request that you reserve any comments until

after he has completed his questioning, and then answer them

all at the same time.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, through you if I could just make a

clarification, I am not asking the Premier to list every dollar

in every fund. I just want to get a general idea from him as to

the total size of this portfolio that he manages because, Mr.

Chairman, he is the trustee.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's big. That's a general sign.

MR. McGEER: Yes, but would it be $1.5 billion, $2 billion,

$2.5 billion? If you were to talk to the manager of an

investment fund, he would tell you the size of the portfolio he

manages, and that's really the question I'm asking. How big is

this portfolio?

And the second thing is, since the Premier or Minister of Finance not only

manages the portfolio but says what the interest rates shall be on the funds

that are invested, I would like to know: On what basis are these interest rates

established? Now, those are the two questions I have for the Premier in the

one hat he wears as manager of this investment portfolio.

I have another series of questions to the Premier regarding

the Crown corporations for which he is the fiscal agent

because, Mr. Chairman, on one hand he has the funds, and he

says how they are going to be invested and at what interest

rates, and on the other hand he receives the funds on behalf of

the Crown corporations. So the questions that I have now are in

regard to this other role — asking to hang the one hat up, and

take the other off the rack and put it on.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Better make sure I don't have sticky

fingers.

MR. McGEER: Well, perhaps we'll learn that. You'll have a

chance to wash your hands clean or show us how deeply they're

in the cookie jar this afternoon.

Mr. Chairman, the four questions are similar ones.

The first is as the fiscal agent for the B.C. Hydro. In the

budget speech the Premier made it clear that he was the fiscal

agent for the B.C. Hydro. How is the budget for the B.C. Hydro

decided? In other words, how does the Premier or Minister of

Finance know how much the B.C. Hydro requires?

The second question with regard to the B.C. Hydro is: What

is the budget for the coming year for the B.C. Hydro? I'm

talking about the capital budget.

And the third question is: How much of that budget…

HON. MR. BARRETT: What was number two again?

MR. McGEER: What's the budget for the B.C. Hydro? The

capital budget wasn't detailed at all in the budget address — only that the Premier was the agent.

The third question is: How much of that B.C. Hydro capital

budget will come from the trust funds? In other words, how much

must the Premier receive for the B.C. Hydro that he gives as

trustee for the trust funds?

Question four:…

HON. MR. BARRETT: Sorry, I missed three.

MR. McGEER: Three was these three questions — 3 (a), (b),

(c), if you like. O.K.?

Now, we're going on to the B.C. Railway. Mr. Chairman, the

Premier is fiscal agent for the B.C. Railway. So, as fiscal

agent for the B.C. Railway I'm asking the Premier: 1) How is

the budget for the B.C. Railway decided? 2) What is it for the

coming year?

[ Page 791 ]

3) How much comes from these provincial trust funds?

The next question — as fiscal agent for the B.C. Schools

Capital Financing Authority: 1) How is the budget decided? 2)

How much is it for the coming fiscal year? 3) How much of that

comes from provincial trust funds?

Lastly, as the fiscal agent for the B.C. Hospitals Financing

Authority, how's the budget decided? How much is it? And how

much of this comes from provincial trust funds?

Six questions, thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, I hate to push a booklet that

I had something to do with in authorship, but had you perused

this particular book, and had done your…. Can I draw your

attention to page 10, Mr. Member? It's obviously a page that

you skipped.

AN HON. MEMBER: He has his own budget.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, I see — sorry, he was probably

spending his time reading his own budget, and didn't have

enough time to do the research. On page 10 of the Government's

budget, Mr. Member, the information is there for everybody to

see and perhaps you would like me to read it to you. The

British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority is a Crown

corporation. It has within it Canada Pension Funds as

$74,992,000, and Provincial Trusteed Funds as $51 million.

British Columbia Railway has no Canada Pension Funds, but $60

million in Provincial Trusteed Funds. And I'll give you the

total of the trusteed funds.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON, MR, BARRETT: We're coming to your point. I'm just telling you what's

there now. You forget your questions. You did ask me how much money we've got

in these trusteed funds and where they were spent. Don't you remember that?

Remember I jumped up and said, "Would you like to put it on the order paper

as a question?" But you didn't want to, and now I'm giving you the answer. So

take out your pencil and take some notes. Now right here, Mr. Chairman, on page

10 of the budget speech — he can just photostat that information — it says that

British Columbia School Districts Capital Financing Authority, which the Member

asks, has Canada Pension Funds of $48,380,000 and Provincial Trusteed Funds

of $7 million. British Columbia Regional and Hospital Districts Financing Authority

— which the Member asked, is $15,428,000 in Canada Pension Funds, and Provincial

Trusteed Funds $6 million, for a total in the four Crown agencies of $138.8

million in the Canada Pension Funds, and $124 million Provincial Trusteed Funds.

The Government of British Columbia has a total of

$3,008,284,000 in Trusteed Pension Funds, 98 per cent of which

is invested in long term commitments. The figure again is,

$3,008,284,000.

The boards of directors of both B.C. Hydro and B.C. Rail

determine the budget. Since assuming office we have made a

careful study of the budgetary processes, and at this moment

the Auditor General — not the Auditor General, the Comptroller

General — that's what you want. That's the one you wanted to

fire in Ottawa. Are you suggesting that when you fire them in

Ottawa, we hire them here? What was his name? Max somebody in

Ottawa that the Liberals wanted to get rid of. That's a strange

schizophrenia with the Liberal party — "We don't want to do

these things in Ottawa, but it's all right out here in

Victoria." So actually all you wanted to do was move Max

Henderson out of your Liberal hair there, and bring him out

here.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, I can understand how you feel about

that group in Ottawa. And I'm not going to rub you about it.

I'm not that kind of fellow. (Laughter).

Our Comptroller General, Mr. Minty has been instructed by me

as the fiscal agent to give us a detailed report on the

budgeting and accounting procedures of both Crown corporations.

We have been in office six months and we hope that Mr. Minty's

report will be available shortly. The current budget that is

just finishing for the BCR and for B.C. Hydro — the current

budgets were ones that were drafted in an existence when we

were elected. Both corporations are now in the final

preparations of drawing up next year's budget.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Supplementary question. I recognize the Hon.

First Member for Point Grey.

MR. McGEER: Yes, Mr. Chairman, the supplementary question

that I want to ask really is: Are the budgets for the Crown

corporations — I talk particularly about the B.C. Hydro and the

B.C. Rail — being revised? Because it's difficult for me to

believe that firm budgets for the coming fiscal year had not by

this time been prepared. Mr. Chairman, the Premier read us all

the information on page 10 of the budget. But what's so

astonishing to those of us who've sat here year after year and

watched these budgets come forward, where in the figures quoted

there's no meaningful relation to what is anticipated in the

way of revenue, is that the budgets never mention the capital

requirements of the Crown

[ Page 792 ]

corporations.

Yet each year suddenly appearing out of nowhere, is several

hundred million dollars worth of investments that were made

under our very noses in the Crown corporations.

In presenting the fifth Liberal budget this year, Mr.

Chairman, I said that the figures we presented for revenue

would be at least $100 million closer to the truth than those

presented by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett). I was

surprised once more not to see the budgets of the Crown

corporations included because as the Premier just stated, there

is something in the order of $3 billion invested in these Crown

corporations.

Mr. Chairman, I've been here for 10 years now, and those

funds have grown from less than $500 million to $3 billion in

that time. Never has there been a word of debate on the floor

of the House, regarding that huge amount of money. We're just

presented the next year with several hundred million dollars

having sort of flown away into these Crown corporations.

With due respect, Mr. Chairman, I'm no wiser as a result of

the Premier's present statements than I was with the previous

Premier.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: If you are not any wiser, you perhaps

should ask more precise questions. I answered the ones that you

put forward.

Now, in terms of the BCR, let me correct my statement. I did

approve a draft early in the fall of the current fiscal year of

the BCR's budget. Hydro budget has not been completed yet.

You will note that, Mr. Member, through you, Mr. Chairman,

that the Public Accounts Committee now has the distinction of

having a Member of the Opposition as chairman. From what I read

in the newspaper, I note that the Public Accounts Committee is

asking someone from Hydro to appear at that committee. I'm

curious about their appearance too, because I shared the same

depth of lack of knowledge as that Member did, and the same

curiosity.

Yes certainly public accounts has been opened. The avenue is

now open. For the Member to suggest that something less is

happening is not correct. Are you a Member of the Public

Accounts Committee?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes I am.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well that's good. I would appreciate

hearing from you about what is going on in public accounts

because it is dominated by the Opposition now. That's where

they've got to do their homework.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well they've got a chairman. The chairman

is calling the shots there. He's saying, "This fellow come and

that fellow come." A whole new era of liberty; access to

information. I welcome it. I'm proud of the Government that has

allowed an Opposition member to be chairman of the Public

Accounts Committee. I know that the Opposition is proud of it

too. As a matter of fact I saw in the newspaper when this

election was announced, it said, "Socred wins election." The

only one they've won in a long time. Even that one was biased…

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): The first one this

year.

HON. MR. BARRETT: …because all the NDP Members, I think,

voted for that particular Member. He's a good Member.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I hope he does a good job — because he

knows that this House hasn't had access to accounts that way

before. I look forward to the new experience.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. McGEER: The Premier is yet to say anything about the

school district's capital financing authority; has yet to say

anything about the B.C. hospital…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. McGEER: I'm talking about the budget for the coming year — not the information for the past year that was printed in the

budget speech. We've had the information after the fact

before.

[Ms. Young in Chair.]

I was very pleased with the delightful way in which the

Premier said how much public accounts was going to be doing.

But, Ms. Chairwoman, it was the Premier himself who made the

motion that the Public Accounts Committee should deal with the

accounts of last year — not the budgets for this coming year.

His motion restricted what the Public Accounts Committee can

do. He may be very curious about the coming year's budget,

because perhaps that way he'd get the information too. But, I

would hope since he's the fiscal agent, he wouldn't be duped by

these Crown corporations. I would hope that as of this moment

he would know exactly what the financial status of the province

was; he would know

[ Page 793 ]

exactly what the budget requirements of Crown corporations

would be; he would know exactly the state of the trust funds

which he would control; he would know exactly how he was going

to invest them and at what interest rates.

These are the sort of things that a man who has that many

hats needs to have right at his fingertips. Not even to be

aware, Ms. Chairwoman, that his own motion restricted the

Public Accounts Committee to public accounts of last year and

leaves us without any power to enquire into these budgets, I

think was either carelessness or incompetency. But, Ms.

Chairwoman, I ask the Premier once more, will he give us the

information about the capital requirement of schools and

hospitals in this province for the coming year?

MS. CHAIRWOMAN: The chair recognizes the Hon. Member for

Chilliwack.

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): Thank you, Ms.

Chairwoman.

I am not going to take time this afternoon to run down the

page marked M-15 in the blue-book which talks about the

allocation of funds for the Premier's office and gives us a

fine comparison of last year. I think that it should be left to

the Premier and his office to decide what kind of funds he

needs in the operation of his office. If he needs $20 million

more or $20,000 more for this year than they needed last year,

then I think by all means he should have that.

I think that when the next Premier takes over the office in

1976, he should be given the same latitude. If he thinks that

he has not enough staff or too much staff, I think he should be

given the luxury of deciding for himself what it is that he

wants in his office I think that it is not quite kosher, if I might use one of

his own terms, to make a comparison just on the end totals — comparing $137,000 directly across the page from $156,000 and

having it released for the Press and by the Press that the

increase is only $20,000 in his office.

I think that we should talk about the fact that the Deputy

to the Premier, whose figure is $27,000, has just been

transferred over to another page and that in essence, the

additional expenditure in the office, not counting renovations,

is something like $47,000 in the office. I am not here to

discuss that, I'm going to leave that with somebody else.

I'm here to ask one question. The question is a serious

question, in my opinion. It has to do with the credibility of

the office of the first Minister in the Province of British

Columbia. I want to know, Mr. Premier, through you, Ms.

Chairwoman, what shall be your attitudes on contracts

throughout this year?

A little history on contracts. It used to be, Ms. Chairwoman, that the highest

honour that a man could proffer was his word. Now that's sort of fallen by the

way, you get evidence of that in this House from time to time. But, the highest

honour that a man could proffer was his word — they didn't need anything else

but his word. If a man said, "I'll be there at 8 o'clock." You could count on

the fact that he was going to be there at 8 o'clock, However, degradation set

it and it wasn't too long and they had to have some kind of a signal that a

contract existed. It was then that they went to the handshake. If I was to

be contracted to you, Ms. Chairwoman, on any score, we would hold hands on the

deal.

Interjections by some Hon. Members. (Laughter).

MR. SCHROEDER: Then after that it degraded a little farther

and even the handclasp didn't have enough significance to bind

the parties to a contract. They went to a token of contract, of

which a dowry might be an example — where somebody had to give

3 pigs or 8 cows or 6 changes of raiment so he could get a

wife.

AN HON. MEMBER: Get a husband.

MR. SCHOEDER: Husband, Ma'am, did you say husband?

Then after that they took a seal of contract, whereby they

melted some wax and somebody had a ring, and there was some

engraving on that ring and a seal was given to a contract.

After that it went to the writ of contract. Now it degraded

even beyond that point and they had to have witnesses to the

writ.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): And lawyers.

MR. SCHROEDER: Just a second, I'm coming to that, Mr.

Member. But then degradation set in again and now, lo and

behold, we have to have notarized contracts, Now, I'm wondering

about these notarized contracts Ms. Chairwoman.

I want to remind the Premier that the real fabric, or the

real essence, or the real gut of any contract is the intent of

that contract — it's the intent to abide by its terms. The

security of any contract is not in its existence, but it is in

the performance of the contractor to abide by his contract.

I would like to express an opinion. I think that the scope

of a contract involves this: It is the first Minister's

responsibility — I hope you are listening Mr. Premier…

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, I'm listening.

MR. SCHOEDER: It is the first Minister's responsibility to

go beyond his personal guarantee when he is the Premier of the

Province of British Columbia.

[ Page 794 ]

It's more than just personal guarantees that are involved.

It is more than just the guarantee of the council that is

involved. It is more than just the guarantee of a political

party that's involved. It goes beyond all of this and, indeed,

it envelopes the contract of the people of British Columbia

with an individual or with groups of individuals.

It is also my opinion that responsibility is not repealed by

an election. If people of British Columbia have an obligation

to a group of individuals, it is not repealed by an

election.

Now I want to talk about the consequence of the contract. If

we do not abide by the contract — if we renege at the first

Minister's level — then we cannot insist on regard for a

contract at any level. We cannot break the sanctity of a

guarantee at any level unless we wish to allow guarantees to be

broken at every level. That's just plain logic, Mr. Premier,

through you, Ms. Chairwoman.

I would like just to raise before the Premier several

instances of contracts. I am not going to discuss these; I just

want to allude to them. How about the Port Simpson cannery,

where "Barrett says he will finance it all," in

Native Voice , August of 1972?

What about the Canadian Bill of Rights which allows a man an

ownership in which every title deed is a guarantee by the

people of the province that a private individual shall have

ownership and every right of ownership to a piece of property

in the Province of British Columbia? What happened to the time

when you had a willing buyer and a willing seller and the two

could get together in the time honoured tradition and could

have a transfer of property? Now, lo and behold, they're going

to be brought in chains to the marketplace.

How about the copper smelters at Kimberley and at Clinton?

Cancelled. Contract given. Cancelled.

HON. MR. BARRETT: What contract?

MR. SCHROEDER: What about the vocational school at

Chilliwack? Contracts had been let. Cancelled. No regard for

contract.

How about the mediation commission contract? Cancelled. How

about the Kaiser deal? Breach of contract. Now we haven't

actually broken the contract yet. But what we are talking about

involves a breach of contract.

How about the PNE? No negotiations with the Vancouver

Council, no meeting with the directors, just no regard for

contract.

What about the agreement to have consultation with the B.C.

Federation of Agriculture before Bill 42? What about the

contract that was given, not by the present Premier but by the

previous administration — a contract that was given to the

petroleum industries which said that there would be no change

in the royalty structures in 1975? But, lo and behold, we have no regard for that contract which, in my opinion, is

the contract of the people of British Columbia to the petroleum

industries. Lo and behold, we have an increase.

I've got this letter here which says, "…the doubling of

royalty rates when regulations provided for no change until

1975 and by amending legislation so that the constant rate of

royalty during the initial term of a lease is also doubled, you

have dramatically changed the political policy of the province

and in so doing you are removing the stability and the

confidence required for high-risk investment."

This comes over the signature of J. O'Brien, dated February

26, and it arrived at the Premier's office today.

How about Sukunka coal? — where the Premier says, "No deal."

Regardless of what the previous commitment was, handshake or

written agreement; like I said before the essence of a contract

is not in what form it exists, but the essence of a contract is

in the intent to perform.

How about the Seattle Light & Power? I've got a list

here a mile long that I could talk to you about. But I just

want to ask you, Mr. Premier, just one simple question, through

you, Ms. Chairwoman: What is your attitude toward contracts and

what shall be your performance on contracts? I need to know

this before I can vote on whether or not we are going to give

$28,000 to the Premier. —

Fellows, you've all seen this somewhere, haven't you? It

says, "Dave Barrett, a man you can trust." A man you can trust.

After the list that I've just gone through, I want to ask you

just this question: Would you buy a used car from this man?

(Laughter).

HON. MR. BARRETT: Ms. Chairwoman, first of all, on the basis

of a used car, I don't know who's trying to peddle what kind of

car, but it's obviously loaded with either a load of ignorance

or a load of manure.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order, order!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Is there something wrong with the word

"manure?" It's one of the most healthy ingredients and natural

ecological questions.

Normally I wouldn't stand up and respond to a Member who is

new to this House and who has taken it upon himself to lecture

to this House about the meaning of a contract. But I think it's

worthwhile for his edification and others to discuss the

meaning of an election contract.

My first campaign was in 1960 when this party took the

position that there should be public ownership of the B.C.

Electric Company. It said so openly it said so honestly. For

that position, Ms. Chairwoman, we were called "socialists." The

Leader of the Opposition (Hon. Mr. Bennett), who finds it

[ Page

795 ]

convenient to send telegrams from Buenos Aires and points south, was the leader

of the Government at that time, the Premier of the province and the leader of

the party for which that Member is a somewhat new spokesman.

In that particular campaign it was the former Premier who

said, "Don't vote for those socialists. They're going to take

over the B.C. Electric. My contract is, as a Social Crediter,

elect me and we will not take over the B.C. Electric." Do you

remember that? Then after a nine-month pause, a pregnant pause,

we were offered the baby of a broken contract that even shocked

the shareholders, who believed in free enterprise.

I don't mind the Member attempting to give the impression to

the House that there's something sanctimonious about the Social

Credit Opposition; that if they make contracts that bind

another government…an election, Ms. Chairwoman, is all

about contracts.

He raises the mediation commission. One of the things we said

during the election campaign was that if we got elected that

contract's over. And guess what happened. We got elected. And

that contract was over.

The Member has some gap in his learning about political

science. Election time is a presentation of point of view.

That's a contract between the voter and elector. One of the

things that amazed me upon our election was when I was being

criticized in an editorial on how "dangerous" this fellow

Barrett was. "He's actually going to keep his word!" In British

Columbia that's a brand new experience.

The contract to the voters to open up the public accounts

committee: done. To have the rules rewritten: done. To

eliminate the mediation commission: done. To give $200

a month to every senior citizen in this province guaranteed

that minimum income: done.

All the way through he has this presumptive attitude that

somehow this commitment is to continue. I'm surprised that he's

even got both shoes on today. (Laughter). It's a refreshing

thing.

I cast no reflection on the fact that you're a new Member,

but it certainly is a degree of protection for the rest of us.

Nonetheless he is here with both shoes on and he is beginning

to learn. I want to add to his information about some of the

other things that he raised.

He mentioned the Sukunka coal. Do you mean to stand there in

your place, through you, Ms. Chairwoman, and say that if there

was a rotten, lousy, stupid deal in the works by a previous

administration, that we had no obligation to end that lousy,

rotten, stupid deal? Well we did end it.

It's a matter of

interpretation. I can understand why you're in the profession

you're in. If you were a lawyer, along with what you're doing and how you interpret

it, we'd all be in trouble.

I want to tell you that you can't twist principles on the

basis of that kind of analysis.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, you'll give me lessons and I'll give

you lessons. We'll share philosophy. I spent a little time

discussing philosophy in my time. I don't make the presumption

that because I'm a Member here that a particular six years of tuistic philosophy is superior to your Calvinistic approach; or

my very good friend down here with his Wesleyan approach.

But the philosophical differences in terms of interpreting

principle are not applied to the Social Credit Party or the

Liberal Party or the Conservative Party or the New Democratic

Party. Politics is a matter of saying, "This is the kind of

contract we will go forward to and if this exists we will end

it."

British Columbia was used to 20 years of being told one

thing during an election campaign and another thing when the

government was returned to office. If you want a classic

example, go into the library. They have an excellent clipping

service. When you have some time to spare in the House, as some

Members do, call in the clippings from the 1959

session, the 1960 session; then the short session of

1961, when you had all the statements about contract or the

protection of free enterprise by Social Credit, and all the

threats that were made within that nine-month period. Your

framework of contract, through you, Ms. Chairwoman, by your

party, left a bad taste in the mouth of all British

Columbians.

MR. SCHROEDER: I don't remember, Mr. Premier, asking the

question, "What was it that the Social Credit had done in the

past 20 years?". I thought the question was, "What do you

intend to do about contracts in the future?".

MS. CHAIRWOMAN: The Chair recognizes the Hon. Second Member

for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Madam Chairman, this

afternoon I think we've heard some very excellent questions and

very excellent debate, particularly from the very last Member

(Mr. Schroeder). He made an exceptionally good point to this

House about the viability of contracts.

The Premier rather wrapped the whole thing up. I may say he's had a remarkable

afternoon of taking the balls off the wall and just returning them more quickly

than they came to him. I've got to give him full credit for that. But he sort

of summed up and he was talking about bad taste. I can tell one thing — bad

taste continues in the Province of B.C. It continues mighty bad in the Province

of B.C.

[ Page

796 ]

We still do not have the right in the Province of British Columbia, as a citizen,

to sue our Government. I think that is absolutely, utterly disgraceful. There's

not one word in your throne speech and there's not one word in your budget speech

about bringing in the right to sue the Crown. The Premier agrees that is right.

Do you agree with the premise that we should have the right to sue the Crown

in the Province of British Columbia?

HON. MR. BARRETT: It will come.

MR. GARDOM: "It will come." Well, you won't have to look too

far for a good bill because they've been introduced by four — even by one of your own Members who's sitting in the corner

overly dressed today. (Laughter).

HON. MR. BARRETT: Are you attacking the haberdashers?

MR. GARDOM: He'll get me at coffee for that, I know.

But I'll tell you, Mr. Premier, that the points that were

made by the former Member are exceptionally valid points. If

the Government has taken the right steps against industries,

against the farmers that it is hurting, if it has taken the

right steps against the miners that it is hurting, if it has

taken the right steps against the insurers that it is hurting — fine and dandy. But if it has not, those people should be

permitted to have their day in the courts of this land. Make no

mistake of that.

When we're talking about cases in the courts of this land, I

don't think we wish the courts to be used for frivolous

political lawsuits. I would ask the Premier today if he is

going to announce to this House if he's going to discontinue

his lawsuit against the former Premier of this Province; or, if

he is not, why he isn't; or, if he is not, when is he going to

get along with it. The legal process is not something to be

tinkered with by a politician, which is happening insofar as

this lawsuit is concerned if it doesn't go to trial. If you

mean business, you do it. If you don't, you scratch it right

off the books.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): You offering a settlement?

(Laughter).

MR. GARDOM: You know, the Premier in all of his sweetness — I just was wondering where all of this came from. Because it's

really a remarkable thing, in the Premier's estimates, to find

that we've got so much sweetness and perhaps, in some cases, so

little light over here. I find out at least where the sweetness

comes from.

I read in the paper that the Premier of the province has a portrait in white

and chocolate icing sugar which is three-foot-six by six feet.

AN HON. MEMBER: Bigger than life. (Laughter).

MR. GARDOM: I think you must have been nibbling at your own

picture today. I really do. It says that if you keep it in a

dry place, it will last for several months. Well I tell you, I

think the morning line in B.C. is about five to two. It may

well outlast your office if you continue to make the number of attacks that you have against various sectors of the

community.

The Province of British Columbia, notwithstanding the "happy

days" statements of Mr. Pattison — which I'd like to refer to

in a few moments — is still very worried as to what your

ideological direction is. It seems that day by day by day we

are going more to the left, more to the left, more to the left.

Every day there's an indication that your political direction

is becoming more socialistic, more socialistic and more

socialistic. Make no mistake of that.

The thing that is even more disturbing, which was touched

upon by the last speaker and was also touched upon by the First

Member for Vancouver Point Grey (Mr. McGeer), is that you seem

to be totally ignoring the practical — and I'm underlining the

word "practical" — advice of people who have had experience in

a specific endeavour and in a particular field. I'm talking

here of the miners and of the farmers and of the insurers and

of the members of the Pacific National Exhibition — which is

not a community centre and God help us if it ever becomes a

community centre, because it is the Pacific National Exhibition

for the whole of this province, period. Also, you haven't been

receiving or soliciting any advice from the corporate

structures.

What you do is this — and it's a very interesting and not

really novel political mechanism for the problem. You lock

yourself in with a position — with a very, very firm, extremely

rigid socialistic position — and then you sit back and wait for

reaction. This is one of the many reasons, I think, that the

people in the province are slowly getting the willies. They're

looking upon, Ms. Chairwoman, the direction of the New

Democratic Party, NDP — No Darn, for lack of another word,

Prosperity Party — in the Province of British Columbia. They're

looking upon you as a bunch of socialistic regulationists and

academic theoreticians and structuralists. I'd like to hear the

Hon. Premier's remarks on these three terms when he gets

up.

You don't seem to be going to the doers in society. You

don't seem to be going to these people within the PNE. You

don't seem to be going to the mining industry. You haven't gone

to agriculture to request their assistance and advice as to

what to do, when to do it, how to do it and where to do it. No

siree. You just come in with a big fat smack bill,

[ Page 797 ]

without any notification of what it may be, and then wait

for a reaction. You say this is participatory democracy. I

don't think it is one bit. People are scared silly, save and except nothing-to-fear

Pattison. Well, I think he must be suffering from naivety in

the extreme. If he thinks, Ms. Chairwoman, that a Prince

Charming approach on his

part can change what the Premier in

this province has to do and what he has to represent within the

confines of his own party — if he thinks that that can change

the Premier into a Cinderella, I very much doubt it. I think

we've got something there which is more like Little Red Riding

Hood's grandmother. What Mr. Pattison should perhaps do, as a

word of advice to him, is to go ahead and decorate his office

with a couple of 20-foot signs of the Waffle Manifesto and read

it every day.

The Press could do a good service to the Province of B.C.in

this regard. One newspaper, I believe it was the Vancouver

Sun , published the total provisions of one of the

statutes that are in front of us now, the land commission bill.

I think that was a very good service. I would like to see the

newspapers in this province print the Waffle Manifesto from

start to finish. It's not that long. I'd like to have them put

at the bottom of the printing of the Waffle Manifesto the names

of all of the current elected representatives in the New

Democratic Party who support it.

I would like to hear from the Premier today if he disavows

it, all of it. Does he subscribe to it, all of it? What part

does he like? What part doesn't he like? So we'll know which

way you're going. Because Mr. Pattison says, "Oh, I didn't find

her in the budget so the boy must be O.K." But there's a little

more to it than that, I think, for Mr. Pattison's interest.

You've got to give the Premier excellent credit for being

darn prophetic. In the election material that was sent out, it

said this: "The good life in God's country has faded." "Has

faded" — well, I suppose, it's an admission that there was a

completely good life, which we seriously questioned and you

seriously questioned too. But the fading seems to be pretty

white. I think what we had is fading. He continues. He says,

"Our citizens feel uneasy." Right on, right on. They do

feel uneasy. They feel a darn more sight uneasy today than they

felt when you were elected last year. Make no mistake of that

whatsoever.

There are a couple of other very interesting things in here,

talking about an economy for people:

"As an immediate step an NDP Government will introduce a Resource Companies Information Act to ensure full financial disclosure by

resource firms. The Act will provide information needed to significantly increase revenues from our resources."

I wish Mr. Pattison would read that statement.

Where is this immediate step that was so immediate at the time of campaign

and we've not heard too much about it? When is Big Brother going to come totally

in and sit behind the private till? Furthermore, as was indicated by the First

Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer), why won't you make the public

tills subject to full financial disclosure, and give us the complete policy and

economic direction of these Crown agencies, which we are not receiving in the

Province of B.C. today.

What about an Auditor General? It's all very well to make a

few remarks about Max Henderson — I was going to say "Ferguson"

again here — in Ottawa. It's all very well for the Premier to

say, "Well, you know, you boys wanted him out in Ottawa." I

didn't want him out in Ottawa. We need an Auditor General I

think in every legislature in this country, and we certainly

need one on the federal side.

I've been talking about this thing for the better part of

five or six years in the Province of B.C., and rather than use

my own words, which I am becoming more tired of no doubt than

you are, I'd just like to quote a little bit of an extract from

an editorial in the Vancouver Province , which I think is

today or yesterday, or pretty close by:

"B.C. needs an Auditor General with a real degree of independence

from government control, and he would need an adequate staff to do the difficult

spade work of checking for waste and impropriety in government spending. Without

the information collected by an expert staff of independent auditors, the members

of the Public Accounts Committee can't begin to meet their watchdog responsibilities

in more than a token way."

How correctly that was summed up by the editorial writer for the Province.

They won't know where to sink their teeth in. How correct that statement is.

At the moment, B.C. has a Comptroller General who is

required to make sure that government spending accords with the

law, which is very correct, and no complaint whatsoever about

that. But he's a creature of the Department of Finance, and by

no stretch of the imagination does his job permit him to be an

Auditor General in the public sense in the Province of B.C.

I'm introducing a bill to that effect tomorrow, and I do

hope that I will at least receive the support of some of the

Members of the backbench of the Government, because there's

been no indication, in fact negative indication, that there'll

be any support from the cabinet.

You know, we hear fine words about that from the Minister of

Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan). He goes to the trouble now of

writing a letter to the editor because he's had such a silent

time in the House so far this year. He talks about his

insurance bit and he says this: "This administration is

determined not only that public business will be done

[ Page 798 ]

properly, but that it will be seen to be done properly," which is a paraphrase of that great quotation.

But that's what the last Social Credit Member who was

speaking was referring to — proper account. That's what the

first Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) was

referring to — proper account, doing the public business in the

public eye. And if it is mucked up, the public have the right

to go to court to wage their case against the government, any

government. As the Premier says, and quite correctly, there's

going to be changes of government in this province. Against any

government, we've got to start protecting citizen's rights in

this province, and there's no indication of that being done

effectively at the present time.

You carry on in this thing: "An NDP government" — talking

again about economy for people — "an NDP government will be

prepared to place firms unwilling to meet these conditions

under public ownership." Without recompense? Just guillotine

them out, and not let them have an opportunity to go to court?

You say in here you're going to establish full public control

over our resources sector. Mr. Pattison doesn't have anything

to worry about. I'd like to send him a copy of this too.

Now, the first speaker today, the Member from West

Vancouver-Howe Sound (Mr. Williams) when he was talking about

Squamish, said let's see what the NDP were saying when they

were running for election and when they were making contracts

and offers to the public, saying, "You elect us and it shall be

done," which he didn't explain in his analogy. You made

an offer. The public accepted it. You're not doing it today — that's breach of contract.

You said, "The NDP will establish a provincial

transportation authority to co-ordinate all provincial

transportation systems." Well now, why in heaven's name don't

you get along with your provincial transportation authority to

co-ordinate all provincial transportation systems, before you

start nibbling at Britannia and saying you don't want to nibble

at Prince Rupert?

Where is that kind of an effective decision being made? This

is where it should be made. I think this is a good idea. You

certainly get my total support for it, it's a first class

suggestion. Why don't you do it instead of running ad hoc

across the country and trying to flit a little stuff out of

Britannia, which I don't think will end up flitting out of

Britannia one way. Not one way.

Now, I would like to direct myself to one final topic, and

this is a topic that I have spoken about before in this House.

It's a topic that has been spoken about by one of your former

Members, now Mr. Justice Berger, and it's a topic that has been

talked about by the Minister without Portfolio (Hon. Mr.

Calder).

You have not done the right thing to the British Columbian

Indian community. You have not done it. They have had studies

up to here and back and forth. Make no mistake of it. We've

heard these very sentiments from the other two names I have

just mentioned. The former Members of this House heard this

before from me.

I'm going to ask the Premier today, first of all not just to

say, "We're going to have a study and we don't want to go ahead

and do one thing because it may reflect against another,

" because I am going to tell you four or five things you

can do today as a cabinet, and should ethically and morally do

today as a cabinet, and just by snapping your fingers. All you

have to have is a correct change of attitude to do it. What I'm

asking that you do is change the attitude toward our British

Columbian Indian citizen.

I think that a lot of people will agree that the reserve

system has resulted in a form of cloistering. What was maybe

considered to be humanitarian and workable over 100 years ago,

today is definitely not, because we are no longer a community

of trappers. But we've got to remember, Mr. Premier, that our

society has developed in three phases — rural to resource

development, and now it is one that has almost become 90 per

cent urban.

But over the past 100 years, and this is not any criticism

of the federal side — they're entitled to their share of

criticism too and make no mistake about it — the province has

done nothing. But over the past 100 years, the rules dealing

with our Indian people were established for all practical

purposes totally without their consent and totally without

their consultation.

They have not experienced anything like any part of the

dynamic change that has been enjoyed by the rest of our

society. Be it ever so slowly, Mr. Chairman, through you to the

Hon. Premier, the very dreary documents and philosophies that

encircled the Indian into this position of second class

security are at long last beginning to change. I say thank God

for that.

Nineteen fifty-two was a very banner year, apart from the

provincial side as my friends over here will like. The

until then, 21 years ago, that the new Indian Act , or

the Indian Act then, accepted the theory that autonomy

over Indian land by Indian people was not only possible, but it

was fair and in their better interests. So that decision was

totally made. So once again the Indian person started to become

recognized as a person of the moment, as opposed to the fallacy

that he was something that history had finished and dealt with

and the people of Canada slowly started to realize that it was

only the buffalo that had disappeared and not the Indian.

Now, the Indian communities in our province that are close

to the urban centres are emerging into our society more

quickly, I think, than their rural

[ Page 799 ]

neighbours, but every Indian in our province still gets the

wrong end of the stick. It's about time we all put our shoulder

to the wheel and see that that comes to an end, because you've

got to remember that they're taxpayers.

I'm going to emphasize this, because there's nothing in your

election material in my view that's worth a darn insofar as

coming up with any kind of effective programme for the Indian

people. You just say "Indians, a new way" and that you're going

to work to ensure the repeal of the Indian Act . A lot of

the Indian community don't want to have that happen. But you

don't say in here one thing that you're going to do for them

within the Province of B.C.

Now, you cannot go ahead and deny him his reserve, because

that is his land, but he's got to be given the full opportunity

to free himself from the fetters of the reserve system. It's

the system that's the bad thing. To do that, and I would repeat

this half a dozen times, he has to be equipped to cope. He's

got to be equipped to cope.

We have to instil in these people feelings of confidence

and equality. You know that's pretty darned difficult, when

they attend a modern B.C. school in the daytime, and, in many

cases, they have to cross the potholes each evening to squalor,

because their daily living becomes a series of contradictions

and insecurity.

Now, you do have the legal and the moral and the

governmental responsibility to do something. The constitutional

side step — I don't want to hear that, particularly from the

Hon. Premier, because this is something that was used by his

predecessor, and very badly used in my view indeed.

The first step in reducing the apartness of the Indian lies

in him becoming completely accepted as a citizen of the

province in every respect. The British North America Act

is no obstacle to that at all. I'm going to read one

section of the Act, and this is the one

section of the Act

which I wish the Hon. Premier will never forget and which will

give him the scope to make the necessary changes.

That's

section 87. It says this: "Provincial laws of general

application shall be applicable to and in respect of Indians in

the province." That doesn't mean anything more than what it

says. So make provincial laws applicable to and in respect of

Indians in the province. This means that they are entitled to

the home acquisition grant. They are entitled to municipal aid;

they are entitled to services; and they are entitled to each

and every provincial law of general application the same way as

each and every other citizen of the province.

The constitutional sidestep is not the kind of game that can

be played here. I say, just forget the "i" dotting and forget

this old "Hiawatha" outlook and thinking that we have been

having in British Columbia over the years and get to this thing very, very

quickly.

I'm just going to mention a few specifics dealing with this.

As I said, they should be entitled to the service because they

fall under provincial laws, but still they don't, They are

definitely taxpayers. There is some misconception among certain

members of the community, and hopefully not any elected

representatives, that Indians are not taxpayers. But they sure

are, because they contribute to provincial revenues just the

same way as everybody else. They pay their 5 per cent — their

motor vehicle user tax, gasoline, driver's licence, building

material tax, manufacturing tax and liquor tax. They contribute

to workmen's compensation, unemployment insurance and no end of

other things.

The only tax shelter for a B.C. Indian is totally nebulous.

He doesn't have to pay income tax for any income he may earn on

a reserve, which is about as close to nil as anything could

possible be. Also, he does not have to pay land tax for his

reserve land. Well, there is no need for the Government to got

steamed up about these two points because the working side of

the Indian community earns whatever they earn off the reserve

and they pay income tax on it.

Insofar as the land tax is concerned, the majority of homes

on the reserves would never, ever, attract the provincial land

tax. These arguments are very hoary and old arguments — that

they are not taxpayers — and apart from being hoary and old

they are grossly unfair. It is just plain bunk, insofar as I'm

concerned.

So we can see that the provincial contribution in B.C. has

been next to nil. The federal contribution has been very large

indeed. Maybe the Indian community feel that it hasn't been

large enough, but it certainly has been large. Apart from

anything else, the federal government year paid $683 plus

transportation for each Indian child in a provincial school.

That's going up to $737. Say you have four children, you

multiply that by four, and I'd ask the Hon. Premier how many

people in B.C. would be paying close to $3,000 land tax for

education costs — next to none.

The province is doing pretty well insofar as the schooling

is concerned. For housing, a couple of years ago the federal

government provided about $3 million by way of direct subsidy

plus low interest loans by CMHC. Two years ago — I haven't got

a figure closer than that — the federal contribution overall

was about $8.3 million. I read in the paper this morning that

they are putting up $1.7 million to assist diking in the

Chilliwack area for about 700 acres — which is a very

worthwhile step.

But, in B.C. — here's what we have done as governments — the

past contribution was about 50 cents a head from the Indian

Advisory Act and about

[ Page 800 ]

$1.4 million from the First Citizens Fund. The First

Citizens Fund was conceived primarily, I would think, as a

capital resource for the hydro dams and secondly, a very mighty

poor peace pipe for the Indian community. Getting grants from

it was pretty well like subjecting oneself to offerings from

the tables of the mighty.

In other jurisdictions you find help. Ontario — 50 per cent

for roads and 80 per cent for bridges. Manitoba, about the same

formula. Ontario — the reserve Indian receives relief from

sales tax. Quebec — the reserve Indian receives relief from

sales tax. Saskatchewan — 50 per cent of the taxes the

municipality collects from an occupier of Indian land is

transferred right back to the band. In Alberta an occupier of

Indian land has a total exemption from municipal taxes in order

to provide better rents to the Indian.

Those provinces provide some economic nourishment on their

own hook, but not in B.C. Here is what I see you've got to do.

There are four points, Mr. Premier, that I would like you to

note and I would like you to reply to each of them

specifically. Firstly, I would say that you should notify the

House this afternoon that you are going to ensure all the

services that are received by the rest of the citizens in this

province can be made available to reserve Indians. There is no

reason why they should have blacktop on one side and pot holes

on the other — electricity on one side and coal oil lamps on

the other — running water on one side and wells on the other.

Most important — improved housing. They must have the

opportunity to apply for the grant and mortgage moneys provided

under the Provincial Home Acquisition Act.

The Provincial Home Acquisition Act, Mr. Chairman,

does not apply to only one

section of British Columbia. Isn't

that nice — it does not apply to reserve Indians.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Indians don't get it?

MR. GARDOM: They are not allowed to receive it. They should

be entitled to the $5,000 loan, or the $1,000 grant for new

homes, or the $2,500 loan or $500 grant for older homes. This

has been advocated before, but these are the only people in

B.C. who are denied the right to apply for the provincial home

acquisition grant. I am introducing an amendment tomorrow to

the Provincial Home Acquisition Act which will make it

possible for them to receive those funds. So they should.

I understand of the 192 bands we have, about 159 or 160 have

some form of self-government. I say the municipal per capita

grants — $32 it is going up to, which is hardly enough — must

be made available to self-governing bands.

Fourthly, I would say the bands should be granted a fair share of the taxes a municipality collects from

non-Indian occupiers of Indian land. They must not be denied

their reserves, Mr. Chairman, because that is their land. Some

bands are very fortunate, as I have said earlier. By virtue of

their personnel and their location they have been able to do

not too badly. Others are far less fortunate. The opportunity

must be granted to help our B.C. Indians free themselves from

the fetters of the reserve system and the second class pseudo

security in which they are locked into now.

In order to do that, as I have said, they have got to be

equipped to cope with confidence and equality and to move into

the main stream of life in the future of this province. Retain

their heritage — certainly — and retain their culture.

I commend the Government for giving a lot of consideration

to assisting in that regard — the introduction of language

teaching and the preservation of the arts. We have something

far, far too valuable to lose here and it is starting to slip

away, make no mistake of that. Fine, retain their heritage,

retain their culture and be not denied of their reserve — but

they have to be entitled to exactly the same keys that are

available to the white man.

There have been some very disquieting statements and I would

like to read this one just before I sit down. It is in John

Norris' book, which is a good book and I recommend it to all of

the Members of the House who haven't seen it — Strangers

Entertained , which is a history of the ethnic groups in

B.C. He says this concerning Indian people, page 61:

"As long as the province's economy grew relatively slowly,

most of the Indians were able to adapt successfully to it. But

with rapid change and its attendant economic and social

dislocations, life on the reserve came to be increasingly out

of harmony with that in the main community. What was relative

prosperity among the Indians 40 years ago, is now desperate

poverty.

"Health standards are too often low in the reservation and

opportunities for the young appear to be hopelessly inadequate

but the metro policies of the new industrial society are not

havens and new beginnings but rather the last most terrible

chapter in a history of human decay.

"All too often a young Indian couple, enticed by the

opportunities of the city, find themselves under-prepared or

excluded like immigrants from a foreign land; condemned by

poverty to live in its worst districts and pushed by despair

into the alcoholism, drug-taking and prostitution of skid

row."

This is not justice, Mr. Chairman, this is not fairness. And

this is a daily, continuing disgrace in B.C. I would like to

have something affirmative, not promises, affirmative from the

Premier today.

[ Page 801 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the Member

for outlining a series of very serious injustices that can not

be defended on moral grounds, cannot be defended ethically, and

frankly, cannot be defended politically.

I want to tell the Member that his appeals in this House,

when we were in Opposition together, have done a great deal to

bring these problems to the attention of the people of this

province.

When I asked my colleague, the Hon. Minister without

Portfolio (Hon. Mr. Calder) to immediately look into the whole

matter of injustices to the native Indian people, I asked him

to put a timetable for the blueprint. He said, "One year, but,

Mr. Premier, I'm going to come back to you before that year is

up with specific recommendations that don't need any further

study."

As the Member points out, and I'm pleased to say, that

before this session is over we will be bringing in some

significant and somewhat historical legislation to try to

correct in our own small way the many, many injustices to these

people. I hope that the legislation will be in within two

weeks. I understand it is now in the works.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Okay. I'll be happy to see a draft of

specific things that we've got in. They're already in the

works. We're not waiting for the end of the year. I appreciate

your comments about the studies. We have not embarked through

that Member on another meaningless study.

Of all people to ask in this House to take the study on,

that's the last guy (Hon. Mr. Calder) who would go through a

meaningless study. So the results of his activities and his

representations to me and also representations by the native

Indian people themselves directly to the Minister and to myself

and other cabinet colleagues will lead to significant

legislation before this House is prorogued.

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

Vancouver-Seymour.

MR. C.S. GABELMANN (North Vancouver Seymour): Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

I want to ask two unrelated questions of the Premier. The

first question relates to a subject I mentioned in the throne

speech debate, and that was the question of the B.C. Railway

providing a ski train on weekends to the Whistler Mountain ski

area so that people could avoid having to drive that quite

treacherous highway, and at the same time perhaps provide some

profit for the B.C. Railway.

I've made several inquiries to the B.C. Railway concerning

the question and I just wonder whether the Premier has had a

chance, as president of the railroad, to check into that

question. That's the first point.

The second question relates to energy in its broadest sense.

I'm not absolutely sure, Mr. Chairman, whether it's proper

under these estimates, but in the sense that we have been

talking about the use of the coal deposits in the Sukunka area

in the Peace River, I think perhaps it is appropriate in the

Premier's estimates.

I am curious to know whether or not there have been studies

done in British Columbia that give us any indication about our

total energy reserves of all forms and how those energy

reserves fit into the kind of energy reserves that are left in

the world. In other words, we may well have 400 years worth of

coal in British Columbia. That may be a fairly academic or a

fairly irrelevant figure if it turns out that the world has to

convert from other forms of energy use over to coal use in the

next few years. That 400-year figure could quickly turn into a

five or six year figure.

There has been some speculation or some indication by some

people in the field that energy reserves in the world are

limited in a sense to a six to 10 year period. I wonder whether

there's any work being done by our Government on that whole

question.

I wonder too whether or not we're plugged in in any way to

any of the research that's going on about fusion reactors. I'm

not altogether sure from the reading that I've done whether or

not, technologically, fusion sources of energy are going to be

practical. Some of the experts are saying that the smallest

form in which we could ever develop fusion energy would be the

size of a star. If that's the case then we may well be in

trouble in the future. I just wonder what kind of research is

being done by the government or by government agencies or is

being commissioned by the government or, if there is not too

much going on, whether any thought would be given to some kind

of study of world-wide implications of British Columbia use of

B.C. energy reserves.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, through you, the question of

the ski trains is something that I asked the railroad to look

into. We have a problem related to the replacement or maximum

use of Budd cars. Budd cars are not being manufactured any

more. It's the problem of picking up the proper kind of

equipment. When I asked the railway to look into the ski trains

and the whole passenger service, the obligation they took to me

was to give a report on an alternative to the Budd car. That is

the problem at this time.

[ Page 802 ]

In terms of energy studies, we have instructed B.C. Hydro to

determine in the British Columbia framework what best route we

can go in attempting to meet the growth and energy demands.

I don't accept the energy growth patterns that have been

shown to us. That's why I made the initial statement about

turning lights out. A lot of people were amused at that

suggestion. But in actual fact there are a number of

significant programmes going on right now in other

jurisdictions to that very end. The City of Seattle has an

excellent pamphlet out urging people to cut down on the use of

power. I've shown that pamphlet to the two Members we have on

the board of directors of Hydro.

Con-Edison of New York has an excellent programme known as

"Save a watt," where the whole question of attempting to

significantly reduce the energy demand is being looked at.

The California pattern is one that I am afraid that we will

either learn by or perish by. The California demands of

electricity are astronomical. It has been predicted by that the

year 2000 California will need a nuclear plant every 8 miles on

its coast just to meet their demand at the present growth of

power.

The only significant decrease in power use in California was

during wartime. Interestingly enough, when there were heavy

industrial demands, there was an actual, relatively speaking — not an overall figure — but an actual, relatively speaking,

lessening of demand for hydro power. Perhaps it could have been

the blackouts on the coast during the scare years. In 1942,

just before the Battle of Midway took place, there was the

impression that the particular Japanese fleet that was about in

the middle of the Pacific was going to invade California. They

had a series of blackouts.

After the Aleutian invasion and the Midway battle, it went

on for another 18 months. During that period of time there was

a method of actually controlling the use of electricity on a

domestic basis. They showed a relative decrease so in terms of

state control there was an example.

The energy demands of California are being looked at by a

California legislative committee. It would be worthwhile for

Members of this House, perhaps, to correspond with some of

those committee members. The amount of research that's

available by the Rand Corporation would make very worthwhile

reading to every Member. It cost about $5.5 million. We've

ordered two copies of the research volumes. I went through all

three volumes during…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: $5.5 million worth of research and we have

it for nothing — well, it cost us $15 for a set of the volumes.

I took the volumes with me on my recent vacation.

AN HON. MEMBER: How far did you get'?

HON. MR. BARRETT: How far did I get? I got through all three

volumes, much to my surprise. I want to tell you that I was

very, very proud of the fact that I got through all three

volumes, till I opened the back at the flyleaf and read that

these three volumes are a condensation especially prepared for

Members of the California Legislature. So the technical data

was obviously removed. But the patterns were there and they

were clearly outlined.

California is faced with decisions on the use of nuclear

power. We don't have the wherewithal to duplicate the research

necessary in terms of fission. We hope that either the Soviet

Union or the United States, or perhaps even Canada, makes a

breakthrough. But for my own part, certainly in terms of the

foreseeable future with B.C. Hydro, we don't anticipate nuclear

power in the Province of British Columbia.

That's not the situation that the State of Washington finds

itself in, interestingly enough. They are seriously considering

expansion of their nuclear facilities. But the great expansion

of nuclear facilities is being held up in the United States

because of environmental fights in the courts. Some Members in

this House do read the papers about these things and although

we don't attend lectures we do have some knowledge of what's

going on in other jurisdictions. It appears that the assault by

environmentalists in the United States has curtailed the

development of nuclear power in that country.

The specific question of coal. By all calculations, and the

ones that I rely on are the last Forbes analysis of the

world's coal supply, and their figure is a conservative one — they estimate a 400-year supply of coal based on the present

use and the average increase of use over the last 12 years.

Now, the validity of Forbes analysis may be limited by

the fact that coal as an energy source over the last 12 years

was perhaps not reaching the rate of growth that others

predicted could be reached. In any event there is a 400-year

supply according to Forbes .

The coal that we are dealing with in British Columbia varies

in quality and in quantity. The Sukunka coal is a particularly

prized type of coal in that it has ingredients that make good

steel. The European market right now for good coal, coking

coal, is very good. Prices are quite high, relatively speaking.

In terms of all the information that we have had in front of us

as a government, I don't consider us to be making a mistake if

we sell the coal at what I consider to be a right price with

all of the social and economic benefits that we have attached

to that project. If we can put the proposition together on that

basis, then I think that it will be sound and it will not be

threatening future needs of coal.

Coal for the use of generating power. I don't

[ Page 803 ]

know. It's a long debate that went on. When we first came to

this House, the former B.C. Electric president, Dal Grauer, was

of the opinion that the next great move to be made in the

generation of power in British Columbia was to come from the

Hat Creek coal deposits. As I understand it from the outside,

that was a part of the debate between the previous government

and the private utility, B.C. Electric.

The previous administration felt that it needed to do

something spectacular, and that's when we evolved into the Two

River policy. The work done by the B.C. Electric Company as a

private utility on Hat Creek coal was at a standstill. I've not

read any of that information, but I know it is available.

Perhaps a motion on the order paper to have it filed would be

interesting. People are curious. I don't see why Hydro should

keep it back if it's there. Maybe it is public — I don't

know.

We are now in a position as public owners of Hydro, the

Crown corporation now owning the Hat Creek deposit…There is

a dispute about the Hat Creek deposit, as to its value either

as a use to generate electricity through steam, through heat

and then steam, or to use it to experiment with its properties

as a filter. The specific research that has gone on has been

limited to the sporadic borsatlemites in the Fraser Valley

where they were having a very serious problem of eliminating

the offal and other wastes from their packing house. The fellow

in White Rock — I think his name is Jones — came up with the

proposition that filtering this material through the lignite

coal from Hat Creek was a method — I'm not filibustering, Mr.

Member, I'll finish as quickly as I can — of using the

coal.

Now the proposition does exist to the Government that

perhaps the coal is of more value in using it for the

properties of filtering.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I beg your pardon?

MR. PHILLIPS: All those millions of tons?

HON. MR. BARRETT: All those millions of tons and a fantastic

potential. If the system is workable we could end up by owning

those Hat Creek coal deposits and we could be sitting on a…

AN HON. MEMBER: How do you get all the animals up there?

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, we move the coal down to the animals. As a matter

of fact the value of that coal increases quite dramatically if that particular

process works out to be useful in other areas, At the present time we have asked

B.C. Hydro to examine very closely whether or not there is some realistic programme

we could embark upon to conserve electrical power. When I made the suggestion

of turning out the lights, although it was a matter of public amusement, it

was made with full knowledge that the reaction to it would be a matter of jest

and speculation politically. But, it is a very serious matter, one that needs

every individual's attention.

In terms of federal directions there are things that we

could be doing — that I would like to see this country do — in

terms of changing our building codes to improve the insulation

in housing, to cut down the use of electricity in housing

heating. In the appliances, in many instances, refrigerators

and airconditioners, are overpowered and using great amounts of

electricity, beyond what they really need to perform.

New York as a state now has a system of labelling utilities

for appliances on the basis of whether this particular utility,

this particular appliance, is a good one to use because the

electricity content is less.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, the more efficient use of natural

gas. We have some proposals as a government to make to our

friends in the United States about the use of energy. When I go

to Washington, I will not be going just with the idea of

criticizing the oil tankers. We will be placing forcefully our

position against the oil tankers. But we have an alternative,

and I'm taking my optimistic sales book with me and a number of

very, very interesting proposals.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well I notice that the former Prime

Minister of Canada (Mr. Diefenbaker) made a statement today

about a plan he had and immediately was attacked by the present

Liberal leader in the House. The present Liberal leader in the

House appears to be the only one who is the expert and if

anyone ever offers a suggestion it's, "Stay out of my

territory." Which is somewhat presumptuous, really. I find it

somewhat…

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, I find it somewhat presumptuous. I

found that when I suggested that I go to Washington, I was

attacked by the Member. I have on file the telegram from the

Richmond Women's Liberal Association thanking me for taking the

initiative of going to Washington and suggesting that I take

them along with me.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, I certainly consider

[ Page 804 ]

travelling companions. But, after all, when somebody is a

self-styled expert in every particular aspect — I had to ignore

the Liberal Party's telegram, much to the regret of the…

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Not at all. I have assembled a group of

very interesting people who at this very moment are finishing

in some detail a specific proposal that we will be making in

terms of energy use, energy delivery and energy sources. That

will be shared with everyone after I've had my visit to

Washington.

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

River.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.