1975 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 1975

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

227 ]

CONTENTS

Privilege

Release of public service unions' settlement details.

Mr. Gibson — 227

Mr. Speaker — 228

Routine proceedings

Oral Questions

Purchase of Casa Loma property. Mr. Bennett

— 228

Hydro cost reallocation committee. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 228

Profits of Daon Developments. Mr. Wallace — 228

Housing infractions in Meadowbrook project. Mr. Phillips — 228

Building infractions in Meadowbrook project. Mr. McClelland — 230

Guarantee of Meadowbrook warranty. Mr. McClelland — 230

Financial records and dispersion of drugs. Mr. McGeer — 230

Housing of delinquents in Empress. Hon. Mr. Levi — 230

Investigation into Casa Loma lands. Mr. L.A. Williams — 230

Complaints re film; complaints re Mahal West Resorts

Ltd.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald answers — 231

Throne speech debate Ms. Sanford — 231

Mrs. Jordan — 234

Mr. L.A. Williams — 239

Mr. Fraser — 244

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 249

Division on address to the Lieutenant-Governor — 256

Petitions

Petition of the Institute of Accredited Public Accountants

of B.C.

Mr. Cummings — 257

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 1975

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): I rise on a

question of privilege affecting all Members of this House.

On February 19, Mr. Speaker, I asked a question of the

Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) as follows: "I wonder if

the Provincial Secretary could forecast to the House when

negotiations might be completed with the public service unions

and when the figures for the settlements already arrived at

might be made public." The Provincial Secretary said that the

negotiations were going along well.

On a supplementary, I asked if he could "release some of

those figures before the budget, or in connection with the

budget, because it will help us in assessing the projections."

The Provincial Secretary replied that he would take that under

advisement.

On February 25, speaking in the throne debate, the

Provincial Secretary commented further on my question, saying

in part: "I intend to adhere to the agreement I have with the

union involved not to release the details of settlements until

all negotiations are complete."

Later on that day, speaking to an amendment in the debate, I

rejected the Provincial Secretary's arguments that secrecy had

to be maintained, because all of the other bargaining

components, in fact, did know what was going on in these

negotiations, and the only people who didn't know what was

going on were the public. I repeated this concern the following

day with no response from the government.

In the Vancouver Province this morning, there appeared a

report from Mr. William Hamilton, president of the Employers

Council of B.C., giving details of the settlements to date,

some of them rising in excess of 50 per cent with a COLA clause

stacked on top. This was information, Mr. Speaker, which had

been specifically denied to the House. On inquiring, I find

that it has been made available to numerous people and agencies

around British Columbia and, indeed, that this House seems to

be the last to know.

As specific evidence, I'm advised first of all that the Employers Council of

British Columbia received the settlement details, with no indication of confidentiality,

sometime last week, in an apparently routine release of figures by the government.

Moreover, exact figures and magnitudes on the settlement so far made are well

known in the various components in the public service around British Columbia,

certainly to an extent to make a sham of the government's pretence that secrecy

has to be maintained in order that the components not yet settled should not

know the results of the settlement to date.

Thus, Mr. Speaker, it seems that this House is the last to

know. We are in a position of reading in a newspaper this

morning important information that's been asked for on February

19 and explicitly denied to this House by the government as

recently as two days ago. Much of the information was already

in the hands of the public around British Columbia weeks and

even months before; yet it was denied to this Legislature.

I submit that that constitutes a breach of the privileges of

this House. I've not had an opportunity to do as much research

as I would have liked in regard to precedents, but I would

refer Your Honour to page 342 of May, 18th edition, which

suggests that in cases analogous to this, proceedings have been

interrupted to allow the matter to be taken into account at the

earliest opportunity, and that this matter falls within the

general definition of privilege as stated by May on page 132 of

that edition:

"It may be stated generally that any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of

Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which

obstructs or impedes any Member or officer of such House in the

discharge of his duty, or which has a tendency, directly or

indirectly, to produce such results may be treated as a

contempt even though there is no precedent of the offence."

The denial of information to this House, in fact made

available to members of the public around this province,

clearly falls within that citation.

I would further suggest that this question is covered under

the provisions of freedom of access to Her Majesty whenever

occasion shall require, claimed by Your Honour at the opening

of this session. Access to the Crown is through Ministers, who

clearly have a duty to provide such access unless the occasion

shall otherwise require. In fact the reason given for denial of

access in this case is one which is spurious and incorrect,

namely the need for maintenance of secrecy of settlements

already arrived at in collective bargaining negotiations when

in fact that secrecy had been breached extensively outside this

House.

Accordingly it is proper for this House to establish a

committee on privilege to inquire into the above matters,

including the existence of any agreement with the B.C.

Government Employees' Union as to secrecy, the propriety of

such agreement in terms of the privileges of this House, and

any other matters arriving from that circumstance.

Our standing orders are silent on the question of notice of

motion required on his subject related to privilege, but I

would refer Your Honour to a motion moved by the Hon.

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) on November 5 relating to

privilege, and also to page 359 of May, where he states that

motions arising out of the matter of privilege are also

moved

[ Page 228 ]

without notice.

I have a motion ready if Your Honour would declare it in

order.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, first of all, since it is a rather

complicated matter and takes considerable review, I would like

to reserve my opinions on the question until I have had an

ample opportunity to examine into all the facets of it. I will

report back to the House on that question, and that means

everything to this moment is without prejudice to the Hon.

Member with regard to what steps, if any, he would want to take

at that time, after I have looked at the question.

MR. GIBSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Oral questions.

PURCHASE OF CASA LOMA PROPERTY

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): To the Minister

of Housing: can the Minister inform the House if the Department

of Urban Affairs in Ottawa had indicated to him that it will

withhold federal funds which will form the bulk of the

financing of the purchase of the Casa Loma project until

certain questions with respect to the purchase agreement and

the zoning of this property have been answered?

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): I'll take that as

notice.

HYDRO COST REALLOCATION

COMMITTEE

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, a question to the

Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources: has the

Minister inquired into the source of the memorandum concerning

the B.C. Hydro cost reallocation studies committee which he

tabled in this House recently?

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

Resources): I didn't quite appreciate the question. Could the

Member repeat it?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Could the Minister, then, Mr. Speaker,

authenticate that it is indeed a genuine document from the

files of B.C. Hydro?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: The material that was given this House

is the material that I received, and I have requested further

information from the people who provided the material to

me.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: A further supplementary, Mr. Speaker: as the Minister is a director of B.C. Hydro,

and as it has been stated by Dr. Keenleyside that this, indeed,

was not a secret document, may I ask the Minister whether as a

director he has requested to see the original document, a copy

of which only was tabled in this House?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I think that's a matter that I can

report on more fully at a later date, Mr. Speaker.

PROFITS OF DAON DEVELOPMENTS

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

Minister of Housing what profit was made by Daon Developments

Ltd. with respect to their involvement in the acquisition of

the Minnekhada estate on behalf of Dunhill?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I'll take that question as

notice.

MR. WALLACE: Could I ask a supplementary? Is Daon

Developments Ltd. Involved at the present time in other land

acquisition on behalf of Dunhill?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Again I'll take that as notice.

HOUSING INFRACTIONS

IN MEADOWBROOK PROJECT

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I'd like

to direct a question to the Minister of Housing. In the

Meadowbrook housing project in the district of Coquitlam, 15

per cent of the homes were incorrectly sited and many were in

violation of the fire safety standards. What action was taken

to ensure the safety of those families, women and children,

living in those particular homes?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, those would be matters for

North Road Housing and the authorities in the municipality of

Coquitlam.

MR. PHILLIPS: It is the Minister's Dunhill Development that

did purchase this. I'd like to ask a further supplementary

question, Mr. Speaker. Is it true that windows were boarded up

and carports moved in order to attempt to meet safety and

building standards?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I believe that question is

out of order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Why?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: In saying "is it true?" you

[ Page 229 ]

are asking a hypothetical question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, a further, final supplementary

question. Will the Minister of Housing advise the House that

site changes were not made in order to cut down on costs of the

amount of excavating and backfilling on that Meadowbrook

project?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, that question has as much

relevance as if I were to ask him whether he has stopped Dan

Campbell from preparing his speeches. It's the old....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. NICOLSON: ..."have you stopped beating your wife?" If

we look at that question in its logical terms and replace the

statements with a, b and c, we will see that he is trying to

get me into a semantic cleft stick.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I'm talking about a very serious

matter here that involves the livelihood of the women and

children living in those houses. There were changes made in the

original deal, and the Minister who is responsible for housing

certainly has a duty and a responsibility to advise this House

that the safety of those women and children living in that

Meadowbrook project is being looked after and that fire

standards are not being subjected....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think the Hon. Member must

remember in asking a question that he has to take a position of

a fact that he himself has accepted and that he is stating a

fact. I presume that his purpose was not merely to do a sort of

fishing expedition all over British Columbia.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I have the facts and I want the

Minister to assure this House — and it is his duty and

responsibility to assure this House and the Members of this

Legislature — that the livelihood and the safety of the women

and children living in that Meadowbrook project are being

looked after and that fire safety standards have been adhered

to.

I don't appreciate the smart-alecky comments from the

Minister of Housing. He had a responsibility and a duty to this

Legislature. If he can't fulfil those duties and those

responsibilities, he should resign forthwith.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Order!

The Hon. Member has a point of order?

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, this is a

question period. The disgraceful kind of display of ignorance

of a proper question period in this House is making a mockery

out of it. That group over there wouldn't permit a question

period in the House when they were government, and now,

suddenly, they disgrace this House by their disgraceful

performance.

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I ask that Minister to withdraw

that remark "disgraceful performance." I'm trying to look after

the safety of women and children in this province and you're

saying that's a disgrace.

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

MR. PHILLIPS: What kind of an attack is that on a Member who

is trying to do his duty and look after women and children?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to the Hon. Members that it is

not exactly a salubrious performance to start making speeches

during question period?

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, I certainly will.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: I'll be glad to do that.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: But the trouble with insults on both sides is

that it continues....

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: I would gladly ask those hon. gentlemen to

apologize for any inference that was unparliamentary towards

the Hon. Member.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: I hear apologies from Hon. Members who are not

on their feet.

Interjection.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

[ Page 230 ]

MR. SPEAKER: On the same subject?

BUILDING INFRACTIONS IN

MEADOWBROOK PROJECT

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Speaker, to the

Minister of Housing. On the date that the Minister and myself

and some other people visited the Meadowbrook subdivision,

could the Minister advise the House whether or not it's true

that either then or now there have been in the neighbourhood of

1,800 written orders, or an average of 10 per unit, issued to

Dunhill by Coquitlam municipality detailing bylaw infractions

for building and plumbing and are infractions which must be

corrected under the terms of the land-use contract — 1,800 or

10 per unit, in that development in Coquitlam?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Premier, I'll take the....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! (Laughter.)

Interjections.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I would point out that the

responsibilities are matters between North Road Housing and....

AN HON. MEMBER: Dunhill.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: ...Coquitlam. However, I will take the

question as notice and try and get the information.

GUARANTEE OF

MEADOWBROOK WARRANTY

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, just one quick supplementary,

then, in the light of that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, it's an important question. I'm glad

that he referred to the Premier (Hon. Mr. Barrett) because it's

his constituency and he should be the person who's asking these

questions. It's in your constituency, Mr. Premier.

This is a problem for Dunhill Development, not for North Road or for anyone

else but a problem for the Government of British Columbia. Because there is

a one-year warranty on those homes in Meadowbrook, and we've seen that there

are many building infractions already, what guarantee is the government prepared to

give to the people who are living in that subdivision right now that will ensure

that major construction defects which may be discovered at the end of that one-year

warranty will be corrected by Dunhill Development or the Government of British

Columbia?

MR. SPEAKER: I think you have to proceed on the first

question and have that answered. Whenever that's answered, then

that one would be applicable.

FINANCIAL RECORDS AND

DISPERSION OF DRUGS

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

like to ask the Minister of Human Resources whether or not, in

the drug distribution programmes — the Methadone programmes

sponsored by the provincial government — strict financial

records are kept and whether strict records are kept as to the

dispersion of these drugs.

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Human Resources): Mr. Speaker,

could I take that question as notice? It's something that I'm

not familiar with on a day-to-day basis.

HOUSING OF DELINQUENTS

IN EMPRESS HOTEL

HON. MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, while I'm on my feet, can I

answer a question that was asked yesterday by the Hon. Member

for Langley (Mr. McClelland), who asked one of the more

penetrating questions yesterday? I presumed it was based on

some fact which he didn't put before the House.

I checked the vouchers in relation to the $52,000 paid out

by the government — not by my department but by the government — to the Empress. The total amount of money paid by my

department to the Empress Hotel was $1,323 on eight vouchers.

We have found no information on those vouchers relating to the

alleged delinquent or delinquents whom you suggested were

staying there.

I would also point out to you that the proper way of dealing

with this is to raise it at the public accounts committee.

Interjections.

MR. McCLELLAND: ...bring up any subject. ...that is what

question period is for. What we need in this House is an answer

period.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

INVESTIGATION INTO

CASA LOMA LANDS

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker,

a question to the Hon. Attorney-General: has the

Attorney-General or his

[ Page

231 ]

department undertaken any investigation into the acquisition

by Casa Loma Ltd. of the lands recently acquired by Dunhill or

the provincial government?

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): The answer is no,

I'd say generally that if anybody in respect to any transaction

brings any kind of fair evidence of commercial fraud or

anything of that kind — I'm not talking about this thing: I'm

talking about anything — to my department, then I think the

proper course for me would be to order an investigation by the

commercial fraud

section of RCMP. But I would want some

evidence brought to the department that it was a criminal

matter.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Would the Attorney-General undertake the

same investigation if there was indication that the declared

values given to the registrar of titles might be inaccurate and

undervalued, therefore resulting in the underpayment of

fees?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The answer is yes. I wouldn't jump to a

conclusion in this or any other case. But if it smacks of

something that is illegal in terms of depriving the Crown of

proper revenues, it should be investigated.

MR. SPEAKER: I must say, with respect, that the question is

out of order and the answer is out of order because it's asking

for a legal

interpretation. It's also hypothetical.

COMPLAINTS RE FILM;

COMPLAINTS RE MAHAL WEST

RESORTS LTD.

MR. WALLACE: Could the Attorney-General answer the question

on the same subject that he took his notice from me the other

day, relating to a similar subject?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Oak Bay

asked me two questions: one related to a film that I don't

intend to sell any more tickets for. (Laughter.) There were no

complaints either to the director of film classifications or to

my department with respect to that. The other related to Mahal

West Resorts Ltd. Again, I have no complaints. I also checked —

although you could ask the question directly of the Minister of

Consumer Services (Hon. Ms. Young) — with her department

informally, and I don't believe the Consumer Services branch

has received complaints either.

Orders of the day.

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued debate)

MS. K. SANFORD (Comox): It's a pleasure to take my place in

this debate on the throne speech. A very fine speech it was,

Mr. Speaker. It highlighted the plans of the government for

this coming session and it also outlined many of the

accomplishments of this government during the last 2½ years.

Even though it was one of the longest throne speeches on

record, it didn't begin to cover the accomplishments of this

government in the last 2½ years.

I would like to start today by speaking on behalf of 75

miners who have lost their jobs at Western Mines, near Campbell

River, through the disturbing actions taken by that company. In

December, the company — which, incidentally, is controlled by

Grace of New York — sent a letter to its 300 employees stating

that because of escalating costs, royalty payments and the new

federal government tax laws, they would have to cut back on

production and perhaps even close down because they anticipated

an operating loss in 1975 of $775,000. The company then laid

off 75 employees in January and announced that in March it

would consider the mine's future, including the possibility of

closing it down.

Now because Western Mines has a good ore body, the Minister

of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) wrote to

the company requesting that the company provide figures to the

department which would show that they would lose $775,000 in

1975. Now, because Western Mines is not solely a producer of

copper, the Minister was concerned about this prediction by the

company. Certainly, the mines that are relying on their copper

ore bodies are facing some problems, because the Japanese have

requested that production be cut back by 15 per cent, and now,

I understand, are considering the possibility of cutting back

by 30 per cent. So they're faced with problems.

But at Western the situation is different. Western provided

the figures requested by the Minister of Mines, and the

Department of Mines went through those figures in great detail.

It turns out that Western Mines is not going to lose $775,000

in 1975; but, according to their own figures, they would make a

profit, operating at full production, of $1.2 million in 1975.

There's nearly a $2 million difference in the two figures. The

Minister then asked the company....

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: Class A park, he says. Look who permitted that company

to operate within a class A park.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Why don't

[ Page

232 ]

you get them out?

MS. SANFORD: You know, that's interesting — he says, "why

don't you get them out?" One minute he's yelling about

employment in this province and jobs; the next minute he says

to throw them out of the park where you people put them in the

first place.

The Minister then asked the company, after they'd studied

all these figures, to reconsider its decision to lay off those

75 men, but the company refused.

Following the department's release of those $1.2 million

estimated profits for 1975, Western Mines' president indicated

in the news media that he wanted to meet with the Minister in

order to discuss the figures which the Department of Mines had

come up with. But, Mr. Speaker, no request for a meeting has

been made.

I have a clipping from one of the Campbell River papers,

dated February 2, 1975, and it reads as follows:

"Directors of Western Mines Ltd. will meet March 3 in Vancouver to review the Myra Creek operation in

Strathcona Park, it was reported today. According to a press

report, Western Mines is reviewing calculations that led to a

projected operating deficit in 1975, resulting in a layoff of

75 men.

" R.O. Hampton, secretary of the company, was quoted as saying that Western's calculations are being

reviewed and the provincial government's suggestion is being

considered. An appeal was made by Mines Minister Leo Nimsick to

the company to reconsider the layoffs."

Now what kind of responsibility has that company shown? They

made a big splash in the press about anticipated losses and

they let off 75 men. That company has made healthy profits over

the years. They received public funds to help them build the

road into the mine, and they received public funds to help them

get started. They are dumping tailings into beautiful Buttle

Lake, which happens to be the source of the water supply for

the municipality of Campbell River, and you are quite

right: they are operating in a class A public park, thanks to

the former Socred government.

Mr. Speaker, the actions of that company indicate to me that

they are playing games. They are playing political games in an

attempt to discredit this government and its mineral royalty

legislation. They are hoping to get the public to put pressure

on the government to repeal or amend that legislation, but they

are showing a callousness to the employees, to the people of

Campbell River and to the public of this province.

It is my hope that the company will re-evaluate its position, stop playing

politics, and rehire the 75 men who have lost their jobs. If they don't, then

I am hoping that perhaps those 75 unemployed miners may be able to obtain work

in the new zinc mine that is opening up at the north end of the island in March

of this year.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Is there a new mine opening in

British Columbia?

MS. SANFORD: They apparently haven't heard of Bill 31.

AN HON. MEMBER: I didn't think they'd have a mine opening

under this government.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That would ruin the opposition.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, the companies don't want to pay a

royalty. They would much prefer to have a government in power

that says: "Help yourself; it's free." Just like that group did

over there all the time they were in office.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ripoff artists.

MS. SANFORD: A royalty: what is a royalty? It is simply a

payment for the material the company uses; it's a normal

business expense. Every company must pay for the material it

uses. Do you know that the mining companies in B.C. earned a

profit of $231 million in 1973? And presumably, in spite of the

drop in the price of copper, they will earn healthy profits

again in 1974. For the privilege of earning those profits, in

1974 they will pay to the people of the province only $13

million in royalties for that kind of privilege to earn profits

in this province. Now a legitimate business expense, which is

what a royalty is — payment for the material they are using —

should be tax deductible. But once this government started

talking about putting in a royalty, the feds decided that that

royalty should not be tax deductible. Now that is very

interesting — coming from the Liberals.

The mining companies of this country have paid virtually no

income tax over the years. They have enjoyed a long series of

tax write-offs, tax holidays and tax exemptions.

The leader of the Liberals in his speech the other day

called on this government to repeat Bill 31 and replace it with

a profits tax. What have the federal Liberals been doing all

these years? Western Mines in 1973 made $5,533,926 in profits

and paid not one cent in income taxes that year — and they're

talking about a profit tax.

The total mining profits in Canada during the fourth quarter

of 1974 declined by 13.6 per cent. Do you know that during the

fourth quarter of 1974 they made in this country only $431

million in

[ Page

233 ]

profits? That's all. Do you also know that that's up 219 per

cent over the period of two years earlier? And they're talking

about a profits tax.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Let's hear it for the poor little mining

companies.

MS. SANFORD: Now, Mr. Speaker, having heard this from the

Liberals over there, I find an

article in the Vancouver

Sun , dated February 19, 1975, which reports on the new

income tax bill which is being debated in the House of

Commons.

I'd like to quote from this. I'm starting here in the middle

of a sentence, so I would like that to go on record as well,

but this is the quote. If I want to read the whole thing, then

I would have to leave you hanging in the air as' far as this

particular sentence is concerned. The point that I want to

make, based on this article, is that the federal Liberals are

again playing games as far as taxes are concerned.

"...the commons approved a controversial

section restoring

the former 100 per cent tax write-off for exploration expenses incurred by mining

and oil companies." That's what they're saying back in Ottawa.

"It was cut to 30 per cent last year under pressure from the New Democratic Party, then holding the

effective balance of power in a minority parliament. Turner

announced in November, after a majority Liberal win in the July

8 election, that the write-off would be restored."

AN HON. MEMBER: A payoff, a political payoff.

MS. SANFORD: And they're talking here about a profits tax —

remove our Bill 31, they say, and put on a profits tax. That's

a joke, Mr. Speaker.

A royalty, which is a payment to the people of this province

for the ore, is little enough to ask of the mining

companies.

The Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) is quite right when he

says that the days of resource giveaways in this province are

over.

Mr. Speaker, the throne speech also makes reference to the

new Sewerage Facilities Assistance Act which was introduced by

this government.

The government's attempt to assist municipalities to upgrade their sewage

disposal system is commendable, and it shows it's aware and concerned of the

sewage disposal problem. Under the new sewerage facilities assistance legislation,

municipalities have been — paid $5.5 million

whereas, under the old Socred sewerage

facilities assistance, only $205,000 was paid out to the municipalities of the

province in the last year. In my riding, this has meant for the Town of Comox

a grant of $7,429; to the Village of Sayward, $5,461; to the City of Courtenay,

$7,727; and to the Village of Cumberland, $28,120.

Domestic sewage disposal, with the advent of the flush

toilet, has mostly taken the form of emissions into

watercourses. I am somewhat concerned about this, Mr. Speaker,

because not only have we missed the boat on re-use; we've also

contaminated waterways with inadequately treated waste. It's

false economy, compounded by intergovernmental buck-passing on

this issue, that has too long delayed rational solutions to

this problem. Many communities are now in various stages of

upgrading sewage treatment to a secondary level, but many are

still dumping raw sewage into the waterways — Comox for

one.

Where extensive work has already been undertaken towards

secondary treatment systems, municipalities should continue to

be encouraged in that direction, in my view. But where no work

has been undertaken to put in any kind of sewage-treatment

system, it's incumbent on this government; in my view, to

encourage alternate approaches to this problem.

Just north of Courtenay, near Bates Beach, a developer has

made application to the Pollution Control Board to dump a

maximum of 80,000 gallons of effluent a day into the Strait,

which is the effluent from a subdivision of about 200 homes.

The treatment applied for is secondary, but the public in the

Courtenay area at this time do not accept that, even with this

kind of treatment, no harm will occur to Georgia Strait as a

result.

Now it is apparent that Georgia Strait is a body of water

that requires tender, loving care. Professor George Picard,

UBC's director of the Institute of Oceanography, has made the

point that 70 per cent of our population lives on the periphery

of the strait, and that that population will double in 25

years, at present rates. In addition to the importance of this

waterway as the source of the movement of extracted materials,

natural products, trace commodities, and that kind of thing, it

is a vital habitat for numerous fish species. The rapidly

increasing recreational use of the strait must also be noted.

The concern of the fishing camps in the Bates Beach area is

certainly indicative of this, Now adding urgency to the problem is another matter

mentioned by Professor Picard, The sea has a much faster rate

of environmental change than the land, and there is also the

fact that the strait's waters are similar to an inland sea or a

lake, in that the interchange of water, or the flushing out

action, is low. This means that in our relative ignorance, new

developments in the area could tip the ecological balance the

wrong way. While Professor Picard zeroes in on bigger projects

like dams and superports and airports, I would suggest that the

total effect of a multitude of residential discharges could be

at least as dangerous to the strait.

The cost of correcting mistakes is usually greater

[ Page 234 ]

than starting out in the proper way, and provincial funding

should be used to encourage innovations in treatment and

disposal, rather than the course that we have followed where we

simply dump into waterways, even when the sewage has been

treated.

But until there are better and more economical ways of

dealing with domestic sewage so that it can be utilized for

fertilizer, or even for a protein food, as developed by Dr.

Coulthardt, as reported in the press just last week, we should

insist, I think, on continuing, along the east coast of

Vancouver Island from these small subdivisions and their

applications, the utilization of septic tanks, which have been

used all along and have worked with success in that area,

rather than permit at this time a discharge of even treated

sewage into Georgia Strait.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: Very expensive for these developers.

I learned when I was in Ceylon last year that among the many

problems facing that little country was a serious shortage of

fertilizer. We in B.C. can, through research, develop

inexpensive ways in which waste can be used to make the land

more fertile, ways which could then be copied by countries such

as Ceylon, now call Sri Lanka. A concentrated effort in this

direction would also enable us in B.C. to bring more land into

production.

Mr. Speaker, this government has undertaken an excellent

programme of planning in all sorts of fields, and has attempted

to reverse much of the damage to the environment that has been

allowed to take place over the years.

I would like to cite, from within my own riding, the

Tsitika-Schoen study which is now complete, and on which public

hearings are going to be held next week: the expanded tree

planting programme which will ensure that that resource is

renewed; also the cleanup that is taking place finally at the

Port Alice pulp mills where Rayonier is now spending over $40

million to prevent further damage to Neroutsos Inlet.

I would also like to point to the studies that are underway

right now which will result in the restoration of the Campbell

River estuary at Campbell River. One of the papers in the

Campbell River area carried a large, front-page

article just

last week concerning itself with the work that is being

undertaken to ensure that the damage to the Campbell River

estuary is reversed.

I'm asking that we do not allow new subdivisions to dump

into the strait, but that we concentrate our efforts at this

time on giving developers an economically viable

alternative.

There are numerous alternatives that are available. I have a copy of a draft

report which has been done by the pollution control branch in which the alternate

methods for sewage disposal are discussed. I understand that the final draft

on that will be completed in the not-too-distant future.

But many of the alternatives that are outlined in this

particular book present problems to those of us who live along

the coast, because of the wet climate. But it seems to me that

these are problems which can be overcome with research. I would

like to call upon this government — in particular the

Department of Municipal Affairs, as the department which is in

charge of the sewerage facilities legislation, Recreation and

Conservation, because of its interest in fish and wildlife, and

on Lands, Forests and Water Resources as the department

responsible for pollution control — to get together and come up

with suggestions to change the present approach to the domestic

sewage problem.

Better still, create a separate department of the

environment, which could direct its attention to finding

solutions to these problems.

Mr. Speaker, there are many, many other issues that I would

like to deal with in this throne speech debate, but because

there are a lot of people who are waiting to speak I will take

my seat at this time and take up further issues at a later

time.

Thank you very much.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): I enjoyed very much the

Hon. Member for Comox's presentation, sort of today's socialist

septic programme, but I did wonder at times, when she was busy

praising the programmes of the government, if it wasn't a

little bit like a new road show — Charlie McCarthy or Charlotte

McCarthy, the dancing dolly of Davie's — a bit of a rollicking

road show that could be titled "The Miner's Delight, "

because I'm sure many of the working and mining people in this

province — and I speak of the workers — would not be overly

heartened by that Member's comments which, by now, are not any

secret. But still it is very disturbing to those who cannot

find jobs, whose small businesses are declining, if not going

out of operation, because of such comments that there is

certainly no change in attitude on the part of government.

I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, that it is a pleasure to

take my place in this throne speech debate, representing the

people of the North Okanagan as a member of a living,

breathing, growing and vital party and movement in British

Columbia, one of a massive group of people who are uniting in

their common thought through Social Credit, and in their

dedication to this Province of British Columbia, to our lives,

to our children's lives, to the people of British Columbia, and

to its future.

I'd also just like to join the other sentiments offered in

regard to our lost and dear friend, Ned DeBeck. Each of us has

our own memories; each of us has our respect for him in his

provincial capacity. But

[ Page 235 ]

I would like to say I for one miss his beautiful white head,

his quill and the many happy hours that we had over tea. I

shall cherish through my lifetime the apricot wood gavel that

he made for our family. I know that the council of women in

Vernon will cherish long beyond our lifetimes the applewood

gavel that he made and presented to them.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that throughout this debate

and our Social Credit amendment to the throne speech, this

party has spoken systematically, Member by Member, on the major

subjects that are of serious concern to the people of British

Columbia today.

Unemployment — the highest in Canada and still growing. We

have spoken about the concern for the frivolous attitude of

this government towards the use of taxpayers' hard-earned

dollars and the mismanagement of the overall economy of the

province. We have expressed the concern about the effect that

this is having on people and the effect that is resulting from

the government's ideological blindness, to their erratic

actions and instant legislation, and the effect that this is

having on people in this province, whether they are pensioners,

workers, students. People are hurting in this province, Mr.

Speaker; people are hurting in this province.

We have tried to express the concern of the government's

preoccupation with glorifying itself, as we just heard in the

former Member's speech, and leading the people, the local

administrations and the businesses of this province, into a

decisionless jungle of centralized control, red tape and high

cost of living, with its frustrations and insecurities. And we

have backed these with points, facts and examples.

We have from time to time congratulated the government on

any programmes they have brought in that we feel are in the

people's interests and are working well. We have presented

positive alternatives to the government's floundering

programmes and to respond to the people's needs.

I would bring to your attention our programme for immediate,

direct government action to reduce unemployment by creating

jobs, particularly in the interior, where the unemployment rate

is in excess of 10 per cent; a plan to have revenue sharing for

all levels of government, which will take the. burden of

property tax once and for all in financial local governments;

legislation to increase Mincome benefits to at least $260 per

month, with changes to ensure that Mincome is inflation-proof

by building in a cost-of-living escalator clause, something

that all organized labour is campaigning for and getting and

has had for the last two years; a new programme for urban

transit to improve service in the province, lighten the cost

burden on local governments and permit provincial government

assistance for capital expenditures to develop mass

transit.

We propose a British Columbia housing corporation, a commitment from this party

to provide housing and mortgage subsidies so that every British Columbian will

be able to afford a home and have the opportunity to buy that home and own that

home if they so wish.

For my

part in this particular debate, I would like to

stress a very serious problem in the area of housing. It was

not in the throne speech debate and thus it implies that the

government chooses to ignore this problem. At the end, Mr.

Speaker, I will call for the adoption of a home buyer's

warranty Act, which will help protect both the home buyer in

British Columbia and the reputable and responsible home

builders.

In British Columbia today we have to face the fact that we have land

prices which are sky high; there is an acute housing shortage,

inflation is running rampant — and this, within itself, is a problem

which also puts an extra cost-price squeeze on houses. To these facts

is also the pressure of time. These are all factors which can affect

workmanship in house construction if not carefully supervised and most

certainly can affect the quality of a home that a person buys. These

factors can affect the value of the home over a long period of time and

they can affect the security and enjoyment of the individual or family

that purchases that home, whether it's an individual house bought on a

pre-constructed basis, whether it is a home a person wishes to build

himself, whether it is a condominium or whether it is an apartment.

We can all agree that a reputable independent builder, large

or small, or a reputable construction company, isn't likely to

yield to these pressures, although we must admit that even

unintentionally they may from time to time be caught up in the

maze, resulting in faulty workmanship or incomplete finishing,

perhaps bad planning, Mr. Speaker, faulty concrete mixtures —

any number of things that can go wrong in house construction

and from which the home buyer needs some protection.

A home buyer needs a responsible and reasonable guarantee

that his major purchase, a home, not only looks good, but

tastes good — in other words, that the quality that he pays for

and is led to believe is in the house in in fact there, that

any commitment by any builder, whether it's from any aspect of

landscaping, finishing, light plugs or baseboards is completed

and completed within a specified period of time, that water

systems function and that there's enough water to serve those

systems, that septic tanks work for more than just a few months

and that drainage systems work, that advertising of homes for

sale is factual, and that the commitments that the home buyer

is told in the ad are there, are in fact met in the home and

its landscaping.

I regret to say, Mr. Speaker, that to my knowledge, after

considerable research, there are no

[ Page 236 ]

figures available to indicate just how many home buyers have

legitimate complaints in British Columbia today, or how many

people have had to seek legal help to back their complaints, or

how many times CMHC (Central Mortgage and Housing) has been

called on for help by a home buyer to get those commitments

that were made to them and that they paid for.

But off the record, Mr. Speaker, these people will tell you

that these problems are increasing in the current housing

climate. Many lawyers have told me that their workload in this

area is increasing and I'm sure most MLAs will join with me,

regardless of party, in saying and recognizing that the

complaints from their constituencies and from around the

province in this area are increasing. Many home builders and

construction companies will tell you that this is a growing

problem in British Columbia and they are very concerned.

Certainly, Mr. Speaker, from the evidence that is coming out in

this House in relation to the government's own corporations

such as Dunhill, Meadowbrook or Casa Loma, there is a need.

All these facts add up to the point that with the current

climate in British Columbia, we in this province are in danger

of becoming a happy hunting ground for fly-by-night house

builders. If the builder faults intentionally or

unintentionally, Mr. Speaker, other than through the honour of

the builder, the home buyer really has no recourse. If it's

faulty wiring, a leaky carport, or whatever it may be, his

option is to call the builder, who may respond immediately, or,

as I mentioned, may not respond at all, or not for months.

There is frequently difficulty in coming to an agreement as to

which trade is responsible for the fault, or he can go to the

courts, which is a position that most people don't wish to

take. It's costly, time consuming, and sometimes the cost

involved, including time off from work, frequently exceeds the

cost of the repairs.

Then there's the other point, Mr. Speaker, through the

courts — how can you get blood from a stone if the company has

declared bankruptcy? I don't wish to be unduly hard on CMHC,

but they do little better, and we have incidents in British

Columbia where a builder has not met his commitments to the

house buyer, and yet is building other houses with CMHC

financing. Frequently in the end the buyer ends up, if not with

a nervous breakdown, certainly disgusted and in the position

that they either must do the work themselves or pay again to

have it done.

I do want to make clear that I feel that there are many reputable, honest and

responsible contractors and builders in this province — probably the vast majority

— but the happy hunting climate is here and the complaints appear to be growing.

The fact that these figures are not available, to my knowledge, after a good

deal of research — and I'd appreciate it if anyone can find them — is in itself

an indication that we need a system whereby this type of transaction and problem

can be followed in detail.

Mr. Speaker, you can get a warranty for pretty well

everything today, from an iron to a chuck wagon. Why should you

not be able to have a home warranty? The home is the biggest

investment that probably any family will ever make.

Our party, Mr. Speaker, is committed to such a programme. It

would be on a cooperative basis. It would be started with an

initial fund and then be self-sustaining. There would be

representation on the governing board from consumers, from the

trade and from government.

We feel it should be optional as to whether the buyer or the

homebuilder wishes to take

part in this programme, but also it

should be made quite obvious to the homebuyer what would be the

advantages and the disadvantages of buying or building a home

with a contractor or builder who is a member of this programme,

or who is not a member.

Mr. Speaker, our programme will be designed to see that the

rights of the homebuyer and the reputation of the responsible

builder are maintained.

Mr. Speaker, after being constantly treated throughout this

debate to a barrage of "love us, trust us" messages from this

government and the fact that the government Members'

contribution to this debate has been 99 per cent self-praise —

one wonders if the new theme song of the NDP isn't "I love me

because of sentimental reasons" — another matter I would like

to speak about is the point that anyone who dares criticize

this government is considered by the Premier as not to be

concerned, only, to quote his words, used over and over again,

to be "playing cheap political politics." He applies this

whether he's referring to the press, the opposition, Mr.

Bremer, Mr. Knight — the well-known list is endless.

But what of the not-so-well known? It became evident in the

debate, initially, from one of the Members of the opposition,

the Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) and

from the response to that debate from the Hon. Provincial

Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall), that many things were being done on

the QT in this government. I refer specifically to the

negotiations between the public services union and the civil

service.

We were told, and I won't repeat the details because they came up today, that

it was absolutely essential that secrecy be maintained. Not only were we told

this, those who are affected by these negotiations have been told this. Then

it's become evident that this secrecy has not been maintained, that other people,

far less interested, have this information. Yet the government says and brags

during this session that they are a fair government, that they set an excellent

example and that they bring benefit to people.

[ Page

237 ]

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to tell you about an incident in the

area that I represent, involved in this situation, where the

people were told to keep quiet. It's in the Highways department

of the North Okanagan. I am advised that there are at least six

permanent employees who have anywhere from six to 23 years

service with good work records, who have been reclassified by

this government from various positions of motor-operating,

which they won through merit, and they have the papers to prove

it, down to labour positions. They were told at that time that

this was only a numerical action, and certainly wouldn't affect

them in any way, that they shouldn't be concerned and they

shouldn't mention it. They trusted, Mr. Speaker. In November

they found out the numbers game that was being played, and they

found out that they were the losers because these men each lost

up to $50 a month from their pay cheques in November, December

and January.

This reclassification, and its lower pay rate, not only

affects their direct take-home pay but their position plan,

which will now be lower. UIC, should they have to use it, will

now be lower. Holiday pay will now be lower, and workers'

compensation will now be lower. What makes them even more angry

is that in the majority of the time they are still doing the

jobs they were doing before — operating motor vehicles. To add

insult to injury, while they do indeed get the hourly rate for

doing the motor operators' job, when they do it, they have been

advised that if they are injured while doing the motor

operators' job and while getting the hourly rate for it, they

will, if they have to collect compensation, not be paid on that

base. They will be paid on the basis of their classification as

labourers.

Mr. Speaker, these people not only have this problem; we

must remember they haven't even had a pay raise for two years.

They were told to keep quiet. What kind of justice is this from

the NDP? What kind of fair play is this that these Members talk

about? What kind of respect for the individual is this that's

being peddled in this House?

I wonder how many more civil servants there are in the

Province of British Columbia who find themselves in the same

situation and have been told to keep quiet — don't rock the

boat. If there are, and they hear of this, I urge others in the

same position to write to this House and let them know.

I was asked not to use the names of these people, and it's

an honour that I respect. But for debate they know it was

necessary for me to identify the department. They've asked me

not to use the names, Mr. Speaker, because they, among some

others in the civil service, are fearful for their jobs. In

revealing this department and this problem, I would warn this

government that if any pressure is put on these men, if they

receive any, needling or suffer further unfair treatment, the

public will hear about this, this Legislature will hear about this, and this government will

answer.

In the meantime, I would insist that Ministers of this Crown

see that these men are reinstated to their proper positions,

that they receive their lost pay to date with interest as well

as benefits, and that they have the same opportunity in

government service as any other.

The subject of education has been discussed at considerable

length, and our policy has been spoken on quite fully by two of

our Members. I was quite surprised that education had more or

less been swept under the carpet in the throne speech debate or

had received short shrift from the government side of the

House, and that this could happen especially at a time when the

teachers and the parents of British Columbia are deeply

concerned about the aura of frustration and disorganization in

provincial education.

On a number of occasions, in travelling around the province

in the last few months, I have had certain teachers say to me

that they felt their efforts in school were getting to be

almost an interruption in the students' day and that many

students are acting as if responsibility on their

part is a

rare disease to be avoided at all cost in the classrooms. Such

attitudes are certainly helping to render many classroom

learning situations down to the lowest common denominator and,

I believe, frustrating serious students and teachers alike.

You can set up all the commissions, boards and inquiries

that you wish, but until there are decisions based on sound

reason and thinking, and until we return dignity and

responsibility and authority to the classrooms, much of the

other effort will be just educational flag-waving in the

dark.

It's in relation to decisions that are needed that I want to

speak on a local matter of the constituency in the valley in

which I have the honour to represent an area and live, and that

is Okanagan college, with particular reference to the Vernon

campus.

Briefly, this college was to be an avenue of educational

vehicles, responsible to the largest degree to the interests of

the various communities in our area. Upon taking office, the

Minister made clear that while she felt there should be a core

facility in Kelowna, she would recognize the need for

decentralized college facilities for the college in the

Okanagan, and that she would honour a request from the Okanagan

college council for facilities for the Vernon unit.

However, the department wished to investigate the

workability of a special community-integrated concept,

utilizing existing facilities in the community of Vernon, such

as the recreation complex, the Powerhouse Theatre, local

schools, church halls and the library.

I, as MLA, the Vernon college faculty, the

[ Page 238 ]

students, the schoolboard and all others interested agreed

to turn all energies to looking into the feasibility of such a

model concept — and all did. But it was soon found that such a

community-integrated programme in this area was impossible

because all facilities were being used to near capacity at the

time, This is fair enough. Everybody was willing to look into

it. It was a new idea, it had been considered, and it had been

found unworkable. The Minister's wishes had been respected. But

we were, in fact, back where we had started two years

before.

So attention was turned to the original concept, and the

establishment of a home for the Vernon campus. The council then

requested the use of the Harvey property, owned by the

government and bought by the former administration for

educational purposes for the future. This was last fall, Mr.

Speaker, and I would advise you that the title to that land is

housed in the Public Works department; there are letters on

record. The Department of Education knows why the land was

bought, what its capabilities are, and that its services enter

right to its property line. All we needed was the Minister's

approval and the transfer of that title to the regional college

council.

Where do we stand today? Did the Minister get on with the

job and make a decision? I'd advise you that the Vernon campus

is not envisioned as a monument to architects or an edifice to

education.

They want a workable, functional unit, but today, Mr.

Speaker, two and a half years later, council members have been

given to understand that the main campus in Kelowna is to have

four-part core building programme, the first stage to be a

gymnasium and a resource centre, then classrooms and workshops

at a rumoured price which may well reach between $15 million

and $20 million, while still no word of the Vernon campus.

The council generally feels, Mr. Speaker, and, I think, so

do the citizens, that the core-concept building in Kelowna is

important and should proceed. But how, they ask, can the

Minister justify the inclusion of a recreational gymnasium at

this time when there isn't even a physical educational

programme in the college, when other areas are doing without

their basic facilities? The council feels that this decision

has not been in keeping with what they felt the government's

attitude of decentralized college facilities for the Okanagan

should be.

Of course, Mr. Speaker, if there is not a limit on the amount of money that

the government is willing to spend on the Okanagan College, then, of course,

there is no problem, and I'd be pleased to sit down. However, reason suggests

that there is. The Education Minister's own statement suggests that there is,

and the Minister of Finance's (Hon. Mr. Barrett'

s) statement suggests that there

is a limit. I suggest myself that there is indeed a limit to the amount of money

at this time that can be spent on the Okanagan Regional College, as in other

colleges of the province — it has to be spread fairly and equally.

If this is the case, then it is the responsibility of the

Minister of Education and the council to set priorities in the

best interests of the students and faculty. Not many people

would suggest that gymnasiums are not a valuable part of

college life. But surely the first priority in a situation such

as this is to see that each area has its basic educational

needs met first — in this instance, new buildings for the

Vernon campus.

I just advise you, Mr. Speaker, that the students of the

Vernon campus and the faculty have been giants in education, if

not saints, for in spite of the most primitive of housing,

minimal equipment, barest comfort for students, hardly little

more than chairs, books, roofs and spirit, they have performed

wonders. And what spirit, Mr. Speaker! Talk about the spirit of

education and the spirit of teaching and student enthusiasm and

responsibility, for in spite of this unique physical plant,

under the able guidance of Dean Hall and his faculty, the

students have constantly led in academic honours and overall

scholastic achievement throughout the Okanagan.

Mr. Speaker, the new orders of limited debate don't permit

me to point out the innovative programmes that have emanated

from the dedicated faculty of this college and the citizens who

have utilized the opportunities there. However, I would repeat

that the accomplishments of the people in skeleton physical

plants — the faculty and the students — make them giants in the

educational world. They've been willing to put up with the

barest facilities in the beginning, during the

community-integration study, believing that the decentralized

concept would prevail. But the time has come when the Minister

must account for her decisions, and must tell us whether or not

she is going to put a gymnasium in a regional college where

there is no gymnasium or recreational programme over the basic

needs of an area campus.

I urge the government and the Minister of Education today,

and certainly to reflect in the budget tomorrow, to make the

Hardy property available now — it could be transferred, I am

advised, within one week by a good lawyer — to either make all

the necessary funds available or to set priorities that would

ensure that participating areas, be it Salmon Arm, Vernon or

anywhere else, have their basic educational needs and

facilities before embarking on desirable but less necessary

additions and renovations.

One of the first priorities is, and has been, the Vernon

campus. These students and faculty not only deserve but must

have this unit on the basis of performance — the site, the

necessary buildings and the equipment. The Okanagan college

needs these

[ Page 239 ]

facilities now so that they can start the September semester

and can operate from their own home then, instead of their

present summer camp position.

Mr. Speaker, these are but a few of the urgent matters that

I wish to discuss in the House, but the time limit has been

imposed. I would like to conclude by saying with regret that

this government has proved in its past performance and during

this debate that it's sinking into bits and pieces, being built

up through a growing record of financial fiascos, fumbles and

firings that will become a legend in this province. The tragedy

is not only that they are pulling themselves down, but they are

in danger of pulling down the people of British Columbia.

The throne speech shows no evidence of people's concerns, no

evidence of a change in attitude on the part of the government,

no evidence that they are aware of the real world of British

Columbia out there — the real world in which people live and

work and must meet their commitments. As such, Mr. Speaker, we

must accept it as a policy statement found wanting and not

worthy of support.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): I rise

to take my place in this debate on the opening speech which was

delivered in this House 10 days or so ago. It's called the

opening speech, as you know, Mr. Speaker, rather than the

throne speech, and I never have understood the reason for

departing from the traditional practice until this year when

the Hon. Premier of the province took his place in this debate

during an amendment with which we were dealing. He chose to

indicate, I think, what he believed were the important aspects

of the opening remarks read by the Lieutenant-Governor. So I

suppose it has come to the stage where we have an opening

speech by the Lieutenant-Governor and that sometime during the

debate we hear from the throne, which unfortunately is empty at

the moment.

It is significant that when the Premier took his place in

the debate it was on an amendment dealing with the tragic state

of unemployment in this province. He took the time of the House

in his usual way to chastise Members of the opposition, but he

never once dealt with the issue which was before the House at

the time; not once did he talk about the problems of

unemployment in this province. Still he found it necessary, as

I say, in his usual manner to attack the official opposition

and some of the positions that they had taken, and to attack

Members of the Liberal Party.

In doing so, he pointed with pride — pride for him — to losses which had been

suffered by governments in other jurisdictions. He talked about the $11 million

loss the federal government suffered as a result of an unfortunate purchase

of a submarine which, the Premier said, leaked. He talked about a $55 million

loss in respect of a hydrofoil programme which the federal government had embarked

upon.

Then he talked about the federal government's $100 million

loss with regard to the heavy-water plant at Glace Bay, Nova

Scotia. However, the Premier neglected to tell the House that

the heavy-water plant at Glace Bay, Nova Scotia, started in

1963 as a joint venture between a private company in Canada and

the Government of Nova Scotia, in 1966 was taken over 100 per

cent by the Government of Nova Scotia, and from there on

suffered catastrophe after catastrophe until finally it was

rescued by the federal government and by the taxpayers of

Canada.

It is also noteworthy that the Premier, in criticizing losses

and financial errors on the part of other governments, didn't

see fit to refer to some of the problems which are really

closer to home. That figure of $ 100 million with regard to the

heavy-water plant sort of brings to mind that there's another $

100 million figure floating around this province.

MR. R.T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver–Little Mountain): Where's the

loss? People got it!

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: That's right. I'm talking to you about

the $100 million which the B.C. government has overspent on

welfare programmes. That's a loss — a loss by the Department of

Finance. He lost $100 million and he tried to explain it away

as being a "clerical error." Some loss! And then he eventually,

after he finally got talking to the Minister of Human Resources

(Hon. Mr. Levi) as to what the situation was, found that really

the clerical error only amounted to $11 million, and the

balance somehow or other was just overspending on the part of

this government.

At the same time, when the Premier was questioned by the

press on this particular subject, he indicated that all of the

government departments were overspending. Overspending is a

loss to the people of British Columbia, Mr. Speaker.

I think what this clearly indicates is that there is serious

danger on the part of governments when they criticize the

financial misfortunes of other governments, particular

governments such as this one which are involved in so many

ventures outside the proper role of government.

We haven't heard from the government with respect to what's

happening at Ocean Falls. What's the loss at Ocean Falls?

We haven't heard from the government — but we are waiting in

anticipation — as to what is the loss with the Insurance Corp.

of British Columbia. There was speculation last year that the

deficit would be in the neighbourhood of $150 million, and

that's been denied.

But we also know that the number of accidents in this

province is increasing. We also know that the cost

[ Page 240 ]

of each accident is increasing to such an extent that the Insurance

Corp. of British Columbia and the government are involved in a monster

campaign to improve safety on our highways. That's what the problem is

— that the cost of all that is being borne by ICBC. It all comes home

to roost with that insurance company which the people of British

Columbia now own. Yet we are being treated this month (and I hope that

by tomorrow everyone has their decals and new insurance certificates)

to indications by the government that the rates for insurance are going

down. It is as clear as the nose on your face that as the number of

accidents rises and as the cost of each accident rises the cost must be

met somehow. If you decrease the income to ICBC, then the shortfall is

a deficit and will be made up in some other way. We were told last year

that somehow or other, out of gasoline revenues, the deficit would be

met. But we don't know how much.

We also are involved now in chicken-plucking plants, with

Panco Poultry, or whatever they are called; sawmills; ranches;

farms — every kind of venture is being embarked upon by this

government. When we find that other governments get themselves

into financial difficulty in the operations of ventures which

are outside the normal role of government to such an extent

that hundreds of millions of dollars have to be paid by the

taxpayers to make up the losses, we wonder where we are going

in the Province of British Columbia and when the Members of

this assembly and the people of this province will have any

accurate accounting of what is going on in the corporations and

agencies which are being established by this government.

It is of particular concern to me, Mr. Speaker, in this

matter that the government should take a very careful look at

the extent to which it is involving itself in these ventures

and make an accurate assessment of the potential for loss that

we face by going into businesses which incorporate a risk which

is beyond the ability of government to control. They should not

be in these businesses in the first place, but if they are

going to be in those businesses, then the people of this

province, through the Members of this assembly, are entitled to

have some proper control over the activities of those

businesses.

We don't have that control at the moment. It is suggested by

some that because Members of this Legislature, all of them in

the cabinet at the moment, are holding positions on the boards

of directors of some of these corporations of B.C., that is a

sufficient measure of control. Mr. Speaker, it makes it worse,

because we are placing on the boards of directors people who do

not necessarily have the experience and the skill required in

order to discharge the very large obligation that directors

have in the functioning of these enterprises. We take people

who are very successful politicians and put them on the

board. That's the only criterion by which they are chosen — the fact that they happen to be good politicians. I will

hasten to suggest that that may be the worst qualification that

a person should have for running enterprises of the nature in

which this government is involved.

There is another problem. That is whether or not, being

politicians, they exercise influences over their fellow members

on the boards of directors, and therefore on the management of

these corporations, which are politically motivated rather than

motivated in the best interests of the corporation or the

agency and in a manner which will ensure that the venture will

be carried out successfully. How are we sure that there is not

that political interference?

ICBC, for example. Last year when we all got our notices in

regard to the cost of our licences and insurance, we all got a

full statement as to how our insurance rates were determined.

We could sit down and calculate the class of our motor vehicle

and what the cost would be, depending upon the class it fit.

Not this year, though. This year we only got a notice telling

us what our insurance charge was going to be — with one

exception. They did point out how much of a reduction we would

get by reason of the area of the province in which we happened

to reside.

I happen to believe that the inclusion of that item in our

insurance notices was a politically motivated decision. They

weren't prepared to tell you why you were paying as much as you

were for the insurance coverage you were getting, but they were

quite pleased to tell you how much ICBC, the people's insurance

company, was going to reduce your insurance costs by reason of

the location in which you might reside — except in Victoria. In

Victoria you got, by way of an area rebate, zip, zero.

Now, Mr. Speaker, why is that? Is that an actuarial

calculation? Is that one based upon the experience of the

insurance industry? No explanation at all. The question will

always remain in m y mind and in the minds of others as to why

such a decision wag made. As I said a few moments ago: rising

accident rates, rising costs from each accident, lowering of

premiums, and still reductions, depending on the area of the

province in which you reside. Is that a political decision?

Let's take another corporation in which the government is

involved, British Columbia Rail. We were told by the Premier in

1973 and again in 1974 that the pronouncements of the former

government as to what profit was being earned by B.C. Rail was

not true, that B.C. Rail was not operating at a profit. That's

what he told us.

I can only assume, Mr. Speaker, that we're still not

operating at a profit. I assume that because, apparently as a

result of an unfortunate labour dispute carried on much too

long, the Government of British Columbia has had to make a

grant....

[ Page 241 ]

Pardon me — a loan-grant. That's right. I always thought

that a grant was something you got and didn't have to give

back, and a loan was something you got and had to give back.

But this one apparently they got and somehow they have to give

it back. But we're not sure if they do or not, so it's a

loan-grant. This government had to place $15 million into the

hands of B.C. Rail because of a strike in a government

enterprise which the Premier had told us had never made a

profit.

We have three Members of the cabinet sitting on the board of

directors of B.C. Rail. We have the Premier, we have the

Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) and we have the Minister

Without Portfolio (Hon. Mr. Nunweiler). Where is the Hon.

Member for Fort George?

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): He's building

his igloo.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: We haven't seen him, and I just trust

that he's not ill.

At any rate, Mr. Speaker, that is the problem we have with

B.C. Rail. It's a problem that we may have with ICBC. I would

wonder in election year, Mr. Speaker, whether or not some

further adjustments may not be made in insurance rates as a

result of a political decision.

The point I wish to make in this respect is that government should not be in ventures of this nature.

But if government is going to involve itself in business enterprise

then there are certain basic criteria which must be followed in the

management and ' operation of those ventures. I suggest to you that

these criteria are the following:

(1) The board of directors must not include any Member of this Legislative Assembly.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: In no other way can you remove a Crown

agency from political influence unless you first meet that

test.

(2) The boards of directors should be chosen from people who by reason of skill

and experience can operate the particular enterprise in which the Crown agency

is involved.

(3) In order to ensure that the Crown agencies function in accordance with

the best interest of British Columbia and with proper fiscal control, there

should be a special select committee established in this Legislature to sit

continually and to make periodic inquiries into the policy decisions made

by the boards of directors of the Crown corporations and agencies.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: To assist that committee in discharging a

most difficult function, a department or a

section of the

Department of Finance should be made available to assist that

committee in making the in-depth inquiries into the financial

dealings of the Crown corporations.

To prove that this is essential, Mr. Speaker, I need only

refer to the action which was taken by the Premier of this

province when he first became Premier — namely to appoint a

member of the Department of Finance to make an investigation

into the financial operations of British Columbia. The Members

of this assembly have had the opportunity of reading the report

filed by Mr. Minty and tabled by the Premier in this House as

to the problems that he discovered in the financial dealings

and operations of B.C. Rail prior to August of 1972.

Mr. Speaker, we must be assured that those same problems are

not today being encountered in B.C. Rail, in the Insurance

Corp. of British Columbia, in Panco Poultry, in Plateau Mills,

in Ocean Falls, and in all of the Crown corporations and

agencies in which this government has involved the people of

British Columbia. Not only are the people entitled to have this

accounting because they are their corporation, but also, Mr.

Speaker, they are entitled to be satisfied that what they are

being told has been subjected to proper test and that the

information which is made available to them is not in any way

politically motivated.

I think that we need only consider at this juncture very

briefly a matter which is before this House and has been before

this House for several days, concerning British Columbia Hydro,

to exemplify the point I make. As a result of questions asked

in this House, the Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) tabled certain documents. A

question has been raised with respect to those documents,

dealing not with the subject matter but with their

authenticity. It has been suggested outside of this House and

reported in the press that perhaps at least one page of the

document has been manufactured. That places the Hon. Minister

of Lands, Forests and Water Resources in a most difficult

position: either the Minister has placed before this House

documents which are not true and therefore has misled the

House, or the Minister himself has been misled by people who

are advisers to him in his department or in the Crown

corporation. The Minister of the Crown has an obligation to

clear the questions which have been raised in this respect,

aside altogether from the other matters which are involved in

the documents which have been tabled.

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

has called for an inquiry into the substance of the documents.

I support that call for an inquiry, not only because we need to

get to the bottom of the subject matter which those

documents

[ Page 242 ]

raise but also the more serious problem of the suggestion of

manufactured documents being presented to this House. No

Minister of the Crown should be put in that position, and no

Minister of the Crown should be under the double jeopardy that

the Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources finds

himself in at this time, by reason of the fact that he is a

director of British Columbia Hydro.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier in his remarks dealt with another

matter in which he was critical of the federal government. That

was the federal government's involvement in the Syncrude

project — the federal government's involvement along with the

provinces of Alberta and Ontario.

In one respect I agree with the Hon. Premier. I believe that

the federal Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) was too

quick to answer the request, indeed the demand, of the private

companies that some action be taken to provide some financial

relief for them by January 31, 1975. I do not believe that the

moved as rapidly as they did at that time to invest substantial

sums of money in that enterprise. We do know that the Great

Canadian Oil Sands operation has been functioning profitably

without a lot of fuss and furor, but we also know that one of

the private companies involved in the Syncrude project

withdrew, causing the problem. We also know that another

private petroleum company looked at the project and decided it

didn't want in. And in those circumstances I think it was

hasty, to say the least, on the part of the federal government

and of Alberta and Ontario to move into that project.

It is one that may have lasting benefits, but also it may

have lasting and serious disadvantages for the people of Canada

and for those provinces which are currently involved in that

project.

However, having said that, Mr. Speaker, let me say that I

criticize the Premier of British Columbia for not taking a

positive position with respect to Syncrude. Canada is facing a

situation where the petroleum resource within our boundaries is

finite. We're going to run out of petroleum, and British

Columbia in particular is going to suffer as a consequence.

Today we have within our own borders only 40 or 50 per cent of

our crude oil requirements, and we, as a province, must look to

our future. If we do not, we can scarcely depend on Canada and

the other provinces of Canada to rescue us when the

circumstances arise.

Rather than criticizing the Syncrude decision as the Premier

of this province did, he should have joined with the federal

government and with the other provinces in making certain that

the people of Canada have the greatest possible share in the

future of the Syncrude development.

We are talking about building a refinery and petrochemical industry some place

in this lower mainland area or on this island. Where are we going to get the

petroleum resource to feed that refinery and chemical complex, unless we make

certain that we participate with our neighbours in the development of what must

be the most significant petroleum resource available to us in Canada? We should

have at least gone as far as Alberta in demanding an option to acquire an interest

in the Syncrude project. Alberta put up its money for a share right now, and

also received an option to increase its share of participation in that venture.

Why weren't we there?

Interjection.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Oh, I'm glad you asked that question, Mr.

Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot), because earlier in my

remarks the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain

(Mr. Cummings) said to me, "Where was the loss?", when we

overspent $100 million on welfare. That's where the loss was —

we ain't got the money to go into Syncrude. One hundred million

dollars in Syncrude would have bought us at least 5 per cent of

that development. That's where the loss is, Mr. Member, and

that's what your government will never understand: you can't

blow the money and then take advantage of other opportunities

which are available to this province and we have to miss while

other sections of Canada enjoy the advantages thereof. What a

fiscal manager!

Mr. Speaker, if we don't take advantage of opportunities

such as this, then the problems we will have to look after the

senior citizens, the pensioners and the citizens of this

province in the future will be multiplied a hundredfold over

what they are today. And this is the problem of this

government. You don't look ahead. You think you live for

today.

AN HON. MEMBER: Saturday night rich, Monday morning

poor.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: That's right. Saturday night rich, Monday

morning poor.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I have a few more moments I believe, of

my time, and I wish to deal with another but similar subject. It

deals with the credibility of politicians and with our own

natural resources.

We were treated, a few weeks ago, to the delightful

opportunity of watching the Premier perform with our federal

government on a matter of very critical importance to this

province, to western Canada, and to Canada as a whole. I would

even go so far as to suggest that it was a matter which is of

significant importance to Confederation.

The Premier announced that he had a new plan with regard to

natural gas. He was going to increase the price of natural gas

to our American friends, and with the moneys that he was going

to gain he was

[ Page 243 ]

going to ensure that exploration and development in this

province started up again — it had stopped because of his

action and that of others.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who were the others?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: The federal government. Oh, they'll get

their share, Mr. Member. As a result of all these machinations

of the Premier, Ottawa was going to get $60 million, the

municipalities in British Columbia were going to benefit to the

extent of $60 million, the Province of British Columbia was

going to benefit $60 million.

So he had a press conference and he let everybody in British

Columbia into this big scheme. Then he took off in his airplane

and flew over the mountains to the east. Then the press reports

were full of things that went on. Then he came back across the

mountains again from the east and he claimed victory.

Victory!

His office put out the Premier's news release: "Natural Gas

Tax Agreement Major Step Forward for B.C." This is in the

British Columbia government news release, issued by the

Premier's office, dated, January 22, and paid for by all the

taxpayers in this province. It says: " 'This is a major victory

for British Columbia,' Premier Barrett said, announcing the

agreement Monday, January 20."

Well, we were all delighted; our Premier was victorious.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Some victory.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Then, after January 20, we began to get

the reports from the other side of the mountains. What did we

find? Well, we found that our American friends to the south

were increasingly unhappy with British Columbia and with

Canada. Therefore, the Premier struck another blow for disunity

within North America. Well, I guess that was victorious if you

want to look at it that way. Damaged our lumber market. Damaged

our relationship with our nearest neighbour...

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Poppycock!

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: ...a country which is probably the

largest purchaser of our produce, a country with which we have

the closest economic and social ties.

Interjection.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: That's right. In fact, they were

demanding that they send Henry Kissinger here. So we could have

had Henry Kissinger going from Israel, to Saudi Arabia, to Egypt, to British Columbia. B.C.

really rates, that's right. That was one thing that he

accomplished.

The second thing — he came back and we found that he did not

get any increase in the price of gas from the federal

government. No increase; the price is still the same. Mind you,

we had a situation where the agreements were all ready. He just

had to dot a few i's and cross a few t's — that's what the

Premier said. But anyway, he didn't come back with any

increased price for natural gas. Some victory! We also found

when he came back that the $180 million which was going to be

divided $60 million to Ottawa, $60 million to the

municipalities and $60 million to British Columbia had suddenly

evaporated. That was all gone.

The one thing that we did find though was that the

Hon. Premier, wasn't going to tax the oil companies as they had

threatened to do. However, it was going to tax British Columbia

Petroleum Corp., a Crown agency created by this government. We

found for the first time in Canada this unique situation: the

Government of British Columbia was going to pay the Government

of Canada in order to exploit and sell our own natural gas.

Some victory. That is the only positive thing that came out of

the meetings.

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): Rubbish!

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: The Government of British Columbia was

going to pay money to Ottawa, willingly.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that the Premier's visit to

Ottawa and return was a victory which compares only with

Napoleon's visit to Moscow. (Laughter.) I think Napoleon got

off better; he only lost his artillery and his cavalry and the

imperial guard. But I think that as a result of what the Hon.

Premier did in his visit to Ottawa, we've lost all that plus

the Crown jewels too. (Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that if the Premier of this

province was really, sincerely interested in the welfare of

this province and of western Canada, he would have gone to

Ottawa with the following position:

(1)We will provide to our American customers, within the ability that we have,

so much gas as we are able under the contracts that exist today. At the same

time, we will advise our American customers that we now recognize that the

volume of gas is finite and, therefore they will need to seek other sources

of energy.

(2) He should have said to the federal government: "We propose to increase

the price of gas to its proper market value to our American customers and

to the

[ Page 244 ]

people of British Columbia as well."

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Let the oil companies rip them off as they

have done before.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: If that Hon. Minister of Public Works

(Hon. Mr. Hartley) would listen and keep his mouth shut, he

might be able to learn what is going on in this province. He

might learn.

The price of gas must be increased not only to our American

customers but to British Columbia as well. We must terminate

the situation in British Columbia where we believe that we can

use a finite energy resource without paying the price. We must

start to practise conservation and we must pay for what we use

in this province. It has a value, an increasing value, and we

in this province must face up to it, along with everybody else

in this nation and in this hemisphere.

The third thing the Premier should have done was to have

gone to the producing companies whose money and whose

experience developed the natural gas fields in British Columbia

and said to them: "We are currently paying you 22 cents for old

gas and 32 cents for new gas. I am prepared, as the Premier of

this province, to sit down with you and negotiate any fair and

proper increase there should be in that price."

MR. C. LIDEN (Delta): Giveaway Liberal policies.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Not one more cent. That's not a giveaway

policy. That's only treating fairly the people who do the work

in this province. This government has that responsibility.

AN HON. MEMBER: They never treat their workers fairly.

Interjections.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, it is so obvious to the

people of this province that this government has got itself so

fouled up with its philosophical approach — that it can only

speak and think in slogans.

The fact of the matter is that the last and most important

thing the Premier should have said to Ottawa was: "Having

negotiated a fair price with the companies who are producing

the gas, Ottawa, you must not establish any arbitrary fair

value for the purposes of taxation. The price we're paying to

the producing companies has been negotiated at arm's length,

and that must be the price you use in dealing with taxing

matters."

And the very final thing for him to say to Ottawa was: "We're not going

to give you one cent of tax money from British Columbia's own natural resources."

The federal government has the right to raise its revenues

through income tax, British Columbia as a government or through

its Crown corporations is not obliged to make any payments to

the national government, It is a provincial resource, and the

benefits of the provincial resource must accrue to the Treasury

of this province. We must be able to meet our responsibilities

as a province, and we can only do so within the limited

opportunity we have to raise our revenue. The Premier should

have said, "Ottawa, keep your hands off."

Now, of course, the Premier wasn't able to say that. He had

already destroyed his credibility as Premier of British

Columbia and as a western Canadian in the attitudes which were

evident when the Province of Alberta was involved in this same

battle with this same federal government late last year.

The Province of British Columbia, the Province of

Saskatchewan and the Province of Manitoba, through their

respective Premiers, left the Premier of Alberta standing alone

as a western Canadian. As a result, it was suggested in the

press that Premier Lougheed had lost. Mr. Speaker, he didn't

lose. Western Canada lost; British Columbia lost. And the

Premier contributed to that matter.

Mr. Speaker, I see my time is up. I thank you for your kind

attention and for your courtesy.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): I'm happy to take my place in the

throne speech debate as the representative for. Cariboo.

I might say that I'm very sorry that the late Ned DeBeck has

left us. He was respected by all of us and will be greatly

missed. As far as I was concerned, he had forgotten more about

this House than most of us will ever know.

I've listened to the throne speech debate with much interest

over the last five, six or seven days and I've paid particular

note to the speeches of the back-bench NDP Members. They have

really applauded the government and its achievements. All I

have to say about that is that I'm glad it's them who have to

support the government and also defend it, because they have

quite a job ahead of them.

I'd like to review a few things that have happened under

socialism in the last 2½ years and how I see that it has

affected the people of British Columbia. We have the famous

land bill, Bill 42. I'll have something to say about it later,

but it really tries to get effective control by the state of

all the land that exists in the state.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. FRASER: I'll explain to you, Mr. Attorney-General, in a

few minutes, if you'll be quiet, just how that actually works

in practice.

[ Page 245 ]

MRS. JORDAN: Just like in Hawaii.

MR. FRASER: As the prior speaker mentions, they have gone

into no end of businesses with no mandate from the public of

British Columbia to do so, in my opinion: chicken factories,

plywood plants, pulp mills, sawmills, real estate, housing, and

so on. Of course, the Members of this House cannot find out

what is going on and neither can the citizens of the province.

Of course, they are certainly excited about that.

Due to the legislation passed last fall, I feel they have

pretty well taken over effective control of the forest

industry, certainly to the point where the private sector of

that industry has no faith in investment to expand that

operation under the terms of the legislation of the timber bill

that we passed last fall.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.] The other thing about which not too much has been said and

about which I want to go into a little bit of detail is the

financial management of this province by the Minister of

Finance and, more specifically, the borrowing of money. At the

present time, the Minister of Finance has borrowed $375

million. I would like to relate where these funds were borrowed

and at what interest rates.

The first $100 million was borrowed in New York at 10.25 per

cent. The second $75 million was borrowed in eastern Canada at

9.25 per cent. The third borrowing of $100 million came from an

unnamed Arab country and the rate of interest of the borrowing

was 9.25 per cent. The fourth $100 million borrowed was at the

rate of 8.75 per cent, again from an unnamed Arab country. This

total borrowing is $375 million since this Legislature

authorized the government on behalf of Hydro to borrow up to

$500 million last June.

I would like to relate what the Minister of Finance said at

that time during the debate on the $500 million authorization

of loans for B.C. Hydro. The Minister of Finance stated on June

18 that they would only go to the market for $ 100 million,

even when the authority was being asked in the borrowing of

$500 million.

We were, of course, suspicious at the time and our

suspicions certainly have been borne out in the fact that since

then, in a period of nine months, $375 million has been

borrowed up to now.

The other questions I would like to put in and that the people are asking are:

Why borrow $375 million? I might say that the people of this province now have

to pay $30 million-odd per annum in interest to out-of-the-country recipients,

whether they be Arab countries or eastern Canada — but certainly British Columbia

money to the tune of at least $35 million a year for the next 20-odd years will

go out of the province to service this debt.

The other thing I would like to point out to this House is

that at no time was any British Columbian ever given the

opportunity to purchase any of these securities. I'd like to

know why that has taken place when that huge sum of money has

been put on the market and B.C. citizens have no opportunity to

purchase any of it.

I would like to know where that money is now. What is it

doing at a 10.5 per cent interest rate? Is it now invested at

interest rates higher than that? Has it been spent? What has

really happened to it? The people of this province would

certainly like to know because there isn't any construction

going on in Hydro that I or the people of British Columbia

know of that this money would be required for. I have to assume

that it is probably invested. I certainly hope so. But I would

like to know at what interest rate it is being invested. I feel

that it should never have been borrowed in the first place.

The backbenchers and the cabinet Ministers said, "Look at

all the good things that have happened in the last 2½ years."

I believe even some of the Ministers said that there has been

very little mention made of the monopoly car insurance

programme which was instituted. That is, of course, what it is.

I think the reason that nothing has been said about it is that

the Minister who brought it in at the time said that it would

never be subsidized; it would stand on its own feet.

Of course, here we are in the year 1974. Again, according to

my calculations, this plan will be subsidized to the tune of

roughly $100 million, these funds coming from the gas tax in

the Province of British Columbia. I think the Member for South

Peace River (Mr. Phillips) said yesterday that now when you

pull into the gas tanks, you order so many gallons of collision

insurance.

The point is that it is being heavily subsidized, starting

this year. The last I saw, the different taxes on fuel would

probably take in $150 million. Therefore it's now been deferred

to the insurance programme, so I have to assume that $100

million is short from general revenue where this money has

always gone. I would be anxious to see tomorrow how the

Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) accounts for this

detouring of this $100 million, and whether it will reduce

services to the people such as health, welfare and education,

because when you take money out of general revenue, that's

where most of these funds were going, and now they won't be

there. So maybe we'll by looking at an increase in taxes in the

budget tomorrow in some shape or form to make it up.

Another avenue in the budget for the year that we're in now

will miss by another $ 100 million, and I refer to the lack of

revenue in the forest industry being

[ Page 246 ]

caused by the overestimating of the revenues from that

industry, and world markets and so on causing a drop from $250

million from that source to approximately $150 million. So all

in all we might be looking at an increase in taxation tomorrow

in the Province of British Columbia.

Another thing that has been done that the backbenchers and

the cabinet Ministers really didn't refer to, but which has

been referred to before, is that the mining industry in this

province, through Bill 31, has almost been killed — certainly

the exploration has been. There are no new mines coming on

stream, although I heard the Member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) say

there was one — I imagine it's for five or 10 employees or

something. But she seemed to be quite concerned about the mine

in her riding that exists and is right now laying off 75 and

threatening to lay off more. So it appears that Bill 31 is also

getting to the Member for Comox as well.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): You didn't listen to her. You only

heard what you wanted to hear.

MR. FRASER: I certainly did listen to her, and I got it that

she was a little upset about the fact that she never heard

about Bill 31, like so many other people in British

Columbia.

I might say that the land policies of this government have

increased the price of land to the point where now an ordinary

citizen really can't afford to have land for his own housing. I

refer back to Bill 42, which has caused no end of turmoil in

that sector and gone on to create.... Every other step they

have taken on land policies has had this effect.

I now want to go on to a few things in the riding dealing

with land and the effects that this legislation really had. I

refer to Bill 42 and the effect it's had in the riding of

Cariboo. First of all, I might say that I don't think anybody

in the Cariboo is opposed to the preservation of farmland but

they certainly are opposed to what has transpired through Bill

42. I would like to let you know where it stands right now in

the Cariboo riding.

Finally the agricultural land reserves have been established. There might be

a few left of the 28 regional districts, but only this last fall as far as the

Cariboo was concerned the agricultural land reserve was established. I might

say this was established after a land freeze.

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: I'm just stating facts. The Minister of Health

(Hon. Mr. Cocke) here is sure jumpy this week. He's the

Minister of defence and roaring around. But I'm just telling

the facts, Mr. Speaker.

The land reserve was established last fall after at least a year of public

discussion with the municipalities, the regional districts, the citizens and

everything. We started off with a land freeze, first of all, in December, 1972,

and then, after two years of public debate, down come the maps designating the

areas of the land freeze. And lo and behold, Mr. Speaker, every — not every

— three municipalities in my riding which had made submissions to leave lands

adjoining their town boundaries out found out that after all this public participation

the bureaucrats in the Land Commission had seen different than all the elected

local citizens at the regional level and the municipal level, and they have

put land into the agricultural land reserve that the local people had asked

to withhold.

I might say, Mr. Speaker, that this land is certainly

marginal farmland — I think classified as 5 — so it isn't in

class 2 or anything like that.

Now, of course, the facts are that because of this arbitrary

decision by the Land Commission, these three expanding

communities have no place to expand. And now, lo and behold,

the elected people in this area, whether they be regional

directors or municipal councils, have got to come now under the

bureaucracy that exists and appeal to the persons who

originally put it in there after they were told by the elected

people not to. The landowner has to appeal through the regional

district, which in the first instance said, "Don't put it in," and then take it on to the B.C. Land Commission. So

here we have parties of elected people frustrated by

bureaucrats in the B.C. Land Commission — and they aren't

elected, they're appointed. Getting back to the local municipal

and regional governments I'm referring to, I think that this is

a despicable state of affairs that now they have to go on their

bended knees to try and get out of the agricultural land

reserve that they worked a year on to be sure they would have

areas for their communities to expand in, and they wake up and

find this happening.

Another thing that hasn't been mentioned before is that I

think the Cariboo is the largest beef-production area in the

province, and we have a lot of successful beef ranches. But lo

and behold, Mr. Speaker, this government has decided to go

apparently into the beef-production business and they have

purchased beef ranches north of Prince George, 20 miles, and

south of Prince George, 20 miles. In one instance it cost them

$400,000-odd, and another one cost them $300,000-odd.

I would just like to say, Mr. Speaker, that that's their

decision to go into the beef business, but I'd like to know who

makes these decisions where these things happen. Prince George

has never been known for beef production. As a matter of fact,

it isn't an economic area of the province to go into beef

production because they have 11 months of winter in that area

and one month of bad sleighing, and therefore it is very

uneconomic to go into beef

[ Page 247 ]

production because of the high price of feed and the length

of time it takes to feed. These are things that the people are

asking and rightly so. Who makes these selections? I understand

that the B.C. Land Commission makes these selections, but I

wonder.

While I am discussing the Lands department, I might say that

I have spoken in this House before about the lease fees on

residential/recreational lots, and I refer to Crown-owned and

-leased lots. Since this government took over they have

increased the leases, They were always open to review every

five years, but since this government took over we have seen

residential lease fees payable by the citizens to the Crown

increase as much as seven and eight times.

I want to acknowledge the fact that the government has seen

the folly of its ways, and right at this time the Lands

department is making refunds to, I understand, around 15,000

residential leaseholders, rolling back lease fees to double,

and I think that's fine on their part. I just would like to

reiterate that everything was always bad in the 20 years,

according to this government, from '52 to '72, but all they've

done on this lease policy is revert it back to the policy that

had existed on recreational lease, and has declared that no

lease fee, whether the market value shows it or not, could

advance beyond double in the five-year review period. There are

some happier people now in the province than there were last

fall when they were faced with, as I say, seven or eight times

increased lease fees.

While on the subject of lease fees and the government owning

95 per cent of the land, last fall the Minister of Lands,

Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) announced that

this year 5,000 residential lots would be made available to our

citizens from Crown land during this year, 1975. I wish the

Minister was in the House, although I didn't expect he would be

because he doesn't spend much time here — he's out, I guess,

looking for a new typewriter someplace.

The fact is that 5,000 lots were announced to be created

now. Again we get back to local government, and I understand

the Lands department from Victoria has issued instructions to

regional and local levels of land inspection to show the

Victoria Lands department where these lots are and recommend to

them where these different Crown land subdivisions should be

located.

I further understand that in the Cariboo, of the 5,000 lots, roughly 1,000

are supposed to be created in the Cariboo, but I would like to ask a question,

Mr. Speaker. There's indication that it's not going to happen but I'd like to

get it on the record here: are they going to refer — I'm talking about the Minister

of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) — the tentative areas

for Crown subdivisions to the local authorities again? It's my information that

the local authorities — and I'm referring again to the regional districts and

the municipal councils — are going to be told where the subdivisions are going

to take place, and I don't think that this is fair or right, I think that full

consultation should take place with the local elected people.

These Crown subdivisions are going to be created throughout

the province with, I understand, as many as 200 lots. The

provincial Lands department is going to put in complete water

systems. They're going to pave the subdivisions, and I don't

think they should be imposed in the immediate area of any

municipality, or certainly within a regional district, without

full consultation. Obviously, the Crown is not going to supply

the schools, the hospitals or the recreational services. What I

am saying, Mr. Speaker, is that they must go along and consult

with the local people because they're the ones that'll have to

pick up the effects from these decisions that are being made in

Victoria. I am very alarmed that the decisions will just be

made here, and cause all these problems for the local areas

throughout the whole province.

Citizens are asking what the policy is of the government in

relation to the disposal of these subdivided lots after they're

created. In other words, are they going to lease them,

lease-purchase, or straight purchase? The citizens, I am sure,

want to know, and are entitled to know. I am going to pursue it

until I find out, because I asked last fall in the Legislature

of the Minister, and his answer at that time was that it was

under discussion and under review. Well, no answer's been given

and they're now going ahead, though I doubt that we'll see any

lots created by the Crown of the 5,000 they say. I think it's

about time that policy was spelled out by this government as to

how they will be disposed of.

The throne speech refers to the forest tenure, and I think

that we certainly do have to look at forest tenure. I believe

that when Chief Justice Sloan made the last inquiry, he

recommended that another one be made in 20 years and, no doubt,

we're past that time so I think it's about time that that did

take place, While we're on forestry, again, the Minister of Lands,

Forests and Water Resources has reduced the stumpage down to

its statutory minimum of $1.10 per 100 cubic feet, but he has

also advised that it expires on March 31, and that's not very

far away. I think, in all fairness, the lumber industry, which

has been struggling now for a long time, would Like to know

what is going to happen come April to the stumpage rate of $1.10 per 100 cubic. Is it going to be increased, or what is going

to happen to it? They've had no end of trouble of operation. I

think the government should give them some advance idea of what

they have in mind. Are they going to double it, or triple it,

or leave it where it is?

Education has been mentioned a lot, and mentioned in the

throne speech. My concern is the

[ Page 248 ]

cost of education and how it's going to affect the local

ratepayer. We'll certainly know more about that this time

tomorrow but they're talking in British Columbia about mill

rate increases for education alone, as of today, anywhere from

10 to 25 mills, just for education alone. This is an alarming

situation. While the municipalities do not set the school mill

rate, it sure affects them, setting their rates for taxation.

The homeowners just can't stand that, so I hope that when the

budget comes down tomorrow it will bring the necessary

relief.

Another thing I mentioned the other day, on the amendment,

but it's again in the throne speech, and that is northern

development. All that's gone on so far is lots of meetings. I

realize the Minister of northern affairs (Hon. Mr. Nunweiler).

is not here, unfortunately, and won't take

part in the debate,

but everybody would like to know just what is going to take

place — I think even you spoke about it — rather than just

discussing. What about some action?

On the northern development, I think it was you, Mr.

Speaker, who said that the Cariboo and so on was a long way

from it. But I would remind you that in the northern

development package there was something in there affecting the

Cariboo and, I think, the whole of British Columbia. In that

northern development package was the connector link of the BCR

with the main lines from a point in the approximate area of

Clinton down to the area of Ashcroft.

For better service all around, it's about time this

government decided whether they are going to sign this

agreement and let this work go on. Certainly the local people

think it's about ready to happen, and I can assure them that it

isn't, as near as I can find out.

The throne speech also refers to new expropriation laws.

I've had quite a bit of problem over expropriation laws. When

the throne speech announced it, it said they were going to

amend the expropriation law. But I don't believe we have one,

so no doubt it'll be a brand new law.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): That was a clerical

error.

MR. FRASER: Thank you, Mr. Attorney-General. But, in any

case, I think it's about time we had it spelled out; the Crown

authorities have it in different Acts. It's about time. I look

forward to the new expropriation law and hope that it'll be

fairer than things have been in the past to the citizens.

The other thing that is referred to in some cases here and

some not, and something I'm really concerned about, is the

state of the financing of municipalities. Again, this could be

alleviated somewhat tomorrow in the budget. I only hope it

is.

I would like to relate to you the situation they're in. We passed legislation

here last year that froze their assessments and put a freeze on any increased

revenue they could have. The demands on them continue to increase and they have

their inflationary problems. I don't think I've ever seen when our municipalities

have been in more serious straits than they are in the year 1975.

This government has tried to tamper with the assessments

and, at the last minute, they were frightened off. So we have

the situation with the municipalities in dire straits or more

revenue and no place to turn but to this government. If there's

no relief in sight for the municipalities in the budget, they

can certainly look forward to real serious times: an increase

in taxes as well as a decrease in services.

Another avenue that hasn't been brought up in this debate

that I know of is the confusion that exists with prior

governments — and this government continues it right on — with

the different boundaries of jurisdiction that exist in British

Columbia. I'd like to know who makes these decisions. I'm sure

it's the senior bureaucrats. But when they do, they never

consider what another department of government is doing.

I refer to assessment districts; I refer to the recent one I

saw, the Workers Compensation Board. They were drawing new

jurisdictional boundaries. Yes, they were bringing more

services to the people but, again, they use a different

boundary than the assessment authority. They don't have to use

the same, but there isn't one

section of government that uses

the same boundary of jurisdiction, whether it's the

Attorney-General, whether it's the administration of justice,

whether it's Agriculture or what. It's confusing enough.

Highways is another one; they have different boundaries of

jurisdiction than anybody else. Mines has different boundaries;

Recreation and Conservation has another one; Human Resources,

and so on.

Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, while I think it's confusing to

government administration — and I'm not too worried about that — what do you think about the average citizen of this province?

They don't know where they're at. Why, they might deal in

Kamloops on one subject and then find they've got to go to

Prince George on another subject, simply because some

bureaucrat in Victoria or Vancouver decided those would be the

boundaries of those different jurisdictions.

I think it's about time somebody brought some uniformity to

all these things, or certainly took it into consideration. The

latest one that I saw cutting the province up was Workers'

Compensation while they were opening offices. They drew

boundaries completely different than any other government

jurisdiction that we've had up to the present time. They even

drew boundaries for the jurisdiction of that. Where does the

person go who has to have a claim in this case? He doesn't know

whether he goes

[ Page 249 ]

to Kamloops, Williams Lake, Prince George or what. Again,

they cut the boundaries in this case right through the middle

of rural route mails and everything else. Nobody has ever heard

of such boundaries.

Interjections.

MR. FRASER: In all these departments I wish that they would

think of whether they are going along. I realize they can't all

be the same, but let's have some rhyme or reason. It doesn't

exist today.

I realize, Mr. Speaker, that my time is just about up, but I

will say that this government has alarmed the citizens of this

province in their speed to socialize and own everything and to

intervene in every sector of activity that goes on in our

province. The citizens that I talk to don't feel that they had

that mandate and feel that they have already gone too far. For

that reason and many others, I cannot support the throne

speech.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. Attorney-General.

MR. LEWIS: Don't be too hard on them, Alex.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, I am

the designated speaker, but I hope not to be unduly long in

what few remarks I have to say.

I miss very much, because he was in a sense a neighbour of

mine on Thormanby Island, when I could get up there, Mr. Ned

DeBeck. And I miss Mr. Art Laing, who, though from a different

party, was a personal friend of mine, I always felt. My comfort

is that through their children and their grandchildren in both

cases — in the DeBeck family many, many of them — and their

children after that, they will continue to live in the rich

future of the Province of British Columbia.

I want to thank the mover and the seconder who came out in

support of this excellent throne speech, perhaps the best that

has been brought down in the last 50 years in the Province of

British Columbia.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): You're so modest, Alex.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Before I begin, I have something

important to say. I'm going to vote for the motion! A majority

is always the best repartee.

I appreciated so many of the speeches during the debate,

sometimes in my office, sometimes listening to them there,

sometimes here. I know that this is International Women's Year

and we had some very good speeches from the lady Member for

Vancouver South (Mrs. Webster), the lady Member for

Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown), and the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Lauk). I think that certainly

in the case of the Scotsmen, with International Women's Year

coming on, they will do their best to celebrate that by wearing

the kilt as often as they can. I think all the Scots will be

saying "Up the kilt!" in this International Women's Year, and

the lassies will be right behind them — or right beside them,

not right behind them. After all, one of the greatest

originators of the women's liberation movement was none other

than Robbie Burns, who wrote almost 200 years ago in his poem

"The Rights of Man" the famous words:

Amid the mighty fuss

Just let me mention

The rights of women

Merit some attention.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Can I throw that line

out?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Am I joking about a subject about which

nobody is allowed to joke? It's a serious subject, because

really we do intend in this year in the statutes of the

Province of B.C. to wipe out those archaic provisions that deny

social and economic equality to women.

MR. WALLACE: Will that be the Burns amendment?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: At the same time, I would like to say,

though, that we should protect the precious variety of life. I

would remind the Members of this assembly th