1975 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, JUNE 23, 1975

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

3833 ]

CONTENTS

Oral questions

CNR takeover of BCR. Mr. Bennett — 3833

Fire services in Victoria. Mr. Wallace — 3833

Policy on local film industry. Mr. Gibson — 3833

Rock-scaling on Jackass Mountain. Hon. Mr. Lea — 3834

Hydro price increase. Mr. Smith — 3834

Railroad concession at Fort Steele. Mr. Chabot — 3834

Replacement for Dr. Cass-Beggs. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3834

Federal critique of refinery study. Mr. McClelland — 3835

Delay in answer to Bremer question. Mr. Gardom — 3835

Indian railway blockade. Mr. Wallace — 3835

Mayne Island ferry terminal. Mr. Curtis — 3836

Department of Lands, Forests and Water Resources Amendment Act, 197S (Bill

127).

Second reading. Mr. Curtis — 3836

Division on second reading — 3851

Coal Mines Regulation Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 94).

Committee stage.

section

3. Mr. Richter — 3851

section 4. Mr. Richter — 3852

Report and third reading — 3853

Petroleum and Natural Gas Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 107).

Committee stage.

section 1. Mr. Smith — 3853

section 7. Mr. Smith — 3853

Division on

section 7 — 3860

Report stage — 3860

Division on third reading — 3860

Mines Regulation Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 125).

Committee

stage.

section 2. Mr. Gibson — 3861

Division on

section 2 — 3862

Report and third reading — 3863

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (Bill 142).

Second reading. Hon. Mr. Hall

— 3863

Appendix — 3864

MONDAY, JUNE 23, 1975

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, I

would like the House to know today that we have some special

visitors, Mr. and Mrs. Walter Gillingham from Calgary, the

parents of Bob Gillingham of the CBC, accompanied by his wife

Barbara. The Gillinghams junior are residents of the

Municipality of Saanich, and the visitors are in the Members'

gallery.

Oral questions.

CNR TAKEOVER OF BCR

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

Without Portfolio. Has the Minister participated in any

discussions as a director of the B.C. Railway with the CNR with

a view to taking over the operations of the B.C. Railway?

HON. A.A. NUNWEILER (Minister Without Portfolio): The answer

is that there have been no discussions taking place between the

two railways to my knowledge.

MR. BENNETT: Well, just supplementary. That was in regard to taking it over. Have you participated in any discussions

that would allow the CNR to provide the new management for the

B.C. Railway?

HON. MR. NUNWEILER: To our knowledge there have been no

discussions. I think that that is really speculation.

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

acting Attorney-General...

AN HON. MEMBER: Whoever that is.

MR. SPEAKER: Is he in the House?

MR. WALLACE: ...or who is the acting Attorney-General?

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: Well, perhaps I could ask the Provincial

Secretary.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): The Member's cat-calling across

the floor. If there's not a Member here, somebody could indicate they'll accept

the question as notice. What are you trying to achieve by cat-calling? I'll

take the question.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member state his question,

please?

FIRE SERVICES IN VICTORIA

MR. WALLACE: Yes, Mr. Speaker. It really relates to the fact

that coming hard on the heels of the report on firefighting

services in the province, we had a hotel fire in Victoria on

Saturday and three people died, clearly because there were no

fire doors in the hallways, and for various other reasons. A

very serious situation apparently exists in about 1,000 such

hotel rooms in the downtown core in Victoria.

I just wonder if the Minister can find out what measures

have been taken by the provincial government to assist the

municipalities in enforcing fire prevention regulations that

are not presently being met in Victoria. Has any application

been made to Treasury Board for funds? Since the

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) during his estimates

admitted that the funding was totally inadequate for the fire

marshal's department, could I enquire if any application has

been made to the Treasury Board for immediate allocation of

funds to start on the immediate upgrading of fire prevention

and fire-fighting services?

HON. MR. HALL: I'll have a full and complete answer for the

Member at 2 o'clock tomorrow.

POLICY ON LOCAL FILM INDUSTRY

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Speaker, a

question for the Hon. Provincial Secretary. In view of proposed

legislation by the Province of Ontario which would put in

domestic content rules and a tax rebate system to producers for

the film industry, and in view of fear among local film-makers

that this could work against the B.C. film industry, a two-part

question: will the Provincial Secretary undertake discussion

with Ontario to protect the interests of our local industry,

and is any such policy — that is, a policy of domestic content being considered for British Columbia theatres?

HON. MR. HALL: I thank the Member for the notice he gave me

of asking the question, even though it was short — but the

Province only came out this morning. (Laughter.)

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Are you trying to hide

it?

HON. MR. HALL: No, I'm not trying to hide it.

[ Page 3834 ]

There she goes again — it's unreal, isn't it? Just unreal.

(Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker, in answer to the Member's question: there are continuing discussions

going on at a number of official levels in a number of departments with film-makers

in British Columbia. That is now coming to a head in that Mr. Linnell — whom,

I think, has been in touch with the Province , if not with the Member — is being

received and met by a cabinet committee on films generally. That will take place

as soon as the session is over. As far as the development of policy — that will

have to await the fullness of time and the meeting.

As regards Ontario, I confess that the Ontario legislation

does bother me in the sense that it may have an impact on our

industry in that our industry will become "foreign." That's

clearly down here in the form of suggestion. My department, as

well as that of the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr.

Lauk), is looking into the implications of that. If that will

eventually mean a meeting with Ontario, so be it — we are

prepared to meet with Ontario anytime.

ROCK-SCALING ON JACKASS MOUNTAIN

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Mr. Speaker, the other

day the Hon. Liberal leader (Mr. D.A. Anderson) wanted to know

about the tourist traffic, which is increasing, and whether the

department intends to carry out any further rock-scaling on the

Jackass Mountain

section of Fraser Canyon Highway this summer —

I knew the former government named a lot of things after

themselves. (Laughter.) The short answer is no. There has been

no rock-scaling at Jackass Mountain in the first place, nor is

there any intention to do any at the present time. You're

probably referring to the recent scaling at Hell's Gate where

the closures have now been taken off. The work of hauling away

excess material is continuing, using flagmen to control

traffic, but that should be finished in about two weeks. The

department will be monitoring the rock to determine whether any

significant movement is taking place and whether the safety of

the travelling public is in jeopardy. There will be further

closures if necessary, but we don't anticipate that we'll need

to.

HYDRO PRICE INCREASE

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the

Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. Mr. Minister, on the weekend,

on Saturday, the chairman of B.C. Hydro — I presume that you're still a director

of B.C. Hydro — indicated that there would be an increase in both domestic and

industrial rates for those who use the services of B.C. Hydro. The following

day he retracted the statement and said that there would be no increases involved.

As I recall, last week you indicated that no increases would be forthcoming

for the users of B.C. Hydro. I ask you now to clarify for the public of British

Columbia whose statements are correct and if, in fact, there are no increases

contemplated for those people who use the services of B.C. Hydro.

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

Mr. Speaker, there is a requirement of notice with respect to the large-bulk

industrial consumers. They have received such notices probably 10 months ago.

So those increases that have already been announced are all that are contemplated

that I'm aware of.

MR. SMITH: A supplemental, Mr. Speaker. Then can you

unequivocally say there will be no increase in the price of

electricity for domestic consumers in the foreseeable

future?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Will the sun shine? That has not been

actively contemplated.

RAILROAD CONCESSION AT FORT STEELE

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Speaker, to the

Minister of Travel Industry: can the Minister advise why the

concessionaire or qualified steam engineer who has operated the

railroad concession at Fort Steele for the last six years has

been replaced by a Victoria resident, after having been advised

last year that this concession would be put up for tender this

year?

HON. MR. HALL: I'll answer that question in a moment, Mr.

Member. I will look into it right away and get an answer for

you. If there is any further information the Member can give

me, I would appreciate it.

REPLACEMENT FOR DR. CASS-BEGGS

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): To the Minister of Lands,

Forests and Water Resources, Mr. Speaker. Could the Minister

please indicate to the House whether there have been any

developments in the last month with respect to finding a

replacement for Dr. Cass-Beggs as head of B.C. Hydro?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I suppose the fullness of time will

clarify that question.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: A supplementary. Could I ask whether any

meetings of the committee that was mentioned have taken place

during the last month?

[ Page 3835 ]

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I am not sure what committee the Member

means, Mr. Speaker.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The one to which the Minister referred

me, Mr. Speaker, the committee looking into finding a new

chairman for B.C. Hydro.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Oh, yes. I am not aware of any in the

last month.

FEDERAL CRITIQUE OF REFINERY STUDY

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): To the Minister of Mines and

Petroleum Resources. Has the federal government, through

Environment Canada, been asked to do a critique or a study of

the environmental studies which this government has

commissioned for the proposed refinery in British Columbia?

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum

Resources): I have no knowledge of that at all.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, would the Mines Minister

attempt to find out? It is my understanding that Mme. Sauvé,

the Minister of Environment for Canada, has agreed to release

the critique the federal government did of the provincial

studies if the provincial government will agree. Would the

Mines Minister agree that those studies should be released to

the public of B.C.?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I can't agree to something I don't know

anything about.

DELAY IN ANSWER TO BREMER QUESTION

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): To the Minister of

Education, Mr. Speaker, who has broken another record because

there has been a question on the order paper since June 11 of

1974 — 377 days now. I would ask the Hon. Minister when she is

prepared to answer the questions dealing with Mr. John Bremer

and why she has seen fit to delay for 377 days.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, I

wouldn't want to break my record.

MR. GARDOM: Does the Hon. Minister find it an awkward

question to answer or is there something sinister and something

underground about which she does not wish the public to

know?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: No, it is not at all awkward. It is just too repetitious.

I have already explained a number of times to the Hon. Member why it has not been answered.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the Hon. Member knows only too well

that it is forbidden under question period to discuss (

a) a

matter on the order paper and (

b) a matter that is before the

courts. I presume this matter is still before the courts. If

that is true and I am correct in saying that, then the Hon.

Member would be out of order.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, that is an absolutely spurious

suggestion on your part and also on the part of the lady

Minister.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Are you suggesting that...?

MR. GARDOM: It has nothing to do with the court trial. It's

just a question. It has absolutely nothing to do with the court

trial, Mr. Speaker, and you know that full well and so does

that Minister.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Order! If the Hon. Member would

take the trouble sometime to explain to me why it is a spurious

suggestion, I would be most appreciative.

MR. GARDOM: I would be delighted, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Then make an essay on it, send it to my office

and I will be glad to study it in a time other than in question

period.

MR. GARDOM: I'll tell you why it is spurious, Mr. Speaker.

It is because the action is a libel suit against the Premier.

It is nothing to do with the expenditure of public funds. This

lady Minister has been hiding behind that rule constantly and

is just trying to stifle....

MR. SPEAKER: Rather than take up question period with this

argument, I would ask for the next Member who wishes to

speak.

INDIAN RAILWAY BLOCKADE

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister

of Lands, Forests and Water Resources a question with regard to

the continuing blockade of the B.C. Railway by members of the

Steward-Trembleur Indian band and the resulting loss of jobs in

the forest industry. Has the Minister made any recent appeal to

the Indians to lift the blockade in light of the fact that

meetings are to be held this week?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: There has been no direct

appeal from me, Mr. Speaker.

The Hon. Member for Fort George (Hon. Mr. Nunweiler), of course, has carried

out discussions with representatives of those bands. We have held other meetings

in the last week with the Chilcotin and Cariboo people. Further meetings with

the Hon. Minister of Human Resources (Mr. Levi) will take place this week.

MR. WALLACE: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Can I ask

whoever is carrying out the discussions if there is any intent

that a request will be made to lift the blockade as a measure

of good faith on both sides — in fact, as a condition that

would guarantee a greater chance of successful discussions if

this kind of preliminary and compromising arrangement could be

reached prior to the meeting? Or is the meeting likely to be

perhaps acrimonious simply because this is being used as a club

over the head of the government?

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

are meeting at 10 o'clock tomorrow morning. I think it would be

more appropriate to make a comment on this tomorrow

afternoon.

MAYNE ISLAND FERRY TERMINAL

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, on June 19 the Hon. Minister of

Transport and Communications, in answer to a question from me

with regard to Village Bay ferry terminal on Mayne Island, took

the question as notice. I wonder if he has had an opportunity

to check into this. Just to refresh his memory, one of his

executive assistants indicated in a short memo to me that this

project is now being re-examined. It would be helpful to hear

from the Minister on this point.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and

Communications) : Yes, I looked into it. The amount of work that

has been done there is a complete part of work. The other

proposal is not going to go ahead this year.

MR. CURTIS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Could the Minister

just indicate what is the other part that is not being

proceeded with in this fiscal year, I gather?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Oh, I guess I'd have to show you. I'll

show you the map, if you like.

Orders of the day.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, I ask

leave of the House to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

[ Page 3837 ]

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, adjourned debate on second

reading of Bill 127.

DEPARTMENT OF LANDS, FORESTS, AND

WATER RESOURCES AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

(continued)

MR. SPEAKER: I think the Hon. Member for Saanich and the

Islands adjourned the debate. Is that correct?

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. Yes, indeed, on Thursday I did in fact adjourn the

debate. I wonder if it could be indicated if the Minister is

returning.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Yes, he is returning.

MR. CURTIS: The government benches seem to be so grumpy

today, Mr. Speaker. I'll proceed.

MR. SPEAKER: I think, since it's second reading.... It's

not as in committee.

Interjections.

MR. CURTIS: Well, I wanted to briefly recap a couple of

points I made on Thursday.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): On a point of order ...

the point of order is simply this. The House has been in

session less than 30 minutes. Now the Minister was here for

question period but suddenly he disappears when he knows that a

bill that is being called will be called and on the floor of

the House before he returns.

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Order, please.

MR. SMITH: We're glad to see you back.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I think the Hon. Member is not

in order in making such a point. The Member knows that if the

Minister is here upon conclusion of this debate in second

reading, he can wind up the debate. But if he isn't the

question is taken without his presence. The Hon. Member for

Saanich and the Islands.

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, thank you. I had a few minutes on

Thursday afternoon speaking in second reading on this bill and

I would like to carry on for just a few minutes now. I know

other Members will want to speak at length, but my remarks are

going to be very brief.

I can't help feeling, having listened to the Minister on Thursday, having read

the Hansard transcript, the

Blues as they are called, Mr. Speaker, and press

reports, that perhaps the Minister's introduction of this bill reflects a new

low for this session is not for this parliament in self-righteousness. It was

a regrettable speech, a rather shabby performance, I thought, in introducing

a major piece of legislation. In fact, one of its grave shortcomings was that

when you remove all the chaff, all the diversion, all the other aspects from

his remarks which went on for some 20 minutes, we find that in fact at no time

did he really direct himself to the main intent of the legislation. Instead,

we were once again treated to a rather tedious recital of the ills and shortcomings,

the real ills and the imagined ills, of the former government — and the position,

as one columnist observed, to the effect that, well, if there was bad legislation

introduced by a former government in this province, then perhaps that will excuse

this to some extent.

As I mentioned on Thursday in adjourning the debate we will

not accept the Minister's very shallow argument to the effect

that if we dare say one word against this particular bill we

are opposed to the operation of the Princess Marguerite by the

provincial government or one of its agencies. That is pathetic

nonsense, absolutely pathetic nonsense.

Throughout this discussion I don't think any of us in this

House, and I certainly hope the public, will lose sight of the

fact that there is one section,

section 2(3), which would

permit the government to do what it wishes with regard to the

Princess Marguerite. Further, I think there is a question which

could be answered at some time as to whether any

section of

this bill is necessary to operate that vessel under government

ownership and control. I refer to the Railway Act. So let us

not have the diversionary tactic once again to the effect that

it is the Princess Marguerite which is at stake here for anyone

who speaks against this particular amendment.

I stand by the compliments which I paid to the Minister on

the day of the Marguerite's inaugural run to Seattle just a few

weeks ago because of what was accomplished by his department

and by others engaged by the government in a relatively short

space of time. However, Mr. Speaker, if there is ever again an

inclination on my part to even consider expressing a

complimentary comment to that Minister, then regrettably I

shall have to remain silent, because I will not want to have it

turned around and used against me in introduction of second

reading. That's his problem, his hang-up, not mine. But it

certainly shows that silence is perhaps the better course of

action when dealing with that Minister.

Incidentally, I think we have to ask again, Mr. Speaker, why

this Minister found it impossible to introduce a bill

establishing the Princess Marguerite as a government operation,

as early as the first half of April.

By his own words last Thursday, the Minister proudly told us

of the fact that acceptance of the government's offer to

purchase the CPR lands and the vessel, the Princess Marguerite,

were accepted by Marathon Realty, I believe, on April 7 and the

CPR on April 8. Certainly within that time frame of the very

early part of April. But curiously, many more weeks had to pass

before we saw this bill. Could it be possible, Mr. Speaker,

that someone considered that this would be an excellent

diversionary tactic, at least for Members in the greater

Victoria area? Could it be that in order to introduce the very

arrogant powers that this bill would permit, that it was felt

that if we were all terribly excited about the Princess

Marguerite, then we might be silenced on that particular

point?

Well, I think I have to remind you and the Minister, Mr.

Speaker, and other Members of this House, because on page 726-1

of the Hansard draft from last Thursday, the Minister once

again said: "Are you going to vote against the Marguerite?

Let's hear it. Stand up against it. Stand up against it," he repeated, That was the defence, the very weak

defence of his broad amending Act.

There is further cynicism, I think, relative to the late

arrival of this bill, one of the last major pieces of

legislation to come into this session for debate, many weeks

late. The bill is unacceptable in its present form, not just to

the opposition, but also, I suspect, and I would hope, to those

more moderate Members of the NDP backbench, who surely will

have identified it as a ministerial power play, not to be

condoned under any government at any time in the Province of

British Columbia. It is excessive in concept and execution, and

it represents an affront, I think, to the parliamentary process

which the Premier, who this very day is in London and perhaps

attending the Mother of Parliaments, the concept which this.... Is that correct, Mr. Speaker?

It is, I think, an affront to that very parliamentary

process, which the Premier so often speaks of and defends in

this chamber. I wonder how the Members of the British House of

Commons would feel it the Premier had taken along a copy of

Bill 127. One suspects that they would have looked at it with

unbelieving eyes.

Well, I cannot shake the impression that the Minister as

shown by a number of his previous actions, considers this

Legislature to be just a shade better than a nuisance. A

nuisance to him. Certainly, as one reviews this Act, there are

many indications that he has no real commitment to the

legislative process as embodied in the statutes of British

Columbia. Now if this is not the case — giving him the benefit

of the doubt, Mr. Speaker — if this is not the case, then where

are the many safeguards to ensure legislative review of the

corporations which would be established under

section 1,

subsection 1?

[ Page 3838 ]

Scattered throughout the bill are references such as: "the

Minister may," "the Minister shall," "the

Minister shall determine," " the Minister may apply" — the

Minister, the Minister...we see it repeatedly throughout the

document. No wonder this has again been referred to as the Bob

Williams Incorporated Bill. I think perhaps it should be

renamed, Mr. Speaker. It should be called Bob Williams Power

Play Unlimited.

I realize that more detailed study will be permitted in

committee stage, but I want to identify just one area of very

serious concern. That, Mr. Speaker, is this Minister's track

record of little or no truly effective consultation and

communication with local government. It could well relate to

his experiences when he was previously employed by a

municipality in the Province of British Columbia, but we see

nothing in this chamber, or in his actions, to suggest that he

is willing to, or capable of, cooperating with the

municipalities in this province. Most particularly, the City of

Vancouver and the City of Victoria. It is a casual disregard

for the rights and responsibilities of locally elected

officials, and I don't defend the officials, but I do defend

the system, the system of local government.

We see a number of danger signs emanating from this

Minister's office and his department — danger signals which, I

think, should be flashing a bright red in all parts of the

province, in all municipalities. Because if it can happen in

Victoria for the Inner Harbour, for the Reid Centre, for the

former CPR property, if it can happen in the City of Vancouver,

if it can happen in other communities, it can happen in any and

all communities throughout the province.

Now in the specific case of Victoria, if city council and

its key staff are blocked out or cut off from meaningful

participation with the Department of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources, and possibly other provincial departments, then

they're going to be operating with one arm tied behind their

back. They're not going to have the full story as they carry

out the planning function for, and on behalf of the citizens of

the City of Victoria, and that will work not only to the

disadvantage of the City of Victoria but also ultimately to the

disadvantage of every community in British Columbia.

In his opening comments last week the Minister had this to

say — this was his first paragraph:

Mr. Speaker, the bill before us is a modest bill. It is a bill designed to

provide for the establishment of British Columbia Steamships, a bill designed

to provide for and enable us to rehabilitate the CPR lands in the Inner Harbour

here in Victoria, and to develop the rehabilitate the Reid Centre land here

in the Inner Harbour in Victoria. It is a bill designed to enable the development

of a great recreation and commercial ski facility and alpine village at Blackcomb

at Whistler in the Squamish Valley, and it is a bill essentially designed to

bring the Lands Branch of British Columbia into the 20th century.

In the opening paragraph not one single, solitary reference

to: it is a bill designed to enable us to cooperate with and

work in partnership and in consultation with councils such as

in the City of Victoria, the City of Vancouver, North Vancouver

city, or wherever it may be. Not one mention. It is simply a

bill which represents yet another power play on the part of

this particular Minister of the Crown.

Now I think that we have here a position being taken that

nowhere does there appear to be a willingness to work with

other government levels, particularly the city council. What it

strongly implies on every page is: Bob knows best; let Bob do

it; Bob wants to do it; Bob knows best. That fact, coupled with

unnecessarily strong power in the hands of one Minister, with

the short-circuiting of normal control by the Legislature in

some areas, and even the short-circuiting of his cabinet

colleagues in other areas, presents us with what I believe to

be a very dangerous and disturbing combination in my layman's

view. I would remind Mr. Speaker that I am not a lawyer, but in

my layman's view, it is bad law. As I said earlier, it should

concern not only Members of the opposition, and not only

thoughtful and objective representatives of the various media

in British Columbia who have commented, and the comments have

not been restricted to the editorial pages at all, but

commented on by columnists. This should concern the opposition,

the people of this province, and again, the more thoughtful and

truly committed Members of the government side of this House —

those who have some feeling for democracy, those who do not

want to see a great deal of power vested in the control of one

power-hungry Minister. It must be opposed.

But even more important, Mr. Speaker, it is legislation

which should be rescinded and which, I say, will be rescinded,

will be tossed out when this government is also tossed out, as

it deserves to be.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister closes the debate.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Nobody is on his feet. We either put the vote,

or we offer the opportunity to the Minister to close the

debate. The Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The real

cause for concern about this bill is very simple, regardless of

the well-intended objects that the Minister has outlined. It is

a question of giving the Minister power to incorporate

companies and borrow certain moneys without reference to

the

[ Page 3839 ]

Legislature. It's just really that simple.

Again, it is the matter of the use of public funds by this

government without the opportunity of the opposition or the

public to be given full and open access to what this Minister

might or might not be doing under the terms of this

legislation. That really is the central issue in this bill. As

has been pointed out, nobody, I don't think, opposes the goal

of the Minister in re-establishing the ferry service between

Victoria and Seattle. I'm sure that we want good development of

the Inner Harbour. There is a great deal of thought and effort

already gone into removing some of the blight in the Inner

Harbour. There is no doubt that we need more recreational

facilities in the province, and if an alpine village and a ski

resort can be developed, this is for everybody's benefit. That

is no the point.

The essential crux of this debate must resolve around the

fact that in this bill power is given to incorporate companies — we've heard of three that the Minister intends, and there may

be others.

The degree to which money can be borrowed without approval

from anybody — $250,000 — and the terms under which auditing

and reporting is to be done are somewhat unusual, I would

suggest. We have a phrase in there "reporting on the financial

condition of the corporation." I would have thought that after

the very long and detailed debate we had on the B.C. Railroad,

and the repeated emphasis made on a full audit "according to

generally accepted principles of accounting" that, for example,

we should have exactly that assurance in this bill.

If the government is to incorporate companies and use public

funds, then surely the precise financial requirements which

this government should be meeting should be spelled out in the

bill in the same terms that the Minister of Finance and various

other Ministers used when debating the B.C.R. bill. That debate

relied a great deal on the fact that one particular firm of

auditors had made statements about financial accounting within

certain accepted procedures, when in point of fact they had not

been done within these procedures.

So this perhaps could be better debated in committee, but

the very basic difference of opinion that I have with the

government on this bill is in the area of accountability and

the amount of scope which is given to the Minister in the

incorporation of companies and in the borrowing of funds, and

in fact in the spending of public money.

Another point which we might relate back to the B.C. Railroad debate is also

the fact that this bill allows Members of the Legislative Assembly to serve

on boards of directors, albeit without financial recompense. But I thought we

had already decided that one of the big problems of the B.C. Railway was the

potential for political interference, and that one way in which the B.C. Railway

could be above and beyond public suspicion as to political pressures and interference

would be to divorce it completely from elected Members of this Legislature.

Yet here we have in this bill the power to set up boards of

directors and to have Members of this assembly serve on these

boards. Again, perhaps it is better debated in committee. But I

think these kinds of facts relate to my concern, at least, as

to the very substantial scope that's given to the Minister in

the bill.

The other point has been raised already, and I would have to

agree with it, that it seems to me remarkable that one of the

justifications the Minister brought forward in introducing

second reading was comparing this bill to similar bills

introduced by the former administration. I think that the real

challenge to human beings in life should be to set their goals

a little higher than the goals of the people they are

replacing, and that just doesn't apply to politics. I think

that if we consider ourselves professional politicians, we

should be really setting our sights a little higher. Certainly

I think that the voters of British Columbia who have put this

government in power did so very much in the conviction that

this government would be better and that some of the bad

principles of legislation, which were quite characteristic of

the former administration, would not be followed by this

government.

In that regard I believe you were elected, Mr. Minister, to

do better. I think you really should be listening to the Avis

car company and pick up their slogan — you must try harder, not

just do the same things and try and do them with a bit of flair

and with a bit of gobbledygook which tries to divert the

public's attention from what this bill is really doing by

throwing up some kind of smokescreen in the form of a

castigation of the former government's legislation.

The other point about this, and it comes up repeatedly in

debating legislation brought forward by this government, is

that even if this Minister were to handle in a responsible

manner the power that he has in this bill, this in no way gives

me any comfort in looking further down the road in the next 20

or 30 or whatever number of years, in relation to future

governments. We have no way of feeling confident that even if

this Minister handles the responsibility well, and does not

exceed power or distort power, that some future Minister with

this legislation might use it in ways which are irresponsible

or less than ethical.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Well, that would worry me if it was us.

(Laughter.) I would worry, no matter what government was in

power, to be quite honest about it, even if it was us, because

without appearing to be

[ Page 3840 ]

paranoid about power, — government is power and governments

have to be given authority.

The question is that there have to be certain guidelines and

restrictions. But to take one part of this bill which talks

about powers to undertake planning of Crown lands or shipping

services or motor vessels which, as in the opinion of the

Minister, "will yield to the province optimum economic and

social benefits." That's a very noble sentence, I'm sure. It's

the kind of outline of an objective which really would be

difficult ever to exceed because it's quite clear from the

statement there that if, in the opinion of the Minister,

incorporating this company or setting up that company or doing

this or doing that will yield optimum benefits to the province,

then that's the way it's going to be. This is why, I think, we

have every right on this side of the House to be a little bit

concerned about the particular way in which the bill is written

giving this kind of extensive authority and judgment and

discretion to the Minister.

I know he's deeply engrossed in his work, but we've already

made the same comments about the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr.

Nimsick) who, in the eyes of the mining industry, has been

given tremendous discretion. We have examples in some of the

other legislation, and here we have in this legislation the

power "to engage in any other business necessary or incidental," et cetera, et cetera. The language is just so wide and

all-encompassing,

section after section.

I'm sure the Minister meant to be sarcastic when he

described this bill as one of the modest tools to bring the

running of his department into the 20th century. I agree that

everything needs to be upgraded and made more appropriate as

times change, but the whole range of authority and power to act

in various ways with Crown lands and other assets really has to

bring the opposition up with a jolt and make us ask why it's

done this way. I would like the Minister to answer this in

winding up the debate: if different projects will require

incorporation of different companies, would it not at least be

a little reassuring to the public and the opposition that a

separate piece of legislation be used to set up each separate

Crown corporation, regardless of the degree to which the

Minister feels the financing of each separate one should then

be open to full scrutiny in the Legislature?

It seems to me that this certainly is written in such a way as to

give very considerable centralized power and a great degree of capacity

for the Minister and the cabinet to carry out, in secret, decisions

regarding the use of public funds to set up or to acquire existing

corporations. As one of the former speakers mentioned, if you go

through this bill

section after section, the phrase appears all the

time: "the Minister shall determine the authorized capital"; "the

Minister may apply to restrict the objects of businesses in the

memorandum of association...."; "the Minister may determine any matter

required to complete an application....", et cetera, et cetera, right

through the bill.

One can only conclude that this Minister is the best, most

capable, most gifted, most confident Minister since sliced

bread if you read the bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: Was he pretty good?

MR. WALLACE: Sliced bread changed the whole future for our

eating habits.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): I thought he was a waffle,

not a piece of bread.

MR. WALLACE: I have to just say again that nobody can oppose

the motives of providing the kind of facilities and services

which the Minister outlined in introducing second reading. What

we have to say is that these goals and objectives could quite

readily be achieved in a much more traditional and democratic

fashion whereby this Legislature and the public would have

complete access to the financing and the actions and the

decisions of such companies, but this certainly doesn't apply

in the way in which the bill is written.

I think it's a measure of our almost cavalier attitude to

inflation when it seems reasonable that $250,000 can be

borrowed without anybody's approval at all. I suppose the

attitude is: "Well, what's $250,000? You can't get into too

much harm borrowing that without approval from anybody." Then

we find that as far as the total borrowing powers of $10

million are concerned in the bill, it is with the approval of

the cabinet or Legislative Assembly. This again, I think, means

that the cabinet is looking at $10 million as perhaps not an

unreasonable amount of money that they can sit around the

cabinet table and just decide on setting up Crown corporations

dealing with that dimension of money — $10 million.

So it keeps coming back to the fact that I feel, and am sure many people in the province feel, that in the light

of this government's handling of public trust in many other

areas, the kind of commitment, for example, that the

much-vaunted automobile insurance would be cheaper, it would

break even, would be non-profit, and would not be subsidized by

general revenues...

MR. GARDOM: It was supposed to make money, Scotty.

MR. WALLACE: One of the Members corrects me, quite rightly,

that it was supposed to make money. Not only has it not made

money.... Anyway, the principle we are discussing is that in

light of the past

[ Page 3841 ]

examples which this government has set, I don't think

anybody can be anything but a little apprehensive when they

read that here we have sums of money, such as $250,000, which

can be borrowed without anybody's approval.

Presumably the Minister approved, but I gather from the way

it is written, a company could borrow a quarter of a million

and not even have ministerial approval. The $10 million

borrowing capacity is approved either by the cabinet or the

Legislative Assembly. If the record of ICBC is anything to go

by, the public of this province realize that the word of a

Minister may not mean very much.

I can remember sitting in this House and listening in the

clearest, loudest, typical unmistakable delivery of the

Minister of Transport and Communications. It is all recorded in

Hansard . There would be no subsidy to ICBC. It would be

self-sustaining. We know that this has not been the case.

Here we have another bill where we have very substantial

sums of public money involved. There is no assurance whatever

that the Legislature will have access to what these different

companies are doing financially or any other way. Granted,

there is an outline — in pretty loose language though — that

there will be an annual report and that there will be a

statement about the financial condition of the company. As I

say, that seems less definite to me and less mandatory than I

would like to see in this kind of bill.

I noticed the Minister listening carefully to that comment.

I made a moment ago. It may well be that he realizes after the

B.C. Railroad debate that he should amend this bill to include

the language which nails the responsibility right down in the

clearest of terms, that this House shall have a full, audited

report of each and every corporation under this bill prepared

under the generally-accepted accounting practices that apply to

corporations.

I would feel a lot happier if the Minister would consider

that kind of amendment. I've tried to help him out by placing

that kind of amendment on the order paper.

The other part of this bill related to that same kind of

thinking is that I notice this Minister has the power to decide

what provisions of the Companies Act may or may not apply to

any of these corporations. This again seems to give a great

deal of discretion. I don't know whether this again will be

answered by the Minister saying: "Well, we have got this in

lots of other Acts. There are certain Acts of government which

needn't comply with all the provisions of the Companies Act."

But there again, we are not interested in what may have been done wrong in

the past. We would like to think that this government, having seen some of the

errors of the former administration, could avoid them and bring in legislation

with a greater degree of accountability and responsibility as far as the handling

of the taxpayers' money is concerned.

Unless this kind of authority and lack of assurance

regarding financial accountability is brought into this bill by

amendment, I have no hesitation whatever in voting against this

bill. I think that on the other hand, it is a bill designed to

bring about certain well-intended changes.

I would like to think, that since some of these amendments

would only be strengthening our basic, traditional democratic

procedures and the accountability that the people of the

province would like any government to have, and since these

amendments are not complicated, and since they would in some

way ensure at least that every detail in the financing of each

and every one of these corporations would come back to the

Legislature for scrutiny, it would be better still if in the

first instance, the Legislature were given some say and some

power to supervise and scrutinize new corporations or

amendments to this bill as time goes by.

As it sits at the present time, it leaves far too much

discretion and power in the hands of the Minister himself. Yet

the bill could be made so much better very easily with some of

the amendments that I have suggested. If these are not

forthcoming, I certainly have no hesitation in opposing the

bill, even though I do want to see the inner harbour

well-developed. I do want to see the ferry service to Seattle,

and I do want to see a ski centre and an Alpine village

developed in the Squamish Valley. But without these amendments,

I have to vote against the bill without any hesitation.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, the principle of this bill, as

nearly as I can understand it, is to give authority to the

Minister all at once and in one bill to do things that might

cause embarrassment or inconvenience or controversy to the

government if they were forced to obtain legislative authority

one by one.

The bill initially masqueraded under the aspect of being

purely with reference to the Marguerite. There seems to be good

support on all sides of the House for the Marguerite; but it

turns out from the Minister's own remarks, and from a reading

of the bill between the lines, that it stretches far beyond the

Marguerite. If the Minister wants the authority to have a

corporation to develop the public lands of Victoria,

particularly around the harbour, Mr. Speaker, why does he not

come to the House with

an Act to provide for such a specific

corporation and allow the House to consider those plans in the

context of the realities of the day when the government is

ready to move on the development of those lands?

If the Minister wants a bill to authorize a corporation to

develop Crown lands in the vicinity of

[ Page 3842 ]

Whistler, why doesn't the Minister wait until the government

has a development plan for Whistler spelled out saying what

this corporation is to do, what the zoning is to be, where the

sewer facilities are to go, what the long-range plans are for

that magnificent area and then come to this House and ask for

authority to establish exactly such a corporation rather than

asking, as he has in this bill, for a blank cheque to write out

new corporations, in effect.

I see in a study of the Hansard proofs of the debate from

last Thursday that there were interjections from the government

back benches that there were certain protections in this bill.

Frequent reference was made to a $10 million aggregate limit.

That is, indeed, a protection of sorts. But, Mr. Speaker, that

can be amended with a one-sentence bill any year. That is, in

my view, not a sufficient protection. There's not the

protection of an independent board of governors. We have the

explicit authorization in this bill that Members of this

assembly may be directors of the board. Those Members of this

assembly would presumably be Members of the political party of

the government of the day. They would in no wise be independent

directors. They would be directors of the same political stripe

as whoever the government of the day might be.

So there aren't protections. So it is a bill which asks this

House to give the government powers beyond which it is prepared

to justify and account for in detail today. For that reason I

oppose this bill.

I feel that there is one other matter touching this bill on

which the Minister owes an explanation to this House. In his

remarks on second reading last Thursday he gave a history of

negotiations. He noted that those negotiations between the

Lands department and the CPR commenced on February 26 of this

year, a basic agreement reached March 14, an announcement of

purchase April 1, and so on. Now, Mr. Speaker, when was this

bill brought in? It wasn't brought in until early June. That's

curious, isn't it? If we count backwards, they had all of May,

they had all of April, they had all of March since the time

they commenced the negotiations.

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

Oh, sinister!

MR. GIBSON: Lots of time to write a bill, I would have

thought, especially a bill that was just about the Marguerite

instead of a bill that proposed to give the government powers

to do anything else they wanted in a Crown corporation way with

any land in the province. It could have been, as the Hon.

Member for Saanich (Mr. Curtis) suggests, a simple two-section

bill. Of course, Mr. Member, this is a two-section bill too,

but they're curious sections. They're pretty powerful

sections.

So I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that there was contempt of this

House in not bringing forward this legislation more quickly —

not because the government simply didn't want to present its

policy, but rather because the government was making

expenditures on this acquisition out of general revenues, as

nearly as I am able to determine, without legislative

authority: illegal expenditures made in respect of this ship,

apparently since reimbursed....

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Minister, if you'll stand up and explain how

these expenditures were not illegal, that's exactly what I want

to hear. I want to hear exactly under what authority the

comptroller-general authorized the issuance of cheques in May

with respect to the wages and certain supplies on this ship. If

you can explain that one, you will have gone a long way towards

redressing the stature of this government in this House. But I

say to you that if you cannot, they stand on the record as

illegal expenditures. It is a shame that a project of this kind

has been sullied by that kind of unnecessary playing fast and

loose with the public purse. And apparently you were able to

get away with it because of the position and the majority of

the government in this House.

So I say, Mr. Speaker, that first of all the bill is wrong

in principle because it takes unto the Minister powers that are

completely unrequited for the narrow objectives he has

described and, secondly, that it is, in my opinion, in contempt

of this Legislature because it came in much later than it ought

to have done in order to make legal the improper expenditures

which were made well after the acquisition of this vessel and

well during the length of time when a bill could have been

drafted, brought before this House and passed, to have made

everything right and proper.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, I'm not

going to take too much time in the House today for another what

I call ASP speech — an awesome, sweeping powers speech — not

that it would not have been appropriate, Mr. Speaker, but

because this has become so much the modus operandi of this

government. No longer is it the exception, but it's the rule

and the very light style that they are practising within this

province. It's indeed regrettable, but it's inescapably true

and it's a fact of life in contemporary socialistic politics,

as practised by the NDP, that they're following the Waffle

Manifesto letter by letter, and this bill is another specific

and very clear piece of evidence to support that statement.

Yet I must also note, Mr. Speaker, that when is being done

by the government under this bill in itself is somewhat of a

departure from the ASP approach that is so constantly taken by

it, because the

[ Page 3843 ]

government has shown at least a little reluctance and a

little humility insofar as delegating absolute power from the

Legislature, except unto the cabinet. But by this bill it's

vacated even that concept, and here they have short-cut the

Legislature from its historic access to proper democratic

accountability, and they've also so short-cut the cabinet. If

there's any conventional wisdom to support that premise, I fail

to see it.

One can well recall the great axiom of Lord Acton that

"power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." We

have seen that exercised in the procedures that were undertaken

by this Minister and by this government in the funding process,

as has been enunciated by the former speaker. One must ask, Mr.

Speaker, as to whether or not this bill is an indication on the

part of this government or on the part of this Minister of the

weakness of this cabinet, or is it an illustration of the power

path in the ego-potent design that this Minister has taken unto

himself?

His speech was interesting. It was witty. As a matter of

fact, it's the first time the Hon. Minister has been witty in

the nine years he's been here, and that's a new, light style

for him. He's attempting to have a new approach and a new

appeal. We see that when the kittens are away, the mice will

play. This little mouse was having.... I didn't say a big

mouse, Mr. Minister, because that would be unparliamentary.

This little mouse was having on Friday.... Perhaps it's an

indication that he's building and strengthening his power base

within the New Democratic Party, and perhaps indeed he's

looking to move up to the front bench and occupy the seat of

the individual who leads this province and is at present

absent.

We find in the bill once again full, complete and unfettered

power, without the processes of legislative check and balance,

without the opportunity for legislative review or public

scrutiny or any opportunity for free and open debate. One must

indeed also look at how this particular process and tack that

is taken by this Minister must reflect upon the capacities and

the responsibilities of the Minister of Recreation and

Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford). I don't think it would be

unreasonable for anybody to suggest that Marguerite and

Whistler and Victoria harbour might have something, remote

though it may be in the concept of this Minister, to do with

Recreation and Conservation. Or is the responsibility and the

function of that Minister to be relegated to taking care of the

birds and the bees in this province, and any of the heavy stuff

is going to end up in the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resource's portfolio — or whether his administration has the

competence and at least the historical direction to handle

that?

Secondly, one must ask how the procedures under this bill must reflect upon

the capacities and the responsibilities of another Minister, and that's the

Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr.

Strachan). It's certainly very true that pretty well everything

he's touched has turned into yesterday's spaghetti. Perhaps

this is one other reason why this Minister wishes to emasculate

the proper function of the Minister of Transport and

Communications and take the Marguerite under his own wing.

The speaker for the Social Credit Party was referring to the

Railway Act. Well, one doesn't even have to go to the Railway

Act to find that there's a responsibility and a power for doing

exactly what this Minister has done in dealing with the

Marguerite.

You find that power under the incorporating statute way back

in 1912 for the PGE, which is now the B.C. Rail. This is still

part of the law of the province. I would refer you, Mr.

Speaker, to

section 7 of this statute which is

chapter 36 of

the Statutes of British Columbia in 1912, dateline February 27.

It says this: "The company is hereby authorized and empowered

to own, lease, operate, manage and control steamships, steam

ferries and other boats and vessels, and to operate, and use

the same in conjunction with its business."

So there was a vehicle. You don't need to go down to Ottawa

and start forming companies for which there has never ever yet

been any adequate explanation given to this Legislature.

Also, under

section 8 of the Act we find that the company is

authorized and empowered to purchase, build, erect, equip,

maintain, use and operate wharves, docks, slips, warehouses,

elevators and storehouses, where there are appurtenances to

carry on a general wharfing or elevator warehouse and store

that has business in connection therewith..." — complete

powers there. Didn't they read the bill? Didn't they find out

what the law of this province already states? I would tend to

think they did. But what has happened here, Mr. Speaker, as has

been indicated and illustrated by other people who have already

spoken in this debate, is that it's the desire of this Minister

to have matters within his palm and within his control and

matters that otherwise should have passed on to other

portfolios and responsibilities of other Ministers.

As I say, without any question of a doubt this is an

ego-potent design on the part of this Minister. I will not take

the time of the House to reiterate, but I associate my remarks

with the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) concerning

accountability. It's just wretched and dreadful to me that the

Members in this House have to constantly raise this and

constantly find the government is turning a deaf ear to their

requests. But the public are hearing and fortunately, Mr.

Speaker, this type of procedure is auguring very badly with the

general public and they will be reflecting that in the next

election in this province.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr.

[ Page 3844 ]

Speaker, I just have to think that it was a definite ploy on

the part of the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources

(Hon. R.A. Williams) in bringing this bill in at such a late

date in the dying days of the session, hoping that the Members

of the opposition would be asleep and that everybody would be

in a hurry to get home.

It's also very interesting to note that while the debate on

this bill is going on, the Premier is in London watching the

changing of the guard on one of his joyrides at the taxpayers'

expense. And this isn't the first time we've seen this in this

House. When the Minister's controversial legislation is up on

the floor of the House, the Premier's away. I don't know

whether the Premier wants to disassociate himself from this

Minister — which I think he does. I think he warts to

disassociate himself from this Minister entirely.

But, Mr. Speaker, the Minister when introducing this bill

referred to it as a "modest bill." Now my definition of a

modest bill would be one that was moderate and reasonable and

not extreme. Certainly no one can take this bill as being

moderate or being reasonable or not being extreme, because it

is the entire opposite. The bill is not only extreme, Mr.

Speaker, but it is introduced and going to be in the hands of a

very powerful and extreme Minister, the most powerful Minister

in all of the cabinet, indeed the most powerful Minister in

British Columbia. This is the type of man who is going to be

responsible for this legislation.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Premier says that the general public

of British Columbia underestimates the intelligence of this man — they underestimate the intelligence of the Minister of Lands,

Forests and Water Resources. Well, Mr. Speaker, I say that if

he is so intelligent, why did he do things the way he has done

them — first of all, going out and spending taxpayers' money

illegally by buying the Princess Marguerite, by buying the land

without legal authority from the government?

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: I say that if he is so intelligent and has such a high

IQ, he should use it to try and estimate the intelligence of the voting public

in British Columbia because, Mr. Speaker, this is indeed the most powerful man

in British Columbia, make no mistake about it, The Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests

and Water Resources is the most powerful man in British Columbia. But if he

is so intelligent, Mr. Speaker, I ask you, why doesn't he use some of that high

IQ of his to understand the voting public of British Columbia who have, if I

must say so in these dying days of the session, a great deal of mistrust for

that man and who have no love for that man and who have no love for the Premier

either? As a matter of fact, they have no love for this government, period.

Does this Minister think of himself as a supreme being? I have to ask you, Mr.

Speaker. This Minister thinks of himself as a supreme being, and he will decree

what is good and what is bad for the people of British Columbia. I think he

thinks of himself as a benevolent dictator. I say to you that he is a dictator

all right, but certainly not a benevolent dictator.

The basis of this bill is: in the opinion of the Minister.

And I want you to pay strict attention to that — in the opinion

of the Minister. He will decide what is good and what is right

and what is wrong for the people of British Columbia. The basis

of this bill is: in the opinion of the Minister. That is the

whole basis of the bill — what he decides in his opinion.

Does this Minister feel that he is a 20th century Messiah?

Does he really think that, that he is sent to bring us out of

the dark ages? I don't know where he was sent from, Mr.

Speaker, but I know he is going back there in a hurry. I do

feel that this man feels he is a 20th century Messiah.

I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the people of British

Columbia are frightened this afternoon. They are frightened of

this Minister. They are frightened of him and they are

disturbed about his unilateral actions which he takes in this

Legislature with no regard.

This man is so powerful that he didn't sign the ordinary

Waffle manifesto; he drew up a manifesto of his own. He has his

own manifesto. The Waffle manifesto wasn't strong enough,

wasn't harsh enough.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: It was much too simple.

MR. PHILLIPS: It wasn't socialistic enough for this

Minister, so he drew up his own manifesto, known as the

"Williams and incorporated manifesto." This Act, Mr. Speaker,

will allow this Minister to carry on the creed and the tenets

of his own manifesto.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Ten million, and we'll change the

world.

MR. PHILLIPS: But, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to know who is the

socialist god that is ruling over us by decree? Who is he?

Where did he come from? By what decree? His own decree that he

rules over us without regard to the Legislature. Who has more

power than the Minister? No elected body. But the people who

elected him and the people whom he is supposed to serve have

more power than that Minister, and, Mr. Speaker, they will

speak.

Very shortly we will see this Minister walking on the water

with the Premier coming along behind him shouting, "Me too,

Bob! Me too!" because he is really the leader of that

government, the most powerful man in British Columbia.

[ Page 3845 ]

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Ho, hum!

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, fighting this man is like trying

to break through a steel door with an itty-bitty hammer,

because such is the power of that all-powerful socialist

government. It's like hammering a steel door with an itty-bitty

hammer, because that's about all the impression we make on that

all-powerful, crushing majority that that socialist government

rules with in British Columbia today.

The Minister says the bill is designed to establish B.C.

Steamships and to rehabilitate the Inner Harbour and the Reid

Centre, and for the ski mountain at Whistler. But the point is

that the bill is designed to do anything in British Columbia,

take over any land assembly that, in the opinion of Mr. Big.... And the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources is

Mr. Big in British Columbia because through his Environment and

Land Use Secretariat he does control not only municipal

governments, but also he controls the Recreation and

Conservation department, the Land Commission, the Department of

Agriculture, and he controls the Department of Mines. In this

bill he says: "Oh, we will have the Department of Recreation

and Conservation cooperate with us; we will have the

Department of Lands cooperate with us; we will have the

Department of Agriculture cooperate with us. Well, certainly

they'll cooperate with him or he'll come down on them like a

ton of bricks. They will cooperate because he is all-powerful

in this government.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister says that his enterprises will

work to show a profit, and he says that the opposition is

against it because they don't want him to show a profit. Well,

I'd like to know where the financial statements of Can-Cel are;

where the financial statements from Ocean Falls are. This

Minister, because of his power, can certainly make anything

show a profit because he is not bound by the rules. This

Minister makes up his own rules as he goes along, so certainly

there will be a profit on any venture that he has anything to

do with because he is not bound by the rules.

This Minister will build his own Camelot. But the people of

British Columbia understand today what is going on, and this

Minister will be frozen out because there will be winter in his

Camelot, regardless of whether he likes it or not.

I would like to ask the Minister, in closing the debate, to

advise us why the Princess Marguerite was not part of the

regular ferry system. Why do we have to go off and set up

another company? Why do we have legislation that will allow the

Minister to set up these corporations.

Mr. Speaker, we haven't seen any financial statements. I want to say, Mr. Speaker,

that we're not against the Princess Marguerite, but we are against the arrogance

of this Big-Brother government, the arrogance of this Minister, and the arrogance

of his colleagues. We're against the arbitrary powers of this government; we're

against the contempt that this government has for the legislative process. I

can't speak strongly enough against this bill, Mr. Minister, to create another

bureaucracy in this province which will not be responsible to the Legislature.

This Minister, as one of the speakers said today, thinks of

the Legislature as just a notch above being a thorn in his

side. If he had his way, he would rule by decree and there

would be no Legislature. That's about what is happening in

British Columbia today, Mr. Speaker, because of the awesome

powers that this government with every bill that passes through

the Legislature, that government, with such a crushing majority.... Attacking them is like trying to beat your way through a

steel door with an itty-bitty hammer. We're losing, Mr.

Speaker, and the people of British Columbia are losing because

of the awesome powers of that great — what he thinks of himself

as — benevolent dictator. I'm strongly opposed to this bill; the

people of British Columbia are strongly opposed to this bill,

and they'll tell him at the next election.

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

I'd like to address a few remarks to you concerning this

legislation which I oppose. The Minister in opening this debate

indicated to the House that the purpose of this bill was to

bring the Lands department, under his responsibility, into the

20th century. If you look very carefully at this legislation

and compare it with the authority that is given to this

Minister under the departmental legislation he presently has

and the legislation which gives the authority of the Lands

department to deal with the lands of the Crown, I think you

will agree with me that this particular legislation is designed

to enable this Minister to circumvent the Department of Lands

and, indeed, to destroy all the powers that it currently has

and enable this Minister, on his own advice, at his own

judgment and in his own opinion, to deal with matters which are

quite properly to be dealt with by the public service of this

province through one or more corporations which that Minister

may decide to incorporate.

This is subversion of his department; this is not bringing

it into the 20th century. It is contemptuous of this

Legislature; it is even contemptuous of the executive, of which

this Minister is a member. Rather than being supportive of his

department, as I say, it will lead to its destruction and

downfall. If the Minister believes that in the exercise of the

administration of Crown lands in this province he has an

obligation to exercise authority greater than that which has

been exercised by past Ministers, then, he already has that

authority. He doesn't need to bring along legislation of this

nature giving him the power

[ Page 3846 ]

to become a Crown capitalist. That's what he wants to

be.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.

He can incorporate companies under the Companies Act of

British Columbia; he can incorporate companies under the

legislation of any other jurisdiction of Canada or a province

and, I presume, also outside the territorial boundaries of this

province and of Canada as well. How much power does this

Minister want without defining to this Legislature exactly what

use he wishes to make of that power?

I could draw a parallel, Mr. Speaker, to other legislation

which we have had in this House, and which I have had occasion

to oppose, brought in by other Ministers. But at least they

were honest enough with the Legislature to be specific as to

what their requirements might be and the limits to which they

were prepared to go in achieving their objectives. Why didn't

the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) simply come in with

a piece of legislation saying that he had the authority to

incorporate any company or number of companies that he might

deem appropriate to regulate the financial affairs of the

Province of British Columbia? Why bring in the savings and

trust corporation Act? Why not just take unto himself, this

Minister of Finance, the same kind of powers that the Minister

of Lands, Forests and Water Resources is attempting to

achieve?

We've had the B.C. Petroleum Corp. established by

legislation in this House — very specific legislation with very

specific powers designed to do a very specific job. Why didn't

the Minister who brought that legislation before the House

simply ask this Legislature to give him the authority to

incorporate any number of corporations that he might deem

appropriate to deal with the energy requirements and the energy

resources of this province?

Mr. Speaker, I think that the answer to those questions is

clear. Those Ministers recognized the system under which we

function in this province — the democratic system. They gave

some credence to the concept of parliament and they were not

prepared to act contemptuously of this Legislature, as this

Minister so clearly is prepared to do. I thought it was

significant, Mr. Speaker, that in opening the debate on second

reading of Bill 127 the Minister talked of it as being a modest

little bill.

Mr. Speaker, I think we have come to recognize that whenever

this Minister attempts to suggest to the House that what he is

asking of the House is something scarcely to be debated, we

have to be very concerned.

I think of the legislation the Minister brought in last fall. We were to be

told in advance that there was to be legislation which was going to resolve

the price-chip problem in British Columbia. Just a little bill. So he brought

in a little bill which certainly had one

section dealing with that, but the

rest of the bill was designed to create a monstrous bureaucracy, under the direct

control of that Minister, to deal with the marketing of forest products in this

province. That was the true purpose of the legislation. That Minister tried

to smokescreen us.

When the Minister came along with this bill, it was forecast

in advance that we were to receive legislation which was to

regularize the illegal acts of this government in connection

with the acquisition and operation of the Princess Marguerite.

Surely, this bill mentions ships and ferries, but snuck into

this bill is the right of this Minister to incorporate

companies dealing with the planning, management and development

of Crown land — all the Crown land of this province, which

embodies about 85 per cent of the total land within our

boundaries.

This Minister seems incapable of producing legislation,

bringing it to the floor of this House, and making it stand on

its own feet, justifying the legislation on the specific

objectives that the Minister has. I can only assume it is

because the Minister is not prepared to disclose to his

colleagues in the cabinet, to his colleagues in the government

caucus, to the Legislature and to the people of British

Columbia precisely what his objectives are. He still wishes to

take unto himself the power to carry out his objectives as and

when fie determines it to be appropriate, with moneys made

available to him out of the Treasury.

I thought it was unique of the Minister to read very

selectively from the press clipping back in the year 1962 when

he introduced this legislation. I thought it was really

charming. Just before he did that, I had just had the

experience of the Hon. Provincial Secretary (Mr. Hall)

criticizing me for using selective press clippings. The

Minister was even more selective than I was.

I was so startled to think the distinguished journalists of

this province could have ignored the importance of legislation

which was brought in by Social Credit back in 1962 dealing with

British Columbia Hydro as to have passed it off as lightly as

the Minister suggested that I went back into the files of the

library. Lo and behold, I found that the Minister had ignored

some of the most beautifully written press statements dealing

with that particular debate. I would like to take the

opportunity, Mr. Speaker, of bringing these to the attention of

the House. I wasn't in this House in 1962, and I found it

interesting reading to refresh myself and to see just how

casually the House dealt with the legislation referred to by

the Hon. Minister.

The Hon. Minister was very critical of Mr. Paddy Sherman who is now the publisher

of the Province , and who was then in the press gallery. Yet I find that in

[ Page

3847 ]

the Province of March 23, 1962, Mr. Sherman wrote this — this is the headline:

"Wildest Uproar in Years as New Bills Attacked." It doesn't sound to me as if

the Legislature was ignoring that legislation, as the Minister would suggest.

The story goes on to say: "The legislature went into one of its wildest seasons

of uproar in years Thursday as Premier Bennett put two new power bills into

debate."

Then it goes on in a subsequent page — headline:

"Legislature Records One of Its Wildest Sessions in Many

Years." And no wonder. I read what the Liberal Members said of

those debates. But I also read what the NDP Members said in

those debates. I find that the leader of the opposition was Mr.

Strachan, and this is what he said about the legislation which

the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources suggested

was not criticized:

"Never in the records of this province do we find such sloppy, ill-considered, badly written legislation

as this. This is not legislation, this is sickness. This is a

mental sickness. Because the first legislation was wrong, this

bill can only compound the felony." That is what Mr. Strachan

said: it was mental sickness.

Mr. Speaker, I wonder how it can be that the Hon. Minister

of Transport and Communications is not in this House taking his

place in this particular debate when we are giving the Minister

of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams) these

tremendous powers to deal with the future of his department and

the future of all the Crown land.

When I think about the Minister of Transport and

Communications and this legislation which deals with the

Princess Marguerite, perhaps the Minister would be good enough

to explain how it is that he is controlling the Princess

Marguerite and the future operation of that vessel, but who

owns the vessel? It's registered in the name of Her Majesty the

Queen, in the right of the Province of British Columbia, as

represented by the Minister of Transport and Communications.

That's the department in which the vessel is held; they are the

owners of the ship. But they're not going to operate it; it

will be the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): The guy with the

sticky fingers.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: The guy with the sticky fingers.

Let me go on and read what other distinguished Members of

this House said during the course of the debates which the

Minister suggested were passed off rather casually, so far as

the press was concerned.

The Members of the government were recognized — to name Arthur Turner, NDP-CCF,

Vancouver East. He represented the Vancouver East constituency — the one which

is represented by the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources — a very

distinguished Member of this House, one who enjoyed the respect of people on

all sides of this House.

Interjection.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Yes, I wish that the distinguished Arthur

Turner were here representing Vancouver East today, because

this is what he said in 1962: "This sort of bill knocks down

the arguments in favour of democracy. Only a government sick

for power could introduce such a thing." Arthur Turner made

this quote: " 'Those whom the gods would destroy, they first

make mad"' — then he continued — "This is mad legislation which

cannot be justified." I think Arthur Turner would have said the

same thing about Bill 127: it's madness which cannot be

justified. The Minister, in opening this debate, made no

attempt to justify this legislation.

Mr. Turner went on to say, however: "There is only one thing in its favour,

it will serve to unite the people of B.C. who believe in political morality."

Amen to that. I'm sure that Arthur Turner would say the same thing about Bill

127. And he closed with these words: "If the government needs any more ideas

any more ideas along the lines of this bill, the Premier should interview Fidel

Castro." I'm sure that Arthur Turner would have felt the same about Bill 127

and this Minister.

Arthur Turner would never have stood for such legislation

coming out of the NDP caucus to subvert the purposes of this

Legislature. Arthur Turner would have said to the Minister as I

say to him now: if you have some specific objective which can

only be accomplished by the establishment of a Crown

Corporation, then bring in the specific legislation and let us

consider it, but I for one am not going to vote in favour of a

bill which gives you carte blanche to incorporate as many

companies as you wish and to raid the public Treasury in so

doing.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I don't propose to hold the

Minister up very long in giving all his replies to the very

legitimate questions that the opposition has raised with

respect to this bill.

The Minister is a bit of a sleeper, you know. It was in the

dying days of the former session that he slopped that little

rider across about the P.N.E. that caused such a ruckus in the

City of Vancouver, and those reverberations are still being

felt with respect to a people's park at Jericho.

This is a Minister who luxuriates in power, probably more

than any Minister we've ever seen in this House. He lays his

plans very carefully. He waits until the dying hours of the

session, then he brings in a modest little bill complete with

an oily speech to

[ Page 3848 ]

lull everybody into a sense of security, wishing to get away

for their summer vacation, and not really paying the kind of

attention they should to legislation that will later come back

to haunt the people and the government.

This is the kind of bill, Mr. Chairman, that makes a

legislature irrelevant, because it permits a Minister of the

Crown to set up a new company whenever he chooses; to have that

new company not restricted as other companies are, but as this

legislation states, free from the normal restrictions that go

with normal companies. So he can set up any kind of a company,

at any time, without reference to the Legislature, and not have

that company subject to any of the normal restrictions of Crown

corporations or of the Companies Act. He's got up to $10

million of the public's money to, play with in these

capitalistic ventures and, as far as I can tell, there are no

restrictions of any kind on what these companies are going to

be permitted to do.

So, Mr. Speaker, why do we bother with the Legislature at

all? Every Minister could bring in a modest little bill like

this. We could pass the bill, and then we could all go home for

three or four years. That isn't what governments I learned

about were meant to do. And, Mr. Speaker, oppositions certainly

weren't created to let this kind of thing pass by

unnoticed.

I, like other Members, enjoyed hearing a little humour from

the Minister at the time he introduced this bill. He only comes

up with that light touch when he's trying to get away with

something. He talked about the flowers, and he talked about the

birds, and he talked about the bees, and he talked about the

press. But, you know, when sifted through, it was pretty hard

to get much substance out of that speech. One minute we were

talking about Whistler Mountain. Do you recall that, when he

introduced the speech? Then he shifted very quickly to the

Princess Marguerite and what a marvelous job he'd done on that.

Then he talked about the Inner Harbour and what a marvelous job

he was going to do on that. Then we went back the Whistler

again. Then we went to the birds and the bees and the press.

All in all, it touched nearly every base. The backbenchers

applauded. The backbenchers thought it was just a marvelous

bill and a marvelous speech.

MR. FRASER: Made pulp out of their desks.

MR. McGEER: You know, to hear the account of what went on in the House

during that 1964 debate of the B.C. Hydro Bill, I could hardly believe that

I was there at the time. It didn't bear any relation at all to anything I could

remember, though some of the people who were there then — and I include the

Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Nimsick), who's reading out loud again right now

— but he was there and he should have remembered what went on during that debate.

The Minister of Transport (Hon. Mr. Strachan) was there. He should have remembered

what went on.

But if the Minister of Mines has woken up, I'd like to

remind him of what he said, since he couldn't seem to recall

enough to correct the Minister of Lands and Forests, who wasn't

there during that debate, about all the things that

happened.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: Well, he was applauding the Minister of Lands

and Forests, saying that this modest little bill really wasn't

breaking any new precedent and it was quite all right because

this B.C. Hydro Bill passed unnoticed. Do you know what the

Minister of Mines had to say? He said the Premier should hang

his head in shame because of the bill he brought in. That's

what the Minister of Mines had to say about it. But you didn't

have much to say to the Minister of Lands and Forests when he

brought in something much more odious.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I didn't speak on it.

MR. McGEER: Well, you were quoted in the papers.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Not on this bill.

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: No, no! We're talking about the bill.... You

see, if I can recap the Minister of Lands and Forests' debate

for you, Mr. Minister, he gave us this birds and the bees

speech and then he talked about the press and this little B.C.

Hydro Bill that was brought in practically unnoticed. Everybody

pounded their desks and roared approval and said: "Carry on.

You know, it's just what's been done before."

But we find it wasn't quite the way the Minister of Lands

and Forests.... He doesn't tell it like it is, Mr. Speaker,

and that's why we've got to be very careful — not just when the

Minister introduces a bill, but when he gives an indication of

what he intends to do with the powers granted under the bill. I

can never remember when the Minister has told it like it is.

And the manner in which he introduced this particular bill, I

think, is proof enough, because we can go back and check on the

things that were said in 1964. I was present during the debate

and I have just a little bit of a memory about it. It certainly

wasn't the same kind of evening that the Minister of Lands and

Forests describes.

Mr. Speaker, the man who sometimes sits in the chair you're

in now had something to say about that

[ Page 3849 ]

bill. Gordon Dowding, NDP Burnaby, called it a Henry VIII

provision. It gives the cabinet the power to rewrite the law.

He was an NDP Member in those days. Before he became Speaker,

he was an NDP Member.

This little bill that the Minister thought was quite all

right and the press never paid any attention to at all: the NDP

Member for Burnaby called it a Henry VIII provision. Later on,

the Liberal Member for Oak Bay began to object to some of the

objects of the bill, but he wasn't supported by the opposition

leader, Robert Strachan, who merely had to say "So what?" about

it. So the opposition leader, apparently, didn't object.

The press, you know, got a bit of a scathing from the

Minister of Lands and Forests. A very fine columnist, Mr.

Arthur Mayse, was ridiculed in the House. I remember when he

sat up in that corner, and I thought that he was a very fine

columnist really. I must say I thought it beneath the dignity

of a Minister of the Crown to go about ridiculing him. But I

noticed that the paper he wrote for didn't pass it off as the

birds and the bees. In fact, here's the headline on Wednesday,

March 11: "Hydro Charter Bill Passes Despite NDP."

Mr. Speaker, the NDP of those days seemed to be against the

powers of that bill. Who was against it? Well, the

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) was for one. Alex

Macdonald, the NDP Member for Vancouver East, objected to the

bill. Yes, he's not here. The Minister of Lands and Forests

waited till he left before he brought his bill in.

Here's another headline, Wednesday, March 11: "Hydro Act

Passes, But Not Without Last-Gasp Attack." So, Mr. Speaker, the

backbenchers have been led down the garden path again. Here the

Minister brought in this bill. I presume he discussed it with

caucus before he brought it onto the floor of the House. I

presume that when he brought this bill into caucus he gave you

much the same story that he gave to this House — namely that it

really wasn't very much of anything at all and just a little

bill, and really was the same kind of thing that was hardly

noticed once previously in the House when the same kind of

provisions were brought forward in the B.C. Hydro Act. So there

was no reason really to expect any objections from either the

House or from the press, because it was the same kind of thing

that the former government had brought down with scarcely

anybody taking any notice.

Well, you see, Mr. Speaker, it wasn't that way when the B.C. Hydro bill was

brought down. That bill was universally condemned for the dictatorial powers

contained in it. The government was very nearly defeated on one

section of the

bill. As I recall, it was the closest the government came to being defeated

in almost 20 years. They won one vote 16 to 15 on the very

section of that bill

dealing with the extra powers that the B.C. Hydro would have.

So the Minister comes and tells us that it's really nothing

that he's introducing. It isn't just the B.C. Hydro bill

reincarnated, Mr. Speaker, it's a blank-cheque bill where all

the powers that were granted to the B.C. Hydro in 1964 are to

be given to a series of unnamed corporations that have been

created only in the mind of the Minister of Lands, Forests and

Water Resources, which will return to haunt the press, if

they're not careful to draw attention to it, and to haunt the

public of British Columbia, because these kinds of

extraordinary and unspecified powers, unspecified in the sense

that we do not know the corporations to which they will apply,

are almost unprecedented in legislation introduced in the

western world.

These kinds of powers, Mr. Speaker, are extraordinary in the

extreme. They call for the widest kind of condemnation. It will

be a matter of recurring shame, Mr. Speaker, for anyone to

stand up and support this bill.

When that Minister begins to run amuck with all the

corporations that he intends to create and which he hasn't told

you about or us about, your support of this — bill, should you

choose to support it, will come back to haunt you.

I'll say this, Mr. Speaker: in checking through the accounts

of the B.C. Hydro bill in 1962 and 1964, I can say that the

press vindicated itself then. There was adequate reporting of

the debate. The dangers of this legislation were well canvassed

by the press. I only hope that the Minister hasn't lulled them

into a sense of security in the way he has lulled the

backbenchers into a sense of security. I hope the press is

taking ample notice and that years later people will be able to

look back on this disgraceful piece of legislation and say:

"Yes, the press did their job then, too."

Mr. Speaker, I oppose this Act.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Lands Forests and Water

Resources closes the debate.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Well, Mr. Speaker, you know, the more we

hear the independent Member for Vancouver–Point Grey speaking

in this House, the more one goes away convinced that all

credibility is slipping away from that little spot out there in

the western side of Vancouver. The kind of gross, extreme

statements that have been made by that Member just now are the

kind of thing that is going to destroy the whole process he is

trying to create around his so-called new movement.

To suggest that exactly the same powers that are in the

Hydro statutes are in this statute is gross mischievous

nonsense on the part of the Member for Vancouver–Point

Grey.

Let's just look at the borrowing power alone: $10

[ Page 3850 ]

million in borrowing power in aggregate limit with respect

to this statute. The B.C. Hydro is $3 billion — 3,000 times.

That's the kind of distance the Member is away: 3,000 times

wrong. You just have to look at

section 14 of the B.C. Hydro

and Power Authority Act, and it covers (

a) to (

y) in terms of

powers — an alphabetical list of powers from (

a) to (y). It

almost made (

z) but it was (

a) to (y) — 25 major powers in that

bill.

The one thing that is clear about this bill, Bill 127, is

that the limitations on power in fact are spelled out

there.

Last week the opposition Members were intent on telling the

story that it was $10 million for every corporation. That was

the Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser). That was the drum he

started to beat. I use the term "drum" advisedly in terms of

his riding, but the point was made. It is in the aggregate. So

finally that gets stilled, and this kind of irrelevant nonsense

that gets dumped by the opposition finally gets spiked, but

they still peddle it, arguing that it is $10 million for each

corporation. The bill is clear: it is $10 million in aggregate.

All right, that one's spiked.

Now we have the drifting independent movement over there

saying "any number of companies." But you just have to look at

section 2 and it is abundantly clear. It says "a company." Have

we got that clear? We nailed down the $10 million; we've nailed

down now the question of a company under

section 2.

Then you have to deal with respect to the operations of the

steamship aspect, and it is there that we have the opportunity

with respect to additional incorporations, because we are

operating across an international boundary. We have to have a

company registered in Washington state, and we have to have a

company registered federally with respect to Ottawa, because

again we are operating internationally between Victoria and

Seattle on an international basis. There is the reason.

In addition, they start referring to 4A(

c) and they only

quote the first part of the sentence. They say: "to engage in

any other business necessary..." but they don't read on

where it says "...or incidental to the operation of a

shipping or ferry service." That's what they don't read on in

terms of. There is a newsstand on board. There is a dining room

on board. In fact, my God, there is a bar on board. It is those

kinds of operation that are referred to in that section. So

once again it is a judicious piece of pick half a sentence,

here, half a sentence there and tell some story around that

without telling the full story.

The Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) chose again to

read the newspaper, but what he was reading was 1962, not 1964. The major B.C.

Hydro bill that established the full powers for the Hydro Authority was in 1964;

1962 was the time of the takeover. Of course, there was a debate at the time

of the takeover, but 1964 saw the major bill with respect to B.C. Hydro and

the powers therein.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, the intent of this bill is exactly as indicated

last Thursday in terms of seeing to it that the Princess

Marguerite is a successful operation, in terms of seeing that

the Reid Centre site is rehabilitated, and not like the major

real estate developer wanted to do previously, to see that the

CPR lands are redeveloped in a rational kind of way, and to see

the Whistler basin is properly developed as well.

MR. McGEER: How many companies is that?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: We are talking about three corporations,

one of them federal.

Interjections.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: You have made it abundantly clear that

the opposition still doesn't want to listen.

Interjections.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: We said that one had to be incorporated

federally, that one has to be incorporated in Washington State,

and the provincial corporation. There you are. It is as simple

as one, two, three. But the opposition is bound to have

difficulty with anything that goes past one. But it is as

simply one, two, three.

The opportunities that we will have are considerable. The

powers are limited.

Interjections.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Let us look at the way the world is

evolving in terms of what is happening in our major cities and

elsewhere. How many corporations do we have in the private

sector? Tens of thousands of corporations in the private sector

make an imprint in places like the Inner Harbour, in places

like greater Vancouver and in recreation areas like Squamish.

Here we are talking about a Crown operation with limited

borrowing powers and limited powers to try and move in a

somewhat different direction to create a better environment for

the people here in the Inner Harbour and to create a better

environment in the Whistler basin, to provide recreation

opportunities that weren't there before.

The opposition is acting as though something sinister was

about to happen. I repeat, Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that is

a modest beginning in terms of righting a direction in our

cities and recreation areas

[ Page

3851 ]

that long was asking to be righted.

I move second reading of the bill now.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 27

Hall

Dailly

Strachan

Nimsick

Hartley

Calder

Brown

Sanford

D'Arcy

Dent

Levi

Williams, R.A.

King

Lea

Young

Nunweiler

Gabelmann

Anderson, G.H.

Barnes

Steves

Liden

Lewis

Webster

Kelly

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

NAYS — 17

Jordan

Smith

Bennett

Phillips

Chabot

Fraser

Richter

McClelland

Curtis

Morrison

Schroeder

Gibson

Anderson, D.A.

Wallace

Gardom

McGeer

Williams, L.A.

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the

House.

Bill 127, Department of Lands, Forests and Water Resources

Amendment Act, 1975, read a second time and referred to

Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next

sitting after today.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: We're going to move now to committee

stage. For the opposition I would like to give the order of the

bills: 94, 107, 125, 136 and then possibly the second reading

of 142, if we get down there.

Interjections.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: These are all for today. Mr. Speaker, I

would like now to call committee on Bill 94.

COAL MINES REGULATION

AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

The House in committee on Bill 94; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

section 3.

MR. F.X. RICHTER (Boundary-Similkameen): Mr. Chairman, in

relation to the approval of a work system, in the past it has

always been a custom that certain work plans have been submitted, and which have been

more or less passed on by the chief inspector of mines. Now

we're calling for a different system which is going to create

more of a bottleneck it's going to create more of a problem for

the mining industry in getting their particular plans approved

because now rather than going to the inspector and chief

inspector, it's got to go through a different chain of action,

and this is not going to be helpful to the mining industry.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: In answer to that I would, say I don't

think there's any change in that respect because the chief

inspector always got his information from the local mines

inspector who is also a mines engineer, and this only puts it

into law that they must submit a plan. If they are going to put

a new tunnel in or a new addition, then they have to report it.

But I don't see your argument that they only had to go to the

chief engineer before. It always came through from the mines

inspector.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): This

section

pretty importantly amends the existing

section 7 of the Coal

Mines Regulation Act and the most consequential amendment to me

is subsection 4 which says that "the plan of the system shall

provide for the maximum possible recovery of the coal resource

in the location to be mined, having due regard to good

engineering practice and the safety of the operation."

HON. MR. NIMSICK: It wouldn't affect that.

MR. GIBSON: That sounds pretty good, Mr. Chairman, but what

I want to know is, who is the judge of what is a maximum

possible recovery? What defence, for example, would a mining

operation have against an inspector who came along and said:

"You've got to take, not just to the edge of the seam, but

you've got to take a few yards of rock on the other side too."

What are the rights of appeal? Whose judgment is being

exercised here, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I don't think they'd extend it into the

rocks because the rocks would be waste and to get the maximum

return out of the mine would be taking out the mineral or the

coal under this situation. I'm sure that the mines engineer —

the inspector who is a mining engineer — is the only liaison

that we've got between the government and the mine, so

therefore that is the reason that the mines inspector is the

man who will be looking after the interests of the people of

British Columbia in regard to the maximum recovery. The mines

inspector's decision would be passed on to the higher levels if

he felt the mine was not getting the maximum recovery.

[ Page

3852 ]

MR. GIBSON: I would hope too, Mr. Chairman, that the mine

inspector wouldn't say that you have to take waste rock in and

count that as part of your operation just because the mine

inspector said so. But what right of appeal is there? Just

let's assume you get a mining inspector who might be wrong from

time to time on what would be the best way of operating a mine.

Just assume that on occasion the judgment of the mining

inspector as to what's economic or the maximum possible

recovery might be in variance with the facts. What right of

appeal would a company have under this section, or under any

section 1n the regulations?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I think the mining companies can well look

after themselves in regard to appealing any decisions that they

feel is not in their best interests.

MR. GIBSON: Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. The confidence of

the Hon. Minister in the powers of the mining company is

touching, but I'm asking what is the route of appeal?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: At the present time the mines inspector

has the power even to shut down a mine and this has been

operating for a long time, so very likely if they wanted to

appeal, they would appeal to the chief inspector. That's who

they'd appeal to.

MR. GIBSON: Just one further question, Mr. Chairman.

The maximum possible recovery — now that is an ambiguous

kind of phrase. Would the Minister interpret that to mean the

maximum sort of physically possible recovery if you went into

every little nook and cranny? Or would he interpret that to be

the maximum economically possible recovery in the light of the

circumstances of the day?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Well, it would have to be in accordance

with the production lease, the plans that were laid out in the

production lease.

MR. GIBSON: Well, that seems sensible, Mr. Chairman, except

that in subsection 2 it says that "this plan is additional to

the requirements of filing under the Coal Act," and

therefore this could be a different kind of a thing.

My question to the Minister was quite simple. Does "maximum

possible" mean maximum physically possible or maximum

economically possible?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I think you can choose your words. I don't

imagine that anybody would ask him if it's not economically

possible to take the one that's physically possible if it doesn't make the mine a feasible

operation by going to that extent. But as long as they see that

the maximum recovery of the resource is taken so that they

don't just take the good part and leave the marginal part which

may be taken and still make the mine feasible.

MR. GIBSON: I just want to go on record as opposing it, Mr.

Chairman, because it seems to me these powers are such that

they can be used in a completely arbitrary way and a way which

doesn't necessarily coincide with the best economics of the

people of British Columbia.

Section 3 approved.

section 4.

MR. FX RICHTER (Boundary-Similkameen): This morning, the

Minister was asking us what we would recommend to help the

mining industry. Here you have the Minister, who in this

legislation has increased the amount of deposit for reclamation

purposes, not only from $500 right up to $1,000, which we have

doubled. Now this is not going to be that easy for mining

companies to put up this type of money, in view of the fact

that previously they used to be able to attain parity bonds

which they could recover the interest on.

I understand now that these are cash deposits, and if a

person can acquire a parity bond — because they're not too

plentiful at the present time, the need for them seems to have

been diminished — the requirements for the various financing

goes to long-term bonds in New York, and to the petrodollar

areas. It seems to me that this is an unnecessary increased

burden for the mining industry to have to put this amount

down.

Now, this is on a per-acre basis, I realize that. Probably

the Minister, through this legislation, felt that he would

reduce the amount of application for area on a per-acre basis,

by increasing the amount of money. For what reason, I don't

know because when you're taking an area, it takes a

considerable amount of development of roadways. These, of

course, have to be reclaimed when they're finished, and the

fact that you could make the whole mining operation much more

difficult by having to put up additional amounts of money where

only the area is going to be used for road access to the

deposits. It seems like a retrograde step as I see it.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: These questions were discussed, I understand, with

the mining industry. They didn't seem to have any objection with the increasing

inflation that has been going on over the years. Don't forget that it was $500

maximum in 1968 when the previous government brought it in and

[ Page 3853 ]

it's only a bond.

It's put up the same way as it always was. It's not a cash deposit.

It could be a cash deposit, but as long as it's a bond to

show their good faith that they're going to reclaim that area,

because if they don't reclaim it, then it will be the lot of

the government to reclaim it and $500 in some instances

wouldn't cover it, So the maximum now went up to $1,000 and I

don't think there's any objection to this that I've heard.

Sections 4 to 6 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee

rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 94, Coal Mines Regulation Amendment Act, 1975, read a

third time and passed.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Committee on Bill 107, Mr. Speaker.

PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

The House in committee on Bill 107; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

section 1.

MR. SMITH: I notice that

section 1 has been amended to

include oil shale as well as oil sand and other

definitions as

a petroleum product. I assume that this has come about as a

result of an oil shale deposit in the Queen Charlotte Islands.

Has the Minister information, or knowledge of any other oil

shale deposits in the Province of British Columbia? If he does

not have, then why did he feel it necessary to include oil

shale at this particular time?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I can't go along with you. I mean, at any

time we may realize that we have oil shale or oil sand in other

parts of the province, including the Queen Charlottes, and we

wanted to bring it under the definition, the same as oil

produced in so many other geological grounds.

MR. SMITH: Has the Minister had any indication from the company that

was particularly involved in the exploration in that area as to what their plans

were with respect to development of that particular oil shale deposit, or if

in fact it could be economic regardless of the government's intervention with

respect to declaring it a petroleum resource.

What is the potential for the development of oil shale on

the Queen Charlotte Islands? Has the Minister any information

on that?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I don't have information of what the real

potential is.

Sections 1 to 6 inclusive approved.

section 7.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, this is the most detrimental

section that any government could conceive if they have any

regard for the past 25 years of exploration in the Province of

British Columbia and the next 25 years. With the introduction

of this

section they have almost guaranteed — they have

guaranteed — the complete abandonment of any further drilling,

programmes by the industry in the Province of British

Columbia.

Now the Minister will probably get up and say: "That's fine;

we're going to replace them with a Crown corporation, so we're

going to make tremendous amounts of money for the benefit of

the taxpayers in the Province of British Columbia." I have to

say to you, Mr. Chairman, that if that's his reply, that's

hogwash. The department and the people in the department have

neither the expertise not the knowledge, nor even the funds

through the provincial coffers that are necessary and will be

necessary in the foreseeable future to develop the oil and

natural gas potentials of northeastern British Columbia.

What you're saying in effect by this section, make no

mistake about it, is that you're prepared to allow the industry

to spend untold millions of dollars on exploration in any part

of the province — but specifically it would probably apply to

northeastern British Columbia because that's the only place

where we have so far found any viable and commercial

discoveries of gas or oil. You'll allow them to spend untold

millions of dollars in exploration; and then at your

discretion, Mr. Minister, you can withdraw any of the

exploration permits they may have and turn them over to a Crown

corporation, a company who — would be subservient to the

government because they were financed by the government, a

company that would do your bidding without any suggestion that

they didn't think it was proper or without any suggestion that

it might not be economic. They'd do it, Mr. Minister, at your

request as long as you paid the bill.

You're asking the industry that has located in this province

and has served us well for 25 years to do two things. You're

asking them to go out and find all of the unknown pools of gas

and oil so that you can move in with a Crown corporation and

deny them

[ Page 3854 ]

even any return on the money they've invested. Then you'll

turn around, through the B.C. Petroleum Corp., and sell the

natural gas at a windfall profit to the United States, mainly,

and return to them a pittance if you so desire in relation to

their investment. That's what you're saying by this particular

section in this bill.

I'm not sure in my mind, Mr. Chairman, if the Minister

himself realizes the importance of this section. If he did, it

wouldn't be here. I'd like to tell you this, Mr. Minister.

Interjection.

MR. SMITH: Probably, if you subscribe to a completely

socialist state where the state owns everything. Yes, we'd have

it here, because that's exactly what this is aimed at.

The industry, without any investment by taxpayers, except

through the purchase of shares in individual companies — and

that's not an investment from the provincial coffers — have

invested over $1 billion in the Province of British Columbia on

exploration and the development of the natural gas and

petroleum resources. They invested that on the expectation that

somewhere down the line there would be at least a nominal

return on that investment.

At the present time, after 25 years of exploration and

development and tremendous sales of natural gas and all the oil

that we have been able to produce, they have received back in

revenue less than 50 cents on every dollar that's been invested — less than 50 cents at this particular time. There is a hope

that over the long haul many of the producing wells will be

able, through the increase in price and perhaps a bit of an

increase to the producers, to return to their companies not

only the money they have invested but a slight profit.

Most of the expertise in this particular field came to us

from the Province of Alberta and the United States, because the

people who know the drilling field and who have expertise in a

very sophisticated area of work came to us from other oil and

gas fields. They came because British Columbia was as good a

place as any to explore for natural gas and oil. We're losing

those people now the same as we have lost expertise in the

mining industry. The reason we have lost them is that they feel

that there is no future in the Province of British

Columbia.

Mr. Minister, for you to bring in this type of an amendment to this Act before

the Energy Commission of this province has completed their investigations of

the whole problem of natural gas and the price that's being paid in the Province

of British Columbia is a dereliction of your duties. It's an abuse of the Energy

Commission, a direct slap in the face to the people who are presently out trying

to solve a particular problem in order to encourage future development in the

Province of British Columbia. For you to bring in this type of an amendment

at this time is inexcusable — inexcusable, Mr. Minister. At least you should

have had the courtesy to listen to the report and the recommendations of the

Energy Commission and be guided to a certain extent at least by their recommendations

and not by ideological hang-ups produced by Hart Horn for your consumption.

Interjection.

MR. SMITH: That's right, you know where it came from. Do you

want me to quote from the transcripts of the Energy Commission?

Hart Horn laid it all out and said: "Yes, we can go in. Yes,

the government will go in. Yes, the government will cancel

reserves. Yes, the government will cancel drilling leases. Yes,

the government can step in any time they desire, take over any

time they desire, without any compensation in any part of the

Province of British Columbia." It's here in the transcript

before the Energy Commission. And you bring this type of trash

in at a time when we're short of natural gas and oil in the

Province of British Columbia, even before the Energy Commission

has completed their hearings, and try to sell this bunch of

poppycock to the people of the Province of British Columbia.

It's inexcusable, Mr. Minister, for you to take such a course

of action.

Not only that, but the real losers in this particular poker

game you're playing are the people of the Province of British

Columbia, the people who work in the industry — there are

hundreds of them, most of them small contractors — the people

who go out and man the drilling rigs, who man the seismic

crews, who know how to adapt to working in the muskeg areas at

severe temperatures. They are the people who lose immediately

because it's their livelihood. But the people who lose

ultimately are all taxpayers in the Province of British

Columbia. Unless you find more gas and more oil, I don't give a

tinker's damn what you charge for it; you'll have nothing to

sell — nothing to sell either to the province or to the export

market.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Before you....

MR. SMITH: This is exactly what you're trying to do and will

do with this particular....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Before the Hon. Member proceeds

and gets himself worked up too much, I would ask the Hon.

Member to use more temperate language.

MR. SMITH: What's the matter with a tinker's

[ Page 3855 ]

damn?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member proceed?

MR. SMITH: Are you not familiar with the expression, Mr.

Chairman?

Interjections.

MR. SMITH: Perhaps the

interpretation that you put on it as

Chairman is objectionable, not the term itself.

This is exactly what is happening in the province, Mr.

Minister. It's unfortunate, because we're at a time not only in

our own history in this province, but in the history of the

whole nation and the whole North American continent when we

need every resource that will produce energy we can call into

play.

There is reason to believe that there is still a tremendous

reserve of untapped potential in British Columbia with respect

to oil and gas. But by this amendment are you telling us that

you're prepared, as a Minister, to finance some corporation

.... And believe me, the ones that you will get to come in are

the fly-by-night operators who have no expertise but are

prepared to drill as long as you have the money. Are you

prepared to tell us that you will spend that type of money at

taxpayers' expense? Do you know what you are talking about?

You're talking about hundreds of millions of dollars. You're

talking about the type of money that will make the Premier's

dream of an oil refinery look like a fairy tale, a fantasy, in

respect to cost.

You have neither the expertise nor the companies available

to you to do the job. Really, Mr. Minister, all no needed to

do, at least until the Energy Commission completed their

investigation, was sit tight and assure the industry that you

were not out to knock them out of the saddle, not out to knock

them off. Allow the Energy Commission to come back and suggest

to the Province of British Columbia, and the government, what

should be done in respect to the price that is paid for new

gas, an incentive, perhaps, for drilling or whatever, for old

gas at wellhead — perhaps some incentive to tie in existing

wells which are isolated in respect to our main distribution in

the province. Find out why Amoco — one of the largest drilling

contractors in the Province of British Columbia, which has

spent a tremendous amount of money in the Beaver River country

and Pointed Mountain — find it necessary now to say to the

Province of British Columbia that they are through, they have

spent a tremendous amount of money, but there is no way they

will drill again.

Do you realize, Mr. Minister, that one of those wells drilled in the Pointed

Mountain area, just one, cost over $10 million? One well. They ran into tremendous

problems in drilling it. They found gas, then for some unknown reason, because

of the geological formation and the fracture of the formation they were involved

in, that well, along with a number of others, started producing water, and they

had to cut back to the point where those wells today are practically obsolete.

Yet when they were first discovered it was suggested that there was the potential

to produce enough gas from that field to serve not only the Province of British

Columbia, but our export market as well.

Yet nature played a cruel trick and the potential is not

going to be realized; they are writing that off as experience,

with a tremendous deficit at the same time. But you can be sure

that under the present conditions they'll never come back to

the Province of British Columbia to drill.

So what I have to say to you now is this: in order for the

government of today because you are not going to be here that

long to grasp a few extra dollars in revenue you have

sacrificed an industry, completely set up a provision within

this amendment which will guarantee that there is no more

exploration in northeastern British Columbia, destroyed the

potential for lord knows how many years to come because of a

whim, a psychological hang-up on the part of your party. No

facts behind it. No valid reason for doing it except that you

are prepared to grasp every dollar that you can get right now

and destroy the future of a viable industry that should have

been here and producing money for the provincial coffers for

the next 25 years.

It doesn't make sense, Mr. Minister. It won't make sense to

the industry, to the government, or to the taxpayers of this

province. Unfortunately, the taxpayers of this province are the

ones who will wake up down the road a little way and find that

they have been had, sold out by a Minister who doesn't know

what he is doing.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Chairman, I listened to the Hon.

Member for North Peace River. I think his imagination runs away

with him sometimes...

AN HON. MEMBER: Not at all.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: ...because if he knows the whole story

about the Crown reserves and how they have been disposed of

over the years, he would realize that this only gives a greater

flexibility to the government to have other methods besides the

disposition of Crown reserves through public auction. Don't

forget that under public auction, the ones who can bid are the

big companies who have plenty of money, don't forget that when

you shed bitter tears about the cost of exploration....

Interjection.

[ Page 3856 ]

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Wait a minute, now. I gave you a chance to

speak and I never said a word.

The cost of exploration is tax-deductible by these

companies. Companies in Alberta have not paid taxes on