1974 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, JUNE 18, 1974

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

4171 ]

CONTENTS

Afternoon sitting Routine proceedings Oral questions Staff shortage at Pearson

Hospital. Hon. Mr. Cocke replies — 4171

Proposed hospital facilities for Cumberland. Mr. McClelland — 4171

Absence of Leader of the Opposition. Mr. McGeer — 4172

Teacher unemployment. Mr. Wallace — 4172

Racial discrimination at PNE. Mrs. Jordan — 4172

Conflict of interest in Department of Housing. Mr. D.A. Anderson Mr. D.A. Anderson

— 4173

Statute Law Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 162). Committee

stage.

section 1.

Mr. Gardom — 4174

section 3.

Mr. Chabot — 4175

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 4175

section 4.

Mr. McClelland — 4175

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 4175

Mr. Morrison — 4175

Mr. Phillips — 4175

section 6.

Mr. McGeer — 4175

Hon. MT. Barrett — 4179

Mr. McGeer — 4181

Mr. Lewis — 4182

Mr. Chabot — 4182

Mr. Gardom — 4184

Mr. Fraser — 4185

Hon. R.A. Williams — 4185

Mr. Wallace — 4187

Mr. McClelland — 4188

Mr. Morrison — 4189

Mr. L.A. Williams — 4189

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 4189

Mr. Phillips — 4190

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 4190

Mr. Morrison — 4192

Mr. McGeer — 4192

Mr. Phillips — 4193

Mr. Gardom — 4193

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 4194

Mr. Fraser — 4194

Mr. Gardom — 4195

Mr. Phillips — 4196

Amendment to

section 6.

Mr. Smith — 4197

Amendment ruled out of order — 4199

Division on Mr. Chairman's ruling .— 4199

section 6.

Mr. Gibson — 4199

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 4200

Mr. McGeer — 4200

Mr. Gibson — 4200

Mrs. Jordan — 4200

Mr. Smith — 4203

Division on

section 6.

section 7.

Mr. Fraser — 4205

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 4205

section 8.

Mr. Chabot — 4205

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 4205

Mr. Phillips — 4205

section 11.

Mr. Wallace — 4206

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 4206

Mr. Phillips — 4206

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 4207

Mr. Chabot — 4207

MT. Phillips — 4208

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 4208

Mr. Gibson — 4209

Mr. Phillips — 4209

Mr. Gibson — 4210

section 14 '

Mr. McGeer — 4210

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 4211

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, it may interest you to know that

the prayer you heard was first uttered in the House of Commons

in 1661.

MR. C. LIDEN (Delta): Mr. Speaker, we have two groups in the

House today from Delta. First are 10 students from the Ste.

Angela Academy with Sister Fideles, and the second group is 50

students from the Delview High School, with their teacher, Mr.

Richter. I would hope the House will make them welcome.

MRS. D. WEBSTER (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, in the

gallery today we have a group of students from Corpus Christie

school in Vancouver, with their teacher, Sister Rosemary. I

believe this is their first visit to Victoria and I would like

this House to give them a warm welcome.

Introduction of bills .

Oral questions .

NUMBER OF STAFF

AT PEARSON HOSPITAL

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I took as

notice yesterday a question from the Hon. Member for Langley.

And I must confess I get up today with quite a red face because

yesterday I told the Hon. Member for Langley that we've added

staff to Pearson Hospital. When I checked the facts this

morning, we've added staff to every institution in mental

health — to all of our institutions such as Woodlands,

Riverview and so on — but we have not added staff to Pearson.

The Member for Langley was correct. I, unfortunately, made a

statement that was incorrect.

I can further answer the remainder of the question. The

situation right now is that we're short 13 orderlies in

Pearson. We have been experiencing difficulty in recruiting

orderlies out there. Mainly it's because of the disparity at

the present time in the salary ranges — the government

institutions vis-à-vis the hospitals. This, of course,

at the present time is a matter of negotiations.

However, we feel that there is not really a major lack of service at the present

time in Pearson. We were not aware, until the Member for Langley raised the

question, that there have been any complaints from patients. There has been

some renovation going on and two wards are closed — one ward in Pearson, one

ward in Willow, and it would seem that this would therefore reduce the number.

However, we go on to say that we are advertising and if

applicants have been turned away, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that

the applicants are probably unqualified, because we are in need

of staff. And when I'm talking about establishment, I'm not

talking about the numbers of people we have. We have a larger

establishment than what we have people, and we want to fill

those places.

We have had, incidentally, during the month of May, a number

of people off on sick leave, which has probably also tended to

hurt the situation.

I would suggest if the Member for Langley has knowledge of

any qualified applicant who wishes to work there, we would like

to know about him. Further, I'd like to say, Mr. Speaker, that

if he has any details of any complaints with specific

information, I'd be delighted to hear about them.

PROPOSED HOSPITAL

FACILITIES FOR CUMBERLAND

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Speaker, I have another

question to the Minister of Health, but before I ask it, I'd

like to thank him very much. We appreciate that kind of

candour. Any information I have I'll certainly send over to

you.

The question that I have for the Minister of Health today

will come as some sense of joy, I would think, to the Member

for Comox (Ms. Sanford) because she was asking about the

Concerned Citizens Committee of the Cumberland and District

Hospital the other day — and I have a list of petitions with

several hundred names on them asking for her resignation.

The question I have for the Minister of Health is that those

people in Cumberland are vitally concerned that they may not

get any kind of a hospital facility. They are not going to get

an acute care; they know that now, I guess. But they want

assurance from the Minister of Health that the department will

go ahead with a facility of some kind with a mix of levels of

care. They need that assurance because they are very upset in

that community.

MR. SPEAKER: I take it that's a question?

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, it is. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, as the Member for Langley

likely knows, and certainly as the Member for Comox knows, I've

met with the people from that area on a number of occasions. I

don't think I want to go through the history — the Member for

Langley knows the history of the situation and what happened,

that the extra beds were put in at Comox and we were set on a

course that was very difficult to obviate.

However, we have given an undertaking to the

[ Page 4172 ]

people who were interested in listening to that undertaking

in the area of Cumberland that we would provide a diagnostic

and treatment centre. The diagnostic and treatment centre would

have two or three holding beds, possibly more but certainly not

very many more. Right next door we are planning at the present

time, and will be building, an intermediate-care hospital. That

will be a 40-bed hospital.

Our objective will be that there will be as many people or

more employed in those two facilities. They will have basic

facilities; they will have, too, a good ambulance service to

provide that they get over to Comox which is only seven or

eight miles away. I think the district will be beautifully

served because we are able to concentrate on an acute-care

facility just a few miles away in the Comox Hospital so it is

proper and we'll be able to provide the other facilities where

they are needed.

ABSENCE OF THE

LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION

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

like to ask the Attorney-General whether under the Curators

Act, he's received any notification of a missing person,

namely, the Leader of the Opposition. Is he considering sending

out a search party? (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: I don't think that's within your jurisdiction

is it?

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, I did

consider that there was a case of a missing person, and a

little more than that. I did issue an all-points bulletin a

couple of days ago, before this question came up. But I

understand that Dan Campbell has been found. (Laughter.)

TEACHER UNEMPLOYMENT

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

Minister of Education — we're having letters regarding

unemployed teachers, and I think we have a sad situation of

Mrs. Blanchett on the Legislature steps. At the same time we

have a programme to create 275 new teachers. Now this question

has been raised already, and I just want to ask the Minister if

she has any meetings planned with the B.C. Teachers Federation

or the trustees association to bring some kind of understanding

throughout the province as to what is actually happening in

this matter of unemployment among teachers.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): The latest figures I have

been given — and I certainly would stand to be corrected after I doublecheck

on them for you, Mr. Member — are that there are approximately 300 to 400 vacancies

now for teachers in the Province of British Columbia. I'm unable to give you

the up-to-date figure of how many teachers, after those are filled, will still

be without positions. But when I have that information, even if the House is

adjourned, I'd be pleased to see you get it.

Yes, I'll be meeting with the BCSTA and BCTF or discussing

with their officials just where we stand. The figures have been

coming in slowly. As you know, some boards are still employing

at this moment.

You mention Mrs. Blanchett. I just make a point here that

she is not an unemployed teacher. Mrs. Blanchett has a job with

the school board in Prince Rupert and I understand could be

under breach of contract at this particular moment. But Mrs.

Blanchett does have a job.

MR. WALLACE: A quick supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Is the

Minister planning to answer Mrs. Blanchett's letter: because

she seems to be in some degree of confusion or

misunderstanding? I understand she wrote to the Minister and

has not yet had a reply. I think the kind of reply the Minister

has given today might help to clarify the situation.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: My understanding is that there has been

communication this morning between her and the school board

which she has left. So at this time I do not think it's upon me

to enter into this. The school board has communicated with her.

She is an employee of that school board; she has left the

school board, I understand now, without a proper leave of

absence. So I think now it is up to Mrs. Blanchett to discuss

this with her school board. The school board, Mr. Member, has

contacted her this morning by telegram informing her of her

situation.

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION IN PNE

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, I would just

like to interject here a moment to say how pleased I am that

the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) has been

here this session in order to ask a question.

I would like to address my question to the Hon. Minister of

Lands, Forests and Water Resources and ask the Minister if he

countenances the present practice of the PNE in turning down

space applications for political booths on reference to race. I

would like to quote from a letter from May 29, 1974, under the

hand of the space consultant. He says:

"I should add that in 1972," et cetera, "a number of booths

were rented to political parties…."

[ Page

4173 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Excuse me, may I ask the question: is this a

responsibility of some Minister of the government?

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources.

MR. SPEAKER: Is he in charge of the PNE?

MRS. JORDAN: Yes.

"The booth taken by the Vancouver East Social Credit

constituency supporting the East Indian nominee was closed down the

night of the elections," et cetera.

Does the Minister feel that such a comment should have been

made that the nominee was East Indian? If he had been a

Scotsman, would have he been referred to as a Scotsman or

German? Is this the type of discrimination that is taking place

of people at PNE board meetings at this time?

HON. MR. BARRETT: What's the date?

MRS. JORDAN: I'll repeat it, Mr. Speaker: May 24, 1974.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the Hon. Minister have any jurisdiction

over this matter?

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

Insofar as recommendations to cabinet with respect to the board, Mr. Speaker.

The matter of discrimination, of course, per se, is something that the government

would not condone. The board of the PNE is an autonomous board with respect

to the operations of the Pacific National Exhibition and includes a representative

from the city parks board and five representatives from the city council.

AN HON. MEMBER: Your appointees.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Plus appointees by order-in-council. I

would take the basic matter regarding the specific question as

notice, Mr. Speaker. However, we certainly would not condone

discrimination per se.

MRS. JORDAN: Then I hope the Minister will have an answer

before the House prorogues or adjourns. But also, in speaking

further to the PNE, he says the present situation is that there

is no available space at present.

I would like to ask the Minister, while he is taking these

matters as notice: were the applications referred to in the

last paragraph solicited or in what way was the opportunity of

space made known to anyone as far as the coming PNE is

concerned for this September? Is the procedure different for different space

classifications?

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to the Hon. Member…?

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Under the rules of the House,

for example, you couldn't expect answers from Ministers dealing

with a university simply because the university may have

appointees by order-in-council, nor any other autonomous body

set up by statute. Therefore, I can't quite see that there is

the obligation upon the Minister of the Crown to deal with

autonomous institutions. They're not creatures of the

Crown.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, I beg to differ but the Minister

of Lands, Forests and Water Resources introduced

an Act which

took over the complete….

MR. SPEAKER: I would appreciate the advice of Members on any

cases they have where….

MRS. JORDAN: And they're practising racial discrimination

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I would ask the Members if they

have any cases they can cite on this, I would appreciate their

advice.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

IN HOUSING DEPARTMENT

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

Mr. Speaker. In view of the four star edition of this morning's

Province newspaper, may I ask the Minister, in the light of

three-three split of the Port Moody council on the question of

censuring the Minister with respect to conflict of interest in

the Koehli case at Champlain Heights and also in light of the

resignation of Alderman John Northey on another conflict of

interest case between his position as housing expediter and

alderman, whether on his part he plans to take any further

steps to terminate these conflict-of-interest situations which

exist within his department.

AN HON. MEMBER: Resign.

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): The Member is

seeking the cure for which there is no disease. If such a thing

comes up, I'll look after it.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In view of

the fact that the Port Moody council and Mayor Hall are going

to refuse in the

[ Page 4174 ]

future to have the representative of the Minister's

department present when discussing at future meetings where

there's any question of conflict of interest, is the Minister

considering appointing a person to this job who does not have

conflicts of interest and in whom mayors and municipal councils

can have enough faith to allow them to be present at meetings

of their bodies?

MR. SPEAKER: I don't think there's any right to go beyond

the bell in any case.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, if the House agrees. Shall leave be

granted?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: I hear some dispute. On a point of order.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): On a point of order.

The bell has rung many times when Members of the opposition

want to ask the question and you haven't allowed it. I don't

think it would be fair for us to take advantage of something

they can't.

MR. SPEAKER: It can only be done with leave and I haven't

had unanimous leave. So that ends the matter.

Leave not granted.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): A point of order. Mr.

Speaker, on May 16, 1974, I forwarded to the Premier and the

Provincial Secretary a copy of a letter which I had received

from a constituent where I feel an injustice was done to this….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: This was over one month ago.

MR. SPEAKER: This is not a point of order. A point of order

has to be raised in the matter of a current matter before the

House. There's no matter at this moment before the House except

orders of the day.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I've given ample time for a reply

and I'd like this question answered before the House prorogues.

The Provincial Secretary about one week ago accused me of being

wrong in this letter and I'd like an answer.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Orders of the day.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Public bills and orders, Mr.

Speaker. We were going to work on the mining bills but I would

ask before we do the mining bills that we do 162 while all the

Ministers are here and finish that in committee, then move on

to the

schedule right after this. I want to do 162 while the

Ministers are here, then we'll go on to the mining bills as

listed last night.

Committee on Statute Law Amendment Act, 1974.

Interjection.

STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

The House in Committee on Bill 162; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

section 1.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Once again, Mr.

Chairman, I would like to register a formal complaint about the

method of presentation of the business of the government in

this statute as in many other statutes. We have here a very

long statute encompassing several amendments dealing with an

enormous body of statutory law. It has come before this

Legislature in the dying days of the session. The government

has not had the grace to furnish adequate material to the

Members of the House of the provisions of the statutes that

have been repealed and are being amended.

I made this point before and I must say I received very

courteous consideration from the office of the

Attorney-General, and the Legislature received bills with the

proposed amendments printed upon them.

Now surely to goodness in a statute such as this, as

encompassing as this is, it would not only have been a courtesy

but is a necessity, I'd say, for the proper consideration of

the amendments of the repealed provisions and the additions to

these numbers of statutes to underline proposed amendments,

That's the way to do the work effectively and efficiently. The

way that we're having to once again go to the statute, refer

from it back to the loose-leaf, and from the loose-leaf perhaps

back to the hard-bound is just a silly way of doing it. So in

the future could we please have them come in an underlined

fashion, as you did in a couple of bills that you introduced

towards the end of last week?

Section 1 approved.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

[ Page

4175 ]

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): This is the one where we

are giving the power to the Attorney-General to enter into

agreement with any person or body, and I was wondering if the

Attorney-General would care to tell us why it would be

necessary for him or his department to enter into any agreement

with any person or body under this

section under the revised

statute.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Particularly, Mr.

Chairman, in the Corrections Branch we contract out services

wherever we can. Bed space for parolees and probationers is

looked after sometimes by voluntary societies. They may provide

the house, we may pay them rent. We might even buy the house

and contract for their services. But wherever we can

decentralize those services by having a community group

undertake the work we want to do that, and we want that power

to make it clear that we can enter into those contracts.

Section 3 approved.

section 4.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if

this

section means that from now on the ICBC will issue a

policy to its policy holders.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): Actually,

this

section allows the insurance corporation to issue a type of insurance,

which was not contemplated by the regulations, in order to cover unusual risk

situations.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Well, 46(

a) specifically says

"policy". It specifically says that there will be a premium

charge for the issuance of a policy. I find this unusual that

an insurance company would require anyone asking for a policy

to pay extra for it, and I would like some explanation on that

section because it is most unusual.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I think the wording is very clear. The

corporation considers that there is no provision, or not

sufficient provision in the regulations for a policy of

automobile insurance of the type applied for. I think you will

appreciate that there is a great variety and multiplicity of

vehicles with all sorts of different kinds of attachments, and

this allows the kind of coverage that we hadn't originally

anticipated. That's all that does. Just to be sure we have the

authority to give any kind of coverage.

MR. MORRISON: Well, as you go on on page 2, the next item specifically

says "who may ask for it". I don't find the Minister's answer at all satisfactory

because obviously in

section 2 it says that the applicant must be the owner

of the motor vehicle or trailer, and you're going to charge him an extra premium

if he asks for a policy. Now, certainly I don't interpret it the way you do.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I don't interpret it the way you do,

either. There's no intention of…. That's not what this means

at all.

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

section 46(a),

in other words, gives the Insurance Corporation of British

Columbia the right to make any policies with regard to the

insurance corporation without going back to cabinet or without

coming to this Legislature. Is that the way to interpret this

Act?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well no, it just gives us the scope to

write the kind of policies that are demanded in a variety of

ways of special equipment, special attachments, and all the

rest of it. That's all.

MR. PHILLIPS: Does this have anything to do with driver's

insurance certificates?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No.

MR. PHILLIPS: Because in

section 3 it says "No driver's

certificates shall be issued under this section."

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's right.

MR. PHILLIPS: Would the Minister explain that? What do you

mean by that?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I think it is very clear that this

section doesn't relate to driver's certificates.

Section 4 approved.

Section 5 approved.

section 6.

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

section 6 is the

section which deals with the B.C. Hydro. In

subsection (

c) there's one little change here in one

section of

the Statute Law Amendment Act that provides for the B.C. Hydro

to increase its borrowing by $500 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: How much?

MR. McGEER: By $500 million — $0.5 billion in one tiny

little subsection — 25 per cent of the annual budget of this

Legislature, a matter which at other times and in other

parliaments would have been the subject of a full-scale debate,

as it should be. It

[ Page 4176 ]

always used to be a separate bill.

We are given no more information now than we were in

previous years as to the manner in which our Crown corporations

operate. We have discovered this: horrendous errors have been

made because the operation of the Crown corporations has not

been the subject of a frank debate in this Legislature.

I refer, of course, to the Columbia River Treaty.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You've seen Minty's report?

MR. McGEER: Yes, I've seen Minty's report.

Always, Mr. Chairman, items like this have appeared to

provide funds for the B.C. Railway. We certainly learn that

projects are not carefully thought out beforehand. I refer to

the Columbia River Treaty. The public of British Columbia gets

left holding the bag for literally hundreds of millions of

dollars.

So long as I sit in this Legislature I will demand that our

Crown corporations have appropriate accountability. They do not

today. The structure of the Crown corporations, as far as

directors are concerned, are weaker than they ever have

been.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, nonsense!

MR. McGEER: The B.C. Hydro is a classic example. The

Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A.

Williams) thinks he can run it out of his hip pocket.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Do you want Gunderson back on?

MR. McGEER: No, I think Gunderson was a poor choice as a

director. A very poor choice. But there were some good

engineers with the B.C. Hydro who sat as directors. There

should be no less than a 15-man board of directors. If it's

appropriate that there be 15 members of a board of governors

for a university to see that it's appropriately run, surely

it's appropriate that there should be 25 members of the board

of directors for B.C. Hydro.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I would ask the Hon. Member to

confine his remarks to the

section before us.

MR. McGEER: We have been asked to vote $500 million for B.C.

Hydro without having been given any indication of what that

money is needed for.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's to be made as a policy

announcement.

MR. McGEER: We do know this: the B.C. Hydro does prepare a detailed

annual budget. It is something which this Legislature never sees, which the

public of British Columbia never knows about. Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, I move

the amendment standing in my name on the order paper, which is in two parts,

and I don't know whether we want to consider these parts separately or at once.

The first part says that the comptroller-general shall at

all times have access to all departments and branches of the

corporations and shall direct the methods by which accounts

shall be kept.

The purpose of this amendment is so that we have the same

degree of scrutiny by those members of the civil service as we

have to give scrutiny, the same degree of scrutiny to the Crown

corporations as is given to the departments of government. I

don't see what's wrong with that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Before the Hon. Member

proceeds, we have examined the amendment to

section 6 on the

order paper and standing in his name. I must regretfully rule

them out of order, both entire sections on two counts. First of

all….

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. McGEER: I haven't even moved one.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, you're ruling something out of

order that I haven't even moved.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member…?

MR. McGEER: Couldn't I at least have a chance to move

something, Mr. Chairman, before you rule it out of order?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The

section that the Hon.

Member has moved, the first section, I will regretfully rule

out of order on the grounds that it interferes with Crown

prerogatives.

I previously ruled that an agency of the Crown is an

extension of the Crown. Therefore, anything that was going to

amend a

section affecting an agency of the Crown must be done

by a Minister of the Crown. It is out of order in the hands of

a private Member.

Also, the second reason is that this imports a new principle

into this particular section. The second

section is, in effect,

almost like it was a separate bill. Therefore, there is a

principle involved. The amendment which the Hon. Member is

moving is, in effect, a new principle.

Therefore, I would rule his amendment out of

[ Page 4177 ]

order on those two grounds.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, the second part of my amendment

states:

"The authority may not, however, increase its borrowing

without first having provided to the Legislature an annual

budget detailing its proposed increase in capital

expenditure."

Are you going to tell me that that interferes with the

rights of the Crown?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Now that the Hon. Member has moved the second

part of his amendment I would regretfully also rule that out of

order on the same basis. It interferes with the prerogatives of

the Crown and also imports a new principle into this

section.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, I don't see

how you can suggest that something introduces a new principle….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! You may not debate a ruling

from the Chair. If you disagree with the ruling from the Chair

you can appeal it.

MR. McGEER: I've never known of a Chairman before who didn't

at least want to hear what the point of view was of the Member

who moved something.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The Hon. Member has been in the

House for some time. I'm sure he is familiar with our standing

orders. When the ruling has been made, it's no longer a subject

for debate.

MR. McGEER: I've never met a Chairman yet, Mr. Chairman, who

wasn't very anxious to hear what Members had to say.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would ask the Hon. Member

either to discuss

section 6 as a whole or to take his seat.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I won't challenge your ruling. But

I certainly think….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would ask the Hon. Member to

think about

section 6 only.

MR. McGEER: I'm thinking very hard about it. I'm thinking

about subsection (c), which is increasing the borrowing from

$1,750 million — million! — to $2,250 million. I'm thinking

hard about that. I'm probably one of the few Members of the

Legislature who is thinking hard about that. That's $500

million, just like that.

Mr. Chairman, the Crown, I think, may be pushing the people

around if they think they can just take $500 million without

any debate, without entertaining any ideas from the average

people of this province as to how that money should be spent,

just like that. It's pretty arbitrary action.

Let me say this, Mr. Chairman: if it is the idea of the

Crown corporations in this province that they have the

prerogatives of elected people who form a government, then

those Crown corporations are in error. A government which

suggests those Crown corporations should enjoy such arrogant

powers is in error too. The Crown corporations, Mr. Chairman,

are the servants of the people of British Columbia. Their

accountability is when they come to this Legislature and ask

for money for the purposes of serving the people.

We had darned soon better start asking in this Legislature

some pointed questions about how that money is used. The day

should end when the Ministers of the Crown consider it their

obligation to run interference for these Crown

corporations.

The Crown corporations in the past have wasted our money on

poorly-thought-out projects. It has become obvious over the

years that this is the case. It has also become obvious over

the years that things these Crown corporations have done have

been politically inspired. I think our Crown corporations today

are more so. They need to be divorced entirely from political

influence.

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

Oh, nonsense!

MR. McGEER: They need to be divorced from political

influence. Does the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources disagree with that?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Oh, what garbage!

MR. McGEER: Do you disagree with that?

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you disagree with that?

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: Do you disagree with the principle that they

should be divorced from political influence?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The Hon. Member….

MR. McGEER: Who ran interference? Even Einar Gunderson

couldn't have run the interference you ran.

[ Page 4178 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, if you can keep that Member in order, you can keep me in order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! If the Hon. Member will take his seat,

the Chairman will make an appropriate ruling.

On the first point, I would ask the Hon. Member not to stray

away from the principle of

section 6. Secondly, I would ask the

Hon. Members on the government side not to interrupt the Hon.

Member while he is speaking.

Would the Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey

continue?

MR. McGEER: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. That's the

best support I've had in a long time. I can tell you that I

appreciate it.

Mr. Chairman, what we are attempting to do here in debating

this

section is to draw attention to the fact that the Crown

corporations are taking huge amounts of money. In this case

they are helping themselves to another $500 million of the

public's money, two borrowings.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nonsense!

MR. McGEER: "Nonsense," says the Member. Well, you

tell me what your budget is for the coming year. Have you seen

it?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. McGEER: Did they tell you that in caucus?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Each Member has the opportunity

to speak. The Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey has

the floor at this moment.

MR. McGEER: I think the Member seemed very exercised. I hope

he will get up and tell us how accountable these Crown

corporations are.

I see no reason why they shouldn't present a budget of their

expenditures to the Legislature in the same way as the Premier

does. I see no reason why they shouldn't keep their accounts in

exactly the same fashion as the comptroller-general does.

I don't see why we shouldn't have the best people in British Columbia in the

field of Hydro as directors of that Crown corporation. I don't see why we need

the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) as a director. I don't

think his background is such as to be helpful. I really don't. I think that

we ought to have a frank discussion of this kind of money before it gets spent.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The Hon. Member is straying

away from that point again of

section 6.

MR. McGEER: With every respect, Mr. Chairman, I think I'm

really hitting the nail on the head here.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: "Cheap politics," says the Premier. But

I'm only asking that the Crown corporations work by the same

standards as you do. You have to produce a budget in this

House.

HON. MR. BARRETT: How about the universities? Do they submit

their budget…?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member….

MR. McGEER: …they appear before a legislative committee.

It's the best way to provide accountability. I don't see why

the universities shouldn't be accountable.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR.- McGEER: The more you try to hide, the worse it gets.

Let it out.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Would the Hon. Member be

seated?

I would appeal to the Hon. Member to confine his remarks to

the principle of

section 6. Would the Hon. Member continue?

MR. McGEER: I would just like the Minister, if he would, to

tell us in what way the general public can have confidence in

this amount of money being voted blind. Do we have a directors'

meeting? Can a member of the general public attend an annual

meeting like a shareholder of MacMillan Bloedel? They can

attend an annual meeting and have their say.

I have heard it said that MacMillan Bloedel is an arrogant,

self-centred private corporation. But a person who has a share

of that can go and ask questions of the president once every

year. You can't do that for a Crown corporation, no sir! All

you can do is elect somebody to pass this $500 million

blind.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: Well, I would hope I have convinced you too, Mr.

Member, because I think

[ Page 4179 ]

accountability is a pretty fair principle to follow, no

matter what your political philosophy. I think, frankly, that

when your political philosophy interferes with the principle of

accountability, it's a pretty hollow political philosophy.

These amendments, though they seem to be out of order,

perhaps…. If the Minister wishes to move them, I'll support

them. But unless we have better accountability, I'll be forced

to vote against this section, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I don't know whether to use

the old cliché, "I rise more in sorrow than in anger." But such

puffery from that Member….

AN HON. MEMBER: Give us a cliché speech.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You know, that is puffery when the facts

are that he attempts to leave the former government's lack of

responsibility as a legacy of responsibility on this

government. Now that is absolutely not true, Mr. Member. I'm

glad you're here, and I hope you'll sit here so that the record

will have the facts if not the newspapers or the galleries. But

the facts are — and you will have an opportunity to speak — the

facts are, Mr. Member, that when we were in opposition and you

sat there, we asked that the legislative committees be allowed

to scrutinize these Crown agencies. Mr. Chairman, the Member….

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: All right, yak, yak, yak! I'll finish and

let's look at the record.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, he just sat down saying that

they should have representatives come in front of the

legislative committee, leaving the impression, deliberate or

otherwise, that since we've been elected no such course of

action had been followed. What are the facts?

Upon being elected we said that this would be more of an

open government, and we named a member of the opposition

chairman of the public accounts committee.

Now let's get the record straight so that that Member won't be too embarrassed.

In the first year of our administration the public accounts committee had in

front of it, for the first time in the history of this province, under Social

Credit administrations, under Liberal administrations, under Conservative administrations,

under coalitions that they're trying to put back together again, for the first

time in the history of this province, the chairman of a Crown corporation, B.C.

Hydro, came to the legislative committee and was asked questions by anyone who

wanted to show up if they took the time to come to those meetings.

Were you there, Mr. Member? Were you there? Did you come in

with a sheet of questions that you so piously attempt to

present today as if you didn't have the opportunity? Mr.

Member, we gave you that opportunity.

AN HON. MEMBER: He had to leave town.

HON. MR. BARRETT: He didn't. Was Cass-Beggs not in front of

that committee or was he? If he was there on a Monday, then of

course he missed that Member — or a Friday. Now what is the

record beyond that? This year that chairman of the public

accounts committee, that Member of the opposition sitting over

there, for the first time in the history of this province had

in front of the committee Mr. Beard, the chief financial

officer of that corporation. Is that not true, Mr. Chairman of

that committee?

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Correct.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That is correct. Yet that Member stood in

the House just a few minutes ago leaving the impression that

the financial officers of B.C. Hydro were not responsible to

this House, and had not been at the legislative committee.

For the first time in the history of public ownership of the

B.C. Electric Company, now known as B.C. Hydro, for two years

in a row, two years under this administration, we have had the

chief officers in front of the legislative committee. For that

Member to come in this House and try to leave a cheap political

message that something was not going on in terms of access to

those officers is totally incorrect.

You sit in this House, Mr. Member, right next to the

chairman of the public accounts and he has verified again in

front of the public that what you say is incorrect — that in

fact Mr. Cass-Beggs was there last year and Mr. Beard was there

this year. So please don't come to this House dusting off your

old speeches and trying to leave the impression somehow that

such indeed was not the case. When you were in opposition, did

Social Credit name an opposition Member chairman of the public

accounts? Just nod your head, Mr. Member; don't let it fall

off. Just nod it.

When you were in opposition, do you recall anyone from B.C.

Hydro coming before a legislative committee? Just nod your

head. Yet you are in concert daily trying to form an

association with Members of that same group whose history

you've forgotten so quickly. You would go to bed politically

with that group with the record showing that B.C.

[ Page 4180 ]

Hydro hadn't….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would ask the Hon. Premier….

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I don't want to

embarrass the Member further because he didn't show up at those

committee meetings. Maybe he did.

AN HON. MEMBER: You didn't.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, I want to tell you that I instructed

the Comptroller-General as soon as we were elected to go into

B.C. Hydro and prepare a public report to be tabled in this

House. That public report was completed by Mr. Minty. It is a

matter of record which that Member conveniently forgets that

that's the first time in the history of any government under

those Crown corporations. Social Credit was there, and Minty's

report was tabled in this House. And Minty still goes in there.

Mr. Member, I think it's very bad. I think it's very cheap. I

think it's very irresponsible to leave the impression that

somehow the comptroller-general hasn't been there.

Now further, during the debates in this House the Minister

made an announcement, a policy decision of the government. I am

sorry, Mr. Member, that it bothers you that we were elected to

govern. Nonetheless, we were elected to govern, and we are

responsible to make decisions. A policy decision was made to

build a new hydroelectric source of hydroelectric power as site

1 in the Peace River. Where was that announcement made? It was

made right here in the House. When was it made, Mr. Member? The

expenditure of the $500 million that we are passing now was

made after public hearings in the area — something that that

outfit never did, Mr. Member.

Public hearings; statement in the House; public accounts

committee chaired by an opposition Member who heard the

chairman of B.C. Hydro, who heard the chief financial officer…. Mr. Member, I do not assume any responsibility for the

former administration's way. But don't you ever leave the

impression that there have not been dramatic changes. The

record proves you're wrong, Mr. Member, and I think that was a

cheap political shot you just had.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, that was a fine speech by the

Premier. I enjoyed it thoroughly. The Premier makes a great

speech whether or not he has the facts. His style is

impeccable. But, Mr. Chairman, there is just one little thing

that the Premier should understand. The public accounts

committee looks into money that was spent, gone, 18 months ago.

It looks for errors in the past.

AN HON. MEMBER: He just spoke about errors.

MR. McGEER: Oh, no, what this bill is about is to lend $500

million. That's the difference between doing an autopsy, Mr.

Chairman, and looking into a disease as it's developing.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You're changing your tune, aren't you?

MR. McGEER: I'm not changing my tune at all. You tried to

stand up here in the Legislature, Mr. Premier, and tell the

Members of this House and the public that you were giving

people access to what was going on in the B.C. Hydro, when all

you're doing is having your Minister stop running interference — which he tried to do at the initial meetings of the public

accounts committee — as to whether we could look into money

that's already been spent.

This subsection here is for money that's to be spent next

year. My amendment that was ruled out of order and which the

Premier would not accept allows the public of British Columbia

to see, through their elected representatives, how their money

is going to be spent before it's wasted.

For the Premier to stand up and tell us that he's opening

access to the B.C. Hydro and the Crown corporations when all

they're doing is tossing a few little crumbs of data on the

table after the money has been spent is absolute nonsense and

hypocrisy. We're trying to see these Crown corporations held

accountable to the public before they waste the public's money,

not to take a look between the curtains after it's been wasted.

That's the whole point of this amendment.

The Premier of this province has allowed no more view into

the future of the Crown corporations than the former Premier.

We're just as vulnerable to the errors of the future now as we

have been in the past.

Yes, the Premier has instructed some of the minor officials

and their financial officers to appear before the public

accounts committee. We are severely restricted in the questions

that we may ask; and the Minister of Transport (Hon. Mr.

Strachan) was the one who kept interjecting every time I asked

a question about the future. You can't even ask questions at

the public accounts committee, Mr. Chairman, of what's going on

during this year, much less on what's going to happen next

year. No, sir, you have to stick to accounts that are out of

date by 18 months.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Shame.

MR. McGEER: Try and ask the questions during estimates.

Sure, you can ask questions, but can you get an answer?

[ Page 4181 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member confine

his remarks to the…?

MR. McGEER: Now, Mr. Chairman, it was only last night that

we debated a motion that won't even allow us to ask questions

during the estimates.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Nonsense!

MR. McGEER: That's not nonsense at all.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Would the Hon. Member confine his

remarks to the

section before us?

MR. McGEER: The Premier is asking for S500 million. Let it

be known, Mr. Chairman, that he's asking for that $500 million

blind. He's not laid any budget before this House as to the

proposed expenditures of the B.C. Hydro.

The public accounts committee examines public accounts by a

motion put forward by the Premier, which restricts their

activity to material that is 18 months out of date.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Shame!

MR. McGEER: The Premier puts that motion up every year. The

motion the Premier puts forward does not permit us in public

accounts to ask the questions as to what's going on during the

current year and what's going to come up in the future year.

That's his motion. That restricts what the public accounts

committee can do. If he wants the public accounts committee to

look into the budgets of the Crown corporations, then it's his

motion to be put forward that permits that to take place.

The Premier's standing up say he opened things up. His

motion, the motion that prevented it! I tell you, Mr. Chairman,

it's hypocrisy. I'm not satisfied with the answers of the

Premier and I intend to vote against this section.

HON. MR. BARRETT: If there is any hypocrisy, let people

judge the facts rather than by the rhetoric of that Member. But

I want it clearly understood that that Member labels hypocrisy

dramatic changes in policy while daily he meets with Social

Credit Members to try and form a new party.

Mr. Chairman, let me say it again for the record so that the

Member….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

Mr. McGEER: What subsection is that under?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Premier…?

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's under subsection of politics behind closed

doors of the Union Party, Mr. Member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Premier confine

his remarks to

section 6?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, the record stands. Mr.

Minty, the comptroller, went in and filed a report in this

House.

AN HON. MEMBER: When did he file it?

HON. MR. BARRETT: After he had completed…. Last year.

Last year. Don't you know the date? You're not that interested

in this…. Do you mean that you didn't prepare for this

debate?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, now they're revealing that

they didn't even bring their files into this debate.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, Mr. Chairman, they just don't like to

deal with the facts. The facts are that Mr. Minty's report has

been filed; and to my knowledge I have not to this very date

received one letter from any Member of the official opposition

commenting about any single detail in Mr. Minty's report. Not

one letter.

Now, Mr. Chairman, if one thought that there was such deep

concern about the method of accounting in B.C. Hydro, one would

have thought that a Member of the opposition would have

detailed those concerns to the Minister of Finance so that

those questions could be answered. But I want it on the record

that in all this time I have had not one single letter from any

member of the opposition, including that Member for Point Grey,

on any question dealing with Minty's report. That's number

one.

Number two, it is a fact stated by that Member that Mr.

Beard appeared in front of the committee. Was that ever done

under Social Credit? No. Cass-Beggs appeared last year. Was

that ever done under Social Credit?

Now in terms of policy: 1951; you made a mistake that year,

did you? You certainly covered up every year after that.

Mr. Chairman, it is the policy of this government to hold

public hearings before making a policy decision. Public

hearings were held on site 1 of the Peace River. A policy

decision was made that was announced in this House. All that

has been public information and I'm disappointed — not

surprised, but disappointed — in the cheap political actions of

that Member today, when the record stands the way

[ Page 4182 ]

it is.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would appeal to the Hon.

Members to keep their remarks relevant to

section 6.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): I hadn't intended to take

part in

this debate until the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey

made the statement that there'd been no changes in attitudes in

Crown corporations in this province. I've been a citizen of

this province during the total years of the Social Credit

government, and I'll tell you that the attitudes in our rural

ridings have changed significantly.

The First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey doesn't have

problems with Hydro. His biggest problem is turning the light

switch on at night. He wants to go into a riding like mine

where Hydro made decisions in the past with rights-of-way and

transmission lines and never asked the people what their

thoughts were in regard to it — never once had a concern with

what happened to the citizens living there.

You just want to take a look at what happened shortly after

we were elected and the change of direction that took place. In

the Enderby area the past government, through B.C. Hydro, had

intended to put a Hydro line 660 feet wide almost directly

through the community of Enderby, coming over the mountain top

and through an area that has been a tourist attraction for

years and years.

A protest was made to myself; I got in touch with Hydro;

Hydro set up a meeting in the Enderby area which was one of the

first of its type ever held in B.C., initiated by Hydro,

telling the people that it was a public hearing and to come and

voice their views to the Hydro officials. The people did this,

the progress has been held up for over a year and I understand

that at this time a satisfactory solution has been met.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member to

confine his remarks to

section 6.

MR. LEWIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think I've made my

point and I think there has been a dramatic change in attitudes

in this province regarding Hydro.

The Member for Vancouver–Point Grey had better get in touch

with some of his membership up in Salmon Arm. There was one up

there that took a shotgun to Hydro in the past. You go up there

and see if that same type of thing is happening. It's not

happening in this province any more.

MR. CHABOT: I think, the first point is that I should advise

the Member for Shuswap that he's too late to get into the

cabinet; "Nummies" is on his way in. He's too late.

Now we're debating a very important

section of the Statute

Law Amendment Act, 1974 ,

section 6. We're dealing with $500

million, in which the Premier has failed to give us an

accountability. Until such time that we can get some idea as to

how that government is going to spend $500 million, we have no

right to vote in favour of this until we get some answers — not

only histrionics and political clichés like we've had from the

Premier this afternoon. He constantly brings up the business of

the chairman of the public accounts committee being a Member of

the opposition.

Certainly I'm not going to deny that that's a fact, but

there's a strong possibility that he was appointed to that

position because of the fact that you have a variety of other

fake chairmen of committees and you feel that it's necessary to

have a political balance on those committees.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Are you questioning his motives?

MR. CHABOT: No, I'm not questioning his motives; I'm

questioning yours. I'm questioning yours. You had better

believe it. Cheap politics from the Premier of British

Columbia! And we find that he talks about the committee as if

the committee now is a free committee that can make decisions

that are not governed by the tampering of that Minister over

there or that government over there. I want to suggest to you

that that committee is weighted in favour of the government.

They have substantially more Members on that committee than the

opposition does, and you know that.

Most committees in this province are nothing but charades that's what they are — a way or means by which Members can make

extra money over and above their indemnities.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Order! I was going to

congratulate the Hon. Member for being in order, but he varied

from the principle. I would ask the Hon. Member to return to

the Principle of

section 6.

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: Really I am shocked that we see the attempt of

that government to hide, to bury, to sneak in the expenditure

of $500 million in an omnibus bill. Why didn't that Premier,

that Minister of Finance, be honest with the people of this

province? Why didn't you be honest with the people of the

province? Where is it in your budget? Where is the indication

in the budget? Where is your separate bill? Why haven't you

introduced, as the former government used to do, an open bill,

an individual bill, to detail the $500 million that must be

spent?

[ Page 4183 ]

Instead of that we find that the Premier of this province

wants to bury the expenditure of $500 million in an omnibus

bill. I want to tell you that that's less than honest. It makes

the budget of that Minister of Finance nothing but a sham. It's

a budget that clearly fails to reflect the direction of that

government and the Crown corporations over the next fiscal

year. It clearly indicates to me that this $500 million which

is being buried in a statute….

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: It's buried yes, certainly, in the Statute Law

Amendment Act, 1974 , certainly in a small

section instead of…. Don't you think that the expenditure of $500 million is

worthy of being in a separate bill? Or should it be buried in a

little

section in an omnibus bill? It clearly indicates the

disdain of that government for the taxpayers' money by burying

it in a small

section in this omnibus bill.

It clearly indicates to me as well that that government

feels that this Legislature could be a tool of B.C. Hydro. I

want to tell you that that government uses this Legislature as

a tool and not as a forum for Members to express opinion,

apprehensions and ideas of the people of this province.

Now we find that we're being asked to vote $500 million; we

are being asked as the representatives of the people in this

assembly to become a tool of B.C. Hydro. I want to assure you

that I will never be a tool of any Crown corporation in this

province.

The Minister has a responsibility to stop using this

Legislature, to stop having B.C. Hydro attempt to abuse the

rights of the Members of this House, and stop using this

Legislature as a tool. Use it as a forum. It is a dishonest

approach for gaining $500 million, and you have a

responsibility to….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member to

withdraw the imputation that….

MR. CHABOT: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I'll withdraw that it is a

dishonest approach. It is a sneaky approach, Mr. Chairman, of

trying to get $500 million through this Legislature.

MR, CHAIRMAN: Order! I would ask the Hon. Member to withdraw

the imputation of being sneaky or dishonest as applied to an

Hon. Member. I would ask the Hon. Member for Columbia River to

withdraw unconditionally.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Just withdraw unconditionally any….

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I never suggested that anyone here was sneaky.

I suggested that the government snuck this legislation into this amendment in

this omnibus bill — snuck it into the House. The government certainly did.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Before we proceed, I would just

ask the Hon Member to say "I withdraw it unconditionally."

MR. CHABOT: I withdraw what?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Any imputation in his remarks that the

Minister was either dishonest or sneaky.

MR. CHABOT: I didn't say that the Minister was either

dishonest or sneaky.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The other remarks were….

MR. CHABOT: I never said that. I never said that, Mr.

Chairman. I said that the government snuck this $500 million

item…

MR. CHAIRMAN: I accept the Hon. Member's withdrawal. Would

the Hon. Member continue?

MR. CHABOT: …into an omnibus bill. (Laughter.) That is a

new word I have just coined. (Laughter.)

Really, I think we need more than histrionics and arm-waving

and screaming from the Premier. I think we need some answers as

to how this $500 million is going to be spent on behalf of B.C.

Hydro in the next fiscal year.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, just one explanation. For

the House's benefit, since there appears to be some impression

that this was snuck into the House, I know of no other way to

introduce a bill than to bring in the message. I know of no

other way to know what is passing through this House other than

to read a bill. I know of no other way to get bills other than

to have them delivered to the MLAs or make them available from

the Sergeant-at-Arms. I know of no other way to help the Member

unless he is blind and we can put it in braille.

The fact is, this is a public document. I have no real

reason to comment on that Member's criticisms because I do not

recall him ever, when he was on the cabinet benches, demanding

that representatives of Crown corporations go to committee;

demanding that a committee chairman be a Member of the

opposition.

Mr. Chairman, the $500 million involved in this

section is

by the hand and read it word for word for him if he needs that

assistance. It is public knowledge and it always has been, Mr.

Member. That

[ Page 4184 ]

was a fine speech. Too bad it didn't come while you were on

the cabinet benches.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, the Premier is suffering today

both from bad memory and from bad ears. I can recall when the

former administration brought in a similar bill to amend the

borrowing power of Hydro, did not advance a single solitary

reason for its need, and when you sat in that back corner over

there you supported it — you didn't even interrogate.

Now, what you did last year when you increased the borrowing

power of Hydro is you brought it in in a separate bill and you

did not advance any reasons for the need for the borrowing.

That point was raised by this side of the House. You agreed and

said, "Yes, that is very good logic." You said, "I

apologize," or words to that effect, "there should have

been reasons advanced for the needs for the borrowing." That is

why you are suffering from a bad memory — you have not advanced

those reasons today.

The next point is this: you criticized my colleague from

Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) that he was attempting to

leave the impression that the officers of B.C. Hydro were not

called in front of a public accounts committee. He wasn't

leaving that impression whatsoever. What he is talking about is

the fact that this Legislature today is not being given

information today by them or by you as for the need for the

moneys.

Mr. Premier, $500 million — $0.5 billion — the increase will

bring the contingent per capita debt in this province up to

$1,000 for every man, woman and child in the Province of

B.C.

The only explanation for the need for this borrowing is

contained in three lines within the bill itself; that is

$166,666,666 per line. The operative words are eight in number:

$625,000 per word. And there are not any reasons advanced by

you today as to why the money is needed.

If you can satisfy me as to the need for the money, what the

programmes are, what its purpose is, what the estimated costs

are, what the estimated revenues are, how Hydro has budgeted

for this…. You're not going to suggest to the Members of

this House and to the people of the Province of B.C. that when

you are increasing their per capital debt up to about $1,000 a

person, they are not entitled to know what the proposals of

Hydro are. Furthermore, is Hydro going to be a good corporate

citizen? Is it going to pay its taxes? Is it going to pay its

business taxes in the Province of B.C.?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. GARDOM: Maybe the $500 million are not required, Mr.

Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member to

confine his remarks to the section.

MR. GARDOM: Maybe the $500 million is not required. Maybe

more is required if Hydro is going to pull its weight and be a

good corporate citizen in the Province of B.C., as it is not

doing. It is gypping the municipalities every day in tax

revenues.

How could any shareholder or any director in any corporation

go ahead and say, "Yes, we are going to blank cheque you for

$500 million," without having some kind of an open,

efficient and effective explanation? That's the only thing that

is being requested.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's an entirely different speech than

the venom he was giving.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Second Member has the

floor. Would you continue?

MR. GARDOM: No, I don't think it was. With all respect, I

would take issue with saying that his speech was venomous. I've

known this Member for as long as you have and he has never

given a venomous speech in this House in his life. (Laughter.)

That's right. Milk-of-human-kindness speech — they always come

out that way. Even if they start out differently, they end that

way. Sure. No problem at all. No problem there at all.

HON. MR. HALL: Go, go Garde.

MR. GARDOM: The point that I have made is the point that

every person in the Province is going to make and every person

thoroughly concurs with it. If you are not going to inform us

today and right now, and if we are not going to accept your

explanations — if you're not going to tell us what the proposed

programmes are, what the money is needed for, what are these

costs projections, what are the revenue projections, what are

the budgetary proposals — there is no way that we are going to

vote for $500 million in the dark.

I would say over and above that you should….

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't vote for it.

MR. GARDOM: Woo, woo, what you say now! (Laughter.) No, by

golly. What we used to hear from you! Talk about cobra

speeches! When we started to deal with accountability, Mr.

Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources over there with

the nice tan….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. Would the Hon. Member address the Chair, please?

[ Page

4185 ]

MR. GARDOM: Yes, I certainly shall. I'm delighted to do

that.

I would say that there is a responsibility, and a very

solemn responsibility, for you to answer these questions.

Secondly, I would not assume for one minute that Hydro has

not got a budgeted programme for this $500 million. The

Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources nods. I would

not assume for one minute that he's not fully aware of its

contents, and that it should be in that brown paper

whatever-it-is that he has on the top of his desk. If he is

prepared to file that and we can take a look at it — fine. He

should do that as a Minister of the Crown. You're not spending

socialistic dollars here, my friend. You're spending the

dollars raised by the taxpayers in the Province of B.C. They

want to have the information and they are entitled to proper

accountability. You've not provided it.

MR. FRASER: I would like to get a few shots in on this. This is

a lot of money we are talking about here — $500 million — raising the debt from

$1,750 million to $2,250 million.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Did you say "debt"?

MR. FRASER: Yes, I think I said debt.

There are some questions I would like answered by the

Minister. What interest rate are you going to attach to this

borrowing? Is it 9 per cent, 10 per cent, 20 per cent, what is

it? I think this House is entitled to know these things.

I've heard shouts from across the hall that it's going to

finance site 1. I would like to know what else it is going to

finance besides the construction of site 1.

During this Minister's estimates, as representing B.C.

Hydro, I asked about rural power extension policy changes. Is

that provided for in this $500 million? These are the things

the people of the province would like to know, because that

policy should be changed in view of the cost of inflation.

I think we have a lot of questions that we can rightfully

ask here. If you can't answer these, then I will have to vote

against these too.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: It's been fascinating listening to the

boys on the other side talking out of both sides of their

mouth, doing the old double-step. It's just incredible. How

long did we have with respect to the estimates of Lands,

Forests and Water Resources during this session of the

Legislature? What was it? Eight days. You had eight days with

the staff of B.C. Hydro here on the floor and in the galleries

available to answer your questions. What kind of priorities did

you have then? The $500 million didn't interest you very much

then.

AN HON. MEMBER: Eight days with no answers.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: The Member for Columbia River (Mr.

Chabot) says we're being asked to operate blind. What else did

he say? "You're trying to hide, you're trying to bury, you're

trying to sneak in this material" — in a public bill!

In his short time as a Minister of the cabinet the important

issue was the nicety of how you handled the memo, the form on

the piece of paper — not the substance, not the method, not

open to the public, none of that kind of question. He got hung

up in the dying days of the Social Credit era with the narrow

nonsense that they all got caught in.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Would the Hon. Minister confine

his remarks…?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, $500 million is what the

Legislature is being asked to approve. Site 1 alone, we

indicated before this House during my estimates, was $410

million plus.

MR. CHABOT: Over what period of time?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: That's into the 1980s — well, 1979.

There's a process of review. There will be a public hearing

shortly with respect to the Seven Mile site on the

Pend-d'Oreille. That will be held this summer — public

hearings, ladies and gentlemen regarding major public projects

in which the people in the region can be involved. There was a

report this thick on environmental questions at Site 1 on the

Peace given to the people of the Peace River region. There was

a report this thick on the environmental impact on the

Pend-d'Oreille given to the people of the Columbia region, and

now there was a further report on social and economic impact on

the Columbia River region with respect to the Seven Mile

project, and that was given to the people of the region. It's

an availability of information that we've never seen the like

of in this province, available to the people right where the

impact will be the greatest.

AN HON. MEMBER: Doubletalk!

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: You vote against this

section of the

bill, and you're voting against the further development of the

Peace, a river already committed to hydro-electric

development.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: You are voting against some of the

cheapest power opportunities in the province with some of the

least environmental damage in the province. If you vote against

this you

[ Page 4186 ]

are voting against moving on the Pend-d'Oreille and holding

public hearings and opening up a dialogue with the people of

the province in the regions. If you vote against this you are

voting against transmission systems which will serve the

northwest of the province, where we want to give them the power

of the Peace and not tie them only to Alcan and to avoid the

need to confine ourselves to Alcan power forever in the future

in the northwest part of the province.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Where's McGeer — the man who wanted all

the information? He took off.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: If you vote against this you are voting

against the probability of independent power production on

Vancouver Island, not a continuation of the cable system,

hooked into the lower mainland. You are voting against the

beginnings of thermal generation on Vancouver Island and the

dialogue that is beginning with the regional districts of all

of southern Vancouver Island as well.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Where's McGeer? How serious was he?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: It's very clear how serious the Member

for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) was. He's probably on

Scare West heading home.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Would the Hon. Minister confine

his remarks…?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: As the Hon. Premier has indicated,

you've had more documentation, you've had the reports of the

comptroller-general. The comptroller-general is in constant

review of Hydro. There's constant communication and review with

the Deputy Minister of Finance. Every project, every system

that's proposed by Hydro is reviewed by the Treasury Board of

this province. There is continuous review of these

programmes.

What are you in favour of, ladies and gentlemen? Are you in

favour of current taxes to finance projects that will last for

70 years? Do you favour that kind of system? If you vote

against borrowing power for B.C. Hydro, that's what you're

asking for. You're asking for a system that will ask the people

of the province today to pay for systems that will redound to

the benefit of three generations to come. It's just

amazing.

When we announced Site 1 here in the Legislature you were given a chart that

showed the kind of probable system that could be plugged in till 1980. The Member

for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) raised numerous questions

in relation to the graph and material which was provided. That kind of material

was never provided before by the former government.

So there's been more material, there's been more

documentation, The social and economic impact studies are

available. They are already circulating in the regions. As soon

as the material was on my desk, the social and economic impact

reports were available in the Member for Rossland-Trail's (Mr.

D'Arcy) riding and in the Nelson-Creston (Hon. Mr. Nicolson)

riding, so that they would know what the impact would be, what

the demands would be on the municipalities, and housing and so

on, in a way that has never even been attempted before in this

province.

These people on the other side — remember the speeches they

used to give, supporting this kind of borrowing power for B.C.

Hydro? Remember the old speeches: "The greatest jewel in the

crown of Social Credit, my friends." Remember that one?

AN HON. MEMBER: Tuck your thumbs in.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Oh, I'm sorry. I just don't have it

down. But it's so dated that I really don't want to try and

develop the method — because it's so dated and written off.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Where's the kid?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: If anything, the debate on the

opposition side has been quite a condemnation of the Hon.

Member of the Cariboo (Mr. Fraser), the man who chairs the

public accounts committee, the man who can call these people

from the Crown corporations. What you said is that he isn't

capable of doing the job. Well, that's for the people in the

Cariboo to decide.

The Hon. Member for Vancouver–Point Grey who always dusts

off the same speeches reminds me of my old friend, Halford

Wilson. Remember Halford?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Halford Wilson in Vancouver, He would

always dust off his old speeches, even though the times had

changed, decades later. And he'd complain when he was free to

ask questions and couldn't really keep enough questions going

to keep the committee busy for more than an hour or two.

I think what it really indicates, Mr. Chairman, is that the

small band from urban waterfront ridings are captives of their

own ideology. They are so bitter that B.C. Hydro is a publicly

owned corporation they've never got over it. That's why they

are going to vote against the $500 million. They want a private

power system in British Columbia.

MR. GARDOM: You get worse as you get older.

[ Page 4187 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: Where's McGeer?

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, I've listened with

interest to both sides of the House, and I've no wish to be

vindictive or to look back, but I really do feel we are at a

point in time where we can look at this situation fairly

objectively. The fact of the matter is that for all the

extravaganza that we've just seen by the Minister of Lands,

Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) he is, with

respect, Mr. Chairman, putting himself completely in the same

trap that the former Premier used to do. He used to smokescreen

by saying: "If you vote against this

section or if you vote

against this bill you are against the people of British

Columbia," or "you are against motherhood," or

"you're against everything that is virtuous."

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: You see, there's a typical example. When you

try to be objective in this House somebody completely clobbers

you with an irrational statement which isn't really what you

said at all.

Anyway, the fact is, Mr. Chairman, that I accept some of the

points the Minister just made. More information has been

available. We've debated the Site 1 material which was

released, and I think that was good.

I agree with the Minister that there has been a measure — but I say that word carefully — of public debate with Hydro.

They've got a long way to go before they really could

truthfully be said to be debating with the public before the

event. There's a great deal of evidence still around that

decisions are made and by the time they are made, whether it's

transmission lines, or buying back waterfront, or

expropriation, or what-have-you, it's often too late for the

people most concerned in the regions to influence the

government decision.

Nevertheless, I think, with respect, that this very large

sum of money which is included in the Statute Law Amendment

Act , Bill 162, surely is of sufficient import, as the Minister

himself has made plain by the recital he gave this afternoon,

that surely the very least we should have had is a separate

bill instead of putting this in as just

section 12, or whatever

section 1t is, out of a fairly lengthy bill.

In fact, Mr. Chairman, in passing, I would say that this

whole bill is filled with some of the most fantastic and

dramatic uses of the taxpayers' money, all couched in little

paragraphs through one bill which, I think, really is not a

fair way of presenting this particular section, or several

others which we'll have to comment about, to the people of

British Columbia about.

I haven't stopped to add up the many…. In fact, there must be almost $1 billion

of spending power that we're giving the government in this total bill, and the

section we're now talking about is $0.5 billion. If you were to add up the

similar sections, and some of them are so vague you can't add them up, such

section 11 where the Minister of Housing is going to borrow just such sums

as he considers advisable….

So one thing I would say in criticizing this

section of the

bill is that it should not be presented to the people of

British Columbia and to this House as a

section of this kind of

bill. It should be a separate bill. Half a billion dollars is

too large a sum of money to spend in this blank-cheque way.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WALLACE: The second point I would like to make is that

again the Minister has in fact justified the criticism we've

had from this side of the House because he stood up and reeled

off some of the kind of breakdown which this side of the House

is looking for.

We're not against borrowing $500 million for Hydro. He must

have a reason. But just to give us off the top of his head that

Site 1 of $400 million, when we've got five or six years to go…. We want to know some kind of pattern of spending of $500

million. If you and I as private individuals go to our bank

manager…. Did you ever meet a bank manager who if you went in

and you said, "I need $5,000," the bank manager said,

"Sure, here's the $5,000"? He says, "What for and over what

period of time and can you afford the interest rate, and what

collateral have you got?" — if you're a private individual.

So let me make our position very plain, Mr. Minister: we're

not against borrowing money for Hydro, but we are exerting what

we believe to be our responsibility in this House to have some

basic format, some programme as to how the $500 million will be

spent. We acknowledge that you've already given information on

site 1 and that there are various other bits and pieces, such

as you've outlined in your speech.

All that we feel in our party is that certainly your studies

on environment are an excellent idea, your communication with

the public is excellent, but these positive features do not

remove the responsibility we have as opposition Members to try

and determine how a sum the size of $0.5 billion is to be

spent, even in an approximate way. I don't think we're being

unreasonable in making this kind of request because this comes

up time and time and time again in this House, the spending of

public money and the projected spending of funds to be

borrowed.

As I say, there are sections in this same bill where there's

the same lack of definition, the same vagueness, the same

discretion given to Ministers and the Minister of Finance. We

just feel that we have to speak out every occasion this

happens. While we have

[ Page 4188 ]

the feeling that while it's being done quite frequently now,

the general pattern of performance of this government is for it

to go on happening to an ever-increasing degree. We see very

much the same kind of spending of enormous sums of money at the

federal level and it seems as though the opposition in Ottawa

has the same difficulty finding out, first of all, why such

sums have to be borrowed and how they're going to be spent.

So let's not bring down smoke screens on the debate by

saying "If you're against this section, you're against site 1,

you're against Pend-d'Oreille, you're against transmission

lines, you're against a new line to Vancouver Island." We are

not against that at all. We are looking ahead five, six, seven

years, and we're looking ahead with large sums of money which

we think it is the responsibility of opposition Members to be

able to account for in an approximate way; we well realize that

you can't give us down to the last hundred or thousand dollars

how it's going to be done. But we just do not accept this very

vague approval without some reasonable definition of how the

money would be spent and preferably what interest rate will be

payable so that we can tell the people of British Columbia what

the borrowing costs will be.

On that basis, I feel it is not at all unreasonable for us

to oppose this

section of the bill.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I think the Minister himself

gave the best reason for criticism of this bill because he

stood up and did give us a lot of reasons for the need for the

extra money for B.C. Hydro. Those reasons should have been

given to this House a long, long time ago. They should have

been included in the budget.

AN HON. MEMBER: They were given to you.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, they weren't given to us a long time

ago. We never heard any of this before. We were told about Site

1 and that's all.

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, this kind of budgeting makes a

mockery of the true budgetary premises of this province. We

should have been able to have been looking at this $500 million

in a separate bill months and months ago so that we could have

known exactly where we stood in relation to the kind of

accountability that's necessary.

This bill, Bill 162, the Statute Law Amendment Act , as I understand it, is

traditionally a sort of a clean-up Act in which many of the technical needs

of the government are looked after, generally very vague and generally very

minor alterations; it's asking the people of British Columbia to approve a further

borrowing of $0.5 billion.

It's as though, since it's put into this kind of a bill, the

government just woke up the other morning and discovered that

they needed another $500 million. But that's not true, and we

know it because in an inter-office memo given to Cass-Beggs

back in December all of the needs of Hydro from April 1, 1974,

to March 31, 1984, were documented very clearly.

It was pointed out there that we can expect a growth rate

through to 1983-84 of 9.5 per cent per year. The proposed

capital programme for the next 10 years will require $6,300

million over the next 10 years. It showed that many of these

programmes have been scheduled, although we've never been

officially apprised of it. We believe that Kemano is on stream,

for instance, but the government won't admit it.

This report points out very clearly that the power supply to

Vancouver Island continues to be critical and yet this report

has been kept secret from the people of British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: How did you get it?

MR. McCLELLAND: The point is, Mr. Chairman, we can't vote

against it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

'MR. McCLELLAND: We're not against borrowing $500 million if it's necessary.

But it's time that this government started to become accountable for its actions.

Mr. Chairman, this government refuses to even take the kind

of courtesy to allow this House to participate in the financial

expenditures of the Crown corporations and of the government,

as was pointed out in other sections of this bill which should

only be a technical amendment bill in the first place.

This government should tell us why they couldn't have

brought this in a separate bill months and months ago — not in

the dying days of the session — so that it could have been

debated in full and with the Minister accountable at all times

for it.

Interjections.

MR. McCLELLAND: The Minister stands and gives answers at the

last minute.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Vote against it. If you believe what

you're saying, vote against it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, come on.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. McCLELLAND: Why are you so afraid of

[ Page 4189 ]

being accountable to the people?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. MORRISON: Mr. Chairman, before we leave this

section

there's one item that I would like to have on the record. We

have discussed at length in this

section about the public

accounts committee, and frankly we're very happy that we do

have our chairman as a Member of the opposition. But I would

like to make it clear that the public accounts committee so far

has only been able to look at accounts up to March 31, 1973. We

are not able to look at accounts beyond that point.

The point I'm trying to get at is that I think the Premier

tried to indicate that we were looking at accounts beyond that

point, and we are at least 14 months behind at this point. I

would like to further add that it's almost impossible to sort

out and reconstruct some of the accounts due to the present

accounting system. Now we've discussed it in full and we're

going to mention it again, but it is very difficult.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: A couple of questions to either the

Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) or the Minister of

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

director of Hydro. We've had a discussion about what the $500

million may be used for. I think it is unfortunate that the

Minister, as a director of Hydro, couldn't have stood up and

given us, in approximate figures, how much money would be spent

in various areas. But he chose not to do that and I don't want

to make an issue of it.

What I am concerned about, Mr. Chairman, is the source of

the $500 million that B.C. Hydro is being authorized to borrow.

I would like to know whether the Minister of Finance, as the

chief fiscal agent for Hydro, can tell us whether those moneys

will be found in the public market, whether there will be

further parity bonds created, or whether, if they are created,

the government will be using its own funds under the control of

the Minister of Finance as the investment vehicle.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, I am pleased that you asked

those questions. I will be very candid with you, unlike the

former administration.

The planning we have so far is to authorize B.C. Hydro to

borrow $500 million. The Government of British Columbia has not

been in the public market for over seven years. As a

consequence of not going to the public market we have had to

have a couple of freezes on school construction and also

curtailment of hospital construction. The demand on funds,

through what I consider to be a good fiscal policy — that is,

the Canada Pension Plan , which is not only a social benefit but

is also a great fiscal benefit…. For anyone who calls that socialism and wants less

government interference, let them understand that many of these

social measures have great financial consequences. The Canada

Pension Plan has allowed governments to do internal borrowing

at rates they control.

Two things suffer if there is not a balance in borrowing.

One thing that suffers is a low-interest-rate return to those

funds. We've increased the return to those funds, as you'll

notice, since we've come to power.

The second thing is if there is single-mindedness toward

single capital projects then a ruthless decision must be made

as to what is to suffer. In the past, school capital

construction in this province has suffered. It has cost the

citizens of British Columbia much more in the long run because

inflation has cut into any savings — as a matter of fact, it has

doubled and tripled costs — had there been proper planning in the

past.

We intend to finance internally as much of those capital

projects for Hydro and BCR as is reasonably possible, but not

at the risk of cutting back on hospitals or schools. We are in

an excellent financial position; we can finance totally.

However, we have decided that rather than risk the programmes

in terms of schools and hospitals, we will go to the market

this fall. We will go to the market for only $100 million. We

will not use the parity bond system because parity bonds are,

in effect, printing cash. In their own way, parity bonds are

instant death that are dangerous to a stable economic growth of

the province.

We have been fortunate in this province when we came to

power to have been able to reduce the parity bond debt from

$200-odd million down to $180 million. We are able,

fortunately, to balance that on with cash in hand in the bank.

It is good, conservative, socialist financing. We have that

stability.

We have made a conscious choice. The conscious choice will

be to go to the market for $100 million of the $500 million.

This will be our first entry back into the market.

I have had the Deputy Minister of Finance (Mr. Bryson)

prepare for me a detailed description of the former syndicates

we went through. We have made some changes. Without making any

detailed comment on the changes, if you will examine the past

association through some of those members of the consortium we

dealt through, there was reason for us to suggest that we put

together a new syndicate to deal through.

One of the principal members of the new syndicate will be

the First National Bank of Boston which has been the prime

financier of the Province of British Columbia since the

province's history began. There will be no change in terms of

that traditional link with the U.S. market.

[ Page 4190 ]

Mr. Member, we are going to borrow $100 million of the $500

million. The decision is made to do this so that no school or

hospital will suffer. We could do all the financing, as has

been done in the past, but it would have meant another

curtailment on capital funds for schools and hospitals. We

won't make that move. I'm glad you asked those questions.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Let's go over the debate that took place

today. I'm sorry the Member who started it on what I call a

cheap, political move hasn't stayed in the House. You ask me

the questions such as you have asked and I give you the

answers.

Another Member asked the question for an outline of the $500

million. He gave the answer. But the rhetoric we heard at the

very beginning was an attack, leaving the impression that we

had not brought people to committee, that we have not had the

comptroller-general. Mr. Member, I listened very carefully;

those were the words I heard.

To sit here and be subject to irrational attack and then

say, "Oh, my goodness, we never had the opportunity to

volunteer anything"…. The Member got up one hour ago and

launched an attack that he hasn't even been here to defend.

You've asked questions; that Member has asked questions. I've

given him the answer. The other Member asked questions; he has

the answer. Now the question comes down to a vote.

We intend to rationally, responsibly detail what the fiscal

obligations of this province are and how we will handle the

$500 million. There has been no previous openness like there is

under this government. The decision of whether or not to vote

on it is certainly yours.

I must make one comment. Certainly I can understand the

valid criticisms and questions of both the Conservatives and

the Liberals. But can anybody — anybody — on the evidence of

the record show me any similar action taken by the previous

administration that would warrant the kind of statements from

the official opposition in this House?

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I was very disappointed to hear

the Premier say that British Columbia is now going back into

hock again. Once again we will be captured by the finance of

the United States.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, oh!

MR. PHILLIPS: Not owned by the people of the Province of

British Columbia.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Who financed the Columbia?

MR. PHILLIPS: Internal financing is now down the drain in

British Columbia. You know who financed the Columbia. Over the

past 12 years British Columbia has had the finances of this

province in such good shape that we have not had to go into the

international market. Now the Premier has told us today that he

is going to borrow $100 million this fall. He says he is not

going to sacrifice schools and hospitals. The increase in the

social service of the bureaucracy of this province is going to

cost the taxpayers $70 million — $30 million less than what he

is going to go on the market and borrow.

The Premier has let the cat out of the bag. The province is

in financial difficulties due to the waste and extravagance of

that socialist government. I'm glad the Premier has candour

enough to stand up and tell us today what direction we are

headed in again.

Mr. Chairman, I also want to point out that this type of

financing and borrowing on behalf of Crown agencies is just a

start. We have B.C. Hydro and, from time to time, the taxpayers

of this province have had to back borrowings for their

expansion.

But what is going to happen in the future? Are we going to

be asked to pass bills to borrow money or to put the taxpayers'

money into the forest industry that this province is going to

take over, into the transportation industry that this

province is going to take over, and, Mr. Chairman, into the

mining industry that this province is going to take over?

Where is the return to the people of this province from the

resources of this province that the Premier has been giving us

such talk about recently? Where is the increased revenue from

the natural resources of this province? Where is it going if we

have to go into the international market at this time?

Last year, the resources of this province on the world

market demanded the highest prices ever, with the greatest

amount of taxes rolling in — not by any effort of that

government but because of the world situation and the world

demand for our natural resources. Now the Premier has the

audacity to stand in this Legislature today and tell us that

the province is going broke and that we have got to go into the

international market to borrow money, borrowing at the highest

interest rates possible, borrowing at a time when the

international money market is the tightest it has ever been in

several years borrowing at a time when the interest rate has

never been higher. Is this the type of good business that we

can be subjected to by this socialist government?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, let's deal with a number of

things about borrowing.

First of all, the last matter first. When there's internal

borrowing, the internal borrowing is totally controlled by the

administration in power. The funds loaned to capital projects

are funds the government decides by policy, whether they're

schools, hospitals,

[ Page 4191 ]

hydro projects or the B.C. Rail. Public trust funds.

The public has a right to expect at least an adequate return

for those funds in terms of interest rates. No one, in my

opinion, has the right to take people's pension funds and peg

them at lower than normal interest rates and have those

pensions funds subsidize a government's political desire to do

in-house financing. Any responsible finance person,

non-socialist and socialist, will tell you that when you peg

those interest rates at a low level and force the pensioners of

this province to have a less than adequate return they've made

a cruel social decision against the ordinary people of this

province who depend on those funds. I will not defend that

policy.

The aged have suffered in this province enough. The retired

civil servants' and retired teachers' funds were manipulated

with low interest rates by the former administration. We have

had teachers retired in this province who were forced to eat

dog food as a substitute for adequate diet because the previous

administration wanted to acquire $500 million, such as we want

in this section. We have forced those people to subsidize total

political gamesmanship.

Now, I have said — and I take complete responsibility for

this as Minister of Finance — we are asking to borrow $500

million. Since coming into office, we have paid average

interest rates on those pension funds that those people have

put in us for trust. Every teacher, every municipal worker,

every civil servant, every British Columbian has the right to

have an adequate return for the use of those funds. We've done

that since we've been in power. That's one.

Secondly, talk about fiscal irresponsibility. Let me tell

you that we will not print scads of parity bonds to make up

this $500 million. We have now a total of $180 million. When we

come into office we had $255 million of cash printed on parity

bonds. Parity bonds were cash. Any financier, any economist

will tell you that it is risky to have that amount of money

out, especially when you have irresponsible Members of the

opposition running around saying "doom and gloom,"

hoping for a run on those bonds — which there has not been and

which shows great confidence in this province.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): How many are going to retire

this year?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, I would like, Mr. Member, to be able

to be close, in terms of cash on hand, with what we've got out

in cash. We have $155 million cash on hand in existing banks,

short-term notes drawing good interest rates, using the system

for the benefit of the people but protecting those parity

bonds. It's good financing. That Member over there for Victoria

(Mr. Morrison), the businessman, will admit that this is a good

approach to financing.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: How many do I own myself? I bought one….

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, we've retired about $70 million back

into our pension funds.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That is not included in the $155 million.

The $155 million is cash deposited in banks from outside. We

have used other cash in the $180 million. No, we brought back

$70 million in. We're holding….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Look, I have to do some detail in this

section, Mr. Chairman, because it's appropriate to this.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the Hon. Premier to repeat the

question when he answers each one.

HON. MR. BARRETT: All right, Mr. Chairman.

It will be the political move of some irresponsible Members

of this House in which I do not include the Member for Victoria

to run around saying that it is a terrible thing to borrow

outside. I know you won't do it, Mr. Member, but your colleague

has already done it.

I want to give you one specific example that is the

consequence of game playing by financing the way former

administration did. Remember, all along the former Minister of

Finance (Hon. Mr. Bennett) attempted to leave the impression

with the people of this province that he was a genius at

finance. This is what the genius at finance cost us in terms of

his method of financing. One little case.

In 1968, a referendum was held in Cowichan school district

to build a gymnasium to borrow money. The bids came in and the

referendum asked for $80,000. It was frozen: we were elected,

we unfroze the gym. The cost today, because of that Social

Credit fiscal policy to the taxpayers, is $198,000. Servicing

the interest alone by those taxpayers is scandalous,

considering the deliberate policy of Social Credit to hold

those funds back, pay low interest rates to the pension funds,

cheat the pensioners — and I say cheat the pensioners — and

hold back those schools from the people of this province,

somehow giving the appearance of fiscal responsibility. I tell

you that's wrong. I appreciate the Liberal Members nodding

their heads because they argued against it too when they were

in opposition.

[ Page 4192 ]

Social Credit flim-flammery also led to the impression that

all internal financing should be done. When the people in the

province cried about hospitals and schools, they said, "It will

come later. Right now we have to build monuments." One is

called Williston Lake and it is appropriately named. Look at

the mess behind it. The other is called Bennett Dam, the eighth

wonder of the world, as we were told at the time.

There is no way this government will move from essentially

conservative financing in North America. We are a democratic,

socialist administration, but I make it very clear that our

approach to financing is essentially small "c" conservative

within the framework of the policies and the economy within

which we must work. There it is.

I'm not attempting to tell you anything other than the

conscious decision made by this government. We will, after we

have legislative approval, use these funds to construct site 1; to examine the Pend-d'Oreille; to plan, as the Minister

stated in his release to this House, the bringing of power

throughout the province of British Columbia. If you do not wish

to vote for a government policy to provide hydro on this basis,

then, of course, do not vote for this amendment.

But I cannot, even after these two years, be comforted by

the hypocritical speeches of Social Credit Members made in this

House, to be repeated publicly, I am sure, throughout the whole

province. They will go out of this House. I hope the First

Member for Victoria (Mr. Morrison) doesn't do it. He won't, I

hope, because he's a businessman. But others will go from this

House, attempting to say, as that Member for Peace River did,

that this financing method was wrong. It is socially

responsible, it is small "c" conservative, and it is a good

model for any administration in Canada to follow.

We will indeed borrow $100 million. We will get a good

interest rate, Mr. Member, because they're lining up to sell

our bonds. British Columbia has a good name, has had a good

name and continues to have a good name. I say to you, Mr.

Member, that after a complete explanation….

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Not yet, Mr. Member. I've instructed my

department to prepare the material. There are two ways we can

go. We can go through the Securities Commission or we can go to

private borrowing. We have not made a policy decision on either

way. We will go where we can get the cheapest money. I want to

tell you that we are in a position to do that. The little

Province of Manitoba borrowed $300 million in New York. Ontario

borrows in one year what we're asking to borrow over a number

of years. We'll certainly prepare the material and prepare the

information that is necessary.

But I want to tell you, Mr. Member, that I expect the

Liberal Party to disassociate itself from any inflammatory

comments or statements on our finances as made by that Member.

If you contribute to the statements made by him, it is a

deliberate attempt to blacken all of British Columbia — not

this government but all of the province.

We will not have schools go short; we will not have

hospitals go short. We can finance a great deal of this

internally, but we will not cut off any human service to go

that last mile.

MR. MORRISON: I appreciate what the Minister has said. But

it seems to me that on a budget of $2.7 billion we could have

saved $100 million in some other areas. We seem to have a

pretty loose spending policy in some areas.

In the area he has chosen I couldn't agree more. We

shouldn't see our hospitals or our schools suffer. But I do

feel that there are areas that should be looked at, that should

be watched more carefully, where our expenditures are running

above estimates and above budgets. I think that those areas

should be looked at very carefully, because it does concern me

to see us at a time like this, when interest rates are high,

when inflation is running very high, to have to go into the

market if it could be possibly avoided.

If there is no other way, I agree with him. It is my

intention to vote in favour of this particular section.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, the Premier has given quite a bit

of information about the immediate plans of B.C. Hydro. When he

was….

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: You weren't listening.

MR. McGEER: I heard it. There's a loudspeaker system, you

know.

Mr. Chairman, the Premier also at one point tabled a super

confidential document of B.C. Hydro — that was shortly after he

took over — which gave in great detail the budget of the B.C.

Hydro for the coming year. What we've asked for consistently in

this House is the annual budget: that is, the forecast of

capital expenditures of the Crown corporations.

That information has not appeared in our annual budgets,

though we're well aware that the reason why the budgeted

revenues for the province are always far short of the real

revenues is so that surplus funds can be created for the

purposes of the Crown corporations. So this particular

section

here is tied very directly to the budgeted revenues that were

given in this House, which are monumentally false each

year.

Now I would be prepared to support this

section if we could

get this commitment from the Premier: that is, to present each

year to the House a prospectus, if you like, or a budget

giving the anticipated capital

[ Page 4193 ]

expenditure of the B.C. Hydro and the other major Crown

corporations.

That's what is critical, Mr. Chairman. You see, if a public

corporation — let's say MacMillan Bloedel — wishes to borrow

money, in order to do so they must prepare a prospectus giving

details of their plan. If the B.C. Hydro wishes to borrow money

on the open market…. The Premier says they are preparing

material. Well, he knows perfectly well that if they go to New

York or if they go to the bond market here in British Columbia,

they will have to produce a detailed prospectus.

But, Mr. Chairman, if you take from the pension funds of the

province, or if you take from the Canada Pension Plan fund, or

if you take money that's stripped off by budget surpluses,

there's no need. Until we get a prospectus filed annually with

the Legislature, we've not achieved anything positive — whether

we vote for this

section or not.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: Oh, yes, I heard your speech.

What I haven't seen, Mr. Chairman, is the Premier agreeing

to lay before this House and before the people of British

Columbia a prospectus for this Crown corporation and for the

other Crown corporations. We've had hours and hours of debate

in this Legislative Assembly about the Insurance Corporation of

British Columbia, which is doing the very same thing that B.C.

Hydro is doing, which the B.C. Railway is doing and which the

other Crown corporations are doing.

This is why I have to stand up every year and say that the

budgeting in this province is phony.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Chairman that was quite a speech by

the Premier trying again to twist the facts. You had better

believe that I'll go out and tell people how the finances of

this province have deteriorated under your administration. You

can twist the facts all you want to. You had better believe

I'll tell them.

I want to tell you that in one of the highest revenue years

— two years — since you came to power, as you term it, with

more revenue from natural resources of this province than ever

before, you're wasting the money. Had you not squandered the

money, had you….

HON. MR. BARRETT: On what?

MR. PHILLIPS: One instance alone is $70 million for

increased civil servants, and you know it. I've mentioned it in

this House before — $70 million. I can go through every

department.

HON. MR. BARRETT: How about Mincome?

MR. PHILLIPS: Boards and commissions; buying land. Oh, you

can't cover up, Mr. Premier. You know that the taxpayers' money

in this province is being squandered. If it wasn't, $100

million would be nothing because you could have saved it.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Woe betide….

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, woe betide — you had better believe it.

Talking about elderly people eating dog food — when you are

increasing their taxes because you're wasting their money! You

are deteriorating the future of every young person in this

province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. PHILLIPS: You are taking the province that was in

excellent financial condition and you're running it into debt.

That's exactly what you're doing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member relate

his remarks to

section 6?

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, now why don't you be fair? The

Premier just finished speaking and we were talking about

borrowing money. For the Premier to stand in this Legislature

and threaten me that if I go out and tell the people that he's

borrowing money outside of the province it will cast a black

shadow over the finances of this province, what a sham! What a

cheap political trick! That's what it is. It's a cheap

political trick to threaten the Member for South Peace.

You had better believe I'll go out on the boondocks; you had

better believe I'll go tell them how you are running this

province into debt. And any amount of flim-flammery on your

part won't frighten me, Mr. Premier. I've seen through your

flim-flammery a long time ago. You had better believe I'll go

tell them how the tax money, the money coming into the tax

coffers from the resources of this province, are being

squandered.

You take money and you're buying up land which is not

necessary. You wouldn't have had to go and borrow this $100

million. You are putting money into mortgage money, which

mortgage money is already available from the federal

government. If you didn't do that, you wouldn't have to go out

and borrow $100 million. Oh, you had better believe that I'll

go out and tell them.

MR. GARDOM: The Premier very clearly indicated to the House

this afternoon that there will be a need for him to file a

prospectus with the Boston bank.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It depends on how we

[ Page 4194 ]

vote.

MR. GARDOM: Well, fine and dandy. But you were contemplating

doing it because you told the House this afternoon that you are

having a prospectus prepared. Well, you're certainly not doing

that for nothing, are you?

The point is that you are having a prospectus prepared. You

are having a prospectus prepared obviously with the view that

you're going to have to use it in order to borrow the funds.

You know that it's necessary. The thing that we have asked you

over here this afternoon is that the people of the province

should be entitled to the information in that prospectus

themselves. That's the whole point.

This afternoon I'd like to commend you for some of the

answers that you gave. But I don't really know why it took

until 4:20 p.m. for you to do it. You should have done it when

this bill was brought in this afternoon. You should have stood

up and you should have said: "These are the reasons for the

amendment." What are we supposed to do — look at the

explanatory note? There is nothing in there about the need for

Hydro getting $500 million. If you had done that, I can assure

you, Mr. Premier, you wouldn't have wasted the time of this

House as you have certainly done this afternoon.

I'd like to ask you this: you have told us that you were

preparing a prospectus; are you prepared to give your

undertaking to this House this afternoon that you will file

that Prospectus with this Legislature?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I really don't know whether sometimes, in

his obstinacy and in his primitive approach to politics, the

former Premier might not have been right.

When you ask questions and I give answers….

MR. WALLACE: It can't be that bad.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, Mr. Member, I hope that it's not that

bad. But you know, I find, aside from that corner, and I know

that his own Member isn't going to support him…. I'll let

you go ahead and yell all that cheap rhetoric all you want.

Mr. Member, when I was asked specific questions by the

Member for Vancouver – Howe Sound, I gave the information.

MR. GARDOM: I asked you the same questions in a different

way.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, Mr. Member, let's not go over that. It was obvious

that some people wanted to go on a straight political tirade. There wasn't a

calm request. Okay, I absolve you. But the Member in front of you came in here

breathing political hack-fire because he found one of his old speeches as he

tripped down the hallway. Rather than check the dates on his old speech he came

in raving about it, and was so impressed with his own words that he repeated

it twice. (Laughter.)

Then, finally, the Member for West Vancouver asked some

specific questions. I've given those specific answers. We can

finance all this internally. If we finance it internally, it

means going back to the freeze. We do not intend to go back to

the freeze. No. 1.

Therefore, come the estimates next year, I won't expect any

one of you to stand up here demanding more highways, more

schools or more hospitals in your riding. If you want those

services, they must be paid for. If you say, "Cut back to the

bone," then say so. But don't speak out of both sides of

your mouth saying, you want site 1….

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Okay, let's make it clear: $90 million

spent on Mincome for the elderly of this province. Is that

waste? There was $20 million spent on Pharmacare. Is that

waste? There was $122 million on a housing programme. Is that

waste? What they're saying is they'll cut back all the

people services if they're ever back in power again. God help

the people of British Columbia if that ever happens.

Now, Mr. Member, if we go public, we will comply with every

regulation. If we go private, we will comply with every

regulation. The decision will be made by the government. You've

been given all the information. Really, you can tear the vote

any way you want. But no government in the history of this

province has been more open than that Minister has been

today.

MR. FRASER: Well, that was quite an announcement the Premier and Minister

of Finance has made here today. There is a whole new fiscal policy here. The

people of the province have been expecting this for some time but they didn't

expect it as soon as this.

We have no business at all going out on the open money

market with the high interest rates that exist today. Believe

me, you're talking about senior citizens paying for things and

suffering. You make everybody in this province suffer by paying

these high interest rates. You don't knock just a

section of

the community: the whole community of British Columbia will pay

for it.

If you had looked after the funds this province has been

taking in in record amounts since 1972…. You were left with

a big surplus. Where has it all gone? Also, you built on that,

you've told the people. Now you come in here today and tell us

that you're broke and you have to go out on the open money

market.

[ Page

4195 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: I ask you to withdraw that statement.

That's an absolute lie. This province has never been in better

shape. Absolute falsehood. I ask you to withdraw.

MR. FRASER: I withdraw that, but why do you have to go out

on the money market?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

HON. MR. BARRETT: You withdraw. You bet your life you

withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser)

be seated? I'd ask the Hon. Premier to make his request again

and state the point he wants him to withdraw.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The Member has withdrawn the statement

that the province is broke. I will not tolerate those false

statements.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Would the Hon. Member for

Cariboo wait for a moment until I dispose of the previous point

of order?

On the point of order raised by the Premier, I think what

should be requested is simply time to stand and make a

correction of the statement rather than accusations back and

forth across the hall. We will accept that the record is now

corrected.

I'll recognize the Hon. Member for Columbia River on a point

of order.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I wish you would ask the Premier

to withdraw the statement that the Member for Cariboo has lied

and told a falsehood.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the Hon. Premier to withdraw the

intemperate words.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, the Member already withdrew

his statement which I claimed was false. I claimed he made a

false statement which he withdrew.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon….

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my statement.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Before we proceed with the

debate, the Chair has allowed a certain amount of latitude,

and, I think, wisely. But I think the time has come when we

must confine our remarks more strictly to the

section before

us. I would ask the Hon. Member to do this.

MR. FRASER: I'm almost finished but for one other

observation on financing. They put a question in my mind about

the Municipal Finance Authority that goes to public market to

get their funds. What is this going to do to them? Is this

going to increase them? You're going to compete with them in

the money market of the world and somebody is going to suffer

on that end.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, the former administration

would not loan money to municipalities, forcing them into the

money market. The first change of policy in that was made by

this government. We loaned the municipalities $14 million. Go

do your homework.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, the bulk of the discussion this

afternoon could quite readily have been eliminated if the

Premier had done which he has slowly….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would ask the Hon. Member to

try to keep his remarks relevant to the section. I think the

matters which have been raised previously….

MR. GARDOM: I'll be a little more relevant than the last two

speakers, I can assure you. But if the Premier had levelled

with the Legislature…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR.GARDOM: …and had furnished us with the requirements

for the $500 million, we would have gone along quite

satisfactorily. But, Mr. Chairman, this is what he has told

us.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would point out to the Hon.

Member that the matter that has been made has been repeated a

number of times. I would ask him to keep his remarks….

MR. GARDOM: This is what the Premier of the province, who is

its chief executive officer, has told us. He has indicated to

this House that his modus operandi concerning legislation such

as this is going to be this: you're not going to get any

information unless you ask for it. You'll get some if you ask

for it, depending on how you feel.

Now he has told the House a few moments ago that if he goes

public or if he goes private, he's going to follow the law. Of

course you have to do that. What a simplistic statement!

There's nothing mirabile dictu about that.

But what I've asked you this afternoon is this: you were

saying that you're having a prospectus prepared. It's evident

to everyone in this room that that prospectus should have been

in front of the House

[ Page 4196 ]

this afternoon. It's absolutely evident. You've not got it

here. That's a dereliction of duty on your part.

But I'm asking you this: will you at least give your

undert