1975 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, JUNE 24, 1975

Morning Sitting

[ Page

3867 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of Mines and Petroleum Resources estimates

On vote 168.

Mr. Smith — 3867

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 3867

Mr. Gibson — 3868

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 3869

On vote 169.

Mr. Richter — 3869

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 3869

On vote 170.

Mr. Gibson — 3870

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 3870

On vote 173.

Mr. Richter — 3870

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 3870

Mr. Gibson — 3871

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 3871

Mr. Richter — 3871

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 3871

On vote 174.

Mr. Gibson — 3872

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 3872

On vote 176.

Mr. Gibson — 3872

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 3872

Mr. Wallace — 3872

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 3872

On vote 177.

Mr. Wallace — 3872

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 3872

Mr. Gibson — 3872

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 3873

Department of the Provincial Secretary estimates

On vote 195.

Mr. Gardom —

Hon. Mr. Hall —

On vote 198.

Mr. Gardom — 3874

On vote 200.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3874

Hon. Mr. Hall —

Mr. D.A. Anderson —

Hon. Mr. Hall —

Mr. Gardom —

On vote 201.

Mr. Gardom — 3876

Hon. Mr. Hall —

On vote 206.

Mr. Curtis — 3876

Hon. Mr. Hall —

Mr. D.A. Anderson —

Hon. Mr. Hall —

Mr. Wallace — 3878

Hon. Mr. Hall —

Mr. Morrison — 3879

Hon. Mr. Hall —

Mr. Curtis — 3880

On vote 207.

Mr. Bennett — 3881

Hon. Mr. Hall —

Mr. Morrison — 3881

Mr. Wallace — 3881

Hon. Mr. Hall —

Mr. Bennett —

Hon. Mr. Hall —

On vote 208.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3882

Mr. Morrison — 3882

Mr. Wallace — 3882

Hon. Mr. Hall —

On vote 209.

Mr. Bennett — 3883

Hon. Mr. Hall —

Mr. Gardom —

Hon. Mr. Hall —

Mr. Phillips —

On vote 210.

Mr. Chabot — 3885

Hon. Mr. Hall —

Mr. Gardom —

Hon. Mr. Hall —

TUESDAY, JUNE 24, 1975

The House met at 10 a.m.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Dent in the chair.

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF MINES

AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES

(continued)

On vote 168: Minister's Office, $103,728 — continued.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Chairman, I can't

allow this vote to pass without making one more comment to the

Hon. Minister.

Yesterday morning, during the discussion of the estimates of

Mines and Petroleum Resources, the Minister was good enough to

send me over a copy of a memo which he was quite proud of, a

memo which in his opinion depicted that the mining industry was

doing quite well in the Province of British Columbia.

Interjection.

MR. SMITH: Quite well, thank you, because it showed a pretty

picture....

Interjection.

MR. SMITH: Yes, you got one too, Mr. Member?

It's a pretty picture that somehow supposed to represent

income to the mining industry in the Province of British

Columbia.

Mr. Minister, that graph is as phony as a $3 bill. It

represents absolutely nothing in relation to the figures that

you had available from the report that was prepared by Price

Waterhouse, a reputable firm, for the mining industry. The

figures that you have taken from the report that was prepared

by Price Waterhouse....

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Those figures are taken from that too.

MR. SMITH: Right.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, don't get mad over it.

MR. SMITH: Now just listen for a moment, Mr. Minister. The

unfortunate part of it is that when the person who prepared

this graph looked at the report of Price Waterhouse, they took

selected figures. They didn't take all of the tax, by any

stretch of the imagination, that was paid by the mining

industry, as prepared and documented in the report that was

prepared by Price Waterhouse for the industry. So I repeat, Mr. Minister: that graph is as phony as a $3 bill.

It has no relation to either income or expenses or profits or

anything, except that your staff has taken selective figures

from a report and somehow came up with a graph that is supposed

to represent something, I guess — I really don't know what.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Sit down and. I'll tell you.

MR. SMITH: The caption at the head of the report says:

"Distribution of Pre-Tax Income of the British Columbia Mining

Industry: Revenue Minus Operating Cost."

Mr. Minister, only a small percentage of the operating costs

are included in that particular graphic illustration of the

industry in the Province of British Columbia.

municipal taxes in 1972, a shortfall that you didn't include,

is $27 million. In 1973 it was $31 million; in 1974, $37

million.

Now those figures were included in the Price Waterhouse

report prepared for the mining association of British Columbia.

But, for goodness sake, tear up that memorandum that you sent

me and don't circulate that in any part of the province if you

wish to be fair to the industry and to your department. It

would be a great embarrassment to you, Mr. Minister, to have

someone point out to you the fact that that graph means

absolutely nothing, in terms of either....

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Sit down and I'll correct you.

MR. SMITH: It means absolutely nothing, Mr. Minister, in

terms of income or profits or profitability of the mining

industry, because it was taken on the basis of using a selected

set of statistics that bear no relation, unless they're taken

in their entirety, to the situation with respect to profits and

earnings of mining companies in the Province of British

Columbia.

So don't try to sell that bill of goods. The report

itself is an excellent report prepared by Price Waterhouse. But

if you're going to use it for illustrative purposes, then use

the whole report and all the figures that are included in it,

not just part of it to come up with a predetermined conclusion

of some sort. And that's exactly what has happened in this

particular report that was prepared by your department — a

predetermined conclusion fitting in as many of the statistics

as they desired to come to that conclusion, and it's completely

erroneous. It's as phony as a $3 bill.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Chairman, the report that Price

Waterhouse brought out — and I've got the

[ Page 3868 ]

copy right here ...

MR. SMITH: So have I.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: ...shows taxes and other payments to the

government. If you don't think that property tax, school tax,

property and school tax, gas and fuel oil tax, Crown grants

payments and rentals are deducted as a cost item in the

operation of the mine, you've got another think coming.

You talk about a phony $3 bill, you're as phony as a $3 bill

because....

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

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I would ask the Hon. Minister not to

engage in a personal attack.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Minister withdraw the personal

imputation that the Hon. Member is as phony as a $3 bill.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: No, I didn't say he was. I said his talk

about it was as phony as a $3 bill.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I accept the correction. The Hon. Member can

proceed.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: He was the one that talked about the $3

bill, not me. It was him in the first place.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: This report you're looking at was set up

excluding those items that were charged up as a cost item in

the production costs of the mine, excluding them, because they

had no right.

Now I included all those when I made my talk when the

estimates first came up. I brought that question up. Price

Waterhouse said that the net amount paid to B.C. in taxes was

$65 million, but that included all those extra taxes. They said

that $58 million was paid to the federal government, and that

included sales tax and all the extra taxes. Then $4 million was

paid to the municipalities, and that included school taxes and

property taxes. You add all those together, and you get $128

million, which Price Waterhouse said that the Mining

Association, the mining industry, paid in taxes in 1963. That

was the total amount they paid in taxes, including all those

taxes which were deductitble as a cost item in the cost of

production.

Then they said that they made $231 million net profit after

all taxes were paid. Now how do you come about that? That's

$231 million net profit. You add that to the taxes that were

paid to get the taxable income, and you find out that of net

taxes that were paid it 18 per cent to the province, 2 per cent

to the municipalities and 16 per cent to the federal

government.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): But 16 per cent

of what?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Of the $359 million. When you add the $231

million to the $128 million, you come up with the total figure.

Then you take your percentages.

MR. SMITH: That represents nothing.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: That's just good schooling. I don't know

whether you would quite understand it or not, nevertheless,

that's exactly what was drawn up. That gives them a different

picture again, because they didn't count in on that graph all

those charges that were made in Price Waterhouse for things

that were deducted as a cost item in the production of the

mineral.

MR. GIBSON: I just have a couple of very brief questions,

Mr. Chairman. The first relates to the question of appeals

under the Mineral Land Tax Act. I wrote the Minister about a

particular case and I think he is familiar with the

problem.

Section 23 of the Mineral Land Tax Act provides that where a

person objects to: (

a) being assessed as an owner under this

Act, or (

b) the amount of the assessment made under his mineral

land under this Act, or (

c) the amount of mineral land tax

payable by him under this Act, he may appeal, and so on.

Mr. Chairman, it has come to my attention that the way this

is being interpreted is that there is no appeal available from

the area of land which is designated as land taxable under the

Mineral Land Tax Act. What that means, in effect, is that there

is no appeal at all because, clearly, there is no appeal from

the flat rate per acre which is set. Therefore I would suggest

to the Minister that under this

interpretation, this appeal

provision, which is one of the few appeal provisions in the

mining legislation, on the taxation side in any event, this

appeal provision is virtually emasculated, and that in fact no

genuine appeal lies.

I would suggest to him that it is important, if this appeal

provision is to be made meaningful, it must apply to the area

designated as mineral land. So I make that as a representation

with respect to the way this Act is being interpreted, Mr.

Chairman.

The second question I have is on the current status

[ Page 3869 ]

of the British Columbia participation or non-participation

in the proposed joint federal-provincial uranium survey which I

gather is being carried on in most of the provinces of Canada,

and which I understand, at least up until a month ago, the

situation may have changed in the interim, British Columbia had

chosen not to take

part in. This, according to my information,

meant that some hundreds of thousands of dollars, $900,000 if I

recall correctly, wasn't available to British Columbia for this

form of exploration because we had decided not to take

part in

that programme.

I am told by people in the mining industry, in particular

the B.C.-Yukon Chamber of Mines, that something like 50 per

cent of British Columbia is at least potential uranium

territory worthy at least of the kind of quick exploration that

this amount of money invested with the GSC could provide. So

I'd ask the Minister to comment on the current status of that.

And if we aren't in the programme now, why would that be?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Chairman, the first point the Hon.

Member brought up: I will promise him that I'll have them take

a real good look at that appeal provision in the Act to see if

it's not interpreted the way it was intended.

In regard to uranium survey, the reason that we didn't go in

along with the federal government was that we asked them while

they were doing the one thing that we do other things for

British Columbia as well in regard to surveying. This year we

were in with them on it, but they're still doing uranium

surveying. We will be probably in on it again. But instead of

having us overlap some of the work they were doing, we wanted

them to combine the two.

MR. GIBSON: Do you mean, Mr. Minister, that the federal

government is actually doing a uranium survey in British

Columbia this year, or that they won't be doing it until such

time as we jointly participate with them? I don't quite

understand what you're saying. Which is it?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I understand that they're doing some of it

at this time — also throughout the whole country. But I don't

know whether all the information is available to us, since we

weren't in on it at this time. The argument this year was that

we wanted them to come in and we would jointly do a survey,

but this isn't all settled yet. I don't think there's any

question but that we'll eventually be in on the survey.

Vote 168 approved.

On vote 169: general administration, $7,374,772.

MR. F.X. RICHTER (Boundary-Similkameen): Mr. Chairman, a

question in relation to a new position that was established.

The way the estimates for this department are set up, it's

obvious that there is one

section mixed in with the other

votes. The position is a new position, editor of publications,

and it's with the administrative branch of the division of

operations. What is the salary of this position? I don't see it

in the estimates.

I believe the individual who holds this position now is

doing some flying over the eastern part of southern B.C. with

the use of a plane and taking pictures. I would assume that

this is for publications. Do you have that salary for that

position, Mr. Minister? I can't pick it out in the

estimates.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: That is the administrative services

division from the operational branch; that's the editor. She

just started a short time ago since the estimates were drawn

up. She is to prepare the publications — any publications that

go out from the department, any advertising. She's a qualified

person. To give you the exact figure of her salary — I haven't

got that right now. It's included in the contingencies here, I

know that.

MR. RICHTER: I assume then that this new position would also

cover work on the annual report. What has happened to the

former editor who did the editing within the department? Is

that individual still employed?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Oh, yes.

MR. RICHTER: The next question was this, Mr. Minister:

heretofore it has not been the policy to employ two of the same

family, namely a man and wife, in the same department of

government. Has this policy changed in some form by

order-in-council? The editor — in the new position of editor —

is the wife of the chief geologist, who is also in your

department.

In my time in the administration it was a policy not to

employ man and wife within the same department. Have you any

explanation of that, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Well, I don't know whether it was a

set-down policy in regarding to hiring man and wife. I didn't

know myself that Pat Groves was the wife of Mr. Groves. But I

suppose if we refuse to hire them on that ground, we'd run into

the situation that would be discriminating. So it's difficult

for me to say that the policy has been changed if there was a

written-down policy, but I have no knowledge that the policy

was that you couldn't hire two of the one family in the

department.

[ Page 3870 ]

Vote 169 approved.

On vote 170: grants and subsidies, $71,500.

MR. GIBSON: I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if the Minister could

detail these grants and subsidies.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: It covers the grants to the Rossland

Mining School — we pay some of the tuitions there for a number

of students — the Chamber of Mines and mine rescue.

MR. GIBSON: I wonder if the Minister could say the amount

for the Chamber of Mines, and how it compares with last

year.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: The amount for this year hasn't been set

yet, but I imagine that it was set in the budget the same as

last year. We haven't got a letter.... We usually get a letter

from them requesting more than they got last year.

MR. GIBSON: There's inflation.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I realize there's inflation, but these

grants to the Chamber of Mines are given for the purpose of

carrying on a prospectors' school. We do not feel that we

should be giving grants to an organization just to carry on the

organization. There must be some purpose for the grant. If

we're going to use the taxpayers' money it must be used for a

purpose. Both in the eastern part of British Columbia and the

B.C. Chamber of Mines we stipulate that the grant that is given

goes towards the carrying on of the prospectors' school. And it

was very successful last year.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I agree with the Minister that the

prospectors' school carried on by the Chamber of Mines is an

excellent thing, and I hope he will lean over backwards to see

how much he can provide them with in that regard this year

because the school cost, like every other cost, as the Hon.

Minister to your left will tell you, is going up rather

rapidly. I think it was something like 25 per cent in my school

system last year, so perhaps something equivalent for the

Chamber of Mines would be helpful to them. They are a group

that provides wonderful, impartial advice to all kinds of

people interested in the mining community in British Columbia,

and I think they're much to be supported.

But based on the Minister's reply, I have to come back with

a puzzled question. The Minister said the amount of the grant

hasn't been set yet. Yet we have here a specific item in the

estimates of $71,500. Now how can the total figure be arrived

at if the component parts aren't yet assured? Could the

Minister explain that, Mr. Chairman?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: It is assured that in this budget we have

at least the amount they had last year, but there's always

consideration that sometimes a little extra can be given, as you've

suggested. I'm very amused at your impartiality about the Chamber of

Mines because I think they're very partial at times.

Anyway, that's beside the point; I don't hold that against them. I

think that they have done a good job in regard to prospecting schools.

The reason that the exact figure wouldn't be written down here is that

you've got a little flexibility in this question, sometimes.

Vote 170 approved.

Vote 171: grants in aid of mining roads and trails, $800,000 — approved.

Vote 172: grants in aid of roads and trails, petroleum and

natural gas, $150,000 — approved.

On vote 173: Prospectors' Assistance, $300,000.

MR. RICHTER: This particular vote in relation to the

prospectors' assistance — I notice that it's been increased

substantially this year. I also have a question on the order

paper which I put on in the spring session of 1974, again in

the fall session of 1974, again in the spring session that

we're involved in right now, and I've not received an

answer.

Through you, Mr. Chairman, to the Minister: is it true that

the Minister and his staff asked that the estimate for last

year be over-expended? Is this the reason for the increase?

Further, is one of the qualifications for receiving this

grant the fact that you hold an NDP card? Is that one of the

qualifying factors? I understand this. I was told this. I

didn't want to believe it, but I'm sure nobody but the Minister

can tell us the truth of this.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Well, I'm amazed at that question, I am

glad he asked me if he was told that, because it's definitely

not so. I don't think we ever in my time in the office.... All

the letters I get I never regard as to whether anybody is an

NDP member or whether they're not, and they're all treated

exactly alike.

Now we did go over last year, I think, by some $28,000 or

$35,000. It was a very late season. We jumped it from $100,000

to $300,000 this year and we've had 300 applications already

this year. Of course, they don't all qualify, because we make

very sure that we're not going to use this money for things

other than for the purpose of prospectors' assistance. That's

the reason that for some of the applications the money hasn't

been sent out as quickly this year, because these estimates

have been dragging along quite a bit. But we're going to do the

best we can to

[ Page 3871 ]

satisfy all the applications.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, back in the latter part of May, a

couple of young men who were going to be hired, as I understand

it from the story they gave to the newspaper, by the Minister's

department made some fairly important charges about the

prospectors' assistance programme and how it was being

operated. I'd like to give the Minister a chance in these

estimates to refute these charges, or otherwise deal with

them.

One of the things they said — McLaren said: "The PAR grants

are far too small to be useful for a genuine prospector. He

cited an annual budget for two lower mainland prospectors

calling for an expenditure of $7,350-plus as necessary for a

two-man team," Later on: "There's no way professionals

will be remotely interested in the provincial system, "

he said.

Then elsewhere in the

article — not quoting either of these

two young men, but quoting a department official: "A department

official said that almost all the applicants are part-time

prospectors, amateurs or newcomers to the field, and that there

was an absence of professionals applying for assistance."

I wonder if the Minister could take a moment to put on the

record the kinds of people who are applying for assistance

under this programme. I put a question on the order paper some

time ago asking how many had some kind of mining experience and

the answer, as I recall it, was about two-thirds that had some

kind of mining experience — or prospecting experience, rather.

I wonder if the Minister could tell us a little more about

this. Just how much experience does the average person applying

for this grant have and to what extent does it cover their cost

when it is awarded?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: In regard to that letter that

professionals won't be interested, I also had a letter from a

down-to-earth prospector who is not a professional, complaining

that too many of the professionals were getting assistance and

that this prospectors' grant should be for the old-time

prospectors and not for the professional men.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. NIMSICK: They talk about using the airplanes. One

letter I got said that the old-time prospector is out; but

according to the B.C.-Yukon Chamber of Mines the little

prospector is the backbone of the mining industry. So I think

that what we're doing here is trying to help them all.

We have applications from professionals; we get applications from old-time

prospectors; we get applications from some that come out of the school. They

all have to take an exam, mind you, except those that have already taken it,

but any new applicant has to show that he has a knowledge of minerals and a

knowledge of what he's going in for before he can get a grant from the prospectors'

assistance fund. That's the reason we spent $20,000 last year for training prospectors

throughout the province. Last year we had 201 applications, and out of those

201 only 71 were successful. The rest of them didn't qualify. I think they are

carrying on a very careful scrutiny of the whole thing. I'm not going to say

that even $300,000 is enough. Nevertheless, it was a new programme and we put

it at $100,000; prior to that the old Grubstake Act only took $20,000 of it.

They didn't use it all. Now they're really applying for it.

MR. RICHTER: The first part of my question, regarding

question 116 on the order paper, the Minister didn't comment

on. Is he going to file an answer or...?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Pardon me. Mr. Chairman, I had the list of

names. I asked the Hon. Member if he would come up to my

office, if he would sooner go up there to look over all those

that had assistance, or should we put it in the Journals of the

House? I just didn't know whether some of these people would be

too pleased about all the names listed. It's just the same as

if you asked the welfare to list all those that are getting

welfare.

Don't forget that the names will be in the public accounts,

but I don't know whether they're itemized as being on

prospectors' assistance or not. I've got no basic objection

except that when you list all the names of those who applied

and those who received it, you're liable to create some

embarrassment to people who are neighbours of somebody else. I

thought, at the time I spoke to you, that you would come up to

my office and look them over. You didn't tell me at that time

that you still wanted them to be published in the Journals .

MR. RICHTER: Mr. Chairman, it is public funds; you can't

compare it with welfare. Welfare is a case where people have no

alternative. This is applied for based on qualifications. Where

public funds are spent in this fashion it wouldn't be an

embarrassing situation because these people are doing something.... They're seeking out a resource. The information under the

regulations becomes the property of the department in any case

if they are successful in locating. As I see it, it's no

different than applying for a mineral claim. I don't see that

part. I think that because there are public funds involved

certainly I would not hesitate to file an answer on the basis

of the question.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Chairman, with all

[ Page 3872 ]

those names it would be quite a long answer. I would be

willing to table that. I haven't got it with me today, but I

would be willing to table it in the House rather than put it in

the Journals .

Vote 173 approved.

On vote 174: special mineral surveys, $200,000.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to know what this is

and whether it's related in some way to vote 177.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: This is a special mineral survey. The

federal-provincial aeromagnetic mapping is $50,000; mineral

resources data file joint project with UBC, $60,000; analysis

of geophysical data, $11,000; preparation of mineral deposit

land-use maps, $30,000.

Vote 174 approved.

Vote 175: reclamation research, $50,000 — approved.

On vote 176: special mineral studies, $225,000.

MR. GIBSON: Once again I would ask the Minister what studies

are involved under this head.

Interjections.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: This is partially for the copper study and

also for the coal study that's going on.

MR. GIBSON: Those are the only two things in there?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Yes. Well, it could be used if something

came up and we had the money in this vote for other studies;

you could use it. But this is the principle thing it's there

for.

MR. GIBSON: In particular, it's not in any way for

exploration?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: No.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): If this is to include the cost

of the coal study, can the Minister tell us when that is

expected to be completed? I notice we've got all the people

right out of the top drawer on that study, all right — all the

big names from the university and elsewhere. Can you tell us

first of all how much that coal study is likely to cost and

when we can expect a report?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: It would be difficult for me to tell you,

Mr. Chairman, what it's going to cost. It will be difficult to

say when they will be completed. When you appoint a committee

like that, I usually let them go ahead. When they are

completed, then they will report back — the same as with the

copper task force. They reported back. The cost of the copper

task force was around $80,000, so I imagine that the coal task

force would be in somewhat the same neighbourhood.

MR. WALLACE: But the terms of reference didn't give any

general outline of the amount of time or a deadline by which

you wanted a report.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: We did suggest that we'd like to have it

by this fall.

Vote 176 approved.

On vote 177: mineral exploration fund, $325,000.

MR. WALLACE: Again, Mr. Chairman, that's a new item in the

budget — $325,000. Could the Minister give us some detail on

how it will be spent?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: This exploration fund is a new item; it

covers federal-provincial evaluation and programmes. It would

also assist, in regard to the prospectors' assistance, any of

those who have a find which warrants further expenditure beyond

the $4,000, we could use it out of this fund, or we could take

part in exploring out of this fund.

MR. GIBSON: This then would provide, would it, for the

government undertaking exploration on its own account?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Yes, if it wanted to — or in participation

with someone else.

MR. GIBSON: Right. Well now, once we start to get into that

kind of area, the ground rules that are being evolved are of

considerable importance. This mineral exploration, I take it,

could relate not only to hard rock, but to hydrocarbons as

well, to oil and gas or coal — mineral exploration is broad

enough to cover all of those areas.

Is it going to be the practice, Mr. Minister, through you,

Mr. Chairman, of this particular arm of the department having

access to confidential information which is not available to

particular sectors of the private industry engaged in the same

kind of thing, exploration? What I am concerned about, and this

relates back to some extent to what we were talking about

yesterday, is the need for a multiplicity of players in this

exploration game, and the need for all of the players to feel

they are starting out on an equal

[ Page 3873 ]

basis with an equal opportunity.

Will this exploration arm be given any, what I would call

special advantages? What kind of administrative structure will

it have in the department?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Chairman, I would say that the only

special advantage they would have is in regard to the

prospectors' assistance. If they received assistance and they

wanted it beyond the $4,000 because they needed quite a bit of

money to develop and they've got a really good claim, then we

would assist them in that regard. But we would be in with the

prospector on this thing if we thought it was better, and we

would come to some agreement. If we felt that the prospect

wasn't warranting any further deals, they could make a deal

with anybody they liked in regard to that prospect.

That's the only advantage, and that's the same advantage you

would have if you grub-staked somebody to go out in the hills,

and you said: "Well, here's enough grub for the summer, but I

want 50 per cent of anything you find." This could happen with

individuals. I don't think anyone, or any mining company,

contributes money without some kind of a handle on the money in

regard to participation, if they so wish. This fund could be

used over and above the initial prospectors' grant. He might

need it if he's got a good claim and he really wants to develop

it to find out what he has really got.

MR. GIBSON: But in particular, Mr. Chairman, will those

having the administration of this fund have access to

confidential data within the department, information which is

not available to their competitors in the exploration field? It

seems to me this is a very important principle to have

established at this stage of the game. It seems to me that the

various explorers, including the government explorers, should

be kept on an equal, competitive basis, or else you are just

going to scare the others away because they will say the

government is going to cream the best prospects in the

province, based on their confidential information, whether it

is oil or gas, or whether the hard rock mining.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Well, in oil and gas we may get some

confidential information, but I don't know in regard to

minerals. I think it is pretty public through the geological

book that we put out every year — practically everything is in

that. Anyone who has got information....

But if a prospector has been assisted by the government,

then we should have the right to have first refusal on that

prospect.

MR. GIBSON: But how about the confidential....

HON. MR. NIMSICK: There is nothing confidential....

MR. GIBSON: In oil and gas, then.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Oil and gas are the only things which may

be confidential. But my Deputy tells me that as far as he

knows, in the mineral end there is nothing really confidential

about it.

MR. GIBSON: But on the oil and gas side, where there is

confidential information, would this exploration arm of the

department have access to that or would they be just on the

same basis as any individual? That is my question.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: This year when we put it in here, we did

not intend it, at least at that time, for oil and gas at all.

It says mineral exploration fund.

MR. GIBSON: But that's mineral — oil and gas are

minerals.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Well, you can class it as that, but when

we put it in there it was for the purpose of exploration in the

metals area.

Vote 177 approved.

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF THE

PROVINCIAL SECRETARY

(continued)

Vote 189: Minister's office, $76,595 — approved.

Vote 190: general administration, $275,032 — approved.

Vote 191: office of planning adviser to cabinet, $276,131 —

approved.

Vote 192: central microfilm bureau, $665,038 — approved.

Vote 193: postal branch, $3,160,855 — approved.

Vote 194: legislative library, $522,660 — approved.

On vote 195: provincial archives, $621,248.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Chairman, just

an observation, something that I've in the past discussed with

the Hon. Provincial Secretary, and I assume this would be the

correct vote. Has the government entered into any effective

programmes or plans for the reproduction of some of the

provincial masterpieces, e.g. the works of Emily Carr? I

can

[ Page 3874 ]

recall that about 20 years ago the Hudson's Bay put out a

very interesting periodical, and had in it one of the

reproductions of one of her better known paintings — the one of

her little monkey. I just wonder if this programme has been

entertained yet by the provincial government and if not, why

not. It's a matter that I've been talking about for the better

part of four or five years.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): I remember the Member's

speech well and I know that the new archivist, who has come on

staff since you made that last speech, is aware of our general

feelings in this regard. I assure the Member that I'll take

that point up with the new archivist now.

MR. GARDOM: Yes, I think it would be an exceptionally good

thing to do because there is no end of British Columbia artists

who have made a tremendous contribution to our province, and

there is no end of citizens who would like to obtain good

reproductions. We find reproductions printed through the

auspices of the federal government in a number of fields, e.g.

the Group of Seven. I think this is a programme that certainly

should be entered into by this government, and I don't know

whether we have sufficient equipment today within the aegis of

the Queen's Printer. Perhaps the Provincial Secretary could

help me on that point.

HON. MR. HALL: I'm not sure that we have all of the

equipment that is needed in the Queen's Printer, but that

wouldn't necessarily preclude the programme. There are very

capable printing establishments in this province. In the

gallery I happen to see Mr. Len Guy who was for many years the

leader of the typographical union — he's around somewhere, and

I'm sure he'd be the first to tell you — that we've got the

capacity in the province. I congratulate the Member on a good

idea. I'll take it up and be in correspondence with the

Member.

Vote 195 approved.

Vote 196: library development commission, $1,039,561 —

approved.

Vote 197: library and library association grants, $2,570,000 — approved.

On vote 198: Queen's Printer, $10.

MR. GARDOM: It's just not enough — $10 for Ken MacDonald?

Will anyone go $11? Great heavens, I think the Queen's Printer

should receive from this House a vote of congratulations for

doing a first class job and a very excellent gentleman that he

is.

MR. CHAIRMAN: So ordered.

Vote 198 approved.

Vote 199: Government House, $111,502 — approved.

On vote 200: Agent-General's office and British Columbia

House, London, England, $356,654.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether

the Provincial Secretary could indicate whether they are

re-evaluating the role of the Agent-General in London.

I raise this because it appears that the Premier brought

along a New York financial expert on his trip to London — and

probably quite properly so — with the purpose of facilitating

contact with the British government officials. It struck me

curious at the time, when I read this a couple of days ago,

that we should pick up experts in New York to go to London

where we have an Agent-General whose job, I thought, was to

facilitate contacts with British government officials.

It raises the question: what is the role of the

Agent-General in London? The role of the Agent-General used to

be, and traditionally was facilitating the export of capital

from Britain to British Columbia. He was involved in virtually

promoting a number of schemes — the railroads, town sites and

other things. He just assisted in the raising of capital.

The Premier is now going off to raise one-third of a billion

worth of capital, and the Agent-General seems to be cut out

completely. I didn't see any reference to him whatsoever. So

his traditional role, apparently, has evaporated. I wonder

whether we are having any re-examination of what he does and

whether it is still necessary to have him.

HON. MR. HALL: The answer to the second part of the question

is yes — without the Member taking away from this House the

assumption that I agree with what he said in the first part of

his statement.

The fact that a newspaper

article may or may not have said

what you said it said is really not a subject for any real

debate in this House, as you and I know. The fact that the

Premier took along a financial expert from New York doesn't

necessarily either reduce, diminish, increase or obviate any

necessity for an Agent-General at all.

An Agent-General, obviously, must build some reputation,

some contacts himself. So I come now to the essential part of

your question: is the government re-evaluating the role of the

Agent-General in the U.K.? The answer is yes, without any

question. And that is forced on us for one very simple reason,

that in about seven days time the current Agent-General is

[ Page

3875 ]

retiring, returning to British Columbia, and we'll be

seeking a replacement.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HALL: I understand the Member for North Peace River

(Mr. Smith) is volunteering. Is that right — are you

volunteering Mr. Member? South Peace River (Mr. Phillips)?

Well, we get the usual hilarity from the Peace River

Members.

Nevertheless, we are evaluating the role.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (North Peace River): Why don't you go

there yourself?

HON. MR. HALL: That's not a bad idea. Not a bad idea at

all.

MR. PHILLIPS: We know it has occurred to you.

(Laughter.)

HON. MR. HALL: That's right. There are days when I'm sitting

here listening to the Member for South Peace when I wish I was

back in London, I assure you.

MR. PHILLIPS: There are days when I wish you were back

there, too. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. HALL: However, seriously, Mr. Member, the role is

being evaluated because, obviously, financial patterns change.

No longer is it true to say that the U.K. is really the

powerhouse in international finances that it was 10 years ago.

So these things are changing, and I simply say to the Member

that we are re-evaluating the role of the Agent-General.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I appreciate the Minister's remarks. The

fact that the press did or did not comment upon the

Agent-General perhaps was not so relevant as the fact that

they.... The important thing was that they didn't see fit to

comment upon him; he was not that big a factor in the equation,

apparently.

I'm sure that he tried hard. But it strikes me as curious

that we would be re-evaluating his position. I believe the

Provincial Secretary gave me a similar assurance some time ago

on this — some months ago, if not last year — and at the same

time, within seven days we have to find a replacement or extend

the terms of the present incumbent. I presume we will be

extending the term, although the Provincial Secretary implied

that he'll be coming back to British Columbia very soon.

Surely the survey, re-examination, re-evaluation should be done prior to any

new appointment. I wonder if the Provincial Secretary would give me some time

frame on first, re-examination or re-evaluation, and second, reappointment or

appointment of a new Agent-General.

HON. MR. HALL: Well, there's no question that Rear Admiral

Stirling is not prepared to entertain any extension of time; he

will be returning here at the end of the month. There will,

therefore, be a vacancy. The re-evaluation process has been

going on and the Agent-General has been giving us the benefit

of his experience. As you know, he's been there a long time,

since October, 1968. There is the benefit of his experience as

well, and when he gets back here he will also be helping us to

finalize that study.

MR. WALLACE: Are you accepting applications? (Laughter.)

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I think, as we voted a vote of thanks to

the Queen's Printer a moment ago, Rear Admiral Stirling

deserves a vote of thanks from this House for fine work done in

London over the years. I think his predecessor also deserves

congratulations.

However, I take it from the Provincial Secretary's reply

that we will be leaving the office vacant until such time as

the government makes up its mind as to whether anyone should be

reappointed, and while these discussions are taking place

between the Provincial Secretary, Admiral Stirling and others.

Therefore we will be leaving the administrative officer in

charge temporarily until such time as the government makes up

its mind as to whether or not to close the office, or turn it

into a trade office or a travel office or something else, or

whatever the Provincial Secretary and Premier decide. But we

are leaving it vacant until a decision is made as to whether to

continue.

HON. MR. HALL: We're leaving it vacant until we reappoint

another Agent-General.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): It sounds to me like the

second Member for Victoria is looking for a job.

(Laughter.)

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The first Member for Victoria is

intriguing. But in more serious vein, if you're re-evaluating

the position....

HON. MR. HALL: It's the role, not the position. We said we

were re-evaluating the role of the Agent-General — where he

should be concentrating his activities. Should he be heading up

economic trips in the sense of encouragement to Europe? Should

he be doing the social bit to the exclusion of anything else?

Should he be concentrating on financial matters? It's the role

of the Agent-General we're

[ Page 3876 ]

re-evaluating, not the position itself. We are convinced, as

the government since 1872 has been convinced, that we should

have an Agent-General in the U.K.

MR. GARDOM: In the middle of all of this re-evaluation to

Admiral Stirling.... It's Robert Stirling isn't it?

HON. MR. HALL: No. Michael Grote Stirling.

MR. GARDOM: Well, when you're considering the reassessment

or the re-evaluation of Admiral Stirling in return to this

province, you may as well think of the most economic move for a

new man. And if you find anyone with the initial "S" you won't

even have to change the designation on the towels in B.C.

House. I'm just wondering who over there would have "S" as a

final name; it might be useful. (Laughter.)

Vote 200 approved.

On vote 201: Indian Advisory Act, $57,618.

MR. GARDOM: What is the position of the Indian community

concerning this statute and the function that it now performs?

Are they still in favour of it or are they opposed to it?

HON. MR. HALL: No, they're not. They're opposed to it, Mr.

Member. It's my hope to repeal it. In my view, it should have

been in the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, Bill 142.

However, it was deemed by my colleagues that at this point

in time when there were a great number of tricky negotiations

and leasings — there is one going on right at this minute in

this building with the cut-off lands committee — any activity

that could be misconstrued would be unfortunate and therefore

it was taken in the wisdom that it could wait till the fall

section to repeal this Act.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): I'm glad to hear

that and I think that the word "tricky" was an inappropriate

word used inadvertently by you. But I'm glad to hear that,

because that was my understanding that the Indian community

rejects this concept, and I think the sooner it's done away

with the better.

HON. MR. HALL: "Tricky" meaning difficult.

Vote 201 approved.

Vote 202: Assessment on Class 13 (the Crown) Worker's

Compensation Act, $2,250,000 — approved.

Vote 203: Unemployment Insurance (Public Service) $4,100,000 — approved.

Vote 204: Provincial Secretary, Incidentals and

Contingencies, $180,000 — approved.

On Vote 205: Provincial Secretary, Grants, Etc.,

$2,180,000.

MR. MORRISON: Well, I just wonder with the bill that we've

been discussing here recently, 127, what do we need this

for?

AN HON. MEMBER: Which vote are we on?

AN HON. MEMBER: This is grants, etc. — vote 205.

MR. MORRISON: Oh, sorry.

Vote 205 approved.

On Vote 206: Capital Improvement District Act, $400,000.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): The amount has

been increased and that is, I think, a good sign — increased

from $250,000 to $400,000. Perhaps the Hon. the Provincial

Secretary should take just a few moments in replying to my

comments to indicate how he feels the CIDC is doing.

On a number of occasions, Mr. Chairman, through you to the

Minister, I've spoken about the long-time relative isolation of

the CIDC in terms of it's relationship to other provincial

government departments and notwithstanding the fact that there

is membership from municipalities, the fact that occasionally

the municipalities feel somewhat apart from this particular

agency which has been operating for some 20 years...

AN HON. MEMBER: I think roughly.

MR. CURTIS: ...19 or 20 years. We also spoke, I think,

earlier in the discussion of these estimates this year about

the possibility of increasing the area in which the CIDC would

function. I recall the Minister responded at that time and said

something to the effect that he was having a look at the

CIDC.

Finally, the specific. The Minister, Mr. Chairman, might be

in a position today to clarify considerable confusion which has

arisen outside this chamber with regard to a particular piece

of property which could be identified as the former Causeway

Esso station. I've been off the CIDC for quite some time, the

Minister will realize, and I was not to the best of my

recollection a part of the commission at the time that that

property was acquired, first by the city and then

transferred.

[ Page 3877 ]

The mayor of the City of Victoria has indicated, to put it

mildly, some surprise as the possibility that this property

would be used for other than beautification purposes. Could the

Minister indicate in his reply which department of government

now owns the property and what are the likely uses to which it

will be put in the short and long term?

HON. MR. HALL: The Member's record on the commission itself

is sufficient for us to realize that the Member of Saanich has

played a useful role — a very important role over the years in

this, and I congratulate him for it — when he was the Mayor of

Saanich.

I agree with him that the bounds of the Capital Improvement

District should not be limited as I think they were going to be

limited by his colleague, if he had continued his questioning.

However I agree they should know much wider limits than they

know now, and as a matter of fact I noticed in our areas of

activity we do move out of the City of Victoria. We move into

Saanich and other areas in our suggestions for work this

year.

It's a good programme. It's got more money and I think it's

one that should be supported. Having said that I would be

kidding you if I told you that the last 12 months have been

anything but difficult.

The fact of the matter is we do have the Minister of

Municipal Affairs with his transit problems. We do have the

Minister of Public Works with his problems of housing the

work-force of this community. We did have our troubles

vis-à-vis the development of the Reid site, all of which

have caused a confusion. All of which have caused some bad

temper. All of which have caused some difficulties in our

relationships with mayors and municipalities in the Capital

Improvement District. Unfortunately, sometimes those things

have to boil up, if not boil over, before a solution is at

hand. I think that's just about where we are now.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HALL: We've boiled over, I think, and now I think

it's fair to say we're mopping up. I think we'd better leave

that parallel alone for a while.

The fact of the matter is the CIDC and the various

activities of this government were not compatible for about 12

months in the sense that emergency work had to be done —

orders-in-council, a big stick. Let's not kid ourselves — a big

stick. Now we can get it all together with some goodwill.

I think I'd like to leave it there with this one last commitment to the Member

that I am currently trying to get the information about the beanery on the corner

where the Esso station was. (Laughter.) The Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace)

asked the question. Unfortunately, two of the people who could provide me with

solid information for this House were away. I'm one who believes that if I'm

going to stand up here and answer questions, the answers had better be right

— otherwise you just make my life a misery. I prefer to come with the right

answers.

MR. CURTIS: A quick follow-up, Mr. Chairman, to the,

Minister. The increase in vote — is this a catch-up for

projects that were earlier recommended by the CIDC to the

cabinet or does it permit an increase in the number of projects

and the scope of the present fiscal year? In other words, to

assist. Were projects approved, say, in the calendar year 1974

but held in abeyance in anticipation that more money might be

available in this fiscal year? Is that the case?

HON. MR. HALL: That's the case — yes. A typical case of that

one would the development of the Esquimalt-West Bay walkway,

which was approved by the commission in principle. The work

will go forward on that project in 1975.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: To the Provincial Secretary, Mr.

Chairman. The Minister mentioned the Esso property. Indeed, I

believe the provincial government put out something like

$220,000 for purchasing the rights from Esso for the property

so that they in turn could sell it to the Capital District

Commission.

The fact is, as I understand it at the present time, that

the commission itself has the agreement for sale with Esso and

that all the provincial government did was buy out Esso's

rights. So in fact the provincial government is bound to sell

that to the commission and the province itself has no right

over the property because there is this agreement for sale

between Esso and the commission.

Therefore it would seem to me — I wonder whether the

Provincial Secretary has checked this out — that in actual fact

the province has no rights whatsoever in terms of allowing that

property to be used; the rights for that property are entirely

in the hands of the commission itself. All the province did is

substitute itself for Esso in an agreement for sale to the

commission.

If I'm correct on that, I really do not understand why the

government is playing any role whatsoever in trying to

determine whether or not this property should be used for

submarine sandwiches, beaneries or whatever. It appears to me

entirely a question for the commission itself.

I wonder whether the Provincial Secretary could indicate

what precisely the province did buy when it went in and

purchased Esso's remaining rights for that property, which in

turn have to be handed over directly to the commission. There

appears to be no way whatsoever that the province can take

title of

[ Page 3878 ]

that property in light of the agreement for sale.

HON. MR. HALL: I congratulate the Member on his research.

That's entirely where I am at the moment in the pursuit of

information so I can satisfy the House in question period.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I thank the Minister for that because it

appears then that it's right back in the hands of the Victoria

city council for licensing purposes for any beanery, winery or

whatever and in turn in the hands of the commission to decide

whether or not they want to make application for any boutique,

fast food outlet or whatever. That seems to be my impression at

the present time in the light of the legal....

HON. MR. HALL: It's because I came across that material that

you presented to the House — not your impression, but the

historical details of the transaction. It's because of what has

been turned up in my investigation that I have asked for

further information so that I can answer the question in

full.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I am interested to know that the

Minister admits that the government is wielding a big stick in

the capital region. I like the Minister's candour.

I didn't really think I'd ever sit here and listen to one of

the Ministers of this government admit that they bring out the

big stick when it suits them. They've certainly brought out the

big stick in the whole of the Inner Harbour situation and the

big stick in relation to whether it's improvement of the

capital region — or at least in their view what they think is

best for the City of Victoria and the capital region

generally.

I wonder if the Minister could tell us — I know I am

somewhat puzzled to know if there is any kind of reasonably

clear delineation of authority in this whole business of

improvement of the capital and particularly the Inner Harbour

area.

We had the other day a grandiose statement from the Member

for Esquimalt (Mr. Gorst), who wants to give over large hunks

of this capital region to the provincial government. He calls

it a dream and one of the aldermen calls it a nightmare. Yet we

have the Minister standing here a minute ago saying that the

disharmony of the past 12 months has all been smoothed over and

things are just dicky.

I wonder from this position, and from reading all the conflicting reports that

come out week after week, and the bitter controversy that seems to exist between

the mayor of the City of Victoria and the government, involving three or four

or five different Ministers.... I don't dispute for a moment the Provincial

Secretary's point, well made, that there are various problems of overlapping

Ministries: Transport and Municipal Affairs, Tourism, Lands and Water. We've

mentioned this in the House already. We have four or five Ministers all with

a finger in the pie. To the onlooker living in the capital region, we get the

impression that the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. To

suggest that we can look forward to some better progress and more harmony in

dealings between the provincial government and the municipalities on this particular

issue, I would have to say that it is not the kind of impression one gets from

reading many of the statements of our municipal leaders and statements by the

government.

The point the Liberal leader (Mr. D.A. Anderson) has just

raised is reassuring in that the Minister of Public Works (Hon.

Mr. Hartley), I gather, yesterday said that if we don't want An

A & W store on the corner of Wharf and Government, he will

work in concert with the City of Victoria; and if the City of

Victoria doesn't want a delicatessen, it won't have a

delicatessen.

The only thing that worries me is that the Minister says

that as though this is some great big favour he is doing the

municipality, when he has no right to be going around kicking

the municipality from pillar to post anyway. This is the point

that is being lost in this whole issue. We all want good,

sound, wise development of the Inner Harbour and the capital

region. Nobody disputes that. But it will never be

accomplished, first of all, by the municipalities and the

provincial government being at each other's throats all the

time. It does not add to the sense of confidence that the

people in this city might have when they see three or four or

five Ministers all apparently going in different directions

without the kind of co-ordination which is obviously crucial to

the successful outcome of this admittedly difficult

planning.

I talked to some of the aldermen and I inquired — as the

Liberal leader obviously did — about the so-called Esso site.

The aldermen closest to the scene tell me they haven't heard

anything since the meeting of January when some offer of

assistance was made by the Department of Public Works to

improve the site. Then the next thing the aldermen heard was

that the title had been transferred.

It isn't a question of who is right and who is wrong. It's a

question of the confusion and misunderstanding and lack of an

overall plan which seems to be so obvious from all the

publicity that has attended the issue. It is important. We've

all agreed that it is complicated.

I wonder if the Minister could tell us, for example, as the

First Member for Victoria (Mr. Morrison) inquired a moment ago,

how this all fits into Bill 127. How does the Hon. Minister of

Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) fit

into the actions and planning and cooperation on CIDC, and on

and on and on? There are so many different

[ Page 3879 ]

departments and Ministers involved. But I wonder if the

Minister could tell us: does he plan to have an expanded total

commission of some sort? Or can we anticipate that the Hon.

Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources will go his way

under Bill 127, CIDC will try and do its thing in the way that

it sees best, and the poor old municipality will be left as low

man on the totem pole, not knowing what is going on half the

time.

If I am wrong, I stand to be corrected, but that's certainly

the impression I get from the media. And if you talk with

aldermen, talk with people who closely follow municipal affairs

in the capital region, most of them feel the same way. I think

it is tragic. I know that this Minister, the Provincial

Secretary, is dedicated to trying to straighten out the mess,

but I don't think that anybody is really gaining at the moment.

The unfortunate strife between the council and mayor in

Victoria, between them and the provincial government, is most

regrettable and need not be. I think that just some signs of a

willingness to be more cooperative and to keep the City of

Victoria and its aldermen informed in some general way as to

what the government's intentions are would certainly be most

welcome and I think would lead to a happier outcome in the long

run.

[Mr. G.H. Anderson in the chair.]

HON. MR. HALL . Mr. Chairman, the Member has certainly canvassed the

problem well. I can't disagree with his final remarks. Earlier, however, I think

he was worried out loud in a way that I think might not have been as helpful

as it could have been, and as it was later on.

Let me start by saying first of all — my candour may be

refreshing — that the fact of the matter is that this

government has shown in a number of ways and in a number of

areas, not just in my jurisdiction but in others, that when

things reach a crunch issue and other people fear to act or are

reluctant to act, we will act. The big-stick legislation — if

that's the description of what we did to save the Reid property — if that offends anybody, so be it.

The fact of the matter is that duly-elected bodies had the

powers to stop some of those things. They were openly worried

about the fact they'd like to stop them and were not stopping

them and we assisted. Let's put it that way. The confusion

continues.

I don't think all is well now. My remarks about the pot boiling over were not

to suggest that everything is sweetness and light. I don't know whether things

will get any worse. I think they've reached probably the worst state they can.

That's why I said the pot's boiled over. It is now up to us all, Mayor Pollen,

Alderman Young, Mayor Young and others too, I think, to start to put this thing

together along with my colleagues. I'm the first to admit that. If I could be

of use in doing that, I hope to be. There are a couple of phone calls on my

desk right now from elected people.

Nevertheless, the fact of the matter is....

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Who is the co-coordinating Minister?

HON. MR. HALL: That's been our problem, frankly. The Premier

was used at one time. I was used at another. All the mechanisms

we've tried to be a co-coordinating body have just failed. This

vote could have been the proudest thing we've got. As a matter

of fact, at the moment, I'm not all that proud of what has been

the debate on CIDC. We should have been debating the

accomplishment rather than the problems.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Will 127 give us a co-coordinator?

HON. MR. HALL: No, 127 won't give us a co-coordinator; 127

is just the Inner Harbour. The CIDC is much bigger, much wider

than the Inner Harbour, as the Member for Saanich (Mr. Curtis)

claims to point out.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HALL: Nevertheless, I think that we can't ignore

the Inner Harbour; we spend a lot of money there. This is the

capital city; it is the frontispiece for the whole unfolding of

our precinct, and we'd be foolish not to do. Whether or not we

have got the right people on the committee, whether or not

there should be a representative from the Department of Lands

and the Department of Public Works, I don't know. Those are

things we are looking at. I have worried about this, both

privately and publicly, with the Member for Saanich (Mr.

Curtis). All I can assure you is that I'll go at it at my best

lick and hope to be successful. I know you will be constantly

asking questions if you observe that things are not being

successful, and all I can do is pledge my activities.

MR. MORRISON: Mr. Chairman, I'm sure the Minister understood

earlier when I made that offhand comment that I was being

facetious. But I do appreciate the problem that is happening in

the Inner Harbour and I appreciate the Minister's approach to

it. I don't want to be part of the problem; I'd like to be part

of the solution.

But there is a problem which I wonder if he could take a

look at. I'm not sure whether it comes into his department but

I think that it does because it comes under that improvement

district area. It is the

[ Page 3880 ]

Victoria Flying Services float, a company which has operated

for many years since the war. As a matter of fact, it

instigated the service between Victoria and Vancouver when it

was sorely needed from harbour to harbour. It pays business

licence to the City of Victoria, it owns the floats and docks

which are in the Inner Harbour, but they have been informed

that they must move from their present location almost

immediately. They aren't quite sure who they make arrangements

with to find another location. The city doesn't appear to have

anywhere for them to move. The CIDC doesn't appear to have

anywhere for them to move to. It would appear that the new

departments which are being set up now under Bill 127 haven't

given them a spot to move to.

I believe that it's a service the city should be proud of.

They have worked hard for the benefit of this city. Someone

should take it in hand to see that this service does not cease

and that their past is recognized and that they are given a

place where they can continue. I would encourage the Minister,

if there is anything that he can do, to take a look at that

department.

HON. MR. HALL: I shall look into it, Mr. Member. It would

appear to me that they obviously need a water lease, and we

know which department that is in. You say the DOT have served

notice. Is that...?

MR. MORRISON: Well, no, actually it's really come from the

city. They have previously had to lease through the city, which

is now their base, where the flower portion is that says

"Welcome To Victoria." The city no longer has any control over

that area. We're not quite sure who has control over it now.

But they have been informed that they must move — and, I

believe, as of July 7. So time is of the essence.

HON. MR. HALL: They should look at the possibilities of

using some of the extra footage on the Marguerite dock or

something like that. Maybe we can look at that.

MR. MORRISON: Thank you.

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I also appreciate the very candid

and frank comments by the Minister on this vote 206 this

morning, because I think it has been helpful.

Yes, we are the opposition; we are here to oppose. But I would like the committee

to know, and the Minister to know, that if at any time he seeks some comments

or some thoughts or feels that Members of the opposition such as the First and

Second Members for Victoria, the Member for Oak Bay and myself, if we can be

of help, then I'm sure we would be in terms of sorting out what has become a

problem.

In simpler days, as I understand it — and, again, the CIDC

certainly has been operating for a number of years — a

municipality would come to the commission with a specific

project and would say: "We anticipate this will cost $35,000."

The commission approved or rejected and forwarded a

recommendation to the cabinet. The projects were usually in

isolation at that point. I suppose, as the focus has come to

the Inner Harbour area, it's been inevitable that the pot would

start boiling over here, because you cannot function in

isolation in such a critical and key area as the Inner Harbour

of the City of Victoria.

I would like to suggest to the Minister that one possibility

he might consider is some kind of technical planning

co-coordinating committee — that's an awkward handle but I

think he knows what I mean — of staff members from two or three

or four appropriate departments of government and the

municipalities and possibly the regional district — I'm not too

certain — which would meet on a regular basis and would be

given specific assignments by the CIDC. The CIDC is comprised

of government appointees, Mr. Chairman, and municipal

appointees, all of whom have other responsibilities. I have no

idea of the meetings record of CIDC in the last few months, or

indeed in the last year or more, but I would suspect that it

hasn't been meeting as often as perhaps it might. It would mean

an amendment to the Act probably — I have no real opinion on

that — if you had a technical committee to meet regularly and to

review ideas which have been forwarded.

There have been difficulties in the past in bringing in, as

an example, a municipal engineer or a planner. Not that they've

been turned away at the door, but the commission meets in

camera, which I suppose is understandable if it is considering

and recommending to the provincial cabinet. But I recall on

more than one occasion having to ask the permission of the

meeting to bring in a municipal engineer to describe in far

greater and better detail a particular project — far greater

detail than any politician, frankly, is perhaps capable of when

one gets down to the design of a project and its approximate

cost, its impact on the neighbourhood and so on.

So that's one suggestion which the Minister may care to

consider. But I do think he has been quite frank, and hopefully

the $400,000 will be used very effectively in this fiscal year

and some of these difficulties which have been enunciated on

both sides of the House will be cleared away.

Vote 206 approved.

On vote 207: Archaeological and Historic Sites Protection

Act, $2,202,000.

[ Page 3881 ]

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): I would like to

ask the Minister about the status of the acquisition of the

property in Yale, controversial as it is in the community and

perhaps identification that some of the buildings are not

historical at all, and what the plans are and how they'll be

dealt with because of their close proximity to the railroad

tracks.

HON. MR. HALL: I think this is the wrong vote, Mr. Chairman.

I think it's historic sites.

MR. BENNETT: That's right.

HON. MR. HALL: I have two notes here. Are there any more

questions on this while I look at my notes?

MR. MORRISON: To the Minister, also when he's checking: are

there any additional archaeological digs on Vancouver Island

that they intend to proceed with, or are they just protecting

them so that they have access to them at a future date?

MR. WALLACE: Having castigated the Minister a moment ago,

I'd like to pay him a compliment now, which isn't done that

much in this House, but we had a park area in Oak Bay which we

were all keen to maintain as a park and which contained some

archaeological value. The Minister played an active role in

helping Oak Bay, not only to preserve the park but through the

land use committee — the cabinet committee — we were able to

acquire funds to pay for about a third of the cost.

I think it's appropriate, Mr. Chairman, to introduce to the

House, in the gallery today, the former Mayor of Oak Bay, Mrs.

Frances Elford. At the time as far back as she and I were on

council together, we were trying to find ways and means to

preserve Anderson Hill as a park.

I just think that since we spend so much time throwing

brick bats in this House, it's rather pleasant to be able to

thank the Minister for his participation. He brought a great

deal of useful information to bear in regard to the

archaeological value of that site. The park has now been

established and I would like, on behalf of all the people of

Oak Bay, to thank the Minister for his participation.

HON. MR. HALL: To answer the question about site inventory

projects of the Member for Victoria (Mr. Morrison),

archaeological site inventory projects have resulted in 1,200

new sites being added to the provincial site record. This was

as a direct result of the Department of Labour's Careers '74

programme last year.

I don't know if the Minister of Labour realized that the range of the activity

of the students engaged in that programme was so widespread. The programme employed

over 100 students, including 60 native Indians, in all aspects of archaeological

research. We also employed two law students to assist the board committee with

research into antiquities legislation in British Columbia.

There were 1,200 sites — this was in addition to 800 sites

recorded by other projects that were carrying out work under

the permits that I issue — which made a total of 2,000 sites

being added to the provincial site record during the last year.

So now our total inventory of archaeological sites is 7,000 for

the entire province. I don't have them split down into

geographical areas, but I could get that for you.

Okay, now to Yale. In the distribution of the vote by

project, Mr. Chairman, I've estimated about $160,000 for Yale.

We've purchased a few properties. We haven't fleshed out the

project. We haven't got a design or concept firmly established

in our minds yet at all. We felt we should move into the area.

We felt that Yale is of historic significance. We felt that we

should look upon Yale as another thing to start working on as

other administrations have looked upon Fort Steele and

Barkersville and others. A slow beginning and slowly flesh out

the concept: that is what we are doing.

It may be — and I don't know this — that we might have

bought the odd wrong piece of property in the sense of the

trueness of the accuracy of history. If that is so, then so be

it. But I don't think that is going to be costly mistake or

anything like that. That's the information I've got here.

MR. BENNETT: Just to follow up then: the sites purchased

aren't for a particular restoration because, as the Provincial

Secretary would know, the old houses aren't really historical.

They are very close to the railroad tracks. It is going to be a

difficult project to historically restore Yale, or that type of

restoration, or even to take it to another Barkerville. That is

why there is some concern in the area as to just what is in the

government's mind I think all of us know the historical

significance of Yale in British Columbia's history. But they

are concerned about the expenditure, the style of the

expenditure, the amount and what the ultimate plans are. I

think that is where the concern is. If they could have even a

glimmer of what the ultimate intent is, I think the people will

feel....

HON. MR. HALL: I think I will discuss with the department

and the MLA of the area the advisability of holding a meeting

of some description which would involve the elected people and

the local community and any of their cultural organizations

that would be involved in this kind of thing.

It's mostly on Front Street near the river, I'm told. It is

a bit since I was in Yale, to be honest. It's a bit

[ Page 3882 ]

since we were all anywhere, really, isn't it? But let's go

to Yale next weekend.

Vote 207 approved.

On vote 208: provincial emergency programme, $1,305,634.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, this vote simply has

"sundry employees, 42." I wonder why there is no breakdown for

that. That's the first question I might put to the

Minister.

The second question: this vote deals with financial

assistance to municipalities for oil and chemical spills, et

cetera, and we learned last September in Bellingham that there

had been no co-ordination whatsoever between B.C. and

Washington provincial and state governments with respect to oil

spill clean-up. We learned earlier this year that the

federal-provincial cooperation within Canada had really not

taken place either, and there is a meeting this month, in June

I understand — it may have just taken place — to set up joint

machinery.

I would like to know why there has been this tremendous

delay and why, indeed, the province, which of course is

responsible when oil hits the beaches, has not worked out some

contingency plan of its own. We had the recent case in Oak Bay.

We had a recent case in Cowichan Bay. We've had the case in

West Vancouver. There were a number of isolated cases, and each

one seemed to be handled very much on an ad hoc basis.

Responsibility is not clear, financing is not clear and it

appears to be just a question of municipal, provincial and

federal governments attempting to shift the burden of cost onto

the other parties.

Could the Minister indicate to us what the results of the

meeting with the federal authorities were, whether more

meetings are planned and whether or not there will be any

meetings with the American authorities?

MR. MORRISON: I wonder if the Minister could give us some

explanations of what the current role for volunteers is in this

particular programme. I think this is the outgrowth of the

civil defence organization, which is probably still in this

vote. Since there is nearly a doubling of the dollar amount in

it.... I don't want to go into a long procedure on it, but I

understand there is a programme change in it, and I wonder if

the Minister could explain that to us.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, the Minister introduced a bill which apparently

is not to be proceeded with, and I wonder if, without trespassing on the rules

of the House, the Minister could just briefly say what are the big deficiencies

in the legislation which he referred to as being the reason for introducing

that bill, subsequently to be left on the order paper. I gather that his point

refers mainly to oil spills and other kinds of disasters, which is not the general

thrust of the existing legislation.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

On that point I would like to support the Liberal leader

(Mr. D.A. Anderson) in his comments that there seems to be a

lack of real progress in coordinated planning with other levels

of government and with clear jurisdictional decisions as to who

pays for what. As the Minister knows, I raised this issue of

the bill that Oak Bay has been trying to recover for a year or

more and the runaround they are getting from the Department of

the Environment, having first dealt with the Department of

Transportation. Presumably the federal government may well

manage to shuffle them around to some other department before

we are finished.

It seems to me that we are being very slow to respond to

what inevitably one day will happen — and we needn't go through

the whole discussion of the tanker situation off the coast.

This is something we are all well aware of. But what

specifically in the near future can the Minister tell us will

be happening in the way of meetings with the federal government

to try to hammer out some clear agreement as to how, first of

all, these disasters can be prevented, but, perhaps equally

important, what will be the cost-sharing formulas that the

Minister will present to the federal government when these

meetings occur, and when will these meetings occur?

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Chairman, you will appreciate that there

have been some difficulties in getting staff around for some of

these extended debates on estimates, as we've slowly got into

periods of time in which no staff envisaged we would still be

here. That's only by way of a momentary problem. I can get some

of these questions for you.

But I will tell you that I think it would be

counter-productive for me to give you generalities by way of

answering oil-spill questions. I don't intend to do that.

So we are now faced with the problem of either watching this

vote carefully so we can reintroduce it tomorrow or do it some

other way. To tell you what we have been attempting to do is

one thing, but I think, as it has now come up three times in

discussion, the Members should have a better answer than that

which I am equipped at this point in time to give them. Let's

see how it goes.

The role for volunteers: there is still a very great role

for volunteers and we are still conducting a great training

programme for people who are anxious to get involved in either

a leadership role or a straight functional role in the various

programmes — the

[ Page 3883 ]

patrol programmes, rescue programmes — and to meet this

requirement a greater proportion of the training section's time

is being devoted to the training of volunteers, particularly in

search-and-rescue courses.

The provincial training staff have attended courses of

instruction at BCIT and other institutions, so they can pass on

that knowledge. During 1974 a lot of people attended courses of

the provincial emergency training establishment at Victoria:

community emergency planning, emergency health services; first

aid; heavy rescue; map and compass use; search and rescue;

advanced search and rescue and the techniques of instruction.

In addition, we had some people go to Arnprior. But I don't

think we could say that the people who went to Arnprior were

volunteers. They are more likely to be public servants of one

kind or another.

Local-level training is conducted by provincially trained

volunteer instructors or by branch staff instructors. We

trained 5,002 people in 1974. The breakdown is: air services,

130; auxiliary fire, 358; auxiliary police, 378.... I will

resist the temptation of belabouring one of your colleagues

about that programme, your friend Mrs. McCarthy, because we are

in a good mood this morning. But I think that some of the

statements that have been made about emergency police have been

less than useful. Communications, 279; community emergency

planning, 389; first aid, 324; health planning, 378; marine

services, 109; search and rescue — this is the real volunteer

group — 1,829 people; and welfare planning — I don't know what

that would mean — 825.

So we have now got all of those programmes, including

communications, going out into the community. I think we are

doing a pretty good job for volunteers and most of my inquiries

and questions from audiences when I go around the province have

been usually prefixed by congratulations about the programme

kicking itself into the 20th century and reorienting itself

towards the kinds of problems that are facing us as a community

at this point in time.

I will not trespass on the rules of the House in replying to

the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) on the deficiencies of the

legislation currently before us. There is a bill before us and

I'm not going to get into that area.

I think, Mr. Chairman, I would like to delay this vote at

least until the end of my estimates and move on to another one

so I can assemble the information regarding oil spill

preparedness.

Leave granted.

On vote 209: Provincial Elections Act, $539,592.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I think in the throne speech one of the major

thrusts was electoral reform. While we're not going to have an Election Act

this session, there has been a lot of talk about redistribution — I think it's

of concern to the whole House. I wonder if it's under this vote that the Minister

will be appointing the commission that will go around the province this summer

as stated by the Premier and report back to the House in the fall with legislation

to bring about a reallocation of seats in British Columbia reflecting the change

in population.

I wonder if the Minister could advise us now in this vote if

he is prepared to name the commission or appoint the

commission, the terms of reference, and at what time we could

see the recommendations from this commission being brought in

to the House in the form of legislation.

HON. MR. HALL: This isn't the vote; I don't think it's of

any overwhelming significance. The next one will be the actual.... If there's any money involved, it will be in the next one.

But let's deal with the subject because they are allied.

The Provincial Elections Act — yes, we want to do two things

there. First of all, we want to bring in a bill on expenses and

we want to also improve the elections Act itself. It's my hope

that we will during this session — this parliament — it's not

the sitting, it's the session. Don't get caught up on the

semantics.

MR. BENNETT: In the fall.

HON. MR. HALL: We hope to bring in an Election Expenses Act,

which eventually may become

part 4 of the Elections Act or

something like that. The technique is of interest only to those

students of the legislative process itself. That has already

been well-canvassed in the press.

Frankly, we didn't proceed as well with it and as fast with

it as we though we would do. We wanted also to see what

happened in one jurisdiction where they had a pretty tough

Elections Act. It seems to me to be begging the question to

push on for the sake of a couple of weeks when we had a living

laboratory — two provinces to the east of us. That's one

problem.

The second one is the redistribution which is, in effect, an

amendment of the Constitution Act — that part of it which deals

with the boundaries of our ridings. The Premier has from time

to time announced that is his intention to get on as quickly as

possible with the business of changing the boundaries and

having a redistricting or a redistribution system. That is

going on in the sense that I have told my staff in the

provincial elections branch — Mr. Morton and others — that they

should be collecting their material in readiness for the

commission. Mr. Morton, as you know, was a member of the

previous commission and he's anxious to get on with the work as

he was,

[ Page 3884 ]

indeed, in 1966 when he was asked, but not successful in

serving on the federal commission.

The questions are, then: are we going ahead with it? The

answer is yes. Two, when can I tell the House that we're going

to announce the names? Well, I think that's going to be very

soon. I would imagine not long after the Premier arrives back

from the U.K. we'll be announcing a commission that will hold

hearings and will produce some material for people to pass

comment upon, including ourselves if we have a mind to go to

those places. Then it will come back as it did before and

report, which will then take the form of an amending Act to the

Constitution Act and debate will then ensue as it did in the

spring session of 1966. That's the timetable as I see it.

Whether that debate takes place in the fall session or

whether it takes place in the spring session — this fall or the

spring of 1976, I don't know. I think most people would like to

see it done as soon as possible.

MR. BENNETT: Just to follow up. There is some concern. I see

some people holding nominating conventions; I notice that the

First Member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) was

re-nominated. Some of these nominations may be invalid later. I

think it would be helpful to the whole House to have some idea

of when the commission will be appointed and a definite term of

reference for reporting back.

The reason I brought it up under this vote — I see temporary

assistance has gone up from $10,912 to $300,000. I would like

you to explain to the House why this enormous jump in temporary

assistance in the provincial Elections Act.

AN HON. MEMBER: They're ready to go. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. HALL: That would appear to be the conclusion one

could draw from it. (Laughter.)

MR. BENNETT: Just a follow-up. I would like an explanation

of where the extra $290,000 is going to be spent, whether the

Provincial Secretary did anticipate an election or whether this

will be the money expended for the commission on

redistribution.

HON. MR. HALL: The answer is yes. (Laughter.)

MR. GARDOM: I missed one word of the Provincial Secretary.... Did you indicate, Mr. Provincial Secretary, this to be a

three-man commission or a one-man — or "one-person" commission,

I should say.

HON. MR. HALL: It will be more than one person.

MR. GARDOM: More than one person. I would like to make an

observation dealing with this vote — I haven't heard an

expression of opinion from the Provincial Secretary dealing

with this item.

Since it appears to be the contemplated procedure of this

government that elections are going to be financed out of the

public purse, surely that is another extremely valid argument

that there be fixed dates — established dates for election

procedures in this province, save and except in the event that

the government is defeated. Because at the present time the

public have experienced a degree of continuous uncertainty in

this province since really it went into Confederation.

The electoral process is becoming greatly more expensive and

without any question of a doubt the expense the public will

have to face for election procedures under this administration,

in view of the fact that they propose to have it financed out

of the public purse, those expenses will be almost astronomic

to the extent that heretofore have been faced.

So I think this is support to the argument that has been

raised in this corner of the House ever since I've been here,

for established and fixed dates for elections in the Province

of British Columbia, save and except in the event that the

government is defeated on the floor. I'd like to have the views

and comment of the Hon. the Provincial Secretary to that

point.

HON. MR. HALL: I'm not too sure that under this vote we

should get into a long debate about the advisability of fixed

elections, fixed election dates. I could respond to the Member

but I don't see, looking at the history of a parliamentary

system that doesn't have those kinds of provisions, us

comparing it with the kind of problems that are got into with

lame-duck legislators and others in other type of

jurisdictions. Qualitatively I'm not too sure that I entirely

agree with what the Member says. However, that's a matter of

some opinion and it could be a useful debate sometime when we

have the Elections Act before us.

May I go back to the examination by the Leader of the

Opposition (Mr. Bennett) on the temporary assistance vote and

before he dashes off to order more seagull buttons and

everything else (laughter) to tell him that we have, of course,

an agreement now that we are producing voters' lists in more

levels than just the provincial level. We are cooperating with

the municipalities and the school districts and so on, and

apparently with the interdepartmental committee from Municipal

Affairs, Education and Mr. Morton's staff.

We shall be doing a great deal of work this year in the

preparation of voters' lists. We are trying to establish them

on a combined level. I think we all remember discussing that

when legislation went

[ Page 3885 ]

through and that is the explanation of most of that.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, now that the Provincial

Secretary has confirmed that there is going to be an election,

perhaps he'd fill us on the date? (Laughter.)

Vote 209 approved.

On vote 2 10: Public Inquiries Act, $100,000.

MR. CHABOT: On vote 210, I was wondering as the Provincial

Secretary is responsible for the office of the Queen's Printer,

responsible for the home of the Lieutenant-Governor, and

responsible for a great variety of things surrounding

government. I wonder if he would have a little investigation or

something maybe under this vote as to why I find an increasing

degree of erroneous and fictitious information appearing in the

Speech from the Throne as the years go on.

This year, under vote 209 we are led to believe there's

going to be electoral reform this session which hasn't taken

place. We've been led to believe there's going to be a change —

the Hours of Work Act, Annual and General Holidays Act...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. CHABOT: ...Wages Act. Social Assistance Act. New

Outdoors Recreation Act. A Wild Rivers and Wilderness Act.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I think the proper procedure....

MR. CHABOT: I'm on vote 210 and I'm just asking is there

going to be an inquiry regarding all the erroneous information

that is given in the Speech from the Throne from the

Lieutenant-Governor? He must feel tremendously embarrassed

giving this kind of information to the Members of this

House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The Hon. Member could direct

his question to the Lieutenant-Governor.

MR. CHABOT: I'm wondering whether we can expect some

improvement in the speeches from the Throne. You know it's

getting ridiculous. We've got another $50,000 on the Public

Inquiries Act, maybe that's the reason for this additional

money. It is to make sure that in the future when speeches from

the Throne are delivered that they're reasonably accurate and

not as erroneous as....

HON. MR. HALL: I'd want to disabuse the Member of what he

obviously holds dear in his heart — that somehow we're all going tomorrow or something.

MR. CHABOT: Oh, no.

HON. MR. HALL: There's lots of time for that legislation to

come in, Mr. Member. You're presupposing that the session is

ending tomorrow. It's not....

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't get into that argument.

HON. MR. HALL: I'm not going to stand up here and prorogue

the House tomorrow and wish you Godspeed on your way home.

We're only going to adjourn — maybe for a couple of days.

There's lots of time for that legislation to come in. I don't

think there's any need for an inquiry. (Laughter.)

MR. GARDOM: It certainly is a very fair question to ask the

Provincial Secretary what public inquiries are contemplated

within the economic confines of this vote because during this

session there's been an awful lot of talk about reviewing and

reconsidering the Columbia River treaty; there's been an awful

lot of talk about the secret committee and the leaked document

and the controversial typewriter; there's been a lot of debate

concerning B.C. Railway and the estimating, bidding, accounting

and reporting of the practices of that railway. I would ask the

Hon. Provincial Secretary: is it contemplated within this vote

of $150,000 that these public inquiries can take place? Or is

it merely more an indication of the fact that it's not possible

within these confines, and that the statements and the

assurances that were uttered to this House by the Hon. Premier

are in essence nothing more than a sham and political

smokescreen?

HON. MR. HALL: Oh, I think what we're faced with here, Mr.

Member, is a vote that we feel would provide sufficient money

to have an inquiry, or some inquiries, from year to year. Our

experience has been that almost every year we need a bit more

money. I know, because the Member's anxious to dig into the

truth, that if we have to pass a special warrant to provide

some moneys for an inquiry into those serious charges that he's

just catalogued to the House, he for one would lend his support

and never again ever talk about the inability of this

government to provide money for the work that it has to do.

MR. GARDOM: Well, I gave the Hon. Provincial Secretary every

assurance that I'm not going to give him that, because the

proper place to have this vote discussed and voted upon is

right here, today. If you're talking about $150,000, I think

you've got to indicate to the House the reason for that

expenditure

[ Page 3886 ]

and as to whether or not it will be sufficient. On its face

value it would seem to be insufficient. The Provincial

Secretary has not indicated to anyone here if there is, indeed,

going to be any public inquiry of anything. So if there's not

going to be one, I'm not going to go this special warrant

route. No way at all. If the government decides, as they've

indicated, that they're going to hold these inquiries, let them

stick by it and let them have it appropriately discussed during

the debate on this vote 210.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Chairman, the Member is being a little

bit out of order in the sense...

MR. GARDOM: No, no.

HON. MR. HALL: ...that he knows that these estimates were

prepared a long time ago. He knows that they are as estimate of

expenditure, and they are not written in stone. No government

can ever do that. He knows as well as I do that the things that

have come to light since the production of this book must be

dealt with as the government sees fit. I know that he wouldn't

like to stand up here next year and answer the question as to

why he was so reluctant, so critical of special warrants to

look into things, having just made that speech.

MR. GARDOM: No, no, Mr. Provincial Secretary. What is

$150,000 for? Is there one public inquiry contemplated?

HON. MR. HALL: It's the amount of money that's put in the estimates

that is our guesstimate of how much money we would have needed for public inquiries

at the time this book was prepared.

MR. GARDOM: What public inquiries did you have in

contemplation at the time the book was prepared?

HON. MR. HALL: We don't necessarily have to have any.

However, over the last 100 years, since Confederation of this

province, we know there has been a necessity to have public

inquiries.

MR. GARDOM: When the book was prepared, Mr. Provincial

Secretary, you say you didn't estimate any public inquiries;

none were contemplated. So why do you have $150,000?

HON. MR. HALL: You know, if we had the gift to see each

other as others see us, we'd be a lot wiser.

Vote 210 approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports resolutions

and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:02 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1975, 2001, 2013: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada