1970 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 29th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 1970

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 119 ]

The House met at 2 p.m.

The Clerk informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr.

Speaker, whereupon Mr. Bruch, Deputy Speaker, took the chair pursuant

section 46 (2) of theConstitution Act.

THRONE DEBATE

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs.

HON. DANIEL R.J. CAMPBELL (Comox): Mr. Speaker, as that song

says, "It's so nice to see you back where you belong." It's also nice

to see quite a number of other people back here where they belong, and

I can't help but comment that quite a number of the new faces are from

Vancouver Island. While we certainly want to commence this afternoon by

wishing all new members well, and I do, and particularly the mover and

seconder of the address delivered by His Honour on Opening Day.

Vancouver Island, and of course we always include in that area of

British Columbia the great area of theSun shine Coast, looked after so

very well by my colleague from Mackenzie, but when we left here last

year, we had a couple of gaps in the representation from Vancouver

Island, and over the course of events, and I am not going to go into a

lengthy post-mortem about those events of the summer, we brought to

this Legislature the great new member from Nanaimo, we replaced the

silent member from Oak Bay by the new and outspoken Member from Oak

Bay, and in the great riding of Cowichan-Malahat, we came very close to

making it 9 for 9 and we will next time, Mr. former Leader.

MR. ROBERT M. STRACHAN (Cowichan-Malahat): You want to bet?

MR. CAMPBELL: Yes, yes…certainly. You put up a pound of haggis and I'll put up a pound of crow feathers for you, my friend. (Laughter)

Before we started this exercise of the Speech from the Throne, Mr.

Speaker, we were told by the honourable the interim Leader of the

Opposition that the Opposition was going to carry on a form of

guerrilla warfare. As I recall, they were going to fight on the hills,

the beaches and on the landing fields and wherever else they could

roost. Then we were told that he was going to kill us by politeness and

he certainly came awful close to that, if not killing us with boredom,

and then the former leader was moved to say that the democratic

socialist party, of course, never fights a polite war, but at the same

meeting he said the democratic socialist party will fight for what is

right all the time. Always have and always will, and we wonder when it

is going to start.

AN HON. MEMBER: …. always have and always will.

MR. CAMPBELL: …and it was exciting in the early period just

after the election. You know there was still a former leader and there

was something to be done about burying that particular corpse, and on

the morning of a certain press conference in Vancouver, when the former

leader was in Vancouver announcing his resignation, the interim

leader-to-be was over here in the halls of the Legislature with a screw

driver in his hand, unscrewing the name plate while the corpse was

still twitching in Vancouver. As I recall, that day the old refrain

kept running through my mind — "he walked the bloody tower — with his

head, tucked underneath his arm."

Then I can't help but thank those who came to the Comox constituency

during the election both before it and during it, because they were so

helpful. I notice you are sending a new batch, the member for Surrey

has been there recently, and I hope that you keep up your visits,

because they have been helpful in the past and I know they will be

helpful in the future. The leader of the Liberal party, I want to thank

you for your visit to that Liberal wasteland, as somebody described it,

because one of the interesting things about the election was the

tremendous ability of that objective group the press — the swamis of

the printed word, to come up with the direction in which the public of

this Province were going to determine the course of the next few years

of political history in British Columbia. At least one of them

recognized the swamp land or wasteland, as I recall, of Vancouver

Island. As the Liberal leader came down from the Interior with all his

ideas — it was just about that time that things really came to a head

in his thinking, because he was bouncing around the Province saying

"I'm winning, I'm winning, I'm winning". Then he thought he rose to the

heights, and one really had to think about it before one could believe

that he had actually said it, that as he trailed for the second time

through the South Okanagan, he said that he was going to knock the

Premier off.

AN HON. MEMBER: I thought it was going to be marijuana that you were using.

MR. CAMPBELL: …It became very obvious, as things went

along, that the Liberal leader certainly was running around B.C. like

an animated beany hat in a bus, trying to discover whether or not if

you said it often enough — I'm winning, I'm winning, I'm winning, it

was going to happen. Of course the people of British Columbia do not

trust the Liberal party, and I'm going to, at least in one remark this

afternoon, make it clear why they don't trust the Liberal party.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're getting partisan.

MR. CAMPBELL: …No, I never, that's one thing you can never accuse the member for Comox in this Legislature of ever being — partisan.

…Then, yesterday, we saw the beginning of the new look of the NDP

— they had over the years had a shotgun marriage with labour. After the

election they discovered that they probably would like to have a

quickie divorce, and now they are going to try and have it both ways in

the minds of the public of this Province, and continue to live in

common law. I say, Mr. Speaker, that the people of British Columbia

don't trust that tactic either, because they know you for what you are,

and all the years since 1956 I've seen this thing go up and down like a

yo-yo as to the position of the NDP party in British Columbia. It

always recalls to my mind a picture put out on the various changes in

the period of history as Joe Stalin moves across the stage in Russia. I

remember seeing a motion picture where the hot came on and the cold

came on, and as he stood on the balcony in the Kremlin waving at the

people, first of all you saw the smile, then you saw the frown, then

you got the smile back, then you got the frown, and many times, Mr.

Speaker, I've said

[ Page 120 ]

about this particular party opposite that has the

responsibility for the loyal Opposition in British Columbia, the people

don't trust you because they know that underneath all that

sugar-coating there is pure and simple arsenic.

We wonder about pollution in this Province. I want to tell you that

the NDP record in British Columbia, the socialist party record in

British Columbia, has been just that. One moment you are presenting a

front, at one time it was the Wall Street look of the former leader,

remember with his statue in his hand, the Bond Street look. Then we

were the only friends of labour in this Province, and the reason for

the people on this side of the House being there that come from labour

ridings, is that they do not trust you. They do not trust you. When the

leader, the former deputy leader, stood up here yesterday and tried to

suggest to the people of British Columbia that the shotgun marriage is

over, the quickie divorce has been registered, and we are now going to

live in common law, make no mistake about it, the people know you for

what you are. They know you for what you are. Of all the tactics, Mr.

Speaker, to try and start out the first year of the 70's with this

blatant attempt to try and give some more sugar on that arsenic,

yesterday's performance had to be pretty good, had to be pretty good. I

don't know why all the birds are jumping out of their nests so quickly.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you that, having conducted a very

quick post-mortem, I am going to get on and I am only going to talk

about four subjects this afternoon, and I want to be finished by 3

o'clock, and I will be if I am not interrupted by any arsenic pills

from across the way. Mr. Speaker, the NDP socialists after the last

election already put their fingers in the air. They went to the

Convention and they said, "My gosh, the labour people in this Province

didn't support us. The wives of the labour people didn't support us.

The social welfare recipients didn't support us. The old age pensioners

didn't support us. The people didn't support us." And they said, "Gosh,

we've got to change our image. Our image is wrong. There is something

haywire. We've got to put on a new look. We've got to get out of that

mini skirt and put a little longer dress on so that we can hide our

knees." Eh?

I said, Mr. Speaker, that I would indicate in a very clear way this

afternoon why the people of British Columbia can no longer have faith

in the Liberal party, and I am going to do it in two parts, one having

to do with Delta superport, and the other having to do with the White

Paper, and both are equally important. In British Columbia, and I have

heard this from too many people here not to say something about it, Mr.

Speaker, because so often when members on this side of the House or

members of this Government take a position on behalf of British

Columbia, we always get the yak-yak that in some way we are trying to

be destructive of the unity of our country and we are trying to make in

some way a separatist suggestion. Nothing could be further from the

truth. But I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, it gets a little bit rough

when we have some problems in British Columbia here that are met with

the stony silence that we get from some of the people who represent

this Province in the Federal House. Seventeen Liberals in the Federal

House. Seventeen Liberals. Six N.D.P. Not one word about the position

of Roberts Bank with respect to its position within the geography of

the Province of British Columbia. Here we have the situation, Mr.

Speaker, where a Federal agent can make a statement such as this,

"Water lots such as Roberts Bank are not part of the Province of

British Columbia and therefore cannot be part of the municipality of

Delta".

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

MR. CAMPBELL: Now, Mr. Speaker, let's just examine what that

means. My colleague, the Minister of Lands and Forests in British

Columbia, has thousands — not just one, but thousands of water lots in

the Province of British Columbia that are off-shore. Campbell River. Do

you mean to tell me that the Campbell River Development that happens to

be in Discovery Passage is not in British Columbia? Do you mean to tell

me that the Tsawwassen Terminal is not in British Columbia? Do you mean

to tell me that all those recreational boat basins that people have

water lots on — do you mean to tell me that they are not in British

Columbia? Do you mean to tell me that if Kaiser Resources has a

position at Roberts Bank, and that if I send a letter to Kaiser

Resources at Delta that I don't send it to Delta, British Columbia?

Where in the name of common sense do I send it? Where do I send it?

Kaiser? Victoria? Japan? I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, the people of

British Columbia are getting fed up with the kind of…representation

that permits this kind of thing to happen here. Do you mean to tell me

that there are port facilities which are being handled on this kind of

a basis in Eastern Canada? I tell you the answer is no.

Mr. Speaker, do you mean to tell me that they would take Valley

Field, Quebec, which has a Port Authority of its own, and handle it in

such a way as they are going to handle Delta? I will tell you, Mr.

Speaker, the answer is No. They wouldn't dare. You better believe it

they wouldn't. But, Mr. Speaker, I don't have to take my maple leaf

down in this Legislature or anywhere else to say on behalf of the

people of the Province of British Columbia that this, my friend, is

absolutely unacceptable. Absolutely unacceptable. Mr. Speaker, let the

people of British Columbia know that they not only are silent in the

Federal House, they laugh here. They laugh here…. I tell you, Mr.

Speaker, they even tried to take the off-shore mineral question and

attach it to the Delta superport. How far-fetched can you get? Is there

some mine on Kaiser Resource Island in the middle of the Delta

Municipality? I ask the Liberal members opposite if you have anything

to do about representing the position of the Province of British

Columbia, why don't you get on the phone to the 17 members and just for

once — just for once, Mr. Speaker, present the case of the people of

the Province of British Columbia. Just once. Just once.

Mr. Speaker, I will make it very clear where the Province of British

Columbia stands. Roberts Bank is in British Columbia. Roberts Bank is

in the Municipality of Delta. And, Mr. Speaker, let their silence

indicate to the people of the Province of British Columbia why the

Liberal party should not be trusted. Make no mistake about that.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak for a few minutes on the

question of housing and, again, I am going to indicate as well why the

Liberal party is not to be trusted. This Government, over the years,

has tried to build incentives into the housing field in British

Columbia and I doubt if there is any Province — I know there is no

Province in this Dominion — where there is a finer programme for senior

citizens' housing than what there is in the Province of British

Columbia. I know, as well, that it is to the credit of the people who

are in service clubs and other organizations who have become a partner

with this Government in trying to make that programme effective, and I

think most members would agree that it is extremely effective.

[ Page 121 ]

Along the way the Government has moved in incentives which affect

the principle upon which this Government has always rested a very large

part of its political philosophy, and that is on the effectiveness of

the home and the family and on the private ownership of the home. That

has been one of the fundamental principles on which this Government has

done business in the Province of British Columbia. When we moved

through the home acquisition grant into the second mortgage field many

people, certainly insofar as second mortgages were concerned, wondered

how a small province — 2,000,000 people with the productive capacity

which we realize is perhaps second to none in the country — how we

could move into that area of providing second mortgages for

home-owners. But again, it was simply following the basic foundation

cornerstone of this Government which has always been individual

ownership and family life as far as the home is concerned.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if you take any of the homes in British Columbia

and you examine their values in terms of inflation, we can place that

to one side because everyone recognizes that inflation has had an

impact on the value of the family home today, everywhere, not just in

British Columbia, but all through the North American continent. But if

you really examine the other values which have been built into a home

in recent years and what causes an increase of value to a home, you

will quickly discover that the money that goes into the value of the

home is to be found in the local investment in the community in which

you find that home, whether it be hospital care or schools or roads,

sidewalks, streets, and so on. These are what make the inherent values

in our homes, and those values which are pumped into those communities

are not pumped in from the Federal treasury. They are pumped in by

municipalities, improvement districts, the Provincial Government

itself. Those values are pumped in and have an impact on what today you

might sell a home for, quite apart from the factor of inflation.

No one has said too much about the concept of the capital gains tax

as it applies to home-ownership, but let's assume — and I for one find

it difficult to even accept the proposition that anyone would consider

a capital gains tax on a person's home — but let's assume that the

Federal Government and the Liberal party have their way, and that there

does come about a situation where there is to be a capital gains tax on

a person's home. If that is the case, Mr. Speaker, it is almost

incredible that because of those values which are pumped in locally,

and almost 100 per cent locally, that any Federal Government would seek

to centralize the revenue potential of that kind of a situation. It is

almost incredible.

For the Federal Government to take the institution of the home and

place a capital gains tax on, and then not relate it back to where the

real values in pumping the values into that home are, I find almost

incredible and I don't think surely it will ever happen in this country

called Canada. Because that is a direct attack on the fundamental

principle that at least once in a person's lifetime he should be

entitled to a home. I don't care whether any of the members opposite

fight the question of capital gains tax on this, but we will. We will.

We will. Because this comes from the very fabric of our country and

make no mistake about that. No mistake about that. The idea that a

Federal Government should take those locally created values and try to

transfer them into a tax potential revenue resource at the Federal

level, at a central level, is just the worst possible direction in

which centralization in this country can go. Just the worst possible

revelation of this centralist tendency that is going to rip this kind

of society of ours apart. Not this country, because this country is

stronger than that.

These foolish attacks on that kind of a society which made us what

we are, and make Canadians different than a good many other parts of

the world, where they permitted tenant housing to get a-tremendous hold

on the population. Go to Sweden or Denmark or even England or Scotland

and find out how much of their life is wrapped up in the landlord and

tenant relationship and then ask yourself a simple question. Is that

the kind of country you want here? I say as far as I am concerned, that

is not the kind of country I want here, my friend…. I say, Mr.

Speaker, that we are going to continue to place the idea of incentives

along the way in the housing picture in spite of some of that type of

financial shenanigans by the Liberal government at Ottawa.

I want to say today that I want to ask industry and real estate to

examine a particular area of incentives for home ownership. You know,

an awful lot of old people, both psychologically and mentally and

financially, when they are in a home and they are people who are 65 to

70, this escalating cost structure that we are faced with today,

inflation that we are faced with today, places a very heavy mental

strain on a lot of older people in this Province and elsewhere, not

just in this Province but all over Canada and the United States. Many

old people, I know, are reluctant to examine some of the new incentives

which are inherent in some of the legislation we have here in the

Province of British Columbia. Condominium. Strata type. I am suggesting

a 5-5-5 plan, Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, where they, too, can examine

some of the possibilities of the modern concepts of providing houses.

Many old people, not all of them have their own homes but a good

many have, and they have got a great deal of capital tied up in them

and they are faced every year by escalating taxation and so on. But the

people in that age group, under the plans which have been presented by

this Government, can prequalify themselves for strata title housing.

It would be a good thing, in my view, to examine this possibility in

cooperation, as I have already indicated to the Old Age Pensioner

Organization, with the Government, that will help them put together

this kind of a package, where they might do two things — not only help

themselves, but add to the housing inventory in the Province by selling

the present home, and still moving into a title situation where they

have a deed to a place they can call home. Because the strata title or

the condominium does not presume that you have given up the idea of

owning your own home. Quite the reverse, it's just another way to

provide housing for any group of people, but I want to speak

particularly about that age group beyond the age of 65. If they use the

$5,000 from selling a home and say, so that we can get some figures for

you to think about, they may own a home that is worth about $16,000 to

$18,000 at today's present market prices. They can sell that home, put

$5,000 or perhaps less, but $5,000 using this scheme so it is easier to

follow, $5,000 in as a down payment on a strata title corporation,

$5,000 second mortgage from the Provincial Home Acquisition Grant

legislation, and $5,000 from the first mortgage. At $15,000 they will

have a plateau rent situation which will come in in the order of about

$100 to $110 a month.

But quite apart from that, in the strata title which you can build

today in a modern concept, you are not going to limit these people in

these strata title corporations simply to

[ Page 122 ]

the unit which they construct for themselves,

because you can build in at the same unit price — I think this is

important — you can build in the recreational areas which are jointly

owned and managed. You can build in, in some instances, certain aspects

of home care, practical nursing, nurses, and/or registered nurses could

be employed in these particular facilities. Yet the individual would

not lose his sense of dignity, he would not lose any sense of security,

and he would not lose any sense in the pride of ownership because he in

fact would still own a transferable title and a registerable title to

that portion of the building which was his.

I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this is another kind of incentive

which is illustrative of the kind of thing that the Government of

British Columbia has been trying to do, and we've been trying to make

these things available for people so that this sense of ownership and

this sense of security, and this sense of dignity does not go down the

drain with foolish schemes of socialism and more foolish schemes by the

White Paper. So, Mr. Speaker, I certainly intend in the next little

while to pursue, as I have already indicated, an interest on the part

of Old Age Pensioner Organizations, and I want to say that my colleague

from Mackenzie, as she has done in the past in the area of senior

citizens housing, will be helping these groups, because in British

Columbia you can prequalify. This can be a packaged arrangement long

before the homes are built, and if you bring in the elements of the

industry and you bring in the elements of real estate, you bring in the

elements of Government, and if those three together can make British

Columbia a better place, a more secure place and a more dignified place

for senior citizens in terms of housing, then we are going to get on

with the job and do it.

Mr. Speaker, in the next few years of the 70's municipal government

as well is certainly going to change, and I'm not going to be

exhaustive about this subject this afternoon, but I want to bring one

aspect of it to the attention of the House, because a little later on

in the Session there certainly will be an opportunity to discuss some

of these things in terms of legislation.

But, I can report to this Legislature once again, Mr. Speaker, as

I've done now for quite a number of years, that the municipalities in

British Columbia are better treated financially than. any

municipalities in any other Province in Canada. I can report again, Mr.

Speaker, to this Legislature that financially the municipalities of

British Columbia finance more out of revenue surplus than other surplus

accounts that exist anywhere else in Canada. I can report, Mr. Speaker,

that there is no other place in Canada where municipalities can

indicate on a five-year basis what their capital budget requirements

are, and that no other place in Canada could they say they require

$460,000,000 over the course of the next five years, and that

$246,000,000 of that will be financed from their own revenue sources

without borrowing. I tell you, Mr. Speaker, that there is no other part

of Canada or North America that could make that statement about their

municipalities.

I can report that municipalities of British Columbia still have the

highest percentage of tax collections of anywhere else — not only in

Canada, but in the world. If you think that that has anything

completely to do with the legislation that is presented by this

Government from time to time, you are just 100 per cent right, because

the home-owner grant, Mr. Speaker, makes it possible for people in

British Columbia to pay their taxes like they pay them nowhere else in

Canada. I can tell you there is no comparison, no comparison. That

money, because it flows into the municipal treasury on the day the tax

bill is presented to the Minister of Finance, and that goes into the

municipal treasury before their current budget has been used throughout

their fiscal year, that means that they are not only prepaying their

taxes in British Columbia, but that the Province of British Columbia

through the Government of the Province of British Columbia, is

prepaying their taxes, and that happens nowhere else in Canada, nowhere

else. If you take the amount of the money transferred from the Province

to the municipalities in British Columbia, and you put it on a per

capita basis, there is no provincial government that transfers more of

their revenue to local government on a per capita basis than this

Government. Even if you take it from the other point of view, and you

say how much is much, and most of the time it's how much is more, if

you take the amount of revenue that comes totally to the Government of

the Province of British Columbia, that is to the total government

operation, you'll find that transferred to the local levels of

government in the Province of British Columbia, that over 50 per cent

of our Budget goes to local government, goes to local government, and,

Mr. Speaker, there is no other province in Canada that can make that

statement, and I can assure you of that.

But there are, in my view, there are some skunks in the garden, Mr.

Minister of Finance, skunks in the garden patch. That's right, and,

they're becoming more obvious every day. Last year the Department of

Municipal Affairs, and I'm only going to touch down in one area because

there are lots more, last year the Department of Municipal Affairs

commissioned a study on a test area in British Columbia to look at some

of the trends on the cost of municipal administration, and I am sorry

to report to you that there are many areas in British Columbia where

the costs of standing still are making municipalities run away insofar

as taxes are concerned. You can look around British Columbia and find

lots of examples of this and, of course, this opens up the whole area

of amalgamation and unit costs and all sorts of things.

But just to give you an idea, Mr. Speaker, of what's happening, in

this test area in 1964 the administrative costs — and that's not

legislation, that's not the foreman on the job for public works — this

is just straight administrative costs, in 1964 in this test area the

cost of administration was $350,000 excluding the villages and

excluding the school boards and excluding the local improvement

districts. That's only those municipalities which were beyond village

status, $350,000 in 1964, $400,000 in 1965, $470,000 in 1966, $510,000

in 1967, five years, and the latest year for which we have the figures

$560,000 in 1968. An approximate increase in administrative costs alone

of 15 per cent per year. Projected to 1972 in this area, which is only

eight years, the cost of administering local government in this area,

and I repeat exclusive of school boards, local improvement districts,

regional districts, simply the municipalities beyond village status

will reach by 1972, $790,000.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I think what can be said here in a very legitimate

way is that municipalities that are in that kind of shape should start

to look at putting their own house in order before they come to any

level of Government requesting additional funds, because these

municipalities are obviously running to keep still. If you examine tax

notices of some of these municipalities you'll find that without adding

15 cents to the quality of service or 10 cents to the quantity of

service in those years I'm speaking about, you'll find that in order to

just maintain that apparatus of government, that is what the

[ Page 123 ]

taxpayer is paying by way of bills.

To illustrate the kind of thing that was discovered during the

course of this study which we were on last year, and I'm not referring,

by the way, for the sake of the new members in the House, to the

financial study which will come later. This is simply the cost of the

structure of local government in a single test area in British

Columbia. All the population figures were worked out so the figures I'm

using were weighted with the population taken into account, so that the

population increase was not the cause of the increase of

administration…. (Numerous interjections by some honourable members).

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please! Will the member please continue with his speech.

MR. CAMPBELL: The only thing that I would prefer not to do,

and I don't intend to do it, so I will tell you now, I don't intend to

identify this area because I could make the same case in any part of

British Columbia. This was a test area. But I do want to indicate that

this was the kind of thing that was discovered. In one particular

municipality, in order to get a burial plot, somebody was pushing 10

pieces of paper around. In order to build a house in one particular

municipality somebody was pushing 17 pieces of paper around, 17

different administrative exercises in order to get a building permit,

and these were all charted on this report, and if any of the members of

the House want to look at this report I would prefer that they look at

it in terms of being for their own information. I have no objection to

anything in it being made public, except the name of the area involved,

because this was done on the basis of a test and was done to fit it

into other parts of the Province. As a matter of fact, as this was

being done in the test area, we did it in other areas as the thing

developed, as well.

The point I am trying to make is this, Mr. Speaker, that in the 70's

it is quite obvious that we cannot afford the structure of government

that we got ourselves through the 60's with, and these municipal

councils who haven't taken a look at some of the ramifications of the

age of technology and the use of computers, and are continuing with

this sort of thing, you cannot expect the Province of British Columbia

or any other level of government to pick up the tab for that kind of a

situation. It's just not possible. This is a situation where the

municipalities will have to put their administrative house in order,

because there is no way that you can find enough money to look after

not only the politically parochial aspects of municipal governments but

the administratively parochial aspects of municipal government. It

simply cannot be, and I see that there are still people in British

Columbia who cannot find it in their minds to contemplate something

like this. North Vancouver city and North Vancouver district are two

cases in point. Yes, we'll amalgamate but five years from now, or we'll

amalgamate but not this week but next week, or we'll amalgamate and

have a go at joint services, but please don't rush us because we would

rather have a further study and a further study and a further study.

Mr. Speaker, we are not going to solve the problems of pollution, we

are not going to solve the problems of housing, we are not going to

solve the problems of urban transit, we're not going to solve any of

these problems, we're not going to solve them until there is a

realistic look taken at the machinery we are going to use to do the job

in the 70's, and administratively I've just given you one small part of

it.

Mr. Speaker, maybe some of the older people who are in municipal

life will not understand what is necessary here, will perhaps be joined

by others who do, and I want to announce this afternoon that at least,

in part, some of these decisions in the 70's will be made by the

younger people of British Columbia, because I am going to announce this

afternoon that I am recommending that the voting age for the Municipal

Act be reduced to 19.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to just spend a word on this question

of pollution because basically, in this debate, almost everyone else

has. I was somewhat relieved to find in the edition of the Vancouver Daily Province

two mornings ago, just the beginning of some understanding of the kind

of pollution control mechanism that this Government has been pursuing

for some time, with very little public understanding of what we were

trying to do, In 1965, the Government of this Province had a choice to

make. In 1965, if you examine all the clutter of legislation that's on

the books with respect to pollution control across North America and

indeed Canada, and I know that the leader of the Liberal party must

have had a good deal of that kind of legislation in that box, because

we looked at most of it, the biggest mistake that was made in pollution

control in any other part of North America was to approach the question

of pollution control on the basis of contractual permits to pollute,

for want of a better description, and I am going to explain what that

means. A contractual permit to pollute was a kind of permit which was

delivered to an individual municipality, to an industry and, in effect,

it said, you have the right to place in this body of water, a certain

amount of dissolved content whether it be organic, inorganic, or of a

bacteriological nature, and they placed this, having built up what they

call standard methods of control. As a result, two things happened

along the way. Yes, they had pollution control legislation, but this is

exactly what happened. First of all, they had entered into a binding

contract with an individual or a municipality or an industry to pollute.

No — wait a minute, now you listen to this, because I don't think

you understand this either, but there was a glimmer of understanding in

the editorial page of the Vancouver Province the other morning.

Two things happened, first of all, as they moved along through their

theoretical application of pollution control law, they found that they

had an accumulation of pollution, not only in their lakes but in their

rivers, and I can recall the Don River, and the Trank River and the

Delaware River and the Monagahela River, and the Ohio River, and if you

want to examine the pollution control statutes which obtain and still

obtain in those rivers, you go ahead and look at them, and you'll find

that they…

AN HON. MEMBER: The Fraser River, the Peace River….

MR. CAMPBELL: …I'm going to come to that, too. Be patient.

…that they have a contract to pollute and the accumulative effect

was disaster. The second thing that happened — and it's now history — once they had an accumulated level of pollution with which they could

not live, that was after the event, not before the event, that was

years down the pike, and still is in some of those jurisdictions. What

happened is that 20 or 30 years later, they found that the accumulated

level of pollution that they had permitted to be there, because of

contracts either by Department of Health or by a pollution control

branch, were something with which they could not

[ Page 124 ]

live, and therefore they started to try to clean up

after the events, and they brought in penalty sections, and they

brought in legislation at the federal level, and pure air, and pure

water laws and so on, but psychologically they had made a contract, and

therefore no one did anything and they're still not, my friend.

Secondly, they were all willing to pass the buck from those who had

given them the contracts in the first place, either the federal

authority or the provincial authority, and they said if anybody has to

pay this bill and clean it up you do, but not us, not the polluter.

Now let's come to my friend's question about the Fraser River. Here

in British Columbia, the choice was made not to go on the contractual

permit route, but to go on the technological permit route. Now wait a

minute, my friend, in the Fraser River, in the lower Fraser River, and

we are talking about municipal sewage pollution now, none of those

municipalities have anything that would approach a contractual permit,

and they will not get one. They will not get one. What happened in

relation to industrial pollution on the Fraser stem was simply this,

the coastal pulp mills in British Columbia are not on any kind of

permit whatsoever. The permits which have been issued on the Fraser

stem, the permits are not contractual permits, they are conditional

permits and they are technological permits. If the technology changes,

the individual industry is responsible now and down the river, and down

the road, from now till the end of time, they must produce at a cost to

the individual who holds the conditional permits that have been caused

if there is a change in the pollution content of that river, or

technology changes, or what have you, and that's the major difference.

That's a major difference. Why?

Because, Mr. Speaker, on the coastal area, there are no permits at

all, and they are now acting under advisement from the Pollution

Control Board that they must have their pollution control plan in hand

by January of 1971. When they do get permits on the coast, Mr. Speaker,

they will not get contract permits, they will get technological permits

and I'll predict this, and there is a big difference, I'll predict

this. Yes my friend, a standard contract permit is a licence to pollute

— that's exactly right. That's exactly what they are not going to get

in the Province of British Columbia. Because, Mr. Speaker, the logical

conclusion to this approach, and let's have no misunderstanding about

this point, the logical conclusion to the technological permits, is

that if an individual industry, or an individual company, or what have

you, and I'm talking about industrial pollution at the present time,

they will have to cease, or close down under a conditional permit and

they don't under a standard contract permit. I'm saying that there are

pulp mills on the coast of British Columbia that will have great

difficulty in meeting the standards of the technological permit.

I'm saying further, that this Government has said many times, the

difference between a technological permit and a contract permit can be

very clearly illustrated in my own constituency of Comox. Because if

Western Mines were dumping effluent into Buttle Lake, up to a

particular level standard, and it was not exceeding that standard,

there would be absolutely nothing that anyone could do that had made a

contract permit with that particular industry. But that doesn't happen

to be the case, Mr. Speaker, that doesn't happen to be the case. I

think you might do me the justice of knowing just a little bit more

about it than you do — I happen to live there. Mr. Speaker, they have a

conditional permit, and if, in that particular instance, the technology

changes, or if there are problems created in the receiving body, this

Government has not made any contract with Western Mines whatsoever,

because we have not issued a standard contract permit. And my colleague

the Minister of Lands and Forests, did not issue a standard contract

permit in Skookumchuck, and I defy anyone in this House to say that it

isn't the best pollution control standard in the world, not just in

Canada. My colleague the Minister of Lands and Forests, did not issue a

standard contract permit at Prince George. My colleague, the Minister

of Lands and Forests, did not issue a standard contract permit in

Kamloops, and neither my colleague, nor this Government will be issuing

standard contract permits, we'll be issuing technological permits.

There will be, make no mistake about it, some industries, and we might

as well live with this, there may be some industries in British

Columbia that cannot meet that standard, and you'll have to live with

that, too. Mr. Speaker, this Government is not afraid of the 70's, but

we are willing to forcefully and with great challenge accept its

challenge.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Second Member for Vancouver East.

MR. ROBERTA. WILLIAMS (2nd-Vancouver-East): Mr. Speaker, I'd

like to first let the House know that we have been fortunate enough the

past hour to have in the gallery the Honourable T.G. Norris and his

wife — a great man of British Columbia. I might also say, Mr. Speaker,

that that was one of the few rewarding things of the past hour. I might

also note, Mr. Speaker, that my mother and relatives are in the gallery

as well, and I would like to welcome them.

Well, I am sorry if the Honourable the Minister of Municipal Affairs

is going to leave right away, I would like to make a few comments about

the last hour's proceedings. I know that he's been trying to catch up

with the man that left earlier who showed his usual courtesy for the

Opposition by leaving, and I would just like to deal with a few of the

points dealt with by Honourable the Minister of Municipal Affairs,

before I get on with my own thoughts. It took half an hour, Mr.

Speaker, for the Honourable Minister to get down to what he seemed to

want to talk about. One half-hour was spent on pure abuse and wasting

the time of this Legislature. At 2:30 he got onto the question of

housing, and the housing problem in this Province remains one of the

great problems of the people of this Province, and I think the

Honourable the Minister can take some of the credit for that. My

concern, Mr. Speaker, is that the kind of comments we had in the first

half-hour from the Honourable Minister were the kind we are getting

accustomed to in this Legislature and this Province. It was the kind of

tirade carried on by the Premier and this Government that has debased

the political currency of British Columbia, that's the problem.

The Honourable the Minister cried about the question of capital

gains. He said that Ottawa was going to do things that would hurt

people that wanted housing in British Columbia, that need housing in

British Columbia, and yet it's not the capital gains system, it's the

unearned increment in suburban land, the land speculation that has

become rife in this Province at the hands of the Minister of Municipal

Affairs, that has increased the cost of housing in British Columbia

more than anything else. In Victoria alone, where the Minister now

resides, the cost of the average house went up $5,000 in the last year,

and the primary reason is because the Honourable the Minister has let

land speculation go unchecked in British Columbia. The Honourable the

Minister talks about amalgamation and a range of other things. Mr.

[ Page 125 ]

Speaker, the Honourable the Minister has had the

power to deal with amalgamation. This Government has had the power to

deal with pollution for 17 years and nothing has been done about it.

The power resides there, and what we heard really were only excuses

from the Minister.

Now that the Minister has left, Mr. Speaker, I might deal with the

main things that I wanted to talk about. I could express the usual

niceties that most of the people, or some of the people on the other

side have expressed, expressing congratulations to the Speaker on his

election, I don't intend to. However, I think our group made our

position clear on that question. I would like to say, looking at the

sort of overwhelming majority that the Government now has, Mr. Speaker,

that it reminds me in a way of the dinosaur. You know you've grown

bigger and bigger all the time, and yet at the same time, more

mindless, and that this Government, even with its great size right now

— even with its great size — I hope, like the dinosaur, has the

prospects of extinction at hand, more or less.

The range of subjects I want to deal with, Mr. Speaker, cover a

fairly wide range. I would like to deal with Cypress Bowl and the

disaster, in effect, that the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources has allowed to develop on the doorstep of our great City of

Vancouver, and I would like to compare it with other matters that the

Honourable Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources deals with,

because I don't think the Cypress Bowl experience is any different than

these matters the Minister deals with all the time. I would like to

also deal with Divide Lake, a lake which we face the prospect of losing

in British Columbia in the near future. I would also like to deal, Mr.

Speaker, with the question of the liquor hearings which were held by

the Liquor Commission. The findings of that Commission, and the growing

problem, the growing apparent problem of influence peddling in relation

to government, and the desire for favours on the part of influence,

peddlars in relation to government. I think throughout all of this, Mr.

Speaker, there is a common thread, and it relates to the question of

privileges being granted by government one way or another. I would like

to also deal, Mr. Speaker, with what I regard as the threat to

Parliament with the overwhelming majority that this Government has — I

would like to deal with that in some detail as well.

I hadn't intended, Mr. Speaker, to discuss the Cypress Bowl. I

didn't intend to discuss Cypress Bowl in great detail today, Mr.

Speaker, and I don't think I shall, but on reading the full report in

the Vancouver Sun of last Friday which states, "The Bowl has

lost its unique value" and the quote is from Jack Wood, the ranger for

the municipality of West Vancouver, I couldn't help but feel that I had

to deal with this question before the House today. Now when I grew up

in Vancouver's East End one of the great opportunities I had was to use

the mountains of the North Shore on the weekends. Myself and my

friends, living in an area that was never that well endowed with parks

and recreation facilities, and unfortunately still is not, were able at

least to go to the North Shore and freely enjoy the public open space

on the mountains. We were able to buy a cabin for virtually nothing and

enjoy it every weekend like many other kids in our part of the City.

When I see what's happened and what is happening in Cypress Bowl, it's

with a mixture of sorrow and anger, because it's clear that other kids

growing up in the East End of the City, now also deprived of park and

recreation facilities like so many of us were, face the prospect of

being deprived of that public open space on the mountain as well, and

it's a tragic story, Mr. Speaker, and a complete condemnation of the

Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources.

What are some of the statements that were made by Mr. Wood, the

municipal civil servant in West Vancouver? They're long, and they build

up a complete solid case against the Government, I'm afraid. The

situation is such, for example, the forest ranger says, that because

there's been so much clearing, because there's been excess of logging

of the Bowl by the private interest that the Government gave the Bowl

to, that they now face the prospect of dangerous drifts in the

wintertime, avalanches in the ski area where there would have been none

before, and they face the prospect of fire hazard in the summer because

of the slash and mess created by the haphazard logging and wanton

destruction by the company doing the logging. That's the situation in

this great recreational Bowl only a few miles from the centre of

Vancouver. The forest ranger says that they face the prospect of

waiting 30 years to grow trees in the Bowl where trees should never

have been cut. That's the prospect, they say. It's not even a good

place to reforest, and the Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water

Resources said that at least maybe they had a good reforestation site.

In

summary, what Mr. Wood, the forest ranger in West Vancouver said,

Mr. Speaker, was that much of the Bowl's unique value had been lost or

destroyed. He said that early replanting should be undertaken because

of the wanton destruction and logging, and he said that the existing

fire hazard needs to be eliminated.

You know, when the honourable Leader of the Opposition got up and

dealt with this matter thoroughly at the beginning of this debate and

when the Minister listened to what the honourable Leader of the

Opposition had to say he said "Well, I thought he might really have

something," when the honourable Leader was talking about letters that

had not been disclosed by the Minister and the details of the

destruction in the Bowl. I want to know, Mr. Speaker, just what is

"something". What is it that the Minister thought that the Leader of

the Opposition might be talking about? Is there more? There must be, in

view of the attitude of the Minister.

Only this Friday did we get the information of the taped

conversations between the Minister of Lands and Forests and the

Municipal Clerk in West Vancouver, and I think that itself is a

comment, quite a commentary on the behaviour of the Minister in

relation to the municipality of West Vancouver. Why should the

municipality of West Vancouver feel that it was necessary to tape the

words of a Minister of the Crown? Why should they feel it's necessary?

Do they feel they can't trust the Minister? Have they had experience

with the Minister in the past that leads them to believe they have to

tape every word he says so that they can protect themselves? Is that

the problem they have in West Vancouver? How many other municipalities?

How many other public agencies in this Province face the same problem,

Mr. Speaker, with the same Minister of the Crown here in British

Columbia?

You know we've heard from some of the new members in this Session,

"Tell it like it is, we think it should be told like it is." I'm

waiting for the Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources to tell

it like it is. (Applause) When he's on the telephone and doesn't think

he's being taped he tells it like it is. What is it he said? "Quite

frankly, I'd be quite happy to lock it up, reforest it and forget about

it." What else does he say on the telephone? "Wrap her up, wrap her up

fast, and it's a wonderful area to reforest, let's reforest it and

[ Page 126 ]

forget it, let's reforest it and forget about it."

Why doesn't the Minister make these kind of comments in public? Why

doesn't he admit that he's made a wreck of Cypress Bowl and he wants to

do something positive now and improve the situation. He said something

to the effect, Mr. Speaker, that I'm rolling around on this subject.

Now, maybe this Minister of the Crown is the first one to taste the

rounded life that the Premier was talking about in the Throne Debate.

The Minister said, "If you can pay for the Bowl, more power to you,

I'll give it to you." Is the Minister saying he'd like to wash his

hands of the whole mess? If he is, why doesn't he simply say that he'll

turn it over to the Regional District and we in the metropolitan area

will take on the job and clean up the mess that he's left us with.

AN HON. MEMBER: Providing he resigns so he can't make any more mess.

MR. WILLIAMS: Another interesting matter with regard to

Cypress Bowl, Mr. Speaker, is the question of the stumpage rates for

the public timber that was cut in the Bowl, and what does the forest

ranger in the municipality of West Vancouver say about that? Mr. Wood

says "For some reason an unusually low stumpage rate has been set by

the Government". An unusually low stumpage rate. But, Mr. Speaker,

that's the way it is in every park that this Government allows to log.

There's cut-rate high grade logging going on in Wells Gray Park near

Kamloops at the hands of this Minister and the Minister of Recreation

and Conservation, with the added help of the honourable the member from

Kamloops. There's going to be, we understand, cut-rate logging in

Strathcona Park as well, and Cypress Bowl is no exception to the rule.

Mr. Wood is a little naive. He may not be familiar with what the

Government has allowed to happen in the other parts of this Province.

Or maybe, just maybe, Mr. Speaker, the reason these people get the

cut-rate that they do get to destroy the parks of British Columbia is

because they hire effective public relations men. Maybe that's the

reason stumpage rates are so low in the parks. Maybe that's the reason

these groups are able to destroy our parks in British Columbia.

Who was the public relations man throughout the Cypress Bowl fiasco?

The public relations man was none other than William Clancey, long-time

confidante of the Premier, longtime adviser to the Premier on public

relations. A few years back when Mr. Clancey wasn't so well known he

actually ran an advertisement in The Province

newspaper. He ran an advertisement saying — this was way back in 1964 — that William Clancey and Associates Ltd., Public Relations Counsel,

Preparation of Briefs for Municipal, Provincial, and Federal

Governments. That was the ad. Amongst those in the know in British

Columbia now, Mr. Speaker, everybody knows that you deal with certain

P.R. men when dealing with this Government, and it's no longer

necessary, Mr. Speaker, no longer necessary to run advertisements.

Those in the back rooms know who you get to deal with the Government of

British Columbia. You get the Premier's P.R. man to deal with the

Government of British Columbia. These people must have something to

sell, Mr. Speaker. What they sell is their influence in Government.

What they sell are cut-rate prices for the public's resource. There's

no question about that, Mr. Speaker.

On the question of logging costs, what does the forest ranger say

about the cut-rate stumpage rate and the logging operation in the Bowl

in terms of its finances? What the forest ranger in West Vancouver says

is that logging costs in the Bowl were $35 per thousand board feet and

that included stumpage paid to the Crown, and yet the forest ranger in

West Vancouver says that the value of the wood hauled out of Cypress

Bowl was $70 per thousand, Mr. Speaker. That's double their cost. That

means that $35 per thousand was made in logging Cypress Bowl. That

means that all they had to be docked in additional cost was the tote

road they built into the Bowl. There were fifteen million board feet

cut in the Bowl, Mr. Speaker. Fifteen million board feet, and on the

basis of $35 a thousand that comes out at something like half a million

dollars. The tote road didn't cost any half a million dollars. The

forest ranger himself said the road was paid for many times over. But

what kind of sight were we treated to at the hands of this Minister,

Mr. Speaker? We had him running around telling the public they were

losing money. We had him running around saying they were losing money

but the forest ranger in West Vancouver who has no axe to grind

whatsoever, if you'll pardon the pun, in this case said that money was

made and a great deal of money was made in this destruction of public

land in Cypress Bowl.

The honourable Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, dealt at some

length with a letter dated June 17th, 1969, signed by the Minister, a

letter that the Minister had never revealed. A letter that was never

listed in the list of events with respect to Cypress Bowl, and why

didn't he deal with that letter? Why didn't he reveal the letter at an

earlier stage, Mr Speaker? The reason he didn't was because it was a

million dollar letter. The letter that the Leader of the Opposition

read and dealt with at length at the beginning of this debate was a

million dollar letter, because that letter gave the right to Benguet

and the gambling interests of the Bahamas to subdivide Cypress Bowl and

create residential subdivisions in the Bowl. There's no question about

that, and the leases that were traded to Benguet and Alpine Outdoor

Recreations were traded by the Crown for $10,000, sold by Alpine to

Benguet for a million, and this letter was the basis of the deal. No

question, that's a million dollar letter. The Minister couldn't seem to

understand the Opposition's concern about this letter. That's the

reason, Mr. Speaker. It's a million dollar letter. The Minister by the

stroke of a pen almost daily is creating values and giving values away

in terms of the public resources of British Columbia, and he's doing it

so often, he's doing it so often that he couldn't understand the

Opposition's concern.

I think a short

summary with respect to that letter would be in

order and some of the events with respect to the Bowl would be in

order, Mr. Speaker. Let's just summarize these.

(1) Alpine Recreational

Outdoor Development always intended residential development — that's

now apparent.

(2) They were unable to raise the necessary finances.

(3) They got the Government approval for subdivision type residential

development in the letter of September 17th.

(4) They used this to

negotiate with Benguet for financial support.

(5) Benguet wanted more

proof than this letter so they sent their representatives to the

Department for further checking. They then got a more legal document

from the Government after that.

(6) Alpine then got the more legal

looking document in the way of leases for residential development. They

got this legal document in short order and the legal requirements of

the Land Act, as the Leader of the Opposition indicated, were even

bypassed in order to deliver the same.

(7) Benguet was then satisfied

and took over Alpine Resources. It's interesting to note, Mr. Speaker,

that there was one constant throughout and that was that Alpine

intended residential

[ Page 127 ]

subdivision development for some near 9,000 lots,

and there is one other element throughout and that is the involvement

of William Clancey.

I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if we can really believe anything that the

Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources now says to this House.

We faced the situation last Session when the Minister misled the House,

and documents were filed in the House to prove that, and the sorry

history of Cypress Bowl confirms the fact that this Minister is willing

again and again to mislead the Legislature, the people in this Chamber,

when he feels it necessary. But the Cypress deal, Mr. Speaker, was no

different really than most of the deals that go through the Minister's

hands. Timber sales in British Columbia at the hands of the Minister

are non-competitive. They're completely open to wheeling and dealing

and influence peddling. This Minister now has more discretionary power

than the former Minister of Lands and Forests, Mr. Sommers, who found

the problems of dealing with his discretionary power extremely

difficult, so difficult, so difficult, Mr. Speaker, that he ended up in

prison. Ninety-five per cent of all the timber sales in British

Columbia are non-competitive bids. They are matters of arrangements

between the parties involved. These issues with respect to timber sales

and pulp and the other aspects of resource development in B.C. are a

little more confusing to the general public than Cypress Bowl, but they

still represent the same principle. Pulp mills, Mr. Speaker, have the

same pattern in British Columbia, the same pattern of dispensing

privilege with the signing of a document by the Minister.

There's now no competition for pulp mills and pulp harvesting rights

or pulp licences in the Province at the hands of the Minister of Lands

and Forests, Mr. Speaker. There was one case, and it was Skookumchuck,

the Crestbrook Mill near Cranbrook that did involve some competition

and it gave an indication of the value of the licences that the

Minister gives away for nothing. In the case of Skookumchuck, three

companies bid for the right to the pulp timber in the Skookumchuck area

in the East Kootenays and the bids went up, Mr. Speaker, to 7.3 million

dollars. That is the amount they were willing to pay in bonuses to the

Crown for the right to harvest pulp timber. That is what they were

willing to pay. That is what it was worth. Three companies, some of

them associated with giant American concerns like Boise-Cascade and, of

course, the Japanese interests ended up getting the mill in the final

case.

What did the Minister say at the time? The Minister said that the

bids were triple the upset price, and he wasn't used to that and he

didn't expect it, and he said this area in the East Kootenays, he says,

is the most difficult project in the Province and you are bidding on

the lowest grade wood in the Province. It doesn't give you any right to

the saw-log material, he hastened to add. So he said, in effect, you

are dealing with some of the worst pulp-wood in the Province, but three

industries competing in open competition for the public resource

indicated they were willing to pay 7.3 million dollars more.

But what happened, Mr. Speaker? The Minister hastened back to his

office, reconsidered the matter, and decided that it was wrong that the

public should be paid for its own resources. He decided a new system

would have to be evolved. He wasn't used to competition for the

public's resources. There was no competition in Cypress Bowl for the

Bowl, as the national government did with respect to Sunshine and other

recreational ski developments in the Rockies. There was competition in

the Federal parks, Mr. Speaker, for the rights to ski areas and so on.

There is no competition in British Columbia when you want to wheel and

deal with park timber. There is no competition whatsoever for public

resources in British Columbia. The Minister, Mr. Speaker, is free to

wheel and deal as he pleases. The Honourable the Minister knows much

about privilege and I hope that he discusses it again, because you know

the circumstances surrounding the Honourable Minister a few years ago

were such that in a British Parliament the Honourable Minister would no

longer sit in the House. That's the situation.

AN HON. MEMBER: Withdraw! Withdraw!

MR. WILLIAMS: …If the Minister wants me to withdraw and it will make him happy, I'll make him happy. I have no idea what he wants withdrawn.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No member is allowed to impute motives in this House and the member has said he will withdraw.

MR. WILLIAMS: It's a matter of observation….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment. Will the member please be seated while I recognize a point of order.

MR. WILLIAMS: He has not raised a point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will the member please be seated.

MR. WILLIAMS: He has not raised a point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will the member be seated.

MR. WILLIAMS: I am not aware of any point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: For the last time, will the member be seated.

AN HON. MEMBER: …point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment. I am recognizing….

AN HON. MEMBER: (shouted remark)

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will the member be seated. Will you please be seated. Proceed. What is your point of order?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: He didn't make one.

AN HON. MEMBER: Well, he said an observation, Mr. Speaker — he said he wanted to make an observation, not a point of order.

MR. WILLIAMS: Order, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just so that there be no misunderstanding. When the Minister rose, he said, "On a point of order."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: He didn't say that at all…he

[ Page 128 ]

did not…Play back the tape.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Proceed.

AN HON. MEMBER: Play your tape back. Come on. Let's have the tape.

AN HON. MEMBER: …the whole substance of the member's

discussion this afternoon has been based on innuendo and is in

violation of the Rules of this House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Order, please.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, what we really were finding out

from the Minister of Recreation is that he can't take it when it is

told like it is. His junior members want to hear it like it is and I

intend to do so. I am representing the people of my riding and I

believe the people of British Columbia. We need to deal…. (Shouting

and interruptions)

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. WILLIAMS: …we need to deal, Mr. Speaker, with the trading and privilege by this Government. That is what we need to deal with.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Will the Honourable Minister please be seated.

MR. WILLIAMS: …the trading and privilege by this

Government, Mr. Speaker, is what is going to bring it down just like it

brought the Coalition down.

AN HON. MEMBER: Go back and drain another lake.

MR. WILLIAMS: I just wish the Honourable the Minister would spend as much time on his own speeches.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment. Mr. Clerk, please.

AN HON. MEMBER: Good, good.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. WILLIAMS: …7.3 million dollars is what I said the public lost.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will the member please be seated…. Order,

please. I might just point out that according to the Rules of the House

no member may impute improper motives to another member of the House,

and I would ask the members to observe that rule or the Chair will have

to take the necessary action.

MR. WILLIAMS: I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. WILLIAMS: I would just like the Minister to know that I

have only begun to fight. 7.3 million dollars we lost. We lost 7.3

million at Skookumchuck, Mr. Speaker, and how many pulp mills have we

got in this Province? What is it — 20 or 25? Twenty-five pulp mills in

British Columbia? The Honourable the Minister isn't here to give us the

precise number, perhaps it is a little more. Anyway, what we are

talking about conservatively, Mr. Speaker, is 200 million dollars in

terms of public values lost to the people of British Columbia because

if we had competitive bidding for every right to cut pulp wood in

British Columbia from all these new mills then the public treasury

would be 200 million dollars richer.

It is clear in British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, that we can do

anything we want because of our rich resources, but at the hands of

this Government we have frittered them away, we have given away the

public values in countless instances and they can be catalogued

readily. But this is just one example. 200 million lost to the people

of British Columbia at the hands of the Minister of Lands, Forests, and

Water Resources. Is it any wonder, Mr. Speaker, that with this kind of

system pervading this Government that there are influence peddlars? Is

it any wonder that that kind of honey attracts flies? It is as natural

as night follows day that these kinds of people should hang around

Government in British Columbia so long as Government in British

Columbia is going to do business the way it does and with this massive

majority, Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that it is business as usual.

AN HON. MEMBER: What's wrong with that?

MR. WILLIAMS: What is wrong with that? What is wrong with

business as usual? I'm sure that Bill Clancey says "What's wrong with

business as usual?" I am sure all kinds of P.R. men in slacks say,

"What's wrong with business as usual?" One of these days the people of

this Province will not say business as usual is O.K.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Shouting)

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. WILLIAMS: We are hearing now, Mr. Speaker, from the

competitors, believe it or not, Mr. Speaker, we are hearing now from

the competitors for the leadership of the Social Credit party.

(Laughter) And the laughter should indicate the chances.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Shouting)

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. WILLIAMS: I might just comment on this, you know. It is

clear from the Minister of Municipal Affairs' statement earlier today,

he wasn't really speaking to the press gallery, as he usually is, he

wasn't really speaking to the House, as he never is, he was speaking in

fact to the new boys, to the backbenchers. He was trying to gain votes

really in the coming competition in the Socred sweepstakes.

AN HON. MEMBER: I think Waldo will get it.

MR. WILLIAMS: …I think it is fair commentary, Mr. Speaker,

about the new members that the Minister felt it necessary to deliver a

speech at that level.

I would like now to deal with another example, and since the

Honourable the Minister of Recreation and Conservation is present,

unlike so many of his senior Cabinet colleagues, I would like to deal

with a matter that he has some jurisdiction over and some knowledge of,

I am sure. That is the matter of Divide Lake, Mr. Speaker. Divide Lake

is in the area near Ashcroft where the great copper findings of

Bethlehem and

[ Page 129 ]

Lornex and Valley Copper, the Highland Valley. It

is presumably a very valuable lake and one which the Minister has some

control over. There was a park reserve on the lake. I think the basic

story is covered in the January 30th issue of the Vancouver Sun

which simply states, "Copper firm gets park land." It is surprising,

really, that it rates headlines, Mr. Speaker, because the parks in

British Columbia have become essentially corpses to be divided up

between various resource groups. The Government, Mr. Kiernan said,

permitted Bethlehem to stake claims in Divide Lake in exchange for

$50,000 donation from the Company for development of a picnic site at

Lac Le Jeune near Kamloops, and, says the Minister, $50,000 for the

lake, he thinks it is a pretty good deal, The Minister thought that

$50,000 for a mile-long lake in the ore-rich Highland Valley was a good

deal. $50,000 for a lake a mile long.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many acres?

MR. WILLIAMS: Thirty-six acres. The interesting thing, Mr.

Speaker, is the follow-up statement by the Honourable Minister. Why, he

says, this was the most generous offer we have had in a long time. I

wonder why. I guess he was thinking of Cypress Bowl. Or maybe he was

thinking of Strathcona Park. Or maybe he was thinking of the Cape Scott

exchange. Or maybe he was thinking of the Wells-Grey deal managed by

the member from Kamloops. Maybe he was thinking of all those poor deals

in the parks that the people of British Columbia have suffered at his

hands. So I don't challenge the Minister at all on his statement. I

agree it is the most generous offer this Government has had in a long

time. He said they paid $15,000 — that is the president of the company

that bought the lake from the Government. He said $15,000 for the

surface rights and a $50,000 contribution. That is what he said.

Thirty-six acres. I am glad that we got the acreage figure.

AN HON. MEMBER: Be honest about it.

MR. WILLIAMS: Oh, I am quite willing to be. No, I appreciate

the added information from the Minister, Mr. Speaker, because we will

be able to compare it with other matters, and if that is the price for

36 acres, well, let's compare it with other sales in the area. But the

whole deal — and the Minister in a way reminds me of a comic strip

character, and I don't mean disrespect in that regard, and I am

thinking of the Li'l Abner comic strip. In that comic strip there is,

or at least there used to be, someone called Available Jones, and

Available Jones was available and ready to do anything for a price and

it seems that that is pretty well the way it is with the parks in

British Columbia at the hands of these two Ministers. But the problem,

Mr. Speaker, is that the price is….

AN HON. MEMBER: What kind of unavailable Jones?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment.

MR. WILLIAMS: If the Minister wants me to withdraw the statement, I will withdraw it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would ask the member to withdraw that statement, casting reflections.

MR. WILLIAMS: I mean no disrespect.

AN HON. MEMBER: A point of order. The honourable member

has…(indecipherable)…and should be told to make his points in

debate without continually being both insulting and reflecting on

character by innuendo.

MR. WILLIAMS: The record, Mr. Speaker, is clear. The parks of British Columbia are available for a price. It is bad enough.

We say the parks should not be available at any price. They should not

be available at any price, Mr. Minister. They should not be available

and you make them available, you and your colleagues make our parks

available for a price in British Columbia. In terms of public policy,

in terms of conservation, that's terrible enough, Mr. Speaker, but the

irony is that the prices are dogpatch prices to boot. That's the

situation in British Columbia. Let's compare it. There was a recent

sale, near Divide Lake, of .44 acres — that's less than half an acre

sold near Divide Lake in December of 1968, and what was the price paid

for half an acre. The Minister has been kind enough to tell us that the

lake was only 36 acres.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, that's not the lake. That is the parcel that was held under park reserve.

MR. WILLIAMS: …oh well, that makes it even worse — but

that's fine…but the price, the price Mr. Speaker, paid for less

than half an acre near Divide Lake in a sale to Bethlehem Copper was

$25,000. That was for less than half an acre in that ore-rich valley,

and the Minister is willing to give up park reserves and give up rights

to a lake, in this valley, for only a $50,000 donation. That's the

problem, Mr. Speaker, and the facts speak for themselves.

I have been dealing with the question of the bartering. I have been

dealing with the question of the bartering of privilege in British

Columbia at the hands of this Government. The bartering of privilege

prevails in many ways with respect to this Cabinet — in many ways, and

not the least of which was revealed by the recent hearings under the

Honourable Judge Morrow, with respect to the liquor laws of British

Columbia. A good many findings evolved during those hearings, and many

of them that should cause concern on the Government side of the House,

as well as on this side of the House. Unfortunately I doubt if the

concern is there. One of the key issues in terms of people in this

Legislature should be the one that was revealed during the hearings

involving the former Attorney-General. It is covered, fairly fully, in

the December 3rd issue of the Vancouver Sun . At any rate, the material was all presented in the Sun ,

involving Mr. Fouks and Mr. Bonner as partners in business. Now, Mr.

Fouks, Queen's Counsel, was unhappy with the statements in the

Vancouver Sun , which reported those hearings. He was quite self-righteous and said that — regarding the Vancouver Sun

headline he regarded it as an attempt, and a vicious one at character

assassination, etc. But then he added, what he added is interesting, he

said, "I might say that the facts contained in the story are correct."

That's what he said, and I am reassured, as I wouldn't want to use the

material unless that were so. Now, the interesting thing is that as a

result of the hearing, we find that Mr. Bonner and Mr. Fouks have had a

long personal association, since they were both 18 or 19 and students

at University. Interestingly, and I don't think the Vancouver Sun

even indicated this, although it was indicated in the Victoria Times,

there has even been a political association between the former

Attorney-General and Mr. Fouks. In the Victoria Times of December 3rd,

Mr. Fouks said he had also acted as fiscal agent for Mr.

[ Page 130 ]

Bonner during an election campaign, so the relationship, politically, is established.

What did the former Attorney-General say, the vice-president of

MacMillan-Bloedel, senior vice-president? He denied any conflict of

interest in terms of his business association, and he denied any

inference that Fouks might have been privy to Cabinet decisions, and

I'm sure that's so. He denied that any of Fouks' brewery clients had

provided money for their apartment building, and I think that is really

the main statements of Mr. Bonner in this regard. Interesting question,

Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment. It has been the practice

in this House when a matter is before the Courts, and I believe the

statements made before the Commission are before the Courts…

AN HON. MEMBER: No, they're not.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: …and, as well, we are also dealing with

something that is before a Royal Commission, and I believe that the

member is skirting very closely on the line of privilege of this House,

and I think he should hold his comments.

MR. WILLIAMS: With all respect, Mr. Speaker, I would point

out that the case involves insurance matters. I am dealing with the

liquor question. With all respect, Mr. Speaker, the case before the

Courts involves the question of the Insurance Agents Association of

British Columbia, I think that's what the case regards, and I'm not

interested in the question of the Insurance Agents Association…

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment. I am not aware of the exact

ramification of the libel case, but I do know that there is a case

before the Courts arising out of statements made before that

Commission, and I would ask the member to withhold….

MR. WILLIAMS: I would point out, with respect, it was not

statements before the Commission, it was individual newspaper comments,

Mr. Speaker, on the part of an individual columnist on a newspaper and

not directly with anything that went before the hearings at all.

I would just like to ask the question, Mr. Speaker, who appointed

Mr. Fouks as Queen's Counsel? Why, Mr. Bonner, of course. The Cabinet

appointed him Queen's Counsel in British Columbia. When was Mr. Fouks

appointed? He was appointed in 1964, Mr. Speaker, and it is interesting

to note further, Mr. Speaker, that 1964 was the year that the Brewers'

Institute of British Columbia was established as well, a group which we

hadn't heard of before, hadn't heard of until the recent liquor

hearing. I think it is worthwhile going over the background of some of

the material, particularly in relation to Mr. Ginter.

Mr. Ginter is an interesting folk figure in British Columbia. Ben

Ginter thought that maybe free enterprise and booze was a reality in

British Columbia — naive fellow. All he wanted was the freedom to sell

the beer he was producing, That's all he wanted, my free enterprise

friends — he just wanted to sell his beer, and he claims he met Mr.

Fouks regarding this. Mr. Ginter said that he met with Mr. Fouks

regarding the desire he had to sell his beer in the Kootenays of

British Columbia. The Kootenays had been a preserve — an area of

gentlemen's agreement for a decade, agreement between the major

producers and Interior Breweries. Interior Breweries, based in Creston,

continued to sell within the Kootenays and did not export their beer

outside the Kootenays, and the big four did not enter the Kootenay

market except at an additional price — the higher price was charged for

the big four's products in the Kootenays. Mr. Ginter wanted to enter

that market, and at the hearings, what did Mr. Ginter ask? In the

Province of December 3rd, this is one of the questions he asked, he

said, questioning Mr. Foukes, he said, "Now think carefully, " Ginter

persisted, "Who was the one that called to make an appointment for me — did you not receive a telephone call from Dr. Gordon Shrum?" Foukes

replied,"No" Ginter also asked Fouks about his relationship with Mr.

Bonner, and we found of the apartment business which was covered. We

find further….

HON. LESLIE R. PETERSON (Attorney-General): Point of Order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: What is your point of order? Will the member be seated.

(Due to taping difficulties, some of the Debate was not recorded at this point.)

MR. PETERSON: …has been going to some lengths in discussing

evidence that was brought out in examination and cross-examination

before a Royal Commission. This Royal Commission is still meeting, and

while I am ready to observe there is no prohibition on members of this

House discussing matters that have been referred to a Commission, it

has been considered in the past certainly by the members as not

appropriate to do so, particularly when this Commission, chaired by one

of the Judges, is presently engaged in analyzing the evidence and

coming to some recommendations and to some report. So I think it is

manifestly unfair for the NDP in this House to carry on a misfraction

and not show any regard to the members of the Commission who are

engaged in this task at the present time, and I would ask the

honourable member to kindly take this into consideration and to desist

from this line of argument. (Loud interruptions)

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker…. I intend to, Mr. Speaker, and I

appreciate the Attorney-General's comments. I would not doubt that the

Commission intends to produce final recommendations and I commend them

for that. It's long overdue and necessary, and I commend the Government

for having the hearing, but I have no intention of second guessing the

recommendations or making any recommendations whatsoever, and I, like

the Government, look forward to the recommendation. I do not have

definite recommendations to make in this regard at this time, but Mr.

Ginter said finally, and I would just like to make it clear, he said in

respect to Mr. Fouks, but for him under oath to have made statements

that, "There was no $10,000 suggestion in terms of a fee, and that I

was not in his office one evening, so help me God, this is not true,

and he remembers only too well." I think that Mr. Ginter's problems

with the Government, and presumably the former Attorney-General, should

be commented on. Mr. Ginter wanted to sell beer at 10 cents less than

the big four. The problem presumably….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can we come back to the practice of this House, that there have been sufficient

[ Page 131 ]

recommendations made to the Royal Commission, and I believe that the

practice of the Legislature has been that we do not begin to prejudge

what the Commission will find. Furthermore, I think the

Attorney-General's point applies in asking the member to desist.

MR. DAVID BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): …for the

Commission, which is not privileged, which has been touched on by other

members of this House. It has been printed in the press, and I point

out further, Mr. Speaker, that my colleague has made it very clear that

he doesn't pretend to predict the outcome of the Commission — and there

is no rule whatsoever in this House that prevents him from discussing

these matters in as much detail as he wishes.

MR. WILLIAMS: …Mr. Speaker, I think we should be reminded

that Mr. Ginter also wanted to do things like bring in canned beer and

he had difficulties in so doing. I think we should remember that Mr.

Ginter had trouble in dealing with this Government, and I think it is

worth keeping that in mind, in relation to all the other material,

because it is clear as a result of the hearings, Mr. Speaker, that

someone isn't telling the truth. It's clear that someone is not telling

the truth. At the very least, a phone call to Dr. Shrum regarding the

arranging of appointments, would be in order. I think my concern is

partly, Mr. Speaker, that we really are only starting to tap the

question of privilege, only starting to uncover the problems with

respect to the Government liquor monopoly in British Columbia. I think

we are just beginning to see what was going on. We found that payments

were made in everything as diverse as cash and asparagus, and the

hearings ceased when I think the public would have been interested in

more of the details.

I think the students at the University of British Columbia covered

the situation in a rather simple and interesting way in their student

newspaper, The Ubyssey, which I believe all of us receive, issue dated

January 20th, and that shows the question of the former

Attorney-General and Mr. Fouks in relationship to the Brewers'

Institute and the fact that the former Attorney-General was responsible

for administering liquor laws in the Province, and other laws as well.

I would note, too, that they indicate in their diagram that Mr. McKay

Brown lives in a penthouse. This is the penthouse of the apartment

owned by Messrs. Bonner and Fouks on Balsam Street, in Kerrisdale. But

what the students say, it is not surprising to discover relationships

such as this, however, such things are quite common in corporate

societies where company directorships, club affiliations and political

preferences mingle and merge. What the students are talking about is

the establishment, and their little chart shows a part of the

establishment in British Columbia. The interesting thing is that one of

the lawyers referred to in The Ubyssey as of January 20th, wrote The

Ubyssey wanting to correct some of the information. Mr. McKay Brown,

who lives in the penthouse, wrote them on January 30th, giving them

some details indicating that he didn't himself represent the insurance

agents — he represented the All Canada Insurance Federation at the

Wootton Royal Commission on Automobile Insurance, and I think it's kind

of the very able lawyer to provide this kind of correct detailed

information because the All Canada Insurance Federation, Mr. Speaker,

is the Federation that the honourable Leader of the Opposition has

asked the Combines Department to investigate. They're the group that we

maintain price rigs automobile insurance rates across this nation, with

the exception of Saskatchewan.

The apartment was shown in a picture in the Vancouver Sun ,

Mr. Speaker, a little blurry, there's 12 floors, it's a beautiful

concrete high rise and there's a penthouse above the twelfth floor.

It's called Dorset Place Apartments Ltd. and the holding, that's the

company that owns it, which is jointly owned by the two gentlemen we're

discussing. The legal description is Lots 6 to 12 of Block 17,

District Lot 526, Vancouver. It's in Kerrisdale, which is probably the

highest rent district of the city, one of the most attractive

residential areas in the community. It's 12 stories and a penthouse,

Mr. Speaker, and that's an estate arrangement between the two gentlemen.

Twelve stories and a penthouse is quite a nest egg, and I wondered,

Mr. Speaker, what it's worth. So, not knowing much about 12 storey

apartments and their prices I looked in the want ads in the Vancouver Sun

last night under the appropriate column, there is a comparable

apartment I think, for sale. So I phoned up and I asked the real

estate man what the asking price was. The asking price was $1,550,000.

I said, "Well, how much cash would it take to buy that building?" I was

advised that there were two mortgages on the building so that you

wouldn't have to have the cash since the mortgages covered a

substantial chunk of the value. There was a first mortgage at $875,000

and a second mortgage at $200,000. That meant $975,000 was covered by

mortgages, but it still left an amount, Mr. Speaker, of $575,000 cash

to find. That's how much cash had to be found in this particular case,

and I admit that it's a couple of years later and prices have gone up,

but they haven't gone up that much. So the cash that had to be found

individually with respect to this building was $263,000. In other

words, over 17 years you'd have to save $15,000 a year to buy that

building. I could be wrong about it, but that's my arithmetic based on

current prices.

But, you know, well I'm glad that the present Attorney-General knows

all the details of the real estate market in Kerrisdale, but at any

rate, I grew up in the same area as the former Attorney-General and the

question, the question…the honourable the Premier as usual has

ignored the comments of the Opposition and I'd like to welcome him back

to the Legislature of British Columbia.

…the question you have to ask is where do you find the kind of

cash needed for this kind of business deal? I think it might help in

developing this kind of real estate asset to get the land cheap. That

might be a way to embark on this kind of business deal. So let's look

at the question of the land involved. There are six lots, six former

individual housing lots in Kerrisdale. Prices in Kerrisdale have always

been high. It's possible, Mr. Speaker, that what was found were a group

of owners who didn't really know what they were doing, and that happens

in real estate. Often people are able to buy below the market price

when the seller is an uninformed seller. So I thought I'd check into

that question, and checking in at the Land Registry Office I find this,

Mr. Speaker. I thought that it might be an uninformed owner of the land

in Kerrisdale and I'm afraid that I was wrong. We find in the Land

Registry Office in Vancouver that the owner of the land prior to the

Bonner-Fouks Company owning it was J. Diamond & Sons Ltd., J.

Diamond & Sons Ltd., who have offices on Georgia and whose main

actually operating offices are at the foot of Commercial Drive.

Now, you know, Mr. Speaker, any kid growing up in the East End

certainly knows who Mr. Diamond is. Now Mr. Diamond happens to operate

the city's only animal rendering plant at the foot of Commercial Drive.

It's the worst-smelling

[ Page 132 ]

operation in the City of Vancouver. They render down old animals, I

don't know if they're race horses or what, but they render them down

and create tallow which is shipped out from the harbour, and the waste

from the animal rendering is dumped openly into Burrard Inlet by Mr.

Diamond. I might note that something the kids in the East End might not

know is that Mr. Diamond was voted good citizen of the year a few years

ago. So, he is the owner of the most offensive polluting industry in

the City of Vancouver. The name of the industry is West Coast Reduction

Ltd., at the foot of Commercial Drive.

Well, if you check into Who's Who, which most East End kids don't

bother doing, you find further that there is other information on Mr.

Diamond. Who's Who will tell you, as East End kids know, that he's got

something to do with the race track. Mr. Diamond is also president of

the B.C. Turf Ltd. He's also co-chairman of the West Coast Jockey Club

Ltd., a wholly-owned subsidiary of B.C. Turf, and B.C. Turf, if you

check at the Companies Office, is sort of almost in some ways a family

affair. If you check on the list of directors you'll find, if you just

go over to the Companies Office here in Victoria, that amongst those

listed are Jack Diamond, 105 North Commercial Drive — that's the animal

reduction plant, Charles Diamond, 105 North Commercial Drive, Gordon

Diamond, 105 North Commercial Drive, George I. Morfitt, 105 Commercial

Drive, Comptroller, and also Arthur Fouks, 1030 West Georgia Street,

Barrister. The Vice-President of B.C. Turf is Arthur Fouks, Q.C.

It's interesting to look further, Mr. Speaker, and look at the

objects of incorporation that are registered with the company's

documents in the Companies Office, and it includes a wide range of

things. Let's point out first that B.C. Turf Limited and the Jockey

Club group are essentially the monopoly controllers of racing in

British Columbia, but the objects include, listed in their own

documents, to carry on the business of hotel keepers, tavern keepers,

licenced victuallers, refreshment purveyors, and for some strange

reason, market gardeners. Their objects also are to operate by club

licence or otherwise the business of offering for sale and selling

beer, wine and spirituous liquors in accordance with the laws for the

time being enforced in the Province of British Columbia. They're hoping

for changes in the liquor laws, too, They in addition, to do all other

acts and deeds in connection with the sport of racing, etc., etc., and

a range of rights and privileges with respect to racing and controlling

racing in the Province as well are included in the objects. But, there

is one final interesting comment in the objects, or inclusion in the

objects of this company, Mr. Speaker, and that is that one of the

objects of this company is to obtain any Provincial Order or Act of

Parliament enabling the company to carry out any of its objects into

effect or for effecting any modification of the company's constitution

or for any other purpose which may seem expedient, and to oppose any

proceedings or applications which may seem calculated directly or

indirectly to prejudice the company's interests. So, clearly, within

the company's objects are dealing with the Government of the Province

of British Columbia.

The members of the Racing Commission are covered in the annual

report of the Racing Commission, Mr. Speaker, and the Racing Commission

is of course the responsibility of the Attorney-General. The Racing

Commission was the responsibility of the former Attorney-General. In

1964, in 1965, 1966, in 1967, when all of the individual private

dealings were going on, the former Attorney-General was responsible for

policing and administering the race tracks of British Columbia and

policing and administering the monopoly that is controlled by Mr.

Diamond. Mr. Diamond owned the land, Mr. Speaker. I don't think we need

to deal with this in too much more detail other than to make it clear

that Vote 55 in the Estimates covers….

You know, it's like pollution, Mr. Speaker, most of it is of their

own making. Most of it is of their own making. The former

Attorney-General had the responsibility to police the race track

monopoly and Mr. Diamond in this Province under Vote 55 of the

Estimates, and he dealt with them regularly in this House, he had

dealings with Mr. Diamond in private….

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, Oh.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Premier): It's right in the record. It's in the record. The people, Mr. Speaker, will read this in the record….

MR. WILLIAMS: Is the Premier saying that the people will be able to read it in Hansard tomorrow morning? Is that what he's saying?

What we didn't, what the Commissioners — oh, you had your chance,

Mr. Minister, you had your chance and you flubbed it. The problem, Mr.

Speaker, is that we've really only seen the tip of the iceberg. As a

result of these hearings we've only seen the tip of the iceberg. What

of the voluntary donations made to Government by the liquor interests

of British Columbia which the Commission did not choose to deal with?

The Commission did not deal with voluntary contributions to Government.

There is every indication, Mr. Speaker, that what's below the tip of

the iceberg is even uglier, and I think we've had indications of that.

It may be only natural, Mr. Speaker, that the former

Attorney-General should have gone on to MacMillan-Bloedel Powell River,

a group that deals in privilege with this Government all the time. It's

only natural that that company should want him and his experience. That

company was founded by a former civil servant. Mr. MacMillan was the

former Chief Forester of British Columbia. That company, Mr. Speaker,

went to the Judiciary for their present President and took him off of

the Bench. That company, Mr. Speaker, has gone to the Legislature and

the Cabinet for the next in line, for the next, President of

MacMillan-Bloedel, Powell River. No, the more we learn, Mr. Speaker, of

the operations of this Government, the messier and murkier they become,

and a frightening aspect of all of these events is the involvement on

the edges of senior employees of this Government. Mr. Ginter says that

Dr. Shrum arranged the appointment with Mr. Fouks. We found in the

Cypress Bowl dealings that Mr. Borthwick, Deputy Minister of Lands, was

a major holder in a mining company and mining interests. I think, Mr.

Speaker, there's no doubt that we've only seen the beginning of that

particular story and I think that particular story should be considered

in more detail later by this House.

There's no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that what we have on the other side

of this House is the old coalition gang. That's what we've got over

there. The difference between that group, Mr. Speaker, and the old

coalition gang is that there isn't the principal feud that caused the

breakup of the coalition — that's the only real difference. That's the

same old coalition

[ Page 133 ]

gang surrounded by influence peddlars, surrounded by self-seekers,

surrounded by those that are seeking the spoils of power, and it's a

spoils system that this Government operates under. Now for those of us

outside, or for those outside the House, many of these influence

peddlars around the edge of Government seem to be in dark corners. They

seem to be in dark corners and only occasionally have the spotlight

shine on them. What we're finding, though, is that they're wrong, that

that's not really the case at all. We're finding that they're really

all friends together, they're really people that belong to the same

club, they're people that go into business together, and it's simply

the way you people do business, it's simply the way you handle the

public's business in British Columbia.

I'm afraid that one of the ways that that group, Mr. Speaker, does

business is especially disturbing here in the Legislature. I'm

convinced that this massive majority of the Government is determined to

destroy and curb the rights of Parliament. I don't think there is any

doubt about that in terms of the interruptions and the range of matters

that have come up even today. I think that the web that we see, the web

that we see evolving with Social Credit, the one that involves

influence peddlars, that involves the spoils system, that involves

conflict of interests, that involves, it appears, some senior officers,

is one that should disturb us all, but the desire to curb the rights of

the members of this Parliament should probably be the most disturbing

of all.

The pattern has been established by the Government already, Mr.

Speaker. The Premier refused to accept a reasonable amendment earlier

in the Session urging a closing time of 11:00 p.m. for the business of

this House. It was a reasonable request and one accepted by virtually

most of the Parliaments of this country.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is a matter that has been dealt with by this House and cannot be debated.

MR. WILLIAMS: I've dealt with it again.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, I wish the member would adhere to the rules of this House.

AN HON. MEMBER: He abuses them more than anyone else.

MR. WILLIAMS: Ah, that is what the Minister says. How much

more evidence do we need about that massive elephantine majority

curbing the life of Parliament in British Columbia? How much more? It

even permeates, Mr. Speaker, the selection of school students listening

to the debates in this House. You have got a spoils system based on

which riding they are from, in effect, and you discriminate against the

kids that are coming from ridings that vote for the Opposition. It is

an incredible situation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, Oh.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will the member be seated.

HON. D.R.J. CAMPBELL (Comox): A point of order. The Chair of

this House has had leveled against it a charge that the Speaker's

Office is responsible for a spoils system insofar as visitors to the

Gallery is concerned. Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the Speaker's

Office undertake to ask the member to withdraw because the member has

very clearly indicated that there is a charge against the Speaker's

Office of this Parliament that there is a spoils system, and I ask, Mr.

Speaker, through you, that the member be instructed to withdraw….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. CAMPBELL: …Mr. Speaker, I am perfectly in order. I ask

that you instruct the member to withdraw any imputation and any

implication that the Speaker's Office is responsible for a spoils

system.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment. The member raised the point

of order, and I must agree with his point of order and ask the member

to withdraw his imputation.

MR. WILLIAMS: The right to ask questions in this Parliament,

unlike Ottawa, is a right that no one on the Opposition side has? That

is a right that exists in the Mother of Parliaments in England and, it

exists in Ottawa. The question period simply doesn't exist in British

Columbia, and it is possible that the Honourable Lady Minister isn't

aware that there are freer Parliaments in this land. There are freer

Parliaments in this land. It is clear that this Government wants to use

its elephantine majority against the Opposition. There is no question

about that.

But I would like to end up with just a few comments, Mr. Speaker, on

another matter. I would like to deal, for a few minutes, Mr. Speaker,

with the question of the financial genius of the Minister of Finance.

Because that has sort of been the conventional wisdom in British

Columbia, that if the Honourable the Premier was nothing else he

certainly was an able man in the world of finance. But the Honourable

Premier's dream with respect to what he has called his crown jewel,

British Columbia Hydro, has obviously become a nightmare. We have found

that we no longer really have, and maybe we never did have a financial

genius as Minister of Finance, because we have found that hydro rates

are going to be increased 15 per cent this Spring. That is what Dr.

Shrum, the chairman of B.C. Hydro said on January 9th, suitably a long

distance away from an election. We found also that the likelihood was

that the rates would have to increase 8 per cent annually thereafter,

or at least the following year, so we face the prospect of a 23 per

cent compounded increase in hydro rates over the next year and a half.

The problem, in addition to these rates which we face, Mr. Speaker, is

that the Hydro Authority has to find $200,000,000 capital per year to

expand the Hydro programme in British Columbia. Those are the figures

that we have.

We find, further, Mr. Speaker, that Dr. Shrum at long last admits to

political interference in the affairs of B.C. Hydro. Dr. Shrum said

that the previous rate decreases in British Columbia were brought about

by political interference by the Premier, in effect, in order to win

elections. Hydro policy — rational hydro policy — in British Columbia

was put aside in order to win elections for Social Credit. That is

what, in effect, Dr. Shrum said. Dr. Shrum said from the political

point of view, reducing rates at the time was probably absolutely

necessary.

AN HON. MEMBER: What are you quoting?

MR. WILLIAMS: I am quoting Dr. Shrum. Dr. Shrum said this and was quoted January 9th in the Vancouver Sun , an

article by Mr. Jes Odum of January 9, 1970, my friend. Then

[ Page 134 ]

Dr. Shrum said that the rate increase should have been made earlier

rather than his announcement this January. What he said is, "But I

don't think Victoria would have been very happy having an increase in

April when there was an election coming on." That is why there was no

increase. That is why there is no money left in the till. That is why

Hydro has no money in the bank, and the price, only now, is going to

have to be paid by the average consumer in British Columbia.

It is unfortunate that Dr. Shrum didn't speak earlier, Mr. Speaker.

Why didn't Dr. Shrum say in 1963 that there was political interference

in the affairs of B.C. Hydro? Why didn't he speak out then? Because he

presumably wanted Social Credit re-elected. That, presumably, is why he

didn't speak out. Why didn't he speak out in '64, '65, '66, and all of

the following years when he knew that the finances of Hydro were

reaching the danger point? Why didn't he speak up? Why wasn't he a man

like H. Lee Briggs who was willing to speak what he thought and,

subsequently, I am afraid, got fired by the Premier? Why wasn't he an

honest man so that the public — why wasn't he completely open with

respect to the financial problems?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment. I would ask the member to withdraw the imputation of a dishonest man by saying….

MR. WILLIAMS: I withdraw that. Why wasn't there complete

frankness about the financial affairs of B.C. Hydro throughout all

those years, Mr. Speaker, when B.C. Hydro was reaching the danger

point? Why did they go along with the political talk of the Premier

that started in 1963 and said we are going to decrease the rates this

year and we will decrease them every year thereafter? Why didn't some

of the financial officers of B.C. Hydro speak out and say that that was

a disaster course? It is unfortunate they didn't, but now at least the

record is getting straightened out. We know, Mr. Speaker, that the

problem is that power in British Columbia and a rational hydro policy

in British Columbia is permeated by politics, and we have it from no

more an authority than Dr. Shrum, the chairman of B.C. Hydro.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would move, seconded by the member from

Surrey, that the following words be added to the Address in reply to

the Opening Speech: "That this House has no confidence in the power

development policies of this Government referred to in the Opening

Speech."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment. The Member for Dewdney. What are you rising on?

MR. GEORGE MUSSALLEM (Dewdney): A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: What is your point of order?

MR. MUSSALLEM: A ruling of the Chair as stated. That is, that

if a member makes an improper remark it may be brought up after his

address. I call on the member to withdraw the remark that he impugned

to the Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources.

MR. WILLIAMS: I do. I make….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment. Let me….

MR. MUSSALLEM: He impugned that he was doing the same thing

that a Minister by the name of Sommers did and went to gaol for, and I

ask him to withdraw that remark. I don't think a scurrilous remark like

that should be allowed in this House at any time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment. Mr. Clerk.

AN HON. MEMBER: Only the member referred to in the remark can object.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: This was perhaps not placed in the proper

wording. It is a privilege of the House to request a retraction of a

statement, and if this is the wish of a member of the House to do so,

it is their prerogative.

MR. ROBERT M. STRACHAN (Cowichan-Malahat): …a ruling by a

former Speaker, Mr. Irwin, that only the person that found himself

impugned has the right to ask for a withdrawal.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am ruling that there are certain privileges

that accrue to a member of the House, there are certain privileges that

accrue to the House as a whole, and if the member is raising the point

that the privileges of the House have been abused by the statement, the

member can ask for a withdrawal.

AN HON. MEMBER: …he must state the content.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment. The member did state the content, and I am asking the member if he wishes to so proceed.

MR. BARRETT (Coquitlam): Mr. Speaker, the member stood up on

a point of order asking for a withdrawal from an

interpretation of his,

not the words of the member who spoke, and unless there are exact words

given by that member, there is nothing — to withdraw.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member rose and, as I pointed out to the

member, that he perhaps did not phrase it just in the proper manner.

However, the member has the prerogative of rising when he feels the

privileges of the House have been abused and stating what he is

objecting to, and ask for a withdrawal. If there is a

misinterpretation, the member concerned may say so. He has that

privilege of saying that he was misquoted. Does the member wish to do

so?

AN HON. MEMBER: In the meantime, if the Minister feels in

some way slighted, let's find out, and if he objects, let him object,

then he has a point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the Member from Dewdney. Do you wish to proceed?

(Various comments by some honourable members not clearly audible on the tape.)

DEPUTY SPEAKER: What is your point of order?

MR.BARRETT: …Mr. Speaker, and I want your ruling on whether or not we proceed on that motion.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Certainly. But the member rose on a point of order and I clarified his procedure.

[ Page 135 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: A point of order is always in order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Let's get on with it, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Surrey.

MR. ERNEST HALL (Surrey): It was getting, Mr. Speaker, a

little like August 27th, I didn't know whether I was going to make it

or not. However, before I get into my speech I do want to address the

House on one thing which we all read about this morning, and that is

the proposal by the United States to continue the nuclear testing in

Alaska. I don't need to say many words about this, Mr. Speaker. I just

want and hope that the Leader of the House will present us with a

motion as soon as possible so that this House can demonstrate and

convey to those responsible our complete rejection of this continued

programme of testing, as indeed the Government did some time ago.

Mr. Speaker, many of the members who have already spoken have

referred to the honour and the pleasure that is theirs in taking

part

in the debate. I feel the word "pleasure," Mr. Speaker, is most modest

and unassuming. In view of the efforts that I made, along with all the

other members, to get here, the word "pleasure" is a little

understated. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, it is a lot more than

pleasure that I feel standing here, especially when I reflect on the

conduct of the Government party during the election. Other speakers

have mentioned the questionable morality of the huge Government

advertising campaign during the election, and whilst it achieved its

short-term objective, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the Government has,

in that campaign, done a disservice to the political life and the

political morals of this Province. If we are to continue some of the

statements and to act upon some of the statements made by Cabinet

Ministers regarding forthcoming changes in the Elections Act, I am sure

we are going to have an opportunity to go further into that question.

Our election campaign, Mr. Speaker, in Surrey was very smooth and

rather uneventful. We were remarkably free from outside interference,

Mr. Speaker, nobody important came from the Cabinet to whip up the

crowds so I can't tell any stories about parades or misleading

statements. All I can report is the outcome, which appears to be a

popular one.

1969 came and went in Surrey with very few basic changes in the

problems of the area. We in Surrey are, and I think we still are, today

weighed down with the largest per capita social welfare case load in

the Province. We are still trying to counter the "stop and start"

school construction edicts of the Government. We are still plagued with

land assembly problems, and the complicated land assembly statements

made by various authorities are making things worse. Much of our

community efforts in the field of health care, particularly cerebral

palsy, is being frustrated by some of the scrooges in the Department of

Health. Lack of action by some of those responsible in the operation of

the Family Courts is leading to groups forming to try and get action in

that area. We've seen the spontaneous growth of anti-pollution

groups, tenant groups, and other protest groups in my area. In the

furthermost part of the riding the farmers are still waiting, with

growing impatience, for any sign of action at all on the Fraser River

flood control. The municipal council is still waiting for answers to

the problem of the overpasses on the rail route to Roberts Bank. In

going over these problems, Mr. Speaker, some of them for the fourth

time, I think that it's fair to say that the Government said that if

the Socred Government was re-elected August 27th, all would be solved.

But five months have passed, we've heard the Speech from the Throne,

there is nothing there, Mr. Speaker, nothing in the five months to

suggest that these problems are even being looked at.

Whilst I talk about the Speech from the Throne, may I say seriously,

Mr. Speaker, and sincerely, how much the people of Surrey regret the

oversight in that Speech in not paying tribute to Len Shepherd, the

M.L.A. for the old Delta riding from 1937 to 1945. Len Shepherd was a

school trustee, and as a councillor and as an M.L.A. served the people

of Surrey and Delta for way over 30 years, and I do regret that

oversight, As I said before, Mr. Speaker, our area has got a social

welfare case load, a social welfare financial burden, that's becoming

unsupportable. The member from Nanaimo pointed out on Friday, I think

it was, how the sharing of available money is moving, how those shares

are changing. It's true to say that the shortage of money supply hits

in a very real way the communities like Surrey, south of the River, who

are faced with rapid growth problems. We heard the Minister of

Municipal Affairs accuse the Liberals in Ottawa of being senseless, but

there is no more senseless Government than this one. The senseless

nature of the fiscal policy of this Government speaks for itself. They

pretend to share — they set up elaborate machinery, as the Minister of

Municipal Affairs calls it, but they have still got the rigid power — and they operate that rigid power ruthlessly in the money supply, and

the Government has done little in the past twelve months to help the

area south of the River. Well over half of the calls I get, Mr.

Speaker, come from constituents who are on social welfare, and after

three years of looking into the cases and into these calls and

problems, I am of the opinion that as far as the Surrey area is

concerned, that in terms of meaningful rehabilitation, very little, if

anything at all, is being accomplished. There is no contact, there is

very little advice and now, in that area, the housing problem that

faces a family that's on social welfare is so bad that it really

beggars description. Now they are faced with the increasing costs that

face us all. The situation of over five per cent of the population of

Surrey is, in my view, Mr. Speaker, a provincial disgrace.

I've got here, Mr. Speaker, a number of letters that I have received

from various PTA groups in the School District No. 36, and they all

bear the same message. They bear the same message that was in fact

brought to this Legislature by the mothers and the children and the

fathers in the Delta School District, our neighbour, and that message

is, Mr. Speaker, that the Government is breaking faith with the school

children, the parents, and the future of education in this Province.

Again, Mr. Speaker, the great centralist has spoken. Ignore local

wishes, ignore the results of referenda, in fact stop referenda. I

would like to read a couple of these letters, Mr. Speaker, to see how

they describe in human terms the effects of these stop and go policies.

Here's a letter from a school trustee, talking about the Grandview

Heights School. "No gymnasium, no library — they have about 35 books in

the hall of that school, no teachers' washrooms, no staff room." Here's

one from the Irma Stephenson PTA. "One large residential development is

presently under way in Guilford, others are pending in the near future.

We know that the school board's proposed referendum made provisions for

accommodating the increased enrolment, now we'll be experiencing

crowded classrooms and shifts in the education

[ Page 136 ]

of our children." Here's one that's been sent to me via the school

board. This one is from the Prince Charles PTA. "More development is

required on sites. While classrooms are adequate at this time, there is

no space available for the implementation of kindergarten. Funds are

not available to purchase all the equipment necessary for the teaching

of the new science programme as designed by the Department of

Education." The PTA itself in this school, Mr. Speaker, has paid out

$425 for a science programme, $300 for gym equipment, and $225 for

playground equipment. Grandview Heights, again complaining about no

library, no gym, no medical room, no kitchen, no staff room. Here again

in the Grandview Heights, this is a third letter repeating those points.

You know, Mr. Speaker, in 1968 when the Social Credit ice jam

prevented the school building, the total cost of the essential

classroom programme at that time was $40,000,000. The Government share

was only $20,000,000. That was one-fiftieth part of the Budget. I

suggest the same thing is happening today. Whilst building costs are

low and over seven per cent of the work force is unemployed, a thin

year developing for the building trade, we halt construction of

schools. It's a disgrace, Mr. Speaker, and our educational performance

on all levels, kindergarten through to university, is slipping, and

it's slipping by the evidence of the Government's own figures. Though,

Mr. Speaker, the Minister's office would often throw figures our way,

and you know you can sometimes make what you want out of figures, but

using the Public Accounts and the annual Budget Speech, I did some

percentage figuring. I found out, for instance, that when you look at

the appropriation for education that we all hear about and we are going

to hear about it again next Friday, going over the last five years, we

see that in 1964 the per cent of the Budget for education was 33.7 per

cent, the following year it was up to 34 per cent, the following year

it dropped to 31 per cent, the year after it went up almost one per

cent back to 31.9, but last year it came down .1 of a per cent, leaving

the figure at 31.8 per cent.

Now that's fine, those are the estimates. But then we look 12 months

later to find out what was spent, and we express those expenditures as

percentage of total expenditures, we find that the figures are very

different. In 1964 for instance, instead of it being 33.7 per cent it

was only 27.8 per cent, in '65, instead of it being 34 it was 26.8. In

'66, instead of being 31 it was 29 and so on and so forth. But if you

do another calculation, and you express the education expenditures at

the percentage of total expenditures, once the figures are in you find

out that the figures have changed again and have gone down another per

cent.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, may I say that if you look at the surpluses — and that's really where the action could be — and you look at the

amount o