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 24, 1970

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 553 ]

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 1970

The House met at 2 p.m.

The Hon. W.D. Black presented to Mr. Speaker a Message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

Bill (No. 18) intituled

An Act to Amend the Constitution Act, was

introduced, read a first time, and Ordered to be placed on the Orders of the Day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I move that we proceed to "Public Bills and Orders."

Second reading of Bill No. 9. (An Act to Amend the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority Act, 1964)

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 9. The Honourable the Minister of Finance.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, Bill No. 9 is the British

Columbia Hydro and Power Authority Act of 1964, amending Act. The sole

purpose of this Bill is to increase the borrowing authorization of the

British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority from $1,000,000,000 to

$1,250,000,000. Population growth and economic expansion has given

British Columbia the highest per capita use and the largest annual

percentage increase in the use of power of all the provinces in Canada.

It is therefore vital that the Authority prepare to meet the expected

continuation of this electric power demand. To this end the Authority's

generation, transmission, and distribution services must be expanded in

an orderly and planned manner. While the borrowing authorization of the

Hydro is being increased by $250,000,000, it does not mean that Hydro

will necessarily borrow this sum immediately or in the near future, but

it will be able to go forward with its plans. As I stated in my 1970

Budget Address, during this current tight money, high interest rate

situation, the Authority will be required to use this authorization

with utmost caution. Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: You've heard the Motion, are you ready for the question. The Honourable the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. D. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, let me say at the outset that

the New Democratic Party has been on record as being in favour of

public power in this Province, unlike any other party in this

Legislative Assembly, and has been in favour of that policy since its

formation as a party in 1933, and before the election of John McInnis,

Mr. Hawthornthwaite, and Parker Williams at the turn of the century.

Ever since there have been Socialists in this House we have believed in

the concept of public ownership for the public good. We have never been

opposed to the community itself borrowing money to improve the

community. Our philosophy has always been committed to the betterment

of human life and the development of opportunities of that human life

here in the Province of British Columbia.

So let me make it very clear that if there are any political

overtones on the debate of this Bill, let it be said that our policy

has been consistent since our very beginnings in this House, Mr.

Speaker, and we were in this House long before Social Credit was ever

heard of or even dreamed about. This party has had representations in

this House since the turn of the century as Socialist and now as the

New Democratic Party.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I am glad that we did get on to this Bill today.

Through the Premier's usual courtesy we learned that the Bill was

coming on the floor through the press, rather than informing the Whips

of this House, as was traditional in the past. The business of this

House is done through newspapers ahead of time, not through the

Chamber, Mr. Speaker, but I'm glad that the Bill has been called. After

it was called in the corridor it's now called in the House.

We stand now on the threshold of permitting the debt of this

Province to escalate to a very large figure. The current situation in

British Columbia is, prior to the passage of this Bill, our total debt

is over $2,250,000,000. For those who still cling to the myth, for

political symbolism or for any other reason, that this Province is

debt-free, let me disabuse you of that idea as quickly as I can.

When I have a mortgage, Mr. Speaker, I have to pay interest on it,

and if that qualifies me as a financial expert I'm talking about the

mortgage on this Province put on by the Premier, Mr. Speaker. My

friend, the mortgage on this Province now stands at $2,250,000,000. The

annual interest we pay for this debt is approximately $157,000,000. The

daily interest is $431,500 every day to service the debt of this

Province. The annual interest per person is $78.75 per person in this

Province. And it is a good investment, it is a good investment. But

let's be absolutely clear about one thing — it is debt, Mr. Speaker, we

are legally and morally obligated to pay for. And let's not play the

games of the debt-free nonsense.

This Bill intends to increase the debt of this Province by an

additional $250,000,000. The Premier says that they wll be careful with

the expenditure. I trust that. I know that the people who are going to

be responsible for making decisions have already publicly stated that

politics have interfered with their decisions, and we hope that

politics will not play too important a

part in the engineering and

fiscal decisions that they have to make. But what of those decisions,

Mr. Speaker?

Before the Premier closes the debate on this particular Bill we have

to know exactly where this money is going to be spent. We face a very

serious situation in this Province, Mr. Speaker, because in my opinion

this Government has lost its nerve, Mr. Speaker. This Government has

not in its past policies provided the kind of opportunities to give a

full life and a good life to the citizens of this Province who must

carry the bills. This money will be taken out of revenue returned to

this Province by the Federal Government and from general revenue, as

well as some of it being borrowed on the open market When we make a

drain on those kind of funds, Mr. Speaker, we are asking the people of

this Province, because of this Government's policies, to wait for its

schools, to wait for its hospitals and wait for its other services, but

we must be sure that that wait is worth it.

What will you do to see that secondary industry is developed through

the hand of this Government in this Province through expanded

electrical power generation? What will you do to make sure that the

economic boom in the Pacific Northwest will not by-pass British

Columbia, as the ill-fated Columbia River deal forced industry to go to

the State of Washington and the State of Oregon? What is your position,

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Government, on the prospect of a nuclear power

plant on Vancouver Island? What are the dates? What are the dates that

site one on the Peace will be brought into full production? What are

the dates that we can expect the Mica Dam to be completed and producing

power?

[ Page 554 ]

We asked the Minister of Recreation yesterday and he said that some

time in the future. These are the dates we must know now, Mr. Speaker,

we must know whether or not this Government, because it has lost its

nerve, has lost its ability to make hard and fast decisions about power

generation in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, we now have over 7 per cent unemployment in this

Province. Over 7 per cent unemployment. We need jobs in this Province,

Mr. Speaker, and the only way we can have those jobs is through

industrial development. I'm glad that the Premier appreciates the fact

that we are over 7 per cent in the unemployment figure. The Premier

also recognizes that we have over 100,000 people on social welfare in

this Province, and the number is climbing, and to say that it's

entirely Ottawa's fault alone, without any positive action and positive

decisions by this Government, is to fail the people of British Columbia.

I Mr. Speaker, in passing this money we expect a fair percentage of

it to go to the expansion of a rapid transit system in the urban areas

of British Columbia. We are very, very much opposed to an increase in

transit fares, and we think that if we are going to borrow this kind of

money, then we should commit some of it to an expanded public transit

system in both the area of Greater Victoria and the Greater Vancouver

area.

Mr. Speaker, let me say again that never let it be said that the New

Democratic Party was ever against the expansion of public power in its

concept in this Province. It was this Government, through its former

Attorney-General, who in the 1960 election campaign had no faith in

public power and campaigned through that election saying public power

would ruin the Province of British Columbia, Mr. Speaker. It was this

Government, through its present Premier, who ran around the Province in

1960 saying that public power would destroy the economy of this

Province. Mr. Speaker, I tell you this, we have more faith in British

Columbia and British Columbians than that, more faith in British

Columbia than that. Now the challenge to you, Mr. Speaker, after you've

been given another mandate and you come to this House with a Bill to

borrow another $250,000,000, will you provide us with the faith, will

you provide us with the drive, with the vigour and the nerve to expand

British Columbia?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

MR. BARRETT: The answer will be found, the answer will be

found in the performance of this Government in the next 36 months,

because I make this prediction as I take my seat. Just as the Coalition

in 1949 was given a huge mandate in this Province, within 36 months

they crumbled because they lost their nerve and they couldn't provide

for the people of this Province, and I say, Mr. Speaker, that that's

the crossroads that this Premier is at now. Are you headed for another

1949 and 36-month disaster, or can you give us the kind of development?

I tell you this, Mr. Speaker,

AN HON. MEMBER: Wishful thinking.

MR. BARRETT: We have not seen, we have not seen the depth and

quality and drive behind the Premier that would give us that kind of

confidence, and we expect the Premier today to state exactly what his

commitments are and what his policies are.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. P.L. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I don't want to take the time

of the House today to speak at length on this subject, because we heard

yesterday that the people of British Columbia were not to be permitted

to learn the details of how their savings were being spent by the

Minister of Finance and the B.C. Hydro, and I think it only legitimate

that a public power corporation should be accountable to the people and

not just to the men on the treasury benches.

I think that the B.C. Hydro has been an extraordinarily well managed

corporation, and I've paid compliments many times to the Chairman of

the B.C. Hydro, who is with us on the floor of the House today, and I

think anybody who was managing the corporation would do all that he

could to obtain adequate amounts of money at the lowest possible

interest rate, no matter what their source. That's his job, and he's

doing very well at it. Too well, in my view, because as a legislator in

this Province, with other responsibilities to schools and to hospitals,

to the education of the coming generation as well as to the number of

kilowatts in their homes, we have to see a broader picture.

We do not begrudge any increase in borrowing power to the B.C. Hydro

and that's why we intend to support this legislation, but we do

begrudge in this party, Mr. Speaker, money going to the B.C. Hydro that

should be going for classrooms and hospitals, because there are power

corporations all over the world that are expanding, perhaps all of them

not as rapidly as the B.C. Hydro, but certainly Calgary Power next door

is doing that, and paying taxes, meeting its load growth, and holding

its rates constant, finding its capital, somewhere, but certainly not

gobbling up the Canada Pension Plan money in the Province of Alberta

the way that Canada Pension Plan money is being gobbled up in the

Province of British Columbia.

One of the things that I would like to know, as an elected member

here in British Columbia, is what alternatives do we have for raising

the necessary capital, once we have given the authority to undertake

this. Because this is the real question, whether we can have schools

and hospitals in British Columbia, and Hydro too, in this most

prosperous year in our history. I think that we have been unbalanced,

Mr. Premier, I think we have been unbalanced, because I have never

heard once coming from the treasury benches over there the crisis in

school construction in British Columbia. I have heard many times the

crisis in power at a time when you are getting permits to export power

to the State of Washington, but never the schools, when we've got these

portable units all over British Columbia and thousands of youngsters on

swing shifts. Nobody in the treasury benches seems to speak for them,

and so it is left for us to do that, but in doing it, I am merely

stating what a balanced Legislature should be doing for its people.

I am emphasizing these things because the Premier and Minister of

Finance and the men on the treasury benches won't, and the backbenchers

who sit in this House turned aside their chance for power yesterday to

provide a balanced view of what the responsibility that they have in

this Legislature would be, by failing to make inquiries. Because how

else will we learn if we don't ask these questions?

Just as an observation, Mr. Speaker, about telling it like it ain't

in British Columbia, of which we have been doing for so many years, we

have a debt in this Province or, if you like, it's an unconditionally

guaranteed asset, which amounts to, as of March 31st of last year,

$1,305,940,767 of long-term

[ Page 555 ]

debt for Hydro, $202,020,000 of short-term debt for

Hydro. Well I remember rising in this House a few years ago and saying

we should be converting those parity development bonds to long-term

debt, when interest rates were running about 5 per cent, and the

Premier said, you see that shows how little the member knows about

finance, because the interest rates are going to come down. That's what

you said. What are you paying on those parity bonds? They are coming

down, he says. Well, they have come down from 5 per cent at that time

to 6½ per cent now, and you wouldn't re-finance those parity bonds to

long-term bonds then, you said that would be a mistake.

Well, we are continuing to do roll-overs, and knock the interest

rates up each time, and that adds to the total debt that the people of

British Columbia have to meet, and so what do we have in terms of the

dead-weight debt that each electricity customer has to pay on his

monthly bill? Well, according to the Seventh Annual Report of the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority ,

29 cents of every dollar on the electric light bill goes for debt, and

for the average light bill of $10 a month, $2.90 is debt, and that is

going to go up in the future, not down. But those in British Columbia

who have listened to the Premier tell it like it ain't, should know

that their hydro electric bills which will go up, I presume, 20 per

cent on the ist of April this year, will have included in them $2.90

worth of debt for each $10 of their bill.

Well, Mr. Speaker, we will support this legislation because we

recognize that the Hydro must expand. We don't begrudge the Hydro the

funds that it requires, but we still continue to say that the people of

British Columbia require schools and hospitals just as much as they

require hydroelectric power and that the priorities, Mr. Speaker, have

gone for hydro-electric power when the hydro-electric company would

have the easiest time of borrowing on the open market, far easier than

the schools and the hospitals. You have turned your back, Mr. Premier,

on your other responsibilities in this Province, and for that we

condemn you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Member for Vancouver East.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I want to support and

commend the Leader of the Opposition on the statement he made on behalf

of his party. I know that the figures have been given in this House as

to the magnitude of the Hydro challenge of the 70's. The challenge and

the opportunities both, and I don't want to repeat them, but generally,

speaking very broadly, we in this Province have to double our

electrical generating capacity of all the installations we have at the

present time within a period of about eight years.

AN HON. MEMBER: We told you that.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, the figures were there, they are there

in black and white, and what comes on with the extra generators in the

Peace River will help, but it won't solve the problem. What will come

out in Mica Creek in 1978 will still leave us with a huge power

deficit, and the point we make is that this Government still has no

plans on the drawing board, no vision as to what shall be done to

tackle the challenges of the 70's, and the great opportunities that lie

ahead for our people if we properly electrify this Province. You are

resting, Mr. Speaker, to the Premier through you, you are resting on

your laurels. The ship of state is drifting down the two rivers,

rudderless and underpowered, and we have heard nothing in the way of

plans such as we heard ten years ago from this Government before, as

the Leader of the Opposition said, it lost its nerve. We haven't heard

of the plans and the engineering studies to electrify this Province as

it should be electrified for the 1970's.

I want to support what the Leader of the Opposition said, too, about

public transit and to repeat, Mr. Speaker, things that have already

been said in the House. You have come to a turning in the road, Mr.

Premier, through Mr. Speaker, and you have taken the wrong turning.

You've turned away from public transit even only by raising it a

nickel, public transit — fast, comfortable and cheap — and you have

taken that other turning in the road that leads into a miasma of air

pollution and traffic strangulation, and the cost of building freeways

and throughways and a rising accident toll, and it is as simple as

that. You've taken a decision significant for the future of this

Province and it was a wrong turning, and we say, Mr. Speaker, that the

Government really hasn't made the decision, if you will, on this

question.

They have received a letter from the Chairman of the Hydro

recommending rate increases. They still have time to reject that rate

increase request that increased the subsidy to B.C. Hydro for public

transit, and we say for heaven's sake, before it is too late, take your

right turning in the road.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

MR. G.H. DOWDING: Mr. Speaker, a couple of years ago in this

House I suggested to the Premier that it's time that a very serious

look was taken at the future of nuclear power in terms of generation

for the 80's and the 90's. Some of the recent literature in the Scientific American , Science Magazine , Business Week

and so on, deals with the breakthrough that has been made in the field

of nuclear power, where they are going up now to over one million

kilowatt generation. They are doing this at a cost of between three and

four mills, which is pretty good when you consider what it is costing

to transfer power 500 miles from a dam to a river.

When the Premier deals with the use of the growing power that is

implicit in his Bill, I would hope that we will hear something about

what plans the Government has to consider starting some nuclear

reaction. In the United States it's fantastic the amount of activity

that is now going on ever since the Oyster Creek findings that occurred

in the completion of that particular project and the cost. It

represented a nuclear power break-through, and this issue I am reading

here, the Scientific American , February 1968, deals most extensively with that break-through in the field of nuclear generation of power.

Of course, the great advantage of it is feeling that you can avoid

the effects of the atomic waste, which they have managed to do in

Canada, in that there is no pollution. You don't get the thermal power

problems with coal and gas and consequently it is something that, from

the standpoint of pollution itself, is excellent. Secondly, you don't

have to keep cramming up the rivers all into British Columbia, and also

you don't have to worry about 500-mile transmission lines, because you

can build these plants where your centres of power are needed.

AN HON. MEMBER: We'll put it in Burnaby.

[ Page 556 ]

MR. DOWDING: Well, I don't mind a plant in Burnaby…

MR. SPEAKER: Order Please!

MR. DOWDING: …providing they dump the wastes all over where the member lives.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, Order!

MR. DOWDING: Mr. Speaker, I don't know what the plans are of

B.C. Hydro to spend this money that is proposed to be borrowed in the

future, but I think the Premier should let us know whether this aspect

of power generation has received the attention of the authorities of

B.C. Hydro, because the price is becoming completely competitive with

other forms of generation.

Some of the proposals have licked part of the problem of the

disposal of nuclear waste. There is no problem of pollution otherwise,

and it makes for an ideal location of plants and operation, over a long

enough period of time, to make it a cheap investment in terms of the

expenditure of money, of capital expenditure. I would suggest that, if

nothing else, that there should be either a committee set up by this

Government, of scientists drawn from the technological resources within

Canada, to do a study and report that to Hydro and to the Government on

this field of nuclear generation of power. The break-through has been

made ever since 1964, and it isn't generally known yet, and this

article makes it clear what the predictions are. The forecast of

nuclear power generated these past weeks in the United States, by 1980

will show a tremendous sharp increase in the graph of production, up to

160 megawatts of power by that time. The graph shown here indicates a

remarkable rise in and transfer of interest into this field, but I

don't know what the Government is doing about it. We are never told,

when the authority to borrow money is made in this House, how the money

is going to be spent, when it is borrowed. I think that the Government

should frankly lay before this House, this future plan to generate into

the 1980's, 1990's, and in what particular areas they are going to do

this, and what are the studies that should have been made to determine

which area of expansion B.C. Hydro will take.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Second Member for Vancouver East.

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the people in our party, as

the Leader of the Opposition indicated, have endorsed the principle of

public power for long periods of time, and the main reason is that they

wanted the people of this Province to receive the full benefits of

public ownership of this critical utility. The real problem, Mr.

Speaker, is that the benefits too often, at the handling of this

Government, have been reversed. The benefits are going to the wrong

people at the wrong time, and that is precisely what is happening now

in British Columbia, Mr. Speaker.

Who gets their power at cost in British Columbia? The pulp mills.

They get their power at cost in British Columbia, and they are already

getting their trees from the people, far below what they should be

paying for the trees, so these major corporations are getting

significant benefits at the hands of the public Hydro corporation. Who

is having to pay, Mr. Speaker? The people who are having to pay are the

working poor of this Province. That's who has to pay, in terms of the

light bill, 18 per cent increase, the 20 per cent increase. It's the

pensioners in the single rooms, the people with a hot-plate in

miserable quarters, the people with just a few lights and so on, that

are paying the substantial increases in the hydro rates. The people

that have to use the public transportation system. The people that

can't afford one or two vehicles. Not the people living in the suburbs

with two or three cars in the wealthier parts of our communities. It's

these people that are being affected, and that is the tragic irony, Mr.

Speaker, in terms of the situation we face.

We know that Hydro has to borrow, we know that Hydro has to have the

added generating units at the Peace River Dam and the other parts of

the Hydro development schemes. What we object to, Mr. Speaker, is that

it is the poor people, the people without the means in this Province,

that are bearing the debt unfairly, and that is what we object to. It

is unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that the benefits of public development of

Hydro should be shifted toward the sector of the economy that can well

afford to pay their own costs, and the cost of Hydro, and the tragedy

is that it is the poorer people of the Province that will be paying the

bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kootenay.

MR. L.T. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few

words. We, of this group, endorse what the Leader has said in regard to

public power, because ever since I have been in the House I have

advocated public power in the Province of British Columbia. It is only

unfortunate that the Government that we've got in power didn't take

over, not because it was public power, but for other reasons. It is a

little difficult, sometimes, to endorse a Government that we have

really no faith in, because we have really no faith in the

administration of the power development in the Province of British

Columbia. Because it was their policies in the past years that have led

them into the trap that they are in today, where they are not only

asking for this $250,000,000, but they are increasing the rates to get

still more money, because they have subsidized the wrong people.

In my own case, I know there is a shortage of power in British

Columbia. I know up in Natal-Michel, if a family there wants to put on

a toaster and a kettle at the same time they blow a fuse because

there's not sufficient power. If you haven't got the power to put two

appliances on at the one time, they haven't got the power. And, Mr.

Speaker, I would like to tell the honourable member down in the far

corner that if he would read the questions that are put on the Order

Paper and would read the answers he would know that the shortage of

power is there.

Some years ago I suggested to this Government, when we were

discussing the downstream benefits, that they should have brought a

line into the East Kootenay from the United States to bring back those

downstream benefits to boost the power in the East Kootenay. Now we

find that we have a shortage of power, and there is little chance of

industry coming in there until the lines get boosted up. I understand

now that they are going to bring in some line from the United States,

and also from Calgary Power.

But you know, the Premier has sort of mesmerized the people in this

Province, election after election, election after election, into

thinking that he was some sort of a financial genius when it comes to

spending money on this public power. In 1960 he was opposed to it, at

the election in 1960. In 1961 he went all out for it, and since that

time we have had nothing but political interference in the

administration

[ Page 557 ]

of the power development of this Province.

Political interference for the purpose of furthering the Social Credit

party in the Province, and that's why we find ourselves in the position

we are in today.

Because if we had followed the right policies, and I thought, Mr.

Speaker, that the Premier, when he was up today to move the second

reading on this Bill, that he would tell us the plans for the future of

B.C. Hydro, what they were going to use the $250,000,000 for. Was it

for new machines on the Peace River, was it for bringing the power into

the East Kootenay, or what it is all about? But he is asking for a

blank cheque to go ahead and he tells the House nothing about it.

But I think really it is, Mr. Speaker, this $250,000,000 is exactly

the amount that is going to underwrite the Columbia, that is going to

subsidize the United States. That's what we're doing, subsidizing the

United States, because they're the ones that benefitted from the great

expenditures of the B.C. Hydro in regards to the Columbia. They're the

ones that will receive a two and a half mill power, not British

Columbia.

He talked about jobs, of building these dams in the West Kootenay.

He talked about how many jobs he was going to make. You go up there now

and talk to the people about the jobs. The job is finished, and at that

time I suggested that the plans should have been made then to take up

the slack when the construction work was finished, but we didn't

produce any power for British Columbia and we don't intend to produce

any power for British Columbia. I'm rather surprised at the Premier

that he wasn't a little more humble when he moved the motion for the

second reading on this Bill, a little more humble about the plans for

the future, and tell us exactly what is going on. I suppose when he

closes it he probably will tell us. I hope he does, but nevertheless I

think that that $250,000,000 that we are subsidizing the United States

on, if the proper administration had gone on over the years we would

have that $250,000,000. It wouldn't be necessary to have it for the

power, but we could have it for schools and hospitals and housing in

the Province of British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable the Premier will close the debate.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I am greatly interested in the

debate this afternoon on the second reading of this very important

Bill. I am glad, too, to see so many people in the galleries, and at

times we have important people in the galleries and members of the

Legislature pick them out. I was very disappointed today that the

Leader of the N.D.P. didn't welcome to the House a former member of

this House, Mr.Stupich, the former member from Nanaimo (applause). It

just shows how bad the memory is of the socialist party. Once defeated

they pass to the side.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, order.

MR. BENNETT: I want to say this. I want to say this, that

when he was in the House, the Opposition had one member that knew a

little bit about finance, but since the last one, from what we've heard

in the last few days, they know nothing about finance at all, Mr.

Speaker.

They talk about direct debt, dead-weight debt, contingent

liabilities. Can you imagine that any group of so-called intelligent

men elected to office would think that a contingent liability was a

dead-weight debt? All I'm going to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that just

shows when they open their mouths they know nothing about finance at

all. The direct debt of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Canada, or any place

else — that's the dead-weight debt. The guaranteed debt is an indirect

debt that you pay only on behalf of your guarantee and that's not

dead-weight debt. It shows again how wise the people of this Province

have been over these 17 or 18 years to always turn down these

socialists and this little Liberal rabble, because they know nothing

about the finances of the country. They talked about whether the

Premier had lost his nerve or not, and I want to tell you this, they

have a nerve to talk even about finances or power, and theirs is an

abysmal record of opposing all our power developments. I want to say,

Mr. Speaker, the Premier of this Province and the Social Credit

Government and movement has not lost its courage. That's the question.

It has not lost its confidence. It has not lost its strength. Neither

have the people of British Columbia lost their faith in the Social

Credit Government. How dismal you look this day. How dismal you look.

AN HON. MEMBER: You've lost your marbles.

MR. BENNETT: My friend talks about marbles because he is

still only in grade one, a six year old as far as finance is concerned.

He has never grown up. He has never grown up. Still playing with

marbles. Still talks about marbles. That's the only thing he knows

about financing.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, order.

MR. BENNETT: He can trade marbles with the kids, perhaps, that's about all.

AN HON. MEMBER: That was a real addition to the debate.

MR. BENNETT: I want to say that this Government, the Social

Credit movement, took British Columbia from a have-not Province to the

number one have Province in all of Canada. And when I represent the

people of this Province at a Federal-Provincial Conference, the Prime

Minister of Canada says, "British Columbia, in your fine financial

position, Mr. Premier." He doesn't say it about any other Province.

Because in British Columbia, and British Columbia alone today, there is

no direct dead-weight debt on the people of this Province. None at all.

We build up a surplus for times, because we knew they would come, due

to wrong planning of financing by the Federal Government, because you

know very well that it isn't the Provincial Government that controls

finances of a country. It isn't the Provincial Governments that are

responsible for 10 per cent, 12 per cent, 20 per cent money. It is

these terrible Liberals, my friends, where they take out of this

Province….

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, the Government plans to complete the

great Peace River development, which the N.D.P. or C.C.F. or whatever

they want to call themselves — they can change their name as often as

they like. One day they have the labour support, the next day they say

they don't want it, and then the Young N.D.P. say they've got to have

it. I'm going to tell you they are just as changing as a bunch of

little kids playing their games, because they have no faith in

themselves, they don't know where they're going. They've advocated the

great Peace River power development in 1984 — just imagine that, just

imagine that, just imagine that! Talk about lack of faith, talk about

no courage, and

[ Page 558 ]

that's the reason why the people of this Province don't trust them and never will trust them….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

AN HON. MEMBER: What about Wenner-Gren? You threw him out.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

AN HON. MEMBER: We'll throw you out next.

MR. BENNETT: And so the great Peace River power development

is coming into the great City of Vancouver, the lower mainland, and all

through the Province of British Columbia, thanks to the credit of the

people of this Province who supported an enlightened Government, an

enlightened people. I resent the remarks made regarding the people of

this Province, when they said the Premier cast a spell over them in

this Province. I resent that on behalf of all of the people and the

voters of this Province. I resent it on behalf of the 100,000 new votes

we got in the last election. No wonder the people don't trust them.

They don't trust the people. No socialist ever trusts the people.

They're full of bureaucracy, dictatorship….

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh!…. Oh!….

MR. BENNETT: So the great Peace River power development will

be completed, and that's part of the reason why we need new borrowing

power, that along with other things.

AN HON. MEMBER: What other things?

MR. BENNETT: Great transmission lines. We are planning, and

we will take it up with the Federal Government, because we think that

they should share as they shared in other parts of Canada, with a

nuclear plant on Vancouver Island. We plan to build the transmission

lines to Mica, we plan to machine Mica, 1977, about that time we expect

it to be completed.

AN HON. MEMBER: What else is on the line?

MR. BENNETT: We have lots more on the line, my friend. But I

want to tell you this. It isn't the river that your former leader

advocated in this House, and you sat in silence when he wanted to dam

the Fraser, my friend. Right in this last Session. Your former leader.

No, you're not the former leader. You're twice removed. (applause and

laughter) You're the former-former-former.

AN HON. MEMBER: What a shambles!

MR. BENNETT: Yes, what a shambles of the once proud party,

the C.C.F., what a shambles is left of it today. Shrunk to that little

wee group. Oh, I want to tell you — and that Liberal party went all the

way around this Province in a bus, saying they were going to win 22

seats. Look at the measly little crowd, look at them. The people don't

trust you my friend.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BENNETT: They talked about hydro-electric rates for the

small person in the small room. I'll answer to that now, Mr. Speaker,

because these are the people we think of first, and that is even the

C.C.F. or N.D.P. say these people vote for us, and so they do. What

would their average bill be? I looked into it, my friend, about 100

kilowatt hours a month. Ontario Hydro for 100 kilowatts a month at the

present time, $3.30. Quebec Hydro, $4.15. Manitoba Hydro, in Brandon

$4.50, in the rural areas $5.85. In British Columbia, under the new

rates, $3.00. There we are, my friend, there we are, there we are.

AN HON. MEMBER: …And the pulp mills?

MR. BENNETT: Pulp mills. The Liberals made 20-year contracts

with some that we, when we put a reduction in rates before inflation

took over, we gave no reductions on rates in bulk, but last May we

increased the rates 10 per cent, and they will be increased again.

AN HON. MEMBER: How much?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BENNETT: Ten per cent last May.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The honourable member will have

the opportunity during the Estimates, surely, to ask such questions,

not in this debate.

AN HON. MEMBER: He won't answer then?

MR. BENNETT: The answer is no. (laughter)

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please. Now the honourable members

well know that interruptions of this kind, requesting information from

Ministers, is not in order, and I can't permit it.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, they are never in order. In fact, they are in disorder all around this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BENNETT: In the Province of Manitoba — and I don't just

say it because they've got a socialist government there. No, they

haven't got a socialist government, it's different from you, isn't it?

That's right, my friend, they say so too. They say so too. In Manitoba,

in 1968, electric rates were increased 12 per cent and this year they

have already authorized another 14 per cent increase, Mr. Speaker.

There you are, my friend, 12 per cent and then 14 per cent on top of

the 12 per cent.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nearly 30 per cent without any good streets.

MR. BENNETT: Without any good government.

In the Province of Ontario they put a lot of its power development

in because its development came early and has it all written off over

its 50-year progress, and so there is no interest or anything or

sinking funds or depreciation to apply to it. In some of their large

cities they have low rates where that's happened, but they haven't got

a postage stamp system throughout the province like we have, Mr.

Speaker. They haven't got a government that treats the people in the

province, all over the province the same. They haven't got a people's

government, Mr. Speaker. But in 1968, Ontario Hydro increased their

rates 12 per cent, and this year, 1970, they're increasing them seven

per cent. Did the Opposition

[ Page 559 ]

ever say anything about this? Did they ever say

anything about this? No, no. No, no. And in Quebec, in 1967, they

increased from 12 to 15 per cent. In 1970, this year, they're

increasing from 10 to 16 per cent more. No, Mr. Speaker, only in

British Columbia, of all Canada, have we lower rates than we had in

1961, the only place, the only place.

I want to say this, that in 1961 and today, Mr. Speaker, because of

the financial policies in the central banks of the world — and I don't

blame Canada all alone — we haven't got the constant dollar today that

we had in 1961. Do you know the Canadian dollar is worth 28.2 per cent

less than it was in 1961? So when you pay your bills you're paying with

a different dollar. Nobody knows that better than the working man when

he says okay to increased rates, and that's what he says all the time.

Only in this House the Opposition doesn't know anything about

economics, nothing about finance. 28.2 per cent change in the Canadian

dollar. Less value today. So you're not paying it for the same. So when

you pay the same under the new rates as you did in '61, Mr. Speaker, if

you take the Canadian rate — you take 28.2 per cent reduction, Mr.

Speaker. But in British Columbia, due to the sound management of the

Social Credit Government, we've had less inflation than other

Provinces. And so the Consumer Price Index has dropped 28.2 per cent

since '61, but only 21 per cent, 21 per cent, so in British Columbia,

when you pay the same rates — the users of electricity after April the

1st — they'll be paying really 21 per cent less than they did in '61,

because of the different value of the dollar.

Of course, if the Opposition can't understand ordinary economics,….

(uproar)…. if they can't understand the difference between a

fluctuating dollar and a stable dollar, it just shows how ignorant they

are, how stupid they are, how silly they are, and no wonder the people

would never support them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (shouting)....

MR. BENNETT: Oh, you just got in by a slim majority this

time, the lowest majority you ever had. Next time you'll go out, and

this other chap, he just got it by about ten.

So, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to cars and buses, somebody says five

cents would stop you driving your car, and you take a bus. Huh! How

stupid do they think the people of British Columbia are? It costs a

dollar more, at least, to take your car downtown rather than go by bus,

so if a dollar won't stop them from using their car, five cents won't

either, my friend. That's just straight common sense, and that's even

common sense that the member from Vancouver Centre understands.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh!….

MR. BENNETT: One of the most brilliant members of the House

my friend. Because he's like one of the Liberal members, who is the

smartest one in the Liberal group — he, too, comes from Kelowna.

AN HON. MEMBER: Now he's got me worried.

MR. BENNETT: We've had you worried for a long time, my friend.

So at the present time, what are the fares on buses across Canada?

Calgary, 25 cents; Edmonton 25 cents, and you're always quoting these

places to us; Saskatoon, 25 cents; Winnipeg, 25 cents; Hamilton,

Ontario, 30 cents; London, 25 cents; Ottawa, 25 cents; Toronto, 30

cents; Windsor, 30 cents; Montreal, 35 cents; Quebec, 25 cents. And so

I say, our rates have been the lowest in British Columbia of any large

city in Canada, and the wages paid the bus men are the highest in all

Canada, my friends. So I announce today, because it's the

responsibility under responsible government to take the responsibility,

and we don't shirk from it for one second, so I announce this day that

we accept the recommendations of the Hydro directors, both on the bus

fares and the hydro rates.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Ohhhh.

AN HON. MEMBER: How much of a total decrease will that represent?

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, British Columbia has had great days

since the Social Credit Government came in power. We've had tremendous

development and expansion, but we're only at the beginning of the

beginning.

You couldn't get past the Pattullo Bridge before you had Social

Credit. Prince George wasn't even hardly a village. Now the great power

development in the Peace River, that great power development taking

place in the Kootenays at Mica — four million horsepower, the great

railroad developments that we have proceeded with in our north country

— and we'll be talking about that later this afternoon as well, I hope

— this shows that this Government and this Government alone has

courage, not only in this Province but in this nation, because only in

British Columbia is the real north being developed, only here. And from

this development of this hydro comes jobs, comes business, comes more

revenue for new schools, new hospitals, new social services, and all

the fine things of life. That's the reason why in British Columbia

alone could you come out with a film, "The Good Life, " Mr. Speaker.

You members on this Government side know full well of the great

plans of the Social Credit movement. We've paved the decks, we've got

the structure built, now we're going to build the superstructure, and

we'll have, as we have now, the highest standard of living in Canada.

And you'll find, you'll find the good life. Social Credit will give the

people of British Columbia the highest and best standard of living in

the whole world.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is, that Bill No. 9 be read a

second time. All those in favour say aye. Contrary minded, no. The

motion is carried.

MR. BENNETT: Division, Mr. Speaker.

The motion was agreed to on the following division:-

YEAS — 54

Messieurs

Wallace

Hartley

Mussallem

Ney

Lorimer

Price

Merilees

Hall

Clark

Marshall

Williams, R. A.

McGeer

Brousson

Calder

Williams, L.A.

Gardom

Weriman

Macdonald

Cocke

Kripps, Mrs.

Strachan

[ Page 560 ]

Dowding

McCarthy, Mrs.

Smith

Nimsick

Jordan, Mrs.

McDiarmid

Barrett

Dawson, Mrs.

Capozzi

Dailly, Mrs.

Kiernan

Skillings

Vogel

Williston

Chant

LeCours

Bennett

Loffmark

Chabot

Peterson

Gaglardi

Little

Black

Campbell, D.R.J.

Jefcoat

Fraser

Brothers

Tisdalle

Campbell, B.

Shelford

Bruch

Wolfe

Richter

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the motion carried unanimously. So ordered.

I would point out also that the matter was raised a moment ago in

terms of a division with the number of people standing. Careful study

of the Standing Orders should clarify that situation.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Premier): Second reading of Bill No. 7, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 7. (An Act Respecting

the Purchase of Unissued Shares of the Capital Stock of the Pacific

Great Eastern Railway Company)

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister of Finance.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, this Bill has to do with

the purchase of unissued shares of the capital stock in Pacific Great

Eastern Railway Company. The Pacific Great Eastern Railway is

completely owned by the people of British Columbia and owns all the

issued shares. In any great pioneering railway you must have a balance

between equity capital and bonded indebtedness, and since we now plan

further great extensions of the Pacific Great Eastern Railway in the

northern part of the Province, that will bring great development in

mining, in forestry, and other industries, then the Government

considers it's sound business that the Government increase its equity

capital in the Pacific Great Eastern Railway which it owns now.

The Pacific Great Eastern Railway is recognized as an important

motivating force behind the rapid growth of the central and northern

regions of British Columbia. Direct benefits are felt by all our

citizens in those parts, and benefits do also spread through all parts

of British Columbia. However, indirect benefits accrue to all the

Province and the economy of British Columbia has been assisted

materially from the Railway's operation. In fact, the great growth of

the 60's was built on the Government's vision, courage, and foresight

when other parties and other governments didn't want us to go ahead

with the Pacific Great Eastern Railway. The Premier could hardly dare

go into West Vancouver because they said he was going to put the

railroads right through their living rooms.

AN HON. MEMBER: And did you?

MR. BENNETT: Certainly I did, for the good of the people of

British Columbia, my friend. The Liberal party especially opposed it.

Certainly, right, and I want to know how they're going to vote this day.

Then, Mr. Speaker, we went into the development of the north, and I

took it to the Federal Government and asked for their assistance, as

they assisted all other developing railroads for the development of

this nation, and the Federal Government did agree to pay a subsidy in

the first 50 miles north of Prince George. Read their Hansard

and you'll see that the then Prime Minister in the Federal Government,

in the Federal Parliament — because there wasn't a voice of the

Conservatives, the Liberals, or the C.C.F. got up to support British

Columbia — and when the Federal Prime Minister said that all the

development he thought was worthwhile was 50 miles north of Prince

George, and that is the only type of subsidy, to that extent, and the

members there of the parties I mentioned stayed silent in their seats.

But our Government then went on alone, having great confidence and

courage in the future of this great Province, and the great Peace River

country, one of the greatest places in the whole world, my friends.

And how proud I was in this House to recommend a number of years ago

that we have two seats, two members in the House to represent the Peace

River, and do you know these Opposition parties opposed that too, my

friends. Oh yes, they did. They've never had any vision, any courage

about the great Peace River country and the great North. Now we're

building it way up to Fort Nelson, and now north of Prince George,

north and west of Fort St. James, the former capital, now under

construction at Takla Lake and Takla Landing, now proposed to go 300

miles more northwest to Dease Lake, opening up this great empire. So

that's the reason why we believe the equity capital should be

increased, because this is a pioneer opening up the world. I move

second reading, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Cowichan-Malahat.

MR. R.M. STRACHAN: Well, Mr. Speaker, I listened to the two

speeches the Premier has just made, one was shorter than the other,

neither was too informative, both were almost entirely politically

motivated, and both did a clever job of concealing the true facts from

the people.

The Premier talked about the two seats in Peace River which has

nothing to do with this Bill, but just to show how far he was wrong, he

said we opposed it. What we opposed was a gerrymander in the Province

of British Columbia, the rejection of two years work of a committee,

and a man walking into a committee and pulling a slip from his paper,

after two years of work by a committee, and saying I move, I move, I

move, without reference to the work that had been done by the

committee. And the man who was then the member for Peace River couldn't

even get a nomination. The man who moved the motion in committee

couldn't even get a nomination in the Peace River. He came down to

Cowichan-Newcastle and ran against me and got whomped! That's what

happened to him.

MR. SPEAKER: Could we get back to the second reading of this Bill now?

MR. STRACHAN: Yes, we'll get to the Bill. That's what I'm

speaking of, Mr. Speaker, because this Bill is to take public funds

from the taxpayers of the Province and give it to the Pacific Great

Eastern Railway so they can extend through the great northland of

British Columbia.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I have flown across the great northern areas of

this Province. I have seen them, I have seen what's there and I am

happy to see this extension carrying forward

[ Page 561 ]

into the northern areas of British Columbia.

Because the Premier might be able to mislead that group over there, he

might be able to mislead some of the people of this Province, but those

who know the record of this party in this House, men like Joe Corsbie

and Harold Winch were standing up demanding extension of the P.G.E.

into northern British Columbia. I challenge you to go into the Library

and check the records, I challenge every one of you to go into the

Library and check the record because it's all in there, it's all in

there. We have always supported the extension of the Pacific Great

Eastern Railway.

One thing we ask, Mr. Speaker, one thing we ask — we don't mind the

extension of services, we have always supported the extension of

services. We don't mind public funds being used for the extension of

the services, but we believe that the people should be told how much it

is costing to extend these services. We didn't object — quite a few

have come into this House now — about 16 years ago, to wipe out the

$94,000,000 that the P.G.E. owed the Government of the Province of

British Columbia. We voted for the Bill, because it was an attempt to

wipe out the mistakes of the past, to put it on a financial footing

that would allow it to operate from then on as a viable working railway.

We have never objected to the extension of the borrowing powers of

the Pacific Great Eastern Railway, but it is completely misleading for

the Premier, as he did in his speech a few moments ago, to say that a

Provincial guarantee is only something that is paid upon the default of

that guarantee. Because just two years ago in this House, after the

P.G.E. had accumulated a deficit of some $7,000,000, a situation which

could not be allowed to continue, a Bill was brought in at that time I

think — we already owned the railroad 100 per cent, now how you can own

more than 100 per cent of a railroad I'll never know — but he brought

in a Bill to take $25,000,000 tax dollars out of current revenue, out

of current revenue. The Premier can meander around and repeat and

repeat this myth about the fact that tax dollars are not being used,

but tax dollars are being used for this, and that's all I ask, is that

the people be told how much it has cost them.

If you go back into the early history of the P.G.E., how they got

into that terrible position they were in for so many years, is because

of free enterprise and its complete inability, its complete inability

to control the forces that are allowed to run rampant within that kind

of enterprise society. That's why the P.G.E. became such a mess. Go

back and read the history of this railway. What happened? All in the

name of the kind of society that you people say you support. Every

problem we have in this society today, Mr. Speaker, is due entirely to

governments like this one, who say they support this rampant private

interest that got us into this position, where at a time when we should

have been opening up the north at much less cost than is now the case,

and had they taken the advice of Harold Winch and Joe Corsbie when they

were in this House, it would have cost us considerably less than is now

the situation.

So, let us not kid ourselves that it is not costing us any money. It

is costing the taxpayers of this Province a great deal of money to open

up the northern areas of British Columbia. As I say, I agree they have

to be opened up, they should be opened up. I'm supporting this Bill

because we have always supported the extension of a publicly-owned

railway into northern British Columbia, and the job has to be done.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources.

HON. R.G. WILLISTON: Mr. Speaker, no, no, I can't close the

debate. Mr. Speaker, I think it would be remiss, though, if one of us

representing the northern part of the Province, and knowing from actual

experience the impact of the Pacific Great Eastern Railroad on our

economy, were not to say one or two words here as to what this happens

to mean.

The last speaker, the member from Cowichan-Malahat, indicated that

the equity capital came from taxation. I don't know how anyone

considers just where a particular quantity of money comes from, when it

comes from consolidated revenue. I could equally say, this year, that

the amount placed into equity for the Pacific Great Eastern Railroad

has come from the increased revenue from the forest resources in the

Province, which are up more than that much in this year alone, and a

great deal of it, believe it or not, has come from the area north of

Prince George along the extension of the Pacific Great Eastern

Railroad. As a matter of fact it may interest the members of the House

to realize that the best earning division on the Pacific Great Eastern

Railroad at the present time is that small stub that comes out from

Mackenzie on the reservoir behind the Peace River Dam, and feeding that

traffic volume into the over-all Pacific Great Eastern Railroad system.

But, be that as it may, that's established. It's established into

the Peace River. Right now it's heading for Fort Nelson, and when it

gets to Fort Nelson it has to go on in due course and very shortly to

Nelson Forks which is on the Liard River, and that gives the Pacific

Great Eastern Railroad then command of the traffic moving down north.

Because that will give it by far, at that time will give it by far the

advantage of controlling everything going down to Inuvik, Tuktoyaktuk,

and out to the Arctic Coast, because it will be by far the most

efficient transportation system.

It may interest members of the House to realize that because the

railroad is going into Fort Nelson the year after next, that we already

have major inventory work going on in the Fort Nelson area at the

present time, both for lands, forests and also for minerals, and a very

large mine on the strength of that is just entering production at the

present time, and will haul to Fort St. John until the railroad reaches

that point.

But by far the most interesting and challenging and thrilling part

of this whole business is the announcement which has been made this

year to which this equity capital is attached, and that is the

extension of the railroad from Takla to Dease Lake, and I don't know

whether members of the House, many of them who do not know the

geography there, realize the full impact when it gets to Dease Lake.

But, for one thing, if some of you members have been, and I know the

member from Atlin has, that getting up to Cassiar and the very large

quantities of low grade asbestos fibres, for example, that cannot

presently stand the cost of transportation out to the Yukon and down,

once the railroad hits Dease Lake, a tremendous volume of mineral

wealth right from that source alone will be immediately available for

shipment. We've already completed some of our inventory work on the

forests at Dease Lake surrounding that area. We already know from

Galore Creek and Kennecott's investigations, and others, that this is

likely one of the most highly mineralized areas left thus far on the

North American continent.

[ Page 562 ]

All the way from Dease Lake down to Takla Landing you're moving

through virgin forest area which is going to be the next thrust of

development insofar as British Columbia is concerned. This extension of

the railroad moves through an area, Mr. Speaker, when we talk about

virgin area, likely on this continent of North America there is no more

virgin area through which a railroad could run than would be this one

going from Takla Lake to Dease Lake. It has, in fact, fewer people and

lesser developments than was extending across Canada at the time when

they first projected the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National

Railroads through parts of that area. Outside of the odd trapper,

fisherman, or someone who can enter the area on plane, or the

prospector who gets in by plane, at the present it is virtually an

untapped wilderness of solid resources.

I want to commend not only the directors of P.G.E., and I happen to

be one, but the Government as a whole for taking this initiative,

taking this stand now to project the extension of this railroad to

Dease Lake within the next five year period. This is going to be one of

the greatest moves in the history of the Province of British Columbia

insofar as development is concerned.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burnaby Edmonds.

MR. G.R. DOWDING: …. (blank in tape) …. to give $35,000,000

of public money from the public revenues of the Province to the Pacific

Great Eastern Railway. We think that it's much better than going on the

bond market or elsewhere to raise that kind of money for the

development of the north that is needed. One wonders, sometimes, how

the directors of the Pacific Great Eastern decide to hold a meeting and

issue shares to the Government in exchange for $35,000,000. I think

they've reached more than 150 per cent ownership in the company now,

and if we keep up we may end up owning 200 per cent of the company,

which would be a great achievement that we can look forward to in the

70's.

Well, I want to point out that there is nothing, there is nothing

that the Premier can't do with figures when it comes to ownership and

equity in the Pacific Great Eastern Railway. We all know that he is not

kidding the bond holders in New York if you buy shares in a company you

already own 100 per cent. They can read, and you have a little

prospectus to show this, of what the situation of the company is and

how many shares were issued, the capital of the company is over the

years. But this delightful fiction is used every time the directors

want some more money, they decide to issue some more shares in Pacific

Great Eastern, and a….

AN HON. MEMBER: It doesn't help the Commonwealth shareholders.

MR. DOWDING: No, I don't think that kind of fiscal magic would have helped the Commonwealth shareholders.

But the point of it is that $35,000,000 is needed and we're not

going to lend it to our own Government railway, we are going to give it

to them, and every one of us should support that if we believe in

developing the upper half of this Province.

Well, I would like to put in a plea, Mr. Speaker, to the Government

to consider some of the public monies of this Province going to what

has now turned out to be the longest and most delayed project in the

Province, the 16-year story of the failure to complete, 17-year story

of the failure to complete the Stewart-Cassiar Road. We talk about

development of the north. How long is it going to be before that area

sees the completion of that road? I remember in 1955 and 1956 that in

this House they had an investigation. At that time that road was under

the direction of the then Minister of Lands and Forests, Robert

Sommers, and that investigation showed that there were cost plus

contracts, that there was great waste and inefficiency and loss of

money. I think that it's time that the Government laid before the House

some plan for developing that area of the north, and get on with it and

get it completed in the same way that we are proposing to do by the

subsidy of the Pacific Great Eastern Railway with the $35,000,000

called for in Bill No. 7. We support this Bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. P.L. McGEER: Well, Mr. Speaker, naturally the Liberal

party will support this Bill recognizing, as did the member from

Burnaby-Edmonds, that we are engaging in a little bit of delightful

fiction here about increasing our ownership from 100 per cent to 100

per cent in this railroad.

I think it's a pity, Mr. Speaker, that the Provincial Government has

been so unsuccessful in persuading the Federal Government to chip in on

this development of northern British Columbia. I think had we a more

reasonable Government there would be little doubt we would have gained

support from the Federal Government, because I've heard the members of

this House stand up one by one and attack the Federal Government in

most unreasonable terms, and then when it comes time for us to get some

return from the Federal Government you find you are completely

discounted in Ottawa, and that's one of our great problems.

I well recall three of four years ago when the Premier of British

Columbia went down with his, went down with his…. Could you keep order,

please, Mr. Speaker? …. went down with his brief to the Federal

Government, and instead of the report from the east coming out "the

builders," he and the former Attorney-General of British Columbia were

billed in the eastern press as "the wreckers." That's the problem that

we face in this Province in trying to get support for worthwhile

developments in this Province of British Columbia, because as far as

national projects are concerned and nation building is concerned, the

Provincial Government here is considered as a group of wreckers, and I

say that we should have support from the Federal Government for these

development projects.

We should have a Government in this Province that can negotiate and

negotiate successfully with our National Government, yet they don't

see, Mr. Speaker, that other provinces such as Manitoba under a

Conservative Government, Quebec under a Union Nationale Government, and

provincial governments of every stripe in this country, are able to

negotiate successfully with Ottawa and they are able to come from

provincial legislatures and produce positive effects, but this

Government is completely unable to do so and the people of British

Columbia are the losers because of your ineptness on the national scene.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. D. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I had not intended to

[ Page 563 ]

participate in this debate, but after hearing the

leader of the Liberal party, let me say this, that there had better not

be any Federal Government that plays politics at the Provincial level.

If our friend doesn't understand the B.N.A. Act, he'd better start

reading it, but I won't stand in this House — even if they are Social

Credit, they are the Government of this Province — and I won't stand in

this House and see any government be black-jacked politically by Ottawa

at any time. I won't have any urban, rich Liberal come into this House

and tell the people of British Columbia that if they don't vote right

in Provincial politics they won't get proper treatment in Ottawa. Let

it be clearly understood. But I'm sure that Liberal member doesn't

speak for the Federal Liberal Government, because they would be

embarrassed to hear his words today.

Now there is a responsibility at the Federal level, and my friend

wouldn't have that attitude if he had been successful on August the

27th. He would have been standing here condemning Ottawa for its policy

in the past of not giving money to the P.G.E. And had we been

successful, we too would have taken the same position, because above

all, we are Canadians, Mr. Speaker, but British Columbians, too —

British Columbians too.

As this Province is going to progress, the people of this Province

will decide who they want for Government here, and who they want to

represent them in Ottawa, and I think that should be clearly

understood. As far as our group's position on this, we have made it

clear. We want to develop British Columbia, too. No one has a monopoly

on that attitude. The differences are approach and the differences are

commitment. My friend of the Liberals said that everything is lovely in

the garden, all he wants to do is change the gardeners. That's not our

philosophy at all, Mr. Speaker.

What I would hope, in closing this debate, the Premier would give us

some indication as to whether or not now, after making these major

thrusts in Hydro and P.G.E., if he will go the next step and that is in

terms of all good approaches to a mixed economy, to use some of these

funds to encourage P.G.E., as a Crown corporation, to stimulate the

growth of secondary industrial development in this Province. I would

hope that using some of the ideas from the B.C. Hydro railroad, that

the P.G.E. would go into the north and start developing industrial

parts and creating incentives and atmosphere for permanent jobs in the

north, rather than just on the construction itself. I would hope, too,

that the Premier is successful in Ottawa in requiring, or at least

getting the Federal Government to give us some assistance. If that's

all that the Liberal party in British Columbia has to offer, forget it,

Mr. Speaker. We can get better fighters in Ottawa for us than that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Alberni.

MR. H.R. McDIARMID: Mr. Speaker, as I have mentioned before

in the House, this is the time when interest rates are high, when

capital is very difficult to get, and I am certainly happy that this

Government has seen fit to produce $35,000,000 for the Pacific Great

Eastern Railway. But as it has been mentioned on the other side of the

House, this is capital which is not going into other things which are

necessary at this time. I am just wondering whether or not we might not

take a leaf out of the book of what was done in Alberta at one time,

the formation of the Alberta gas trunk. This was to let the private

small investors from the Province of British Columbia have a piece of

the action. After all, the P.G.E. has been in the black now for a

little while, it is on the move and, as we heard from the Minister of

Lands and Forests, there are great new possibilities for wealth opening

up in the north of our Province, and certainly this is going to be a

valuable railroad.

AN HON. MEMBER: You want to lose control of it?

MR. McDIARMID: …. No,

certainly I don't say that. Certainly for $35,000,000 the people aren't

going to get control or anything of that nature, but I think that, why

not limit to $500 or $1,000, the same way they were going to do with

the Bank of British Columbia, and allow the small investor, the small

person in British Columbia, to participate in the growth of the

Province.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister closes the debate.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member from

Alberni echoes our thoughts, because that is exactly the idea of parity

development bonds, so that people could buy a small bond at $100 in the

P.G.E. and in our Hydro. The people of the Province own all the equity,

Mr. Speaker, all of it through the Government. The Pacific Great

Eastern Railway is a private company, but the people of British

Columbia own all the shares and all the equity capital and as I pointed

out before, it's just sound business when you are developing this type

of a railroad, of developing this whole empire, that you balance the

equity capital along with, as the owner, along with the mortgage

capital and keep it in balance — sound business, sound — call it

enterprise business — sound business, the public enterprise where the

public owns a private enterprise.

Now the question whether or not the people of this Province through

the Government, will subsidize Government industries, the answer is no.

We are the only Government in Canada that takes that attitude. We have

these two great authorities, our power corporation and in its great

development policies, industrial parks encourage industry along their

railroad in Vancouver. And the Pacific Great Eastern Railway has a

great industrial park at Prince George and all the way, it encourages

industry.

But as the Social Credit Premier in this Province, I want to make it

clear once again, we want enterprising people to come to our Province,

we want enterprising enterprises to come to our Province. But we don't

want hot-house industries here, we don't want industries to come who

can't stand on their own feet. We expect them to be good citizens, not

only individually, but as an industry as well. We don't expect to

subsidize them. We expect them, when they come, that they will pay the

fair share of taxation, for the social costs of education, the social

costs of health services, the social costs of Medicare, the social

costs of hospitalization. That is our philosophy. That is how we differ

in the free enterprise system from the Liberals and the Conservatives,

because Social Credit is different and Social Credit has the answer.

This railroad has a long history. You know, when Mr. Pattullo in the

Liberals used to bring in their Budgets, Mr. Speaker, I have got their

speeches sent to me by a great Liberal who is now a great Social

Crediter. When they figured out the debt of the Province, they always

separated the P.G.E. debt in those days, because they said that was

debt,

[ Page 564 ]

because the Liberals were opposed, right from the beginning, to the Pacific Great Eastern Railway.

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that when we first became Government, we

found a brilliant young man in the Civil Service. We advanced him, as

we did some others, a number of others in the Service, and in due

course we made him General Manager of the Pacific Great Eastern

Railway. For a while we had him doing certain jobs for the Pacific

Great Eastern Railway, and we advertised around the world for a General

Manager, and we got one in Saskatchewan who had had a very successful

career in one of our great railroads. But I say it without criticism,

but only as the House should know, that he couldn't stand the pressure

of operating the railroad and the construction, because building

railroads in British Columbia, in that mountain terrain, is not easy,

it is not easy. This young man at the time, along with the young man in

the Department now, handled by the Honourable Minister of Industrial

Development, Trade, and Commerce, I asked them to prepare an economic

study on the extension of the Pacific Great Eastern Railway before he

was the General Manager, when we first became Government, and they came

along with this programme for bringing it into Vancouver and into the

Peace River. We had a great pioneer in our Government in those days,

too, the late Ralph Chetwynd, Mr. Pacific Great Eastern Railway himself

in those days, and I pay tribute to him as well. (applause)

So we came into this House with our first Bill to expand the Pacific

Great Eastern line, and I will never forget that night, it was a late

night sitting. The member from Kootenay might say it might be

legislation by exhaustion, but my goodness it was good legislation, and

it's been good for the people of this Province, this Pacific Great

Eastern Railway. And the Liberals, under a chap who was brilliant in

many ways, but he lacked faith in the Pacific Great Eastern Railway,

the then Liberal member, Gordon Gibson. He brought in a great

questionnaire, and a great proposal, all the reasons why you shouldn't

build the Pacific Great Eastern Railway, and they had a resolution

before the House, by the Liberals, and supported by the C.C.F., to have

a further survey — delaying tactics — a further survey. So I arranged

at that time, ahead of time, that all the surveys, all the surveys that

had been had before on the Pacific Great Eastern Railway, because you

know, for these surveys, there is more pigeon holes than pigeons, my

friends. (laughter) Then, that night when the clock struck twelve

midnight, in wheeled a whole truck of these reports and surveys of the

Pacific Great Eastern Railway. And that night, my friend, I pointed to

the clock and said, "The twelve o'clock hour has sounded for the

Liberal party in this Province, never to rise again," and we see it

now! (applause)

The Liberal leader in the House today said, "Had the nerve, had the

gall, had the lack of knowledge." Is he so innocent? Has he never heard

of Thatcher, has he never heard of the Honourable Mr. Thatcher, the

Premier of Saskatchewan, how he attacked those Liberals in Ottawa? Get

a load of that, my friend! And he called on the Premier of British

Columbia to support him, and so I did.

He talked about the great Province of Quebec. The only real friend

in Quebec is a Social Credit member of British Columbia, because when

they needed money, we loaned them $100,000,000 lower than market, lower

than market, and they paid it off right on the due dates, Mr. Speaker.

We are the genuine friend of a great united country. Mr. Bertrand — I

saw him on the T.V. the other night — what is he saying about the

treatment from the Liberals in Ottawa? Oh, my friend, you chose the

wrong provinces to mention. You chose the wrong time to say it. Wrong,

dead wrong, just as dead as your little wee party.

I want to say this, that this Province of British Columbia — and I'm

happy that the Leader of the N.D.P. saw through their foolish partisan

politics — it was even too much for my friends opposite, and they love

to criticize the Government. We differ with the N.D.P. on philosophy.

You're socialists, we're free enterprise, but he wouldn't fall in the

trap of the Liberal leader, my friends, he wouldn't fall into that

trap, because they are Canadians, certainly. I want to tell you, that

Liberal party. I'm sure the Liberals of today around this Province, and

those that have gone before, would have looked down in shame on the

Liberal leader of this day. What would the great T.D. Pattullo say?

I want to tell you this, a great Liberal in the Province, John Hart,

they treated him badly too, and they called him a third rate Liberal,

Mr. Speaker. Vote for this Province and not for the Liberal party. They

wouldn't appoint him to the Senate afterwards at all. And that's on the

record, and that's the reason why there's hundreds of thousands of good

Liberals supporting the Social Credit today. There you are.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The motion is that Bill No. 7 be now read a

second time. All those in favour signify by saying Aye. Contrary

minded, No. I think the Ayes have it. So ordered.

The motion was agreed to on the following division:

YEAS — 53

Messieurs

Wallace

Williams, L. A.

Bennett

Ney

Macdonald

Peterson

Merilees

Strachan

Black

Marshall

Dowding

Fraser

Brousson

Nimsick

Campbell, B.

Gardom

Barrett

Wolfe

Cocke

Dailly, Mrs.

Smith

Hartley

Vogel

McDiarmid

Lorimer

LeCours

Capozzi

Hall

Chabot

Skillings

Williams, R. A.

Jefcoat

Chant

Calder

Tisdalle

Loffmark

Wenman

Bruch

Gaglardi

Kripps, Mrs.

McCarthy, Mrs.

Campbell, D.R.J.

Mussallem

Jordan, Mrs.

Brothers

Price

Dawson, Mrs.

Shelford

Clark

Kiernan

Richter

McGeer

Williston

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Premier): Second reading of Bill No. 8, Mr. Speaker. (An Act to Amend the Pacific Great Eastern Construction Loan Act, 1954)

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 8. The Honourable the Minister of Finance.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this Bill is

to keep a balance of the equity capital and the borrowing powers in

line. It isn't the intention to go into the market at the present time

because the interest rates are so

[ Page 565 ]

high, but already there has been, for the first

time in a number of months a little, a very slight, just one sparrow in

the spring, a slight decline in interest rates. It is not only here but

it is in the United States, and I hope that it will continue. I hope it

for many reasons, because lower interest rates will help the working

man, the business man, everybody, and reduce, help hold down the

increasing cost of living, and be helpful in many, many, many, ways.

But I also hope that it will come down because it will prove again that

the Social Credit Government was wise not to go on the outside market

when it was advised by the Opposition parties to do so. They go to New

York for high rates, nine to ten per cent per month.

So, Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this Bill is to increase the

borrowing power for the Pacific Great Eastern Railway from $190,000,000

to $240,000,000 — $50,000,000. This increased borrowing is necessary to

ensure the construction of the railway's northern extensions, and

particularly the planned extension to the resource-rich areas in the

northwest part of the Province to Dease Lake. The new borrowing power,

as well as the new purchase of shares as far as our estimates can tell,

and when you are going through new virgin country you never know what

the final costs will be — but as far as we know now we believe, our

best advice by engineers is that these two Bills will pay for the two

extensions that will take us nearly to the last part of our Province in

the northeast portion to Fort St. John, and to the Dease Lake area on

the northwestern portion. These two great railroads leading into the

north and out of the north, in conjunction with the great Williston

Lake, the largest man-made lake in the world which will be a great

transportation lake and already there are boats and tugs — how many,

Mr. Minister?

HON. R.G. WILLISTON: Fifty tugs.

MR. BENNETT: Fifty tugs already on that great lake, and it is

going up this summer. These two railways going up into the east and to

the west will allow us to get real development in our whole British

Columbia for the first time in our history. I am sure all of the people

of British Columbia support this undertaking. I move second reading,

Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Cowichan-Malahat.

MR. R.M. STRACHAN: Well, I won't repeat what I said on the

previous Bill, Mr. Speaker. As I told you, I flew over all of that

country not once, but several times. I remember once in the area that

this railway is going to traverse, I was heading for Stewart at the

time, and the pilot of the little plane said, "It looks pretty rough

ahead. We'd better set down for a while." And we set down in the middle

of this lake. It was in the middle of one of the greatest expanses of

forest I have ever seen, and after a while he said, "Let's go in and

take a look." We went in to the Coast Range and took a look, managed to

get through those valleys into Stewart.

It is true what the Premier says, that for the first time, and I

noticed this also, there is a very slight decline in the interest rate,

and I, too, hope it bodes well for the future, because undoubtedly the

postulations of our kind of economy are heading for real trouble unless

there is a reversal of this kind. I don't think the Premier should be

as proud of the fact that they have checked out of the money market,

because in so doing he has been utilizing all of the large accumulation

of capital annually which is under the direction of the Minister of

Finance for the Government purposes, and has driven the municipalities

and the other agencies into the money markets to get the necessary

monies for their expansion, so that he had enough within his own

jurisdiction to allow him to carry on.

This is going to increase the borrowing power, of the P.G.E. by

$50,000,000. I again would impress on the people of the Province that,

despite the Premier's fancy speaking about contingent liabilities and

Provincial guarantees, a debt is a debt is a debt, and as long as the

word of the Province of British Columbia is behind that debt, then

there is a mortgage on every home, on every pay cheque, and every

business in the Province of British Columbia. And if there is a default

of any kind, then, as previous Governments have found out, then it has

to come from out of the pockets of the people to meet the demand when

it does arise.

That was how the original $94,000,000 debt which is owed by the

P.G.E. to the Province arose, because they required sums to meet their

commitment and, as a matter of fact, they required sums just for

operating it in some periods. We wiped this out to try and make the

balance sheet look more reasonable and give a more realistic picture of

the P.G.E. as it existed.

So once again, as always, we support the expansion of the Pacific

Great Eastern Railway into the northern areas of the Province, and we

support this Bill.

MR. SPEAKER: You have heard the motion. The Honourable the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. P.L. McGEER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, I would just

like to speak very briefly to this Bill. I hadn't intended to rise at

all until the Premier made the statement as to how wise he and his

Government were to stay out of the New York market in this time of

tight money and rising interest rates. When borrowings in New York, if

I heard him correctly — and we can perhaps play the tape again — were

nine to ten per cent. Does that mean, Mr. Speaker, that the interest

rates that are being paid to the captive funds in British Columbia —

and I speak of the P.G.E. Pension Fund, and the B.C. Hydro Pension

Fund, and the Teachers' Pension Fund, and the Municipal Civil Servants'

Superannuation Fund — that these Funds are not being paid the interest

rates that money is demanding these days, and that the wisdom of the

Government in staying out of this open market has been to short change

these Pension Funds? Did I understand that correctly from the Minister

of Finance?

Because it may be wise, and I wouldn't presume to make a judgment on

this, to carry our capital financing internally in times of tight

money, but surely it is not fair to expect the people, whose savings

are being used by the Government, to accept a low return on their

money, because very often these are people with the least means to

carry themselves in their later years — to have those people short

changed by the Government by having the Government loan that money to

Crown corporations, or any other corporation, at lower than market

interest rates.

"What about Commonwealth?" says the member from Saanich. Well, we

certainly hope to hear from the Minister of Finance and the

Attorney-General about their supervision of some of these trust

companies in British Columbia, because there are many who lost their

life savings…

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

[ Page 566 ]

MR. McGEER: …as a result of the….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. McGEER: I am sorry to be distracted, Mr. Speaker, by the conversation….

MR. SPEAKER: Will the honourable members please keep order.

MR. McGEER: But in any event, this particular Bill, which we

are asked to vote on at the present time, carries with it no

presumption as to whom the money will be borrowed from, and what the

interest rates for this borrowed money are likely to be. We are going

to support the Bill, Mr. Speaker, and I hope that it is going to make

it a unanimous afternoon all the way around. I am sure the Premier will

be closing the debate again, and I hope that the hands of the

backbenchers are able to stand the pressure that they have been put to

this afternoon.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the First Member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. H.P. CAPOZZI: Mr. Speaker, just a few brief words.

Firstly, in reference to the good leader of the Liberal party, he has

been, in the past two days, in a series of rather large number of small

little errors. He has managed to speak from the third page of a

two-page letter and he has referred….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Will the honourable member discuss the Bill in front of the House.

MR. CAPOZZI: I am talking in regards to the statement that he

just made in regards to the interest rate, Mr. Speaker, in which he

commented on the interest rates which are paid through the pension plan

which started out as the Canada Pension Plan and when, of course,

Quebec opted out, it is actually now the British Columbia Pension Plan.

I would point out to the good leader that the rates are established by

the Federal Government, and the rates that are paid are the same rates

which are established by the Federal Government, and if he wore aware

of this he wouldn't be asking questions like that in the House.

But the other point I would like to bring out, Mr. Speaker, and

point out to the Minister, and that is that this is

an Act to amend the

Construction Act. I would ask him, since he is raising this large

amount of money, to point out one small thing in the construction of

the P.G.E. and that is, and I have mentioned it before, that if you

take that magnificent train and follow that great train route along the

way through Squamish, up on its way to Whistler Mountain, it certainly

passes through some of the greatest scenery in the world. But at the

same time, Mr. Premier, it stops at the magnificent site of Whistler

Mountain at perhaps one of the poorest facilities that exists, not

anywhere in British Columbia, but perhaps anywhere else in the world. I

would hope that he would give some consideration to building a new

unit, in view of the fact that we are promoting this for skiers, we are

promoting this for the next Olympics, and that we are bringing people

in very often by train, and that perhaps now with this large amount of

money, since obviously I am going to support the Bill, and all the

colleagues here are going to support the Bill, that you would find just

a small sum of money to improve that great facility just this side of

Whistler Mountain.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Atlin.

MR. F. CALDER: Mr. Speaker, this is another Bill in which one

may consider northern development and, like others, I am supporting

this Bill because it deals with northern development and being, one,

like yourself, that represents a northern district I would just like to

contribute.

I would say, Mr. Speaker, that the spirit of the Klondike is still

with us, and that the result of that spirit is most revealing in the

current mineral explorations, not only in British Columbia but

particularly in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon and in the

State of Alaska. And in this modern Klondike we have the oil

explorations and discoveries and developments which are now taking

place in the far north of the boundaries of British Columbia, and I

think British Columbia can play a major role in this respect in the way

of the Pacific Great Eastern Railway in this respect.

As you know, we have had our eyes focused upon the completion of the

Stewart-Cassiar road and, of course, this is another means of access to

the development of natural resources in the north, and I don't think we

should overlook the economic value in this respect.

I don't quite buy the Premier's words that he does not intend to go

beyond the bounds of the Province of B.C., because I don't think,

although it may be of real value as far as the Government can see, that

this extension to Dease Lake would be the end, but I think that a

greater value would be accomplished if it was extended right into the

Yukon. I don't think it's impossible to observe, Mr. Speaker, that if

the Great Northern Railway can come in from the United States and

terminate in the City of Vancouver, it is not impossible to continue

this railroad all the way to Fairbanks.

Perhaps one day, perhaps after you and I are both dead, they may see

one day a Pacific Coast Railway that would be of benefit and would

create an absolute economic unit right from the State of Alaska right

down into California. I think it is quite possible, and I think this is

the reason why we should be much more broadminded, because I think as

far as access is concerned British Columbia can play a major role, and

this is one reason why I have been advocating an earlier completion of

the Stewart-Cassiar road.

Just a few minutes ago, the Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water

Resources referred to a five-year period for the development of this

railway to Dease Lake, and I also say that if a time-table can also be

earmarked in the development and completion of the W.A.C. Bennett Dam,

such a timetable can also be established for the completion of the

Stewart-Cassiar road, and also on the development of the two extensions

of the Pacific Great Eastern Railway.

So it is some of these thoughts that I have brought to your attention, and I am very glad to support this Bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Premier will close the debate.

MR. BENNETT: I am very pleased with the remarks of the

honourable member from Atlin. Nothing would make the Government and the

Premier happier than to extend the Pacific Great Eastern Railway into

Whitehorse, but once we take the Pacific Great Eastern Railway outside

of Provincial boundaries, we then lose complete control and can no

longer

[ Page 567 ]

use it for developing railroads. It comes under

Federal jurisdiction. Our great strength has been to operate it under

the complete authority of this Legislature, the members of this House.

But if the Yukon and that part of the Northwest Territories which is

immediately north of our boundary, of their own free will and accord

choose to join British Columbia, we will immediately build the railroad

to Whitehorse. For I foresee, too, in future that railroad going to

Fairbanks and so we will have it connecting with our great north

country, our great north country. I want to thank the honourable member

of Atlin, for while his comments and his remarks about the highways are

not in this debate directly, the Government is giving a lot of thought

and attention and is building it, and it will be a feeder to this

railroad when we have the railroad to Dease Lake, and it will be a very

important feeder.

A question has been brought up by the Liberal leader regarding

investments in the Pacific Great Eastern Railway and pension funds, and

I was so pleased that the first member for Vancouver Centre answered

him so well. The Federal Government, in conjunction with the provinces,

at our Federal-Provincial Conference, had many discussions regarding a

pension fund for all Canadians, and it is a question whether each

province would have their own or whether you'd have one collecting

agency, the same as we have on the Income Tax Act. Quebec opted out,

and so they call it the Quebec Pension Plan, and British Columbia could

opt out as well, and we'd have been named the British Columbia Pension

Plan, but we, and it is really the British Columbia Pension Plan, the

Saskatchewan Pension Plan, just like our income tax, but the Federal

does the collecting.

Then it was agreed that the pensions of Canadians, thus all

Canadians, the investment of these pensions should be on the average

rate, market rate, of all Federal Government bonds. That's the reason

why the rates change from time to time as you've seen from the answers

that I gave to the members of this House, and that's the reason they

change, and now for the first time we have a little reduction in that

interest rate, showing that there is….

That's right, that's right. I'm glad the member follows it so closely.

And so, all the pensions in British Columbia — your pension, my

pension, everybody's pension is involved in that fund, and that is the

interest rate. And so the Social Credit Government believes it's only

sound business, if that is the right rate to invest these pension funds

for all British Columbians, then that should be the rate, too, that the

funds under the direction of the Minister of Finance's Department that

it should follow that rate exactly the same, and so we do, and we think

that's a very fair way. But I'm indebted to the Liberal leader for

bringing it up in the first place. I don't thank him very often in the

House but I thank him this day for that.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: You've heard the motion, all those in favour say Aye. Contrary minded, No. The motion is carried.

MR. BENNETT: Division, Mr. Speaker.

The motion was agreed to on the following division:

YEAS — 53

Messieurs

Wallace

Williams, L. A.

Bennett

Ney

Macdonald

Peterson

Merilees

Strachan

Black

Marshall

Dowding

Fraser

Brousson

Nimsick

Campbell, B.

Gardom

Barrett

Wolfe

Cocke

Dailly, Mrs.

Smith

Hartley

Vogel

McDiarmid

Lorimer

LeCours

Capozzi

Hall

Chabot

Skillings

Williams, R. A.

Jefcoat

Chant

Calder

Tisdalle

Loffmark

Wenman

Bruch

Gaglardi

Kripps, Mrs.

McCarthy, Mrs.

Campbell, D.R.J.

Mussallem

Jordan, Mrs.

Brothers

Price

Dawson, Mrs.

Shelford

Clark

Kiernan

Richter

McGeer

Williston

MR. BENNETT: Committee of Supply, Mr. Speaker.

Pursuant to Order, the House again resolved itself into the Committee of Supply.

(Estimates of the Department of Agriculture)

The Committee rose, reported progress, and asked leave to sit again.

The House adjourned at 5.57 p.m.

The House met at 8 p.m.

The Hon. L.R. Peterson presented to Mr. Speaker a Message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

On the motion of the Hon. L. R. Peterson, Bill (No. 19) intituled

Corrections Act was introduced, read a first time, and Ordered to be

placed on the Orders of the Day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

Pursuant to Order, the House again resolved itself into the Committee of Supply.

(Estimates of the Department of Agriculture)

The Committee reported Resolutions 3 and 4.

The House adjourned at 11:13 p.m.

[ Page 569 ]

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 1970

The House met at 2 p.m.

On the motion of the Hon. W.A.C. Bennett, the House proceeded to the Order "Public Bills and Orders."

The following Bills were committed, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed:

Bill (No. 1) intituled

An Act to Amend the Contributory Negligence Act.

Bill (No. 7) intituled

An Act Respecting the Purchase of Unissued

Shares of the Capital Stock of the Pacific Great Eastern Railway

Company.

Bill (No. 8) intituled

An Act to Amend the Pacific Great Eastern Construction Loan Act, 1954.

Bill (No. 9) intituled

An Act to Amend the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority Act, 1964.

Pursuant to Order, the House again resolved itself into the Committee of Supply.

(Estimates of the Department of Agriculture)

The Committee reported Resolutions 5 to 17, inclusive.

The House adjourned at 5.58 p.m.

The House met at 8 p.m.

The Hon. L.R. Peterson presented to Mr. Speaker a Message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

On the motion of the Hon. L.R. Peterson, Bill (No. 20) intituled An

Act to Amend the Landlord and Tenant Act was introduced, read a first

time, and Ordered to be placed on the Orders of the Day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

On the motion of Mr. W.L. Hartley, Bill (No. 21) intituled

An Act to

Amend the Taxation Act was introduced, read a first time, and Ordered

to be placed on the Orders of the Day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

Pursuant to Order, the House again resolved itself into the Committee of Supply.

(Estimates of the Department of Agriculture)

The Committee rose, reported progress, and asked leave to sit again.

The House adjourned at 11:05 p.m.