[ Page 17 ]

MONDAY, JANUARY 26, 1970

The House met at 2 p.m.

THRONE DEBATE

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. DAVID BARRETT (Coquitlam): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that they have installed new microphones because I have always had some difficulty with my voice in the past. I want to say at the outset that I welcome the new members here in the House, and I appreciate the comments of good wishes from the Premier. I know that if I am in any trouble at all, Mr. Speaker, the first person to help me out of a jam will be the Premier, and I look forward to his counsel and advice. I, too, understand that he must leave early today and I can appreciate that he has very good reasons for that. No, it's not because of my speech. I must tell you a bit of an amusing story — I did bring my new suit with me today, but I forgot my belt, so I have a borrowed belt, something borrowed, I have a new suit, something new, and what I have that is blue is all the bad news for the Government. May I say to the new members that it is difficult for me to realize that this is almost my tenth year here, and time goes very fast, and for some of us, regretfully, time is very devastating. The mortality rate in terms of political life is very severe, especially on this side of the House anyway, and it seems that ten years have gone by very, very quickly. When I came to this House, at this date some years ago, the member from Kootenay was celebrating his birthday, and today is his birthday and he is 62 years young …(applause)… I think the way things are going he and the Premier are going to be here for another 100 years. They are the two senior members of the House, and they seem to have long political lives and in the political parlance, twelve votes is as good as a 1,000 as long as you win, and I'm glad that my friend is back with us.

I don't know all the new members, but I hope to meet them very shortly, but I am very, very happy with the new member we have from New Westminster and I'm sure he will give a terrific account of himself. I thought I could spend some time reviewing the election, but there was not very much good news in it so I thought I wouldn't spend too much time reviewing the election. The Premier won a magnificent victory, and he is to be congratulated for that. It was only afterwards that we found out he was plugged in to God, and some of us have been asking the question, who was it — was it the B.C. Telephone Company — or was it the member from Kamloops who plugged him in, but in any event, he seems to be on the line. He plugged himself in. Well, I won't say anything more about that. In terms of the position I find myself in, I thought that I would really be able to come up with those kinds of statements that I was plugged in to God, or I was ordained, and my ego really did take a bit of a boost over the fact that all of a sudden I found myself as Leader of the Opposition, and to really impress me about this, I was pleased that my wife and my children were excited about it, too. As a matter of fact, a reporter phoned my home shortly after I was named the Leader of the Party, and the reporter asked, "Is the House Leader there?" and my son answered immediately by saying "Just a minute, I'll get my mother." A prophet without recognition in his own home. I've had some anxiety and pleasure about approaching my job, and I've tried to find out some way of describing it, and the best analogy I can make is almost like a porcupine approaching the problem of making love. It has both pleasure and anxiety built in. But if you think that we have trouble, one of our troubles has been reduced by the fact that our ranks are reduced…

SOME HON. MEMBERS: …Right…right!

MR. BARRETT: …it cuts the competition down. But what are you going to do over there? I think you have to look to Shakespeare for some of the answers to problems faced by the Government. Who is going to be Brutus? Please stand up! …(laughter)… Where is Cassius? And then of course, we look for Lady Macbeth! Other things have happened that can be related to Shakespeare. After all, who else could make the resurrection of King Lear as quickly as the Premier of this Province did.

You know, Mr. Speaker, it was interesting to see that the former Minister of Highways has been now placed in the position of being the Minister of Welfare. He's going to change the name of the Department. I imagine he is going to start some re-training and rehabilitation programme. Some wag suggested to me that probably the first thing he would do is give a course in real estate development alongside highways, Mr. Speaker, because many people have been helped from unemployment on that particular course of action, and I know that the Minister wants free enterprise to be spread amongst the poor. So I look forward to seeing him develop that course. Some of us have long memories, and I haven't forgotten many things that have taken place in this House. I regret that in the printed version of the Speech from the Throne, Mr. Speaker, there is no mention of the passing of Alex Matthews, former member from Vancouver Centre. It was mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, but if you check the printed version, it was regretfully omitted, and I hope that something can be done about that. I went through the Speech from the Throne and I noticed a number of very interesting statements. A lot of them are comparable to other Speeches from the Throne. On page five, there's a statement saying the expansion of the industrial and commercial life of the Province continues to be reflected in the outstanding rate of growth in the labour force and improved working conditions. I'm pleased to note that last year there were more persons employed in British Columbia than ever before. What the Speech didn't mention, Mr. Speaker, was that there are more unemployed in British Columbia than ever before, and there are more people on Social Assistance rolls in British Columbia than ever before in the history of this Province. The last statistics would indicate that we would be well over the 100,000 mark of people on social welfare in this Province, and they can't all be deadbeats, Mr. Speaker. There is no mention in the Speech from the Throne about that.

Yet when they talk about employment, they also brag about the fact that Japan is becoming our second largest customer. This Government can't see the foolishness of the fantastic commitment we have made in our economy of exporting raw material to feed another country's economy without the profit even staying here in British Columbia. Both the Kaiser Corporation, that is exporting coal at a fantastic rate from British Columbia, and other primary investments in this Province are reaping the profits to be taken out of British Columbia and spent somewhere else. The audacity of the Kaiser deal, Mr. Speaker, was the fact that out of the $55,000,000 that they were to spend on capital investment, $35,000,000 of it was borrowed from Canadian

[ Page 18 ]

banks. Taken out of Canadian banks, out of Canadian taxpayers and Canadian wage-earners, little bits of savings to finance a huge American Corporation to exploit our resources and not leaving any kind of pool funds for mortgages for the average wage-earner to have a chance of building a home in this Province. I don't think it's anything to boast about, and this Government shouldn't have put it in the Throne Speech. I noticed on Page 6 it mentions that the gaol population is down, and it's true, but part of the reason is, Mr. Speaker, that the system of putting the chronic alcoholics into Oakalla has been terminated, which was a good move. But we still have no detoxification centre in Vancouver and the chronic alcoholic is just sobered up in the city gaol and turned out on the street to continue the same pattern of behaviour, without any commitment by this Government towards service or rehabilitation. Over $60,000,000 a year is made in the sale of alcohol, and despite all the pleas by every member in this House against the evils of alcohol, except for a few — most of us are against the use of alcohol — this Government continues to ignore its moral responsibility in providing services to people who are chronic alcoholics, and I think it's regrettable.

Of course, one of the things that's also missing from the Throne Speech is the chronic care hospital promise. You remember that promise? That was good for an election in 1965, '60, 1963. As a matter of fact one of the members who used it as a lead item in his '63 campaign and was elected at that time lost in '66 because he didn't fulfil that promise, but he is back in the House, Mr. Speaker, and I hope to see him on his feet fighting for chronic care hospitals as soon as possible. But some of the members on that side of the House, Mr. Speaker, are committed to the philosophy of "why ruin a good promise by doing something about it?" They've been using those promises year in and year out and hundreds of people, thousands of people, are faced with economic ruin because of the fantastic cost of chronic hospital care. I was amused, Mr. Speaker, to get the new catch phrase. Was it from the O'Brien agency? Was it our friend Bill Clancey? Or was it from Lovick's? How much do you pay for the words "human betterment", "good life", "rounded life", "debt-free", "time-table for progress", "keep B.C. moving", "dynamic year"? This is the most sloganeering Government that British Columbia ever had, and now of course there is this "rounded-life" gag that we've got in the Throne Speech. I remember the Throne Speech that came in one year — "human betterment" — "now is the time — we're going to spend all of our efforts in human betterment". The Minister of Municipal Affairs was then newly made the Minister of Welfare. He was going to charge in with his input-output theory and he was going to put all the welfare recipients in one end and the money in the other end and pull the lever and thus solve the problem in the middle. Somebody pulled the plug on him, and away he went and left the idea of human betterment, and now we've gone into the rounded life. I don't think it's fair to the new Minister of Welfare to talk about the rounded life…(laughter)…but I want to tell you this, Mr. Speaker, that the changes of name and the quick answer and the insults to people who are on welfare in this Province do nothing to solve a vexing problem, not caused by democratic socialism, Mr. Speaker, but caused by freebooting private enterprise that has privilege for few in our society. Mr. Speaker, it's their welfare system caused under their society, not the kind of world we want to live in nor the kind of world we want our children living in, and the 49,000 children who have to rely on social assistance should not be classified as dead-beats; they've never even had a chance at life. It's really ridiculous to see the kind of sloganeering that goes on. Let's have some progressive ideas. Let's have some projects. Let's have a change of attitude. But let's not carry on the myth that somehow people on welfare are dead-beats, Mr. Speaker. They'd like a chance at the good life too, and we've got to give them that chance.

I would think, Mr. Speaker, that this is the first time we haven't heard about the Government's disaster fund. You remember a few years ago we set aside $50,000 to deal with disasters as they showed up in the world? I'm not talking about the election disaster — $50,000. couldn't solve that one — but I do think now is the opportunity for the Premier of this Province to announce in this House that, despite Ottawa's hesitation and Ottawa's stupidity in its hesitation, some of that disaster fund will be released by the people of British Columbia to help relieve the starvation in Biafra. I think that the Federal Government is showing a singular lack of action and concern over a severe problem. Everybody in the world knows that Canada has no vested interest in that problem over there and I know that there isn't anybody in this House who would oppose the immediate granting of some funds to the Nigerian government or to the International Red Cross to see if we can do something to help in our own little way here in British Columbia. I don't think we should wait for Ottawa. We've waited too long for them for so many things.

I also note, Mr. Speaker, that in the Throne Speech there was no mention of the schools freeze. The construction of schools has been frozen, and the member from Delta was on his feet in this House on Friday and I expected him to get up and attack the Minister of Education, and I expected him at least to attack the Minister of Finance over the fact that in Delta one of the most severe problems of school overcrowding exists. Delta is even growing faster than Coquitlam, Mr. Speaker, and I don't want the Chamber of Commerce of Coquitlam to find out that I said that, but it's true, and where was the member from Delta? Was he up asking for more school facilities for his constituency, or was he up fighting the Minister, saying "you've forgotten us in Delta"? Was he attacking the Premier as the Minister of Finance? No, no — he was attacking Ottawa. He said Ottawa was trying to make Delta a different country. I want to tell you, if I lived in Delta and was treated that way by this Government over the school issue I would ask for Ottawa's protection, Mr. Speaker. If this Government can't assume its responsibilities in protecting the children of Delta and guaranteeing them a decent education, then of course they should look for more vigorous action. I'll give the member another chance to redeem himself. He can go down the corridor right now and demand, through a press conference, for a release of funds for Delta and all the other school districts, because I know that this Government is deeply concerned about the education of its youngsters in this Province. Why else would the school freeze be lifted briefly last Spring? Someone suggested the school freeze was lifted just because an election was coming. Now who would say such a thing like that about this Government? Shame is right. No-one in this Government would play politics with the education opportunities of the children of British Columbia. Although some of my friends in the Liberal Party are cynical of my approach, I want to assure them that I am doing my best to convince people that they weren't playing politics with the children, that it was just by accident that the freeze was lifted prior to the election and put on after the election campaign was over. In

[ Page 19 ]

Coquitlam we have thousands of children on shift, we have an extreme problem of having inadequate facilities to house children. I made a tour of some of our school facilities prior to coming to the House, and I think it's regrettable that the Government hasn't taken positive action to release funds that people have freely and democratically voted on to spend for themselves. It's not a question, Mr. Speaker, of people asking for things that they already haven't made decisions on. In the democratic structure of School Districts that this Government boasts about we have passed referenda and we have asked for the money that we wish to spend on our children's behalf, and this Government refuses to give it to us. If that isn't the hand of big oppressive government I don't know what is, Mr. Speaker. Don't you believe in democracy? You've gone one further and you've ruled out even the opportunity for people to vote on referenda.

And then of course the whole question of democracy — I have watched the Minister of Municipal Affairs and how he handles himself in the law and order syndrome and I watched him do the kind of dance around the tulip that he's so famous for. You know, Mr. Speaker….

AN HON. MEMBER: He's a new Tiny Tim…. (laughter)….

MR. BARRETT: Yeah, well he's Tiny Tim without a Vicki, I'll tell you. But I watched him and, you know, it was very interesting. He was on this committee that was dealing with the possibility of oil drilling in the Gulf. He says "We'll do what we want. Ottawa will mind its own business, and they can take their laws. We're going to do what we want here in British Columbia, you're the law," says the Minister. "We're not going to drill in the Gulf, we're going to go at it from an angle." And then I thought, "He's moving on, he's doing the right thing." Then I heard the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources say "No, no, we're going to drill in the Gulf." But the compromise is that they're going to be drilling in the Gulf on an angle, they're going to lie on their backs while they're drilling in the Gulf, and that's the kind of garbled report that they're going to give. We know very well that if they want to drill any oil wells, break any Federal law in existence, law and order stops over there, Mr. Speaker. We've seen it in the Stellako River log drive. We've seen how you act towards Federal laws — you ignore them. You think you're a law unto yourself. But then watch the same Minister turn the page when Delta signs an agreement with the National Harbours Board and then the wrath of the Minister rises up and he says "You can't do that, you're breaking the law," and all the outrageous words of frustration and anxiety pour out from the Minister. Where do you stand on this? Do you agree in breaking the Federal law? Stand up and be counted, for the people will know where you stand. Break the Federal law when you can do it, but if it's anything else — don't do it. Now Big Daddy, I mean Minister of Municipal Affairs, I think you have to go over and talk to those people. Standing on the Island here and yelling across isn't going to solve anything.

I'm glad that that Minister (Hon. W.D. Black) is back, because he reminds me now of something I wanted to tell him, and I'd almost forgotten about it. He's living down here, the comfortable life, but I was in his constituency just before Christmas and it was most interesting. When I toured the Member's constituency I took a bus from Nelson to Cranbrook. I didn't have a chauffeur, because I wasn't carrying any films with me, but I took a bus through a number of small towns on the way to Cranbrook, and in one particular small town, the name of which I'll give the Minister after I'm finished speaking as I don't wish to raise it here in the House, the bus stopped in front of what I thought was a shack. It had nothing more than two rooms, Mr. Speaker, and in the front yard was a pile of coal covered with a little bit of snow, and a couple of dogs. As the bus stopped a woman got on board. She was in her mid-forties — no teeth. A man and three children came out of the house dressed in rags, Mr. Speaker, and I'm not exaggerating. That dull, overwhelming look of poverty on the children's faces, the father standing with a ripped shirt saying goodbye to his wife, all three children with very, very bad teeth. And that's not new, we've heard many, many reports of the condition of children's teeth in the Province. The thing that struck me, Mr. Speaker, was the similarity of the situation I had found in that shack outside of Nelson to the trip that I had taken in Mexico this Summer. Rural poverty, Mr. Speaker, is the same in British Columbia as it was in Mexico, but at least in Mexico the clothing was better, and if you don't believe that, Mr. Attorney-General, I'll tell you the place and you can come with me and we'll go there. The Minister knows that there are some rural areas in this Province that are so poverty-stricken it makes you wonder whether or not these people have ever heard of the good life. The kind of tar-paper shacks that people have to live in in the rural British Columbia is unbelievable. Mud shacks in Mexico, but at least the weather is warmer there, Mr. Speaker, the weather is warmer there and mud is water-proof. I wouldn't have mentioned this except that the Minister reminded me he was here, and I thought I would tell him how things were up in his riding, because they're a little concerned that he doesn't spend as much time as he should up there. But I said he's doing a good job down here. I praised him up to the skies — I figured that would cost him a few votes anyway.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we've had some amusing happenings since the election. One of the most amusing was the announcement by Dr. Gordon Shrum that there'd be an increase in hydro rates. Now this wasn't news, Mr. Speaker. Earlier this year, in September of this year, I revealed that there had been a secret minute of a Hydro Executive Meeting, indicating that from July of this year there would be an increase in hydro rates simply because costs were soaring and they couldn't handle the budget. That was known before the election, Mr. Speaker, but never a word was mentioned about it. "Well, they didn't tell Mr. O'Brien", says the member from West Vancouver–Howe Sound. I didn't know that he had to clear everything, but the interesting thing was after I made the statement that there was this secret minute, Dr. Shrum denied it. "That's nonsense," he said, "everything is lovely in the garden. There's not going to be any hydro rate increase — I don't know where Barrett gets this stuff from, he just doesn't know what he is talking about." So I immediately gave the press a copy of the minute, and Dr. Shrum's reaction was "Oh — the secret minute." Then the Doctor went on to say, in describing this — and I get along very well with him, I think I've met him — he went on to say, "You know, a social worker shouldn't talk about hydro rates." I know I shouldn't, the mess it is in I'm sure to get a shock, Mr. Speaker. But everybody pays hydro bills here, and I wouldn't ever lower myself to attack anybody who speaks about hydro rates, even hardware merchants, they are all free to talk about hydro rates if they want to. They won't need permission from me.

[ Page 20 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: That's taking a superior attitude.

MR. BARRETT: …not a superior attitude, I'm just trying to get myself up to the pedestal of Dr. Shrum, because I know that all good blessings flow from him through the Premier. He has admitted that all decisions of the hydro are political. But because I said that I would like to talk about his minutes, Dr. Shrum then admitted that there were minutes, and that I was correct in quoting him. But he said, "I'm standing by everything I said in regard to Mr. Barrett's statement, there never were any secret minutes, if he, Barrett, had wanted this information he could have asked for it." Isn't that nice? I was very happy to see that, so what I did, Mr. Speaker, was that after I saw that report in the paper on the 25th, on the 26th I wrote the following letter to Dr. Shrum: "Dear Sir: Would you please be kind enough to add my name to the mailing list for the B.C. Hydro and Power Authority's Executive Minutes. Thank you for your cooperation." And do you know what happened? I got two replies. And it's not at all as he said in the paper. "October 3rd. — Dear Mr. Barrett: (that's very nice)…. I wish to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 26th of September asking that your name be added to the mailing list for B.C. Hydro and Power Authority's Executive Minutes. At the present time these minutes are distributed to the Director, our division heads, and a few department managers. However, I shall put your request on the agenda at the next meeting of the Executive Management Committee and our secretary will advise you whether or not your request has been granted." Well, after all, he said in the paper all I would have to do is ask for them. And then I got the reply on October 14th — "Dear Mr. Barrett: (Dr. Shrum isn't writing me any more…. it's from his secretary) Dr. Shrum has submitted to the Executive Management Committee the request contained in your letter of the 26th of September. The Committee has instructed me to advise you that your request cannot be granted." Now who is running things over there, the secretary or Dr. Shrum? They are not going to give me the minutes, and I want to say that whoever dropped those previous minutes in the mail to me for my attention, the leak in the Committee is most welcome, and I would like to have some more minutes because I can't get them from the top.

MR. H.P. CAPOZZI (Vancouver Centre): Five more minutes….

MR. BARRETT: Well now, there's the happy voice of the member from Vancouver Centre. I'm glad that that member is back with us this year.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear! Hear!

MR. BARRETT: I'm glad that that member is back with us this year. If we are going to suffer the 38 of them, we might as well have the worst one with the bunch…. (laughter)…. if we have to live through that we might as well go whole hog. But you know, Mr. Speaker, it's interesting to go along with the power rates. When I said that the Government knew in June, and Dr. Shrum denied that the minutes were there, and then he said, "Oh, those minutes." and everything else. The interesting thing is that Dr. Shrum gives the bad news. All of you who are students of political science as I am remember the Premier going out to the little town of Chilliwack after the B.C. Hydro was taken over, and standing up and announcing, "B.C. Hydro rates will be reduced every year for ten years."

AN HON. MEMBER: He can't count.

MR. BARRETT: Well, when his prediction came apart, who did he get to announce it? Dr. Shrum. No wonder Dr. Shrum is piqued, no wonder he's upset — he had to carry all the bad news. I have great sympathy for Dr. Shrum, and I'm sure that like the other 36 civil servants he'll get a gold watch for his many years of service. That was very important to put in the Throne Speech. No mention of collective bargaining for the civil servants, but they did throw around a few gold watches. No, they can't afford an electric watch, as my friend says, but I'm sure that the Doctor will earn his too. But the Doctor made an interesting statement: "Political decision Hydro policy." I would like to ask the Government right now, what are the political decisions? I know that the hydro directors who are here in this House will stand up and bare the facts as to what has caused the increase in the hydro rates, and also we would like to hear how much money they are behind on the Columbia River deal. They got skinned, Mr. Speaker, and now it's coming home to roost. There will be a great deal more said about hydro rates during this Session, but I would just like to share with you this excerpt from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics on electricity bills. December, 1969, Domestic power rates across Canada, Ottawa for 500 kw per month: $4.14, 1,000 — $6.52. York, Ontario — $5.75 for 500, $10.25 for 1,000. Winnipeg — $6.21 for 500, $11.12 for 1,000. Edmonton — $7.00 for 500, $12.00 for 1,000. Toronto — $7.35 for 500, $13.65 for 1,000. Calgary — $7.45 for 500, $12.95 for 1,000. Regina — $9.35 for 500, $16.40 for 1,000. Vancouver — $9.98 for 500, $15.23 for 1,000. We have the highest hydro rates for home users anywhere in Canada outside of 1000 kw per month for Regina. This great Province, abundantly endowed with rivers and hydro resources, has the highest monthly hydro rate of anywhere in Canada, except Regina. That's flat prairie with no Hydro resources at all. It's twice the amount than Ottawa, one-third more than Winnipeg, and one-fourth more than Edmonton. Some power policy, some reduction, some help it is to fight inflation here in British Columbia. The greatest fiasco on the hands of this Government, Mr. Speaker, is its power policy come home to roost, and when I've written the Ministers asking for an estimation of the cost of Peace River power, either I don't get an answer, or I get an answer like the one I got from Dr. Shrum that is straight flim-flam. We'll spend a great deal more of this Session, Mr. Speaker, discussing the hydro situation in this Province. Politics! Politics! Politics! It interfered in every single hydro decision made by this Province, and the man who tells us this is not someone in the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, it is the man who is the chairman of B.C. Hydro itself, and who am I to doubt his word, even though he didn't send me the minutes.

Now Mr. Speaker, I want to spend just a few moments more, I'm not going to speak very long today, much to the pleasure, I'm sure, of the members back there, I want to spare you the agony. I know how difficult it is for you to suffer through this, but I thought that I would just spend a few moments talking about a particular resource in this Province, and how a Government confuses itself around this resource. Why does confusion happen? How, when they had the advice of the member of the Opposition to warn them of the pitfalls of what they were going into rather than listen and heed, Mr. Speaker, they charged on full blast. It will come as a surprise to some of you that I'm going to talk

[ Page 21 ]

about Cypress Bowl. I've spoken on this subject for five years in this House, although my friend the Liberal member from West Vancouver said in 1968 I was just making up this issue…

AN HON. MEMBER: Playing politics.

MR. BARRETT: …playing politics with the issue when I spoke about it every year for five years. I excuse him if he is going to sleep through some of my speeches. Mr. Perreault, who used to be a member of this House, and Mr. Gordon Gibson, who used to be a member of this House — they both attacked me for raising the Cypress Bowl issue. I don't want to belabour the member for West Vancouver, Mr. Speaker. The Liberal members have enough trouble, there they are squeezed between the two parties they dislike — it's bad enough living in here without having it hammered into them. But they are the purest, and I want to show you how they are able to change their position without even the noise of gear shifting taking place; they are the most shiftless policy changers that I know…

AN HON. MEMBER: Hydromatic.

MR. BARRETT: …but that's a separate story, Mr. Speaker. The hydromatic policy switchers. Back in 1965 I was concerned about Cypress Bowl, and I wrote the Minister of Recreation and Conservation about the area. You see, I knew that an Order-in-Council existed, that had been passed in 1944 by a previous Government to acquire this area for parks purposes. That's why the trade took place, that's what made it legal. We gave away other timber areas to acquire Cypress Bowl for a park. It was unique. It was declared by law to be acquired for parks — that's the only way it could have been acquired.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who said that?

MR. BARRETT: Would you like a copy of this? I made a couple of copies available to the Minister because he didn't seem to know it was around. That was the great Liberal government, and I hope the emphasis is correct. Being somewhat innocent five and six years ago, I wrote the Minister of Recreation and Conservation, and said, "Tell me, what is the status of this parkland?" This is a letter I got back at that time from the Minister of Recreation and Conservation — "November 30, 1964. Dear Mr. Barrett: Re: Cypress Bowl. I have your letter of the 19th of November re: the above. This is not park land. The original reserve was for watershed purposes, and I understand it is no longer required." That's in conflict with the Order-in-Council. At the time I raised this in the House, Mr. Speaker, you know what happened? When I read the Minister's letter to him he accused me of being devious. Can you imagine anyone being accused of being devious simply for reading a letter that a Minister wrote. I can't help what was in that letter. The Order-in-Council stands, Mr. Speaker, and there's been no alteration of the legal status of that Cypress Bowl area and it should be a park and it should never have been alienated.

Then, of course, we had the promoters come in with none other than Bill Clancey, one of the shadowmen who deals with this Government. Time and time again his name has come up. The member from Vancouver–Point Grey wants to know who he is. The previous Liberal leader said he was a fine upstanding citizen of West Vancouver, when the former Liberal leader was backing this plan.

Anyway, there was a great controversy over logging, and at that time even our friend from West Vancouver was backing the logging. He said, and I quote from the Vancouver Province of November 20th, 1968: "Liberal MLA Allan Williams of West Vancouver jumped into the Cypress Bowl controversy Tuesday, charging the issue as being a political manoeuvre by the New Democratic Party." There he is, a member of the N.D.P. is attempting to further personal political ambitions. Look what happened to me, my friends, you're wrong again. "Charges that the project is a profitable exploitation of public land are a smoke screen to obscure lack of constructive land development problems. Another spokesman for the Socialists," said Williams, "suggested the development should have been undertaken by the Regional park authorities, and" Williams said more seriously, "this statement indicates clearly that if this development were to be placed under the N.D.P. the costs would be added to the burden already carried on by the local taxpayer." Mr. Member, get together with your leaders. Who wants it placed under the Regional Parks authority, and to even quote you, Mr. Member, through you, Mr. Speaker, on November 25th, 1969, saying, "MLA Allan Williams demanded Monday night that West Vancouver halt the controversial Cypress Bowl project until the Regional Parks District agrees to develop the area…or let us stay there until the trees grow back." Oh, Mr. Member, repent now. You know, Mr. Speaker, I don't like to rough him up on this deal because he was really an innocent. How anybody in West Vancouver could be an innocent is a good question, but he was an innocent, and we won't bother with his problems any more.

But I want to narrow the whole thing down to the strange events in fall of '69, when we found the Bahamas Port Authorities through the Benguet Corporation, was going to become a partner of Alpine Outdoor Resources in the development of this area. It started off very simply. We have a quote from November 17th, 1969 from the Vancouver Sun saying "Municipal Affairs Minister Dan Campbell has held a secret meeting with the West Vancouver Mayor Alec Forst in an attempt to bring complete control of the Cypress Bowl Development into Provincial hands. Forst and West Vancouver Manager E.G. Barnes revealed the meeting this morning." Then, on November 18th when people found out who the Benguet Corporation was, we have the following statement from the Attorney-General. "Attorney-General Peterson promised Monday to investigate the background of a Manila-based firm that is involved in the financing of Cypress Bowl. 'I can say that anything to do with organized or syndicated crime is not welcome in British Columbia', Peterson said. 'Even if it's money?' said a reporter. 'Even if it's money,' Peterson stated." The Minister should talk to his colleagues. That wasn't the initial reaction of the Minister of Lands and Forests, Mr. Speaker, his reaction was, we don't have to check out where the money comes from. Then on November 18th we had a statement from Alec Forst, the Mayor of West Vancouver. Peterson also appeared to be in conflict with Mayor Forst. The Mayor said, after Council meeting Monday night, "We want a ski development in Cypress Bowl. Does it really matter where the money comes from as long as we get the development we want?" That's his statement and he can live by it.

The Sun learned that five members of The West Vancouver Council were told by Municipal Minister, Dan Campbell, Oct. 10 that the Bowl developers had offered a multi-million dollar performance bond. Exit the Minister of Municipal Affairs. He

[ Page 22 ]

knows when to get out. The Minister visited West Vancouver October the 10th, but the Council of West Vancouver did not find out that Benguet was involved until a month later. Did that Minister know that Benguet was involved? In a statement from West Vancouver Council on November 2ist, "After an extraordinary two-hour breakfast meeting today, the Council said it knew from a visit by Municipal Affairs Minister Dan Campbell, that further financing was being sought for the development. But Campbell gave no indication of a change of ownership and the first the Council knew of the change was a story in the Vancouver Sun." What did the Minister know and what was he over there for?

Now we begin to see the explanation of the entrance of Benguet, and remember this was a hot and hectic news item for a number of weeks. It got a number of Ministers very, very excited, and almost cost a reporter a shirt. On November the 25th, "Lands and Forests Minister Williston said today that Wallace Groves, (Wallace Groves is the President of the Benguet Corporation), Wallace Groves wrote to him in September asking about development in Cypress Bowl. Williston, talking to reporters today, said he received a letter sometime in September. Williston said the letter referred to discussions a Manila-based company had had with Alpine Outdoor Resources Limited", referred to a discussion that Alpine had with Benguet. Williston had said Monday night in Victoria that the leases had not been signed on behalf of his Department of the Provincial Government, although leases had been granted which the Minister had denied. He then retracted and said that it had been signed by his Deputy, Mr. Borthwick. The Minister had said earlier in the day that he would not grant leases on Cypress land, on Crown land in Cypress Bowl, while the Attorney-General's Department is investigating new participants in a company planning recreational development. The very minute he was saying that, the leases had already been signed, Mr. Speaker.

Then on November the 26th he explains the error. He goes on to explain that, "Representatives of Benguet Corporation have been dealing with the Provincial Government for months on a proposal that includes the sale of residential lots in West Vancouver's Cypress Bowl…. Lands and Forests Minister Williston said his Department has granted three-year leases to Cypress Bowl developers for 632 acres of Crown land…. Williston had said Monday that no leases had been granted…. Williston said Monday's denial that the leases had been issued was due to confusion. 'I led to the confusion. I was in error.' He meant to say that developers had to get approval of a development plan from the Government before they could go ahead, rather than getting actual leases."

Williston released the text of a letter from Groves. This is the letter that Mr. Groves wrote: "Dear Sir: As you know, we, on our behalf and on behalf of the associated companies, are negotiating for the takeover of Alpine Outdoor Recreation Resources…. We would like to make clear to you our position with regard to the present commitments of Alpine Outdoor Recreation Resources Ltd…. (1) We expect to complete the major access road in accordance with the provisional standards… (2) We intend to develop, construct and make whatever capital investment is required to create public recreational facilities…" Then it goes on, it says, "We intend to develop fully serviced recreational homesites for sale to the public…." That's what it said in the letter. It goes on to say "We intend to develop all necessary commercial or additional resort-type facilities…"and everything else. Then it concludes with this interesting paragraph. "We wish to thank you and your office for the assistance which you have given our representatives in developing the background information and in understanding the Government's philosophy in creating the Valley Royal complex."

This is what the Minister said about that letter. To a suggestion that there had been previous correspondence between himself and Groves, Williston said, and I quote "No previous correspondence." Asked to explain at what level contacts had been made, he said "A representative had probably discussed it with a Departmental official." He himself may have discussed the project in general terms with Departmental officials. "I never had any long discussion," he said. Asked with whom he had discussed the outlining of the background of philosophy, he said "I don't recall specifically, it may have been Eadie." Mr. Eadie was the principal of the company.

Then, of course, the Government announced that it would reconsider whether or not Benguet could come in. The Attorney-General's investigation was still going on, and at that time, on November the 27th, the Vancouver Province announced that they had been in touch with a Roland Crandall, the Vice-President of Allen and Co. of New York City, an investment and banking firm and the third largest stockholder in Benguet. I think it is coincidental that Allen and Co. is one of the principals in a consortium that handled B.C. Hydro bonds. But the interesting fact is that the Minister said that he knew nothing about the Allen and Co. that's involved with Benguet. Yet he is a director of Hydro, and I quote, November 28th, 1969, "Williston was asked if he is familiar with the investment firm, Allen and Co. of New York, which has been involved in marketing B.C. Hydro securities…and is a shareholder in Benguet. Williston, a director of B.C. Hydro, said he was not aware of Allen and Co." I found out who Allen and Co. was within fifteen minutes, and they are in a consortium that handles B.C. Hydro bonds, and I would have thought that the directors of B.C. Hydro would know who is selling their bonds.

Here are excerpts from the Vancouver Province of a conversation with Mr. Crandall of the Benguet Corporation. "Total investment in the proposed recreation-hotel-residential complex would be at least 25 million dollars, possibly as much as 50 million dollars, with skiing facilities used as a come-on, the way we use gambling casinos in the Bahamas. A basic idea behind all our projects is to make a fast return on investment by developing and selling, or leasing, residential land while hotel and recreational business builds up." Crandall said "We got 75 per cent of Alpine's land holdings, developments to date, plans and agreements." What agreements? Who said that there could be any residential development in that area? Who said there could be any subdivisions in there? Where in the world did Benguet get the idea that there could be subdivisions allowed in that area? "It looks like an exciting development," said Crandall. "I'm not too worried about the opposition to it."

"Premier Bennett said Wednesday the entire Cypress Bowl Development will be held in abeyance until the whole matter is cleared up by an investigation now being made by the Attorney-General." Then the heat was off for a little while. "The Provincial Government," it was announced on November 27th, "has told developers of Cypress Bowl Recreation and Resources Development to get rid of the Benguet Corporation which has gambling interests in the Bahamas or the deal is off." What deal is off? "Resources Minister Ray Williston made the announcement in a written statement today. He said Alpine can go ahead with Cypress

[ Page 23 ]

Bowl Development providing they find financing that is acceptable to the government." In November 28th, "The Benguet Corporation is considering sending its top men (out of the Vancouver Sun, I quote) top men to B.C. to try and persuade the government to allow it to stay in the Cypress Bowl development plan. A Benguet official said the move was suggested to them today by William Clancey, West Vancouver public relations man. Clancey has been public relations man for the Cypress Bowl development since its inception and has had long association with Premier W.A.C. Bennett…. Roland Crandall said Clancey had been on the telephone to the company's lawyer earlier today and had suggested (he, Clancey suggested) the top men of the company fly to B.C. to try to change the government's mind. Clancey's Vancouver office said he was 'travelling' and not available for comment."

Then I made a public claim that the leases granted to Cypress Bowl were illegal. The Minister denied that they were illegal. But then on reading what I had said in my statement he agreed that the leases were illegal because they had not been gazetted and, in fact, my information actually gave him an out. So the leases were illegal, and Mr. R.W. Redel said on December the 2nd that Barrett was right. The Director of Lands confirmed that the lifting of a reserve was not gazetted, it was strictly a clerical oversight, but it could be put in any time he wanted to do it and that would validate the leases, said Redel.

Now we have all of this confusion around the leases, and we have all this confusion around residential development, and we find that the Minister was shocked to learn that an engineer had done a study for 8,958 residential lots in that area. The Minister wanted to know who gave that electrical engineer the request to go in, the authority to go in. Who requested him to do that study for 8,958 lots? On November the 27th the Minister said in the Vancouver Province, page 1, he said and I quote, "I accept responsibility if anything goes there."…. "I know of no situation that is as tightly controlled as this happens to be." Williston rejected a reporter's suggestion that recent disclosure suggests that something is fishy about the Cypress Bowl development. "It has been spread on the table at all times." That's what the Minister said. "That is completely unfair. Nothing can move unless it happens to be approved by myself." Why did that engineer go in and design electrical loads for 8,958 lots? That's my quote, not the Minister's. The Minister said nothing goes without his approval. Does that include plans for the subdivision?

On November the 26th, Mr. Speaker, the Government issued a three-page statement, signed by the Minister, and the three-page statement has a number of points. They're numbered. They go up to 26. This statement was made available to the press and was widely distributed in British Columbia. Item No. 20 says, and I read, "On June 6th, 1969, following concurrence by the municipality of an interim logging report, the Minister renewed the cutting permit." June the 6th. Point 21. "The Minister advised the Municipality by letter dated June the 20th, 1969, of the current stage of negotiations with the developers. This letter dealt with clearing the slopes, constructing the access roads, the user charge, and the issuance of leases…." The current stage of negotiation with the developers. That letter, too, was made available by the Minister. You read the letter and there is no mention of subdivision, there is no mention of developing home sites, there is no mention of electrical loads going in for 8,958 lots. Where in the world did Alpine and Benguet and that electrical engineer get the idea that there was going to be a subdivision in there? This confused the Minister. You wanted to know what was going on. He said Benguet has been confused.

Williston was asked, December the 8th, 1969, by the Vancouver Sun if the Benguet group had not carefully studied the three leases which Alpine had been granted…. "'Well, they obviously interpreted — I can only assume they interpreted them to mean that they had these rights whereas they did not,' the Minister said. Williston said he believed that the Benguet people were led to understand that the government had given approval to a large commercial residential development in the bowl." The Minister said that Benguet had been led to believe that. That was on December the 8th, 1969, and the Minister wanted to know why Benguet thought that way. On the same day the headline in the Vancouver Province said "'Benguet bought the Brooklyn Bridge,'" says Williston, an accusation by Lands and Forests Minister Williston that Alpine Outdoor Recreation Resources Ltd. tried to sell government rights it never had. "'This places a grave doubt on any future dealings in resources by members of Alpine insofar as I am concerned,"' Williston told the Province. He said he made his discovery about Alpine on Friday morning at a brief meeting with the representatives of Benguet." Benguet came to the Minister, Mr. Speaker, and said they thought they had bought residential lots, a right to develop subdivision, and when the Minister heard that, his response was that Alpine was being nasty and should not have given that impression to Benguet and therefore Alpine was no longer wanted by the Government in the Cypress Bowl deal. He said "And I found out in unmistakable terms" and I quote the Minister, "that what they thought Alpine had was rights to a fairly large real estate development. In fact a large real estate development had never been discussed, but they thought Alpine had cleared all that." Now they thought they had a large real estate development but the Minister said it had never been discussed, and I could only gather that this was the basis of their interest rather than a mere ski development. "I have no confidence in the management of the Alpine Resources because they have not been acting in a responsible manner," said the Minister. Who gave the indication of subdivision, Mr. Speaker? The Minister was asked if somehow a civil servant could have done that. "By telephone," he replied. On December the 8th, the Vancouver Sun: "The Minister promised repercussions within his department if he finds that civil servants indicated approval to Alpine for a large scale residential development in Cypress Bowl instead of the intended recreation development."

Alpine then wanted its turn, Mr. Speaker. After reading in the newspaper what the Minister said about Alpine they came to Victoria and they tried to clear their skirts. This is what the Minister said on December the 11th, 1969, in the Vancouver Sun, "'Someone is not telling the truth about the proposed subdivision of Crown land in Cypress Bowl: Resources Minister Williston said today. The Minister held an hour-long meeting this morning with George Reifel and C.H. Wills, former officers of Alpine Outdoor Recreation Resources Ltd…. "'You have to accept people on their word," Williston told reporters after the meeting. He said it is obvious that either the original Alpine directors or their Bahamain executive successors, representatives of Benguet Corporation, are not telling the truth. However, he was not willing to say which group he thought it was."

I quote further — December the 11th, Vancouver Sun — after meeting with the Minister Alpine had said to the

[ Page 24 ]

Minister, and I quote the Minister, "They (Alpine) stated unequivocally on two counts that they never at any time gave Benguet to understand that they had rights to a real estate development other than what was completely understood between themselves and myself". Here was the Minister and Alpine. They had never at any time — that's a truthful statement — and I'll refer to that later. Williston was asked if he withdrew his earlier statements about Alpine trying to sell rights in Cypress Bowl which it never had. "No", he said, "as I told you people, they were given the opportunity to explain their actions and I have certainly nothing to disprove their explanation". He said there is no contradiction in what Alpine said it told Benguet and the understanding between the Alpine directors and the Government. "Obviously, then, someone is not telling the truth", a reporter suggested. "That's right", Williston said. He was asked which group was not telling the truth and he said "I haven't reached that conclusion yet, I'm just telling you the situation". He said the only question which he wanted answered was whether the Alpine group "openly misled me" — Williston. "And did they?", he was asked. The Minister said "You accept people on their word — I have no way to prove it".

What is the truth, Mr. Speaker? Who gave the indication that the subdivisions were okay? What did Alpine have in its possession that Benguet thought was worth a million dollars? Could civil servants have given the okay without the Minister's knowledge? The Minister said not. Why does the Minister blame Alpine for giving the wrong impression to Benguet, then back off by saying someone is not telling the truth? Maybe the answer lies in a letter not mentioned in the statement given to the press and to the people of this Province in the summary handed out on November the 26th by the Minister. Between the items 20 and 21 there is another letter, Mr. Speaker, that has not been disclosed to the public of this Province, and it is a letter sent to Alpine, and I intend to read that letter now because in this letter lies the answer to the confusion around the whole question of subdivision in Cypress Bowl. It is a two-page letter, it is dated June the 17th, 1969, and it is file No. 02500591. It is to the Alpine Outdoor Recreation Resources Ltd. and, it is from the Department of Lands and Forests, and it says,

"Dear Sirs,

Reference is made to the studies which have been carried out in the Cypress Bowl recreation area to determine the feasibility of development of the subject land for both winter and summer recreational use. Approval in principle to develop those portions of the subject lands referred to as Areas 1 to 9 inclusive in the Valley Rural Development Plan dated June the 4th, 1969, which has been filed in the Department of Lands, Forests and Water Resources under Plan 6, Tube 904 is hereby given on the following basis."…. Approval in principle is hereby given — approval in principle to the plan of development is hereby given on the following basis….

"No. 1: Rights-of-way to accommodate the lift lines will be issued subject to section 70 of the Land Act following completion of a Legal Survey of the same on the ground. Term of the rights-of-way will be 21 years and the annual rental payable for the initial five year period will be based on five per cent of the value of the land over $50 per annum."

(This wasn't referred to in your letter of June the 20th to the Mayor of West Vancouver)….

"No. 2: No formal tenure will be granted over those areas of Crown lands required for ski runs, trails and other facilities which are deemed to be of public nature by the Minister.

"No. 3: Any areas required for public parking will be disposed of on a leasehold basis with no option to purchase. Rentals will be a nominal sum of $25 per annum. on the understanding that the Company will survey, construct and maintain such areas at no charge for the use.

"4: Areas 1 to 9 inclusive of the Plan 6 will be disposed of on a lease development purchase basis. The leases will be issued for a maximum term of ten years but the option to purchase may only be exercised over those portions of the leasehold that have been fully developed in accordance with the purpose and conditions of the lease.

"5: No application to lease will be entertained by the Department until a detailed plan of development and a time schedule for completion of same has received approval of the Department. In this connection it is pointed out that it will be necessary to submit a detailed development plan acceptable to the Department of Municipal Affairs for Area 4.

"6: The lease rental will be based on five per cent of the appraised value of the land at the time the lease is granted and the development lands will be disposed of at the initial appraised value, providing the option to purchase is exercised within the first three year period of the lease. If the option to purchase is exercised at the first yearly lease the purchase price will be set at the prevailing price, prevailing appraised value.

"7: Crown lands leased for subdivision purposes will be subject to all requirements of the Department of Highways, the Department of Health and other such authorities having jurisdiction in the area. All subdivisions carried out must be fully serviced with roads, power, water and must meet the full requirements of the Land Registry Act and also have the tentative approval of the Subdivision Approving Officer before the option to purchase may be exercised."

(8,958 lots — these are not simply little cabin lots, Mr. Speaker, because that's covered in the next item.)

"8: Crown lands leased for individual building sites in isolated areas must be retained on a leasehold basis until the construction has been undertaken to the satisfaction of the Minister. It must be understood that the purchase option will be restricted to those lands required to accommodate the building improvement.

"9: Additional Crown lands within the Reserve Area will be made available for development where in the opinion of the Minister such lands may be required to expand the facilities of the Recreational Area." Copy to the District Forester in Vancouver and to Mr. E.G. Barnes, the Municipal Manager, Corporation of West Vancouver. The letter to Alpine, indicating how subdivisions will be granted, is signed by the Minister of Lands and Forests, Mr. Williston.

That's what Benguet bought, that's what Benguet thought it had bought for its million dollars.

AN HON. MEMBER: Subdivisions.

MR. BARRETT: Subdivisions wasn't mentioned by a civil servant. Subdivisions wasn't mentioned out of a figment of imagination by Alpine. Subdivisions weren't made up by Benguet. They were going on the strength of a letter from the Minister of the Crown.

AN HON. MEMBER: Date?

MR. BARRETT: June the 17th.

[ Page 25 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Then they weren't buying….

MR. BARRETT: Oh, Mr. Speaker, why wasn't this letter put in, why wasn't it put in the summary? What did Benguet think they had bought? The Minister must now explain why this letter was not disclosed. The Minister must now consider where this letter puts his career in light of his previous statements…and I want to repeat my call for a judicial inquiry into this whole matter to answer the following questions: Why was the original Order-in-Council acquiring Cypress Bowl ignored? What was the Minister of Municipal Affairs doing in West Vancouver? What was proposed at that secret meeting? What knowledge did the Municipal Affairs have in financing for Alpine? How long has the Provincial Government known of Benguet's interest in Alpine? What did the Attorney-General's investigation of Benguet show, if indeed such an investigation did take place? Why were the leases granted without proper gazetting? What is William Clancey's role in all this? Why was the Minister of Lands and Forests' letter to Alpine of June the 17th, 1969, discussing subdivision suppressed? And last, has Benguet been told that they are out, or are they still under the impression they can go ahead? Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that I would be most interested in the Minister's reply, and I hope for a judicial inquiry.

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

MR. PATRICK L. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, we have a new Parliament and naturally I welcome back the familiar faces, all but one on the far side of the House, as well as the new members who are taking their places.

I must say that we Liberals find ourselves in the unusual position of having the Socialists on our right and Social Credit on our left, but we hope the new members who are on this side of the House will catch the spirit of this side of the House. I notice the Member from Dewdney has been placed on this side of the House and he told us at the last Session that he was going to fight like a tiger and perhaps this Session he'll catch that spirit. In any event, there have been some fighting speeches made from that corner in the past and we look forward to hearing from that little rump group down there.

Well, Mr. Speaker, we have had an interesting opening to the Session. I want to compliment the two speakers who opened the Debate. The member from Delta certainly gave a new twist to separatism in his opening address because it looks like we've got Canada seceding from British Columbia and I'm sure that the Federal Government is shaking in its boots today with the statements of the Minister of Municipal Affairs — I don't know whether we're going to promote him to the Minister of War — but certainly it's a turn-around. And I enjoyed the opening speech of the new member from Revelstoke-Slocan. I thought he had some excellent ideas. I'm going to forgive his fighting the election all over again because we've had a lot of that from the riding of Revelstoke-Slocan, and I can understand the preoccupation of the members from that riding. I've been in this House for eight Sessions and in that time we've had five different members from that riding, and I don't blame the people from Revelstoke-Slocan for being confused. They've sent three government members and, or two government members and three N.D.P. members, and it's a riding that needs a lot of attention, and they haven't discovered the formula yet, but they'll get the message soon and return a Liberal member and then we'll start to get some action.

I can't, Mr. Speaker, forgive the member, however, for castigating the B.C. Teachers' Federation for expressing their views about the educational situation in British Columbia and being prepared to back their views up with advertisement — that's what people in a free society should be free to do in an election.

But I don't think any member from Social Credit, particularly one who himself publishes a newspaper, is in any position to raise questions about election expenses, and I wasn't going to do so myself until I heard that speech. But when I did, I began to gather together some of the material which appeared during that election campaign from one city, the city of Vancouver and one medium, the newspaper medium, and I brought it in today. Here it is. One month's. Mr. Speaker, I said people should be free to express their views but I don't think this kind of thing should happen in any election campaign. Each one of these ads is worth about $2,000. The B.C. Hydro — 2,000; 4,000; 6,000; 8,000; 10,000, 12,000; 14,000; 16,000; 18,000 — day after day these appeared. B.C. Hydro, that's the public's money being used for your advertising purposes in an election campaign. Look at them all. And now the rates are going up.

AN HON. MEMBER: To pay for the advertising.

MR. McGEER: Why, that's what is in an individual paper that's a captive of the Government. The Attorney-General smiles, Mr. Speaker, but look what he did during the election campaign. The next time some company won't hire you because you're a foreigner fight back. 2,000; 4,000; 6,000; 8,000. This is what you took out of the public purse to get yourself re-elected. I'm kidding, he says. No, Mr. Speaker, I'm not kidding, because at the same time the Attorney-General was doing this, the advertisements were appearing in our newspapers in British Columbia advertising for jobs in the Civil Service, saying only Canadian citizens can apply. At the same time. Here's more. Greater protection for B.C. consumers. That's the Attorney-General's department. That's the public money you took and I am only taking one city and one medium.

Now we come to the Minister of Health. What did he do to get himself re-elected? He dipped into the public pocket too. British Columbia Health Branch water quality standards. Who are we kidding, and here they are: — 2,000; 4,000; 8,000, and so it goes. Plugged into God? You're plugged into the people's pocketbooks. That was pretty obvious, Mr. Speaker.

Some of it isn't so obvious, but when you consider the person it should be. M.J. O'Brien, there's an impartial man for you. Well, he is just a little partial to the party in power. Now, there's a question here that the public should think over very carefully, Mr. Speaker, because this ran into hundreds of thousands of dollars of the public's money. It may have stopped short of a million, I'm not sure, but the questions are on the order paper. This man with his personal ads. Does anybody seriously think he paid for that out of his own pocket. It doesn't appear on Social Credit's returns. Certainly, paid for it out of his own generosity. He was after only one thing and that's the B.C. Hydro account. Look at what it was worth there and he got it. And he got it and he got it. This is the most outrageous kind of patronage we've ever had in the Province.

[ Page 26 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Right after the election he got it.

MR. McGEER: He paid for it, he got it. Some we don't see at all. Here's a big one. That one's worth three thousand, maybe five I don't know. We ran one. We still owe the bank.

British Columbia for Bennett Committee. The British Columbia for Bennett Committee — was that Gunderson and Clancey? That doesn't appear in your totals either. More and more of these. Pulp mill effluent control. There's the Lands, Forests and Water Resources. These are not the only odours that are coming from that Department. The Department of Education. This was a legitimate one and I want to congratulate the Minister. It's the only one I found. Then we come to all the ones that were put in by the Government itself. I'm for Premier Bennett. That's what the ad says. I'd like to know who it is that's for Premier Bennett. Did they pay for those ads? Did they pay for those ads?

AN HON. MEMBER: The people paid for them.

MR. McGEER: Or was it all those people who testified before the Liquor Control Commission? And here they go, page after page after page of them. Don't say there isn't special favours involved with that kind of thing because there is. Right directly from the peoples' pockets. Part directly from the peoples' pockets. Part directly for patronage and part for privileges from the Government.

The lesson is this, Mr. Speaker: like it or not, elections can be bought. This is one of the dangers of our times because the media is very powerful and you can buy the media with advertising. There it is. And what we must have in this Province. Remember this is where we are going — this is just an opening round, all of this — no hesitation on the part of the Government to take hundreds and thousands of dollars out of the taxpayers' money to use it on advertisements in the media. No laws broken, what that's done. Does it influence the outcome of elections? You bet it does. You bet it does. This is why we have to have limitations on election expenses to end this sort of thing. These people keep referring to the Sun. The Sun's kept you people in office. Six times as much coverage as the other parties. How much do you want? And how much does that member who publishes a newspaper want in the way of advertising? There are 106 weeklies. They weren't left out either. They weren't left out either. We want fixed election dates. We want tight regulations put on election expenses. We want an absolute ban on Government advertising during election campaigns.

AN HON. MEMBER: Liberals always did want fixed elections.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's an old joke, get a new writer.

MR. McGEER: What happened shortly after the election? All those advertisements we had — the news that many suspected would come — and that is that the B.C. Hydro rates would increase. The Speech from the Throne didn't have much to say about it. Pussyfooted around what has to be the most important economic issue facing the public of British Columbia. Everywhere governments are urging restraint and the request is out from responsible people everywhere. Use restraint. Control inflation. We don't see that in the Throne Speech. Why not? How can the Government? It's going to reach into the inflationary flames because that's what this proposed hydro rate increase is going to do. That's right.

The worst and most costly settlement in Canadian history was that Seaway Workers' settlement. You agree. I'm sure the Federal Government rues the day it gave that settlement. I think there were pressures at the time. If you look just in isolation at that situation you might have said, "Well, you're a Canadian, and American workers side by side with a huge disparity in wage rates, grain shipping contracts to fulfil, most important waterway in Canada." These are pretty compelling reasons for settling a strike. 30 per cent, yes. That was the problem because everybody else wanted 30 per cent and that settlement itself didn't add to our cost of living, but there's a lesson there. Governments set the pace. Governments set the pace and the others keep to it. Now are you going to lose that lesson? Because it was a costly one and this is the whole point. If you don't observe restraint why should anybody else?

What's this power rate increase going to do? One thing it's going to do is push rents up everywhere in British Columbia. Do you expect the landlord to absorb all the cost? Prices are going to go up on manufactured goods. Unions are going to take all of this into account next time they come up for discussion of wages.

I have been besieged by mail about this hydro rate increase. Here's some of it here. Letters from individual people. Listen to what some of these individuals who got sucked in by all this advertising have to say now. "Three years ago we built our home and because of its location we felt that heating it electrically would be a wise choice. At that time we were told by B.C. Hydro that our Government's plan for producing so much power through the Peace River and other proposed projects would undoubtedly lower electrical costs. Now we are faced with astronomical heating bills." Here's another man at seventy and still working. "You can be sure it is important that I let you know how I feel about B.C. Hydro's proposed increased rates and passenger travel. We've worked hard all our lives, with little or no holidays, to be self-supporting in our declining years and we can't afford these increases." Here's one. I was sent a carbon copy of this one. I'd like to know what the member from Shuswap's reply is going to be because it's addressed to him.

It puts it pretty bluntly. "Where are the steady reductions in utility bills promised by the Social Credit party in election campaigning?" Well, where are they? They're never going to come. This is his letter, not mine, Mr. Member.

You know, we have a rather strange situation. Amongst the pleas that I've received are carbon copies of four sent to the Government by Unions. How often has the Government got up and asked for Unions to show restraint? Now the shoe's on the other foot, because the Unions are asking for the Government to show restraint. We know who pays the bill in the end — the public. Either way they lose out. But this time the Unions that are asking the Government to show restraint are the very same Unions whose contracts will come up for negotiation this Spring. All throughout the construction industry in British Columbia we are going to have renegotiations of major contracts. In the face of this, can Government set a 15 per cent pace? Can we learn the lesson from the Seaway example? I say we can't do this. No matter how grim the short-term financial picture is, we've got to tolerate it until we can find a more propitious time.

Items quite apart from the timing of any increase in power rates, the reason and the amount need to be thoroughly justified. We all know that the capital financing of Hydro in recent years has been entirely from captive

[ Page 27 ]

accounts. You don't need to show a balance sheet to get the money from the Workmen's Compensation Board or the Teachers' Pension Fund or the Canada Pension Plan. All you got to do is have the Premier initial the papers. That's how you get your money. So why is it suddenly so essential that the Hydro has a big profit? What are the Hydro's capital demands? Where is the current financial statement? What's changed since last year when there was a profit of $9,000,000?

If Hydro is short of funds, why is it that it's being forced to give up its railroad? Because, Mr. Speaker, this is the most profitable railroad per dollar invested, in all of North America. It is going to operate a toll gate to Roberts Bank, and just when the bonanza is about to come, it's being taken away from the Hydro. At a time when Hydro has to go and ask for more money from the public. What could be more inconsistent, the C.P.R.? The Hydro railroad is profitable and you know it's making money, so why is it being taken away? Why, when we're short of money should they take that railroad away from the Hydro? So it can be put on our electricity bills? The B.C. Hydro has a lease on all that traffic, they make the profit, and you're going to take those away at the time when the directors are saying that the Hydro is desperately short of money and it's going to start losing, and you want to put up electricity rates for all consumers, and start an inflationary trend in British Columbia. This is the time to take that railroad away?

Mr. Speaker, the financial operations of the B.C. Hydro have been shrouded in mystery ever since the Government took over. The only people who know are the bankers of Wall Street and the Cabinet insiders. This doesn't speak well of public corporations. In the old days of the B.C. Electric the rates were justified, in public, in front of the Public Utilities Commission, and we may not have liked the financing and the service, but at least we knew what it was. And now the Government takes it over.

AN HON. MEMBER: Look who's on the Public Utilities Commission.

MR. McGEER: ….That's fine. There is another way of going about this, Mr. Member, and I'm not suggesting that we go to the Public Utilities Commission, but I do say we have to know the whole truth about Hydro's financing operation. That's why I give notice today, Mr. Speaker, that I'm going to move that a Special Committee of the House be formed to consider all matters relating to the B.C. Hydro and its financing, and that the committee of the House, after reviewing all the financial considerations of the Hydro, should make recommendations back as to what we could do, and to recommend as well changes in the B.C. Hydro and Power Authority Act, that will be necessary to give the legislative recommendations effect.

I was shocked by the revelations of Chairman Shrum, when he called up to have an interview about the B.C. Hydro. He said this: "The Government could not have carried on without reducing rates. Political considerations and economic considerations are not always the same." He also said that some large-scale users such as pulp mills and chemical companies got their power at cost until May 1st, 1969. Is that where all this advertising money came from? The big companies were getting their power at cost all these years. Who set their rates? Who set their rates? Chairman Shrum refers to political considerations that are different from economic considerations. Power at cost. We in the Legislature didn't set the rates for industry. Dr. Shrum never set the rates for industry. The Premier set the rates for industry. Those were the political considerations. That's what causes the rates to be set and those political considerations mean that the pulp mills get their power at cost. That's why we have to have a Committee of this House and begin to examine the proposed rate increase. We want to know who is going to pay, and we want it to be fair.

We don't know where all this money came from for the sheafs of advertising, but it wasn't from individual electricity users. Not the kind who wrote those letters to me that there shouldn't be any power rate increase, not at this time. The people of British Columbia have not only borne the operating costs of Hydro, but they have had to bear the capital costs as well from their savings. Big industry isn't buying the bonds — teachers, pensioners — these are the people who are buying the bonds, and they are entitled to a fair shake.

We shouldn't rest there. Any increases, when they come, and it shouldn't be now, should protect those on fixed incomes, the little users, the lower income group — that's essential. We have already heard read out to us this afternoon how much more those people on pensions have to pay for their power, compared with others across Canada. They shouldn't be the ones to subsidize the high cost of power in British Columbia. But I don't think we should rest just with examining the B.C. Power situation in this House, because, if the increases can be as easily justified as some of the Directors who sit in the Cabinet say those increases can be justified, there should be no difficulty at all in making that case to the Prices and Incomes Commission of Canada, and proving that the rate increase is necessary and that it's not inflationary. Until then we must demand, not only that Hydro reveal its total problems to a Committee of the House, but that it do the same to the Prices and Incomes Commission of Canada.

Well, Mr. Speaker, the Social Credit government is waging its usual stiff and continuing war on pollution. Each year it lashes out with a paper offensive, which is one paragraph in the Throne Speech. I want the House to listen to some of these devastating attacks. Here's what was said in 1967 — "With the onrush of industrial development in B.C. my Government has recognized as one of its cardinal responsibilities the preservation for all time of the blessings of clean air, pure water, fertile soil. In this connection, I am happy to know that the activities of the reorganized Pollution Control Board have been greatly increased." Well, that was the 1967 offensive.

But it wasn't content, Mr. Speaker, it didn't rest on its laurels. Next year it struck out again with this sentence in the Throne Speech: "My Government is continuing to pursue vigorously its programme for the abatement of pollution in all its forms. You will be asked to consider amendments to further amend and strengthen the present Act." Well that was 1968.

The Government didn't rest on its laurels, it launched its third offensive the following year. This is a paragraph the following year: "My Government is continuing to pursue vigorously its attack on pollution wherever it may occur in British Columbia — on land, on water, or in the air. Scientific air-sampling equipment has been augmented and improved, and its findings will be processed by computers in the Government's data processing centre." Now we have the computers into the battle, full scale and flat out. Shouldn't be long now. Well, we've launched our next, and most impressive offensive this year. "My Government will continue

[ Page 28 ]

to work towards the protection and preservation of our total environment, so that all our citizens may enjoy the beauties and wonders of our heritage as intended by nature." Now get this, because this is the key phrase — "Reports will be made to the Legislature concerning the efforts and progress being made."

Mr. Speaker, these annual one paragraph offensives in the Throne Speech just will not bring pollution to heel. Sooner or later, some concrete action is going to have to be taken. That's the way to bring pollution under control, and I want to talk about the two most serious pollution problems, these concern sewage and air pollution.

Mr. Speaker, the Province is wallowing in its own sewage. Today in the Vancouver Harbour, we've got a huge ocean liner which recently has given up its 60th suspected typhoid case. We don't know the cause of the epidemic, but it serves as a constant reminder that disease from water contaminated with sewage is always with us. We've had outbreaks, happily not of typhoid in British Columbia, but we have had hepatitis, right down here in the Victoria area has been one of the epidemics. It's not a disease to treat lightly. We had another in Surrey, and these are areas where septic tanks lead to open sewers, and the open sewers lead to areas where people like to swim in the summer time.

I think of the Gorge, and all of the beaches around the Victoria area that get fed by the creeks, and it is a fact, Mr. Speaker, that despite these major offensives in the Throne Speech every year, we have never poured more raw sewage into our lakes, our rivers, our waterways and our ocean, than we are pouring this very day. What probably is the largest sewage outfall in British Columbia lies right next to one of our most valuable parks, right in the park at Brockton Point in Vancouver. Less than a mile from this very Legislative Building a raw sewage outfall goes off a park, above the low-tide water mark. Last Spring, after our Legislature prorogued, there was a flash flood in Trail. Some of you went up to Trail. A creek went over its bank and filled basements of business and private establishments in the whole downtown area of Trail. That creek carried raw sewage from the town of Rossland.

I was appalled to discover last Spring, Mr. Speaker, the extent of the sewage problem around the City of Vancouver and in other areas of British Columbia. It's something that the members of this House had never really had brought to their attention, either through discussions in our speeches, or in reports presented to the Legislature.

One report that we should all be familiar with is the Goldie Report, which is a semi-secret report. People who have asked for copies of that have been turned down, but it describes the shocking situation that exists in the Fraser River, where incredible amounts of raw sewage are being flooded into that river, and where coloform counts have gone up many fold, between the time the original readings were taken in the late 1950's, and when the report was written in the 1960's with the Iona Sewage Treatment Plant being opened in the interim, and many people from the City of Vancouver were living under the false impression that their beaches were clean, because of the opening of that plant, but it barely scratched the surface.

What we have are the most widely-used beaches in British Columbia ringed by giant pincers of raw sewage. On the one side the flow-out from Brockton Point in the Vancouver Harbour, and on the other the north arm of the Fraser River. That open sewer of the north arm of the Fraser River flows right past two widely used beaches — Wreck Beach and the University Beach. No warning ever has been given of the hazards of that. I did some coloform counts myself along those beaches because it isn't one of the points that's sampled. Oh yes, Mr. Price says the experts didn't agree with me. Well, Mr. Member….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would remind the member that it is not proper to appear to refer to a member by his name but by his constituency, the Honourable member for Vancouver-Burrard.

MR. McGEER: Pardon me, Mr. Speaker.

The figures that were released, Mr. Speaker, were figures taken from the Department of Health, they weren't mine. They were corroborated by figures taken by the B.C. Research Council, and the Minister of Health undoubtedly knows why they were high, it's because at that particular time of year the Fraser River was in flood. We had had a long warm spell, and the off-shore winds brought that Fraser River water right in on top of our beaches. But every day, right past Wreck Beach and the University Beach, that sewage flows…. they never asked what the count was in White Rock…. it was very good, I went swimming there myself, and I want to compliment the town of White Rock. I wish I could do the same for the City of Victoria and the City of Vancouver.

Yes, that was the Committee that whitewashed the situation on the beaches, the one the member from Vancouver-Burrard referred to. But, we began to get at the problem, the beaches all along West Vancouver were posted because that's where Vancouver's outfall flows by. The beaches at Lumberman's Arch were posted. Finally a warning sign or two went up in the Fraser River. But, posting the beaches is not the answer. The answer is to clean it up, clean it up all over British Columbia, not just in the City of Vancouver.

The City of Nelson pours raw sewage right out on top of its beach and that's unusable. The beaches in the Okanagan are threatened, and recently we had a warning from the Medical Health Officer up there that they were sitting right at the upper limits of what could be considered safe and tolerable. We've got to stop covering this situation up, we've got to begin bringing it to light right here in the Legislature.

I think Dr. Stuart Murray would be turning in his grave if he knew the fight he commenced years ago under the threat of polio in the City of Vancouver when he posted those beaches and sparked the Highbury Tunnel and the building of the Iona Treatment Plant, if he knew how British Columbia and the City of Vancouver had wallowed behind in that lead, because the population increase since that time has pushed even more sewage into all our waterways and we are not catching up. We are allowing it to deteriorate year by year by year.

Also, there's a disgraceful situation out in Saanich. I support what Dr. Whitbread has said because he is a dedicated public servant who knows disease, and he recognizes that the southern end of Vancouver Island is a danger point. We've already had one epidemic here. But, Mr. Speaker, Dr. Whitbread doesn't operate the Treasury. He only says what is necessary from a health point of view. The Minister of Health doesn't operate the Treasury, either. He knows what has to be done from a health point of view and, give him credit, he said so.

But the problem really gets down to the Minister of Finance because that is where the message about sewage and

[ Page 29 ]

disease has to come home. The Minister of Finance should be the one talking to local officials, working out a proper plan to take care of our sewage, to get British Columbia out of this cesspool into which it is sinking. The Minister of Health should be bringing in a report. We should know in this Legislature the amount of raw sewage everywhere in British Columbia, the coloform counts from an open disclosure. But, the Minister of Finance holds the key to cleaning it up. He should be marketing all sewage-treatment bonds at favourable rates. Just as important as electricity. More than that, he should be putting up half the cost of primary treatment plants, 75 per cent of the cost of secondary plants, and 90 per cent of the cost of tertiary plants.

Mr. Speaker, I want to switch now to our next most important source of pollution in British Columbia, and that's air pollution, and until we have a province-wide air pollution control law we are just kidding ourselves that air pollution is going to do anything but get worse and worse and worse. Who do the Government think they are kidding with all the ads here about air quality standards? Passing the buck to the municipalities. What do the municipalities do when the problem is just outside their boundaries? The Minister without Portfolio for North Okanagan should be interested in that question. It was right in her very town or just outside the town that a man lit fire to a huge pile of sawdust and left the towns of Vernon and Coldstream and Lumby and Kelowna covered with a pall of smoke for almost a week, and when somebody asked "What's this all about?" the answer was "Who's to stop them? It's out of the fire season, anybody can light a fire wherever he likes and go ahead and smoke up the whole countryside." But, that is how it is in British Columbia. What good are your air quality standards when this kind of thing can go on? You have never seen so much buck-passing in all your life.

Cypress Bowl had the whole of Vancouver and Howe Sound covered with smoke in beautiful Fall weather last year. So, I called up the Department of Forestry and said "What's all this about?" and they said "We don't know, we can't stop them from burning up there, why doesn't the Municipality of West Vancouver stop them?" so I called up the Municipality of West Vancouver and they said "We told them not to do it but they said it is outside our territory". He said "As a matter of fact there are six members of the Department of Forestry up the mountain now supervising their burning, and they just told me a few minutes ago that it was out of the fire season and they didn't have anything to do with it". So we talk with the company and they said "The Government ordered us to do it". So then I called the Government back again and they said "Yes, we ordered them to do it, but we didn't tell them to do it now". I said "Well, have you got a half a dozen people up there supervising it?" He said "We had to send them up because the fire got out of control and we're trying to help them put it out." (laughter) That isn't even fire protection, much less controlling air pollution.

But I want to tell, Mr. Speaker, a far more significant story which really illustrates the nub of the problem here in British Columbia. Last Spring I had the privilege of being shown through one of the interior pulp mills. As a former industrial chemist I began to make some specific inquiries about the huge amount of air pollution that was coming out of that smoke stack. Now we are not talking about hydrogen sulfide, we are not talking about kraft mill odours. We are talking about the other substances that come showering down on top of the cars so that every union contract has in it the necessity of a free car wash in the contract to keep the cars clean, to keep the acid from eating away the paint. There is nothing in it about a free lung wash, but you get a free car wash if you are anywhere around a pulp mill. Well, I asked the manager of this pulp mill about getting rid of this air pollution. He admitted that it was quite feasible to do this, but he also said he wasn't going to do anything about it, and there was a very simple reason, he didn't have to. He said if he did he would be wasting money. It could have been any manager for any pulp mill because it is true for all of them. It applied to all pulp mills, and this is the reason, Mr. Minister, the reason is that there are no standards to be reached and, Mr. Speaker, there are not.

This manager points out, quite rightly, that he can't design the equipment. Some other engineering firm is going to have to do that. He wants to know what the specifications for that pollution abatement equipment are going to be so that he can hold the manufacturer to account. He says, "If I buy equipment for my mill and later a pollution control law does come along, then I have wasted my money. I'll buy that equipment when a Provincial law is passed which says the specifications that I must meet, and when I can order from the manufacturer equipment to reach those specifications. That's the story about air pollution in British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: For a PhD. to say that, that's just rubbish….

MR. McGEER: I am merely passing on what the manager of that mill says, and he's being paid a very high salary to do this.

The head of the Pollution Control Board in British Columbia said the policy of the Government was to go slow and try and get the voluntary cooperation of industry, and it was at that point that I called for his resignation, because clearly we are going to get nowhere. "We can't have an air pollution control law in British Columbia, it won't work," they say. Mr. Speaker, that box is filled with state and provincial air pollution laws. I've written all over North America to find out what the laws are, and virtually every State in the Union and two other provinces in Canada have got air pollution laws and they are right in this box and any time the Minister wants to get a model law it is here for the taking. But, don't tell us we can't have Provincial air pollution control laws in British Columbia. That says it's nonsense. We'll ask for voluntary controls or we'll force the municipalities to do it, while what we need is not just a stiff air pollution control law in British Columbia, we need a $5,000 a day fine or more for offenders, and then we are going to get the kind of voluntary cooperation that the head of the Pollution Control Board has said that we need.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the second member from Vancouver Centre, ah yes, yes, we wouldn't want you to think we were partisan. (laughter) The second member from Vancouver Centre called for a Provincial law compelling motorists to have exhaust control devices on their new vehicles. I want to associate myself with that call, and I know that he'll be voting for a Bill that we will introduce on that subject. Perhaps he would like to introduce one himself. But, you have got to do more than talk about doing these things. Got to back it up with action. Alderman Linnell in Vancouver has called for these pollution control devices as mandatory on automobiles and I am with her on this too because advances have been made by the manufacturers. States in the United States and the Province of Ontario have

[ Page 30 ]

required that they be installed on vehicles, and all we have to do, laggard old British Columbia, all we have to do to follow suit is to just pass a similar kind of law, and we'd be right up with them. So if we are going to wage this all-out offensive, here is a pretty easy way to get right in the front rank.

Well, Mr. Speaker, the operative phrase of the coming generation is "to tell it like it is", and if there is one over-riding criticism of politicians it's their refusal to do this. But, I consider it a mark of shame that the people who are sitting up in our galleries today are not allowed to make notes of what we say, they will be required to leave if they do. They are not allowed to tape record our words, and yet we are their servants, the servants of all the people of British Columbia, and this is the most public of all places in our Province. What are we trying to hide? Why are we unwilling to tell it like it is? Why haven't we got a Hansard? No, no, that has nothing to do with us here, we shouldn't be preventing people in our House. There they are up there, justify it if you can, justify it to them. Why can't they take notes? Are you going to tell me that that is wrong? Is there anything wrong with those people writing down what anybody says?

Is there anything wrong, Mr. Speaker, if this is a public assembly, and if we are their servants, that this microphone shouldn't be attached through our radio stations to every home in British Columbia? Are we trying to hide something from the people who are sitting at home? We had television in our House the opening day. It went all over British Columbia and I was proud of what was shown. Why isn't television allowed here anytime? What are we trying to hide?

What do we have from the Throne Speech? That we are going to tape record these words or partially tape record them, and what are we going to do — lock them up, edit them, alter them, erase them, pick out the good things for the Government, throw away the others? This is a farce, this is a farce. We should be allowing radio and television into this Chamber. A Hansard is as old as parliament itself, and we are still afraid of it in British Columbia. Well, as far as we axe concerned, Mr. Speaker, we have nothing to hide, and we'll assume that the Government apparently does have something to hide. Afraid to tell it like it is, afraid to have the radio and television in this Chamber to see you as you are, the empty seats, the laughter, the contempt for the public.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: …oh, oh.

MR. McGEER: That's the members on the other side of you, Mr. Speaker. Count them. You're the ones who vote down Hansard every year — all of you.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right.

MR. McGEER: You ought to be ashamed of yourself. Well, I think there's more to it than that, there's more to it than that, just bringing this Legislative Chamber to the people of British Columbia — no, you don't want it to happen! You would do anything to cover up what you're really like here in this House.

We should be doing other things to try and bring this Legislature into this century and one of them is just to take a knife to the Throne Speech Debate, cut it right down, and get on with the real business of the House. I don't think, Mr. Speaker, there's anything worthy of debate in this Throne Speech except a debate just cutting down the debate on it. What are we supposed to debate? The pros and cons of phrases like this "British Columbia Ferries report that the pattern of overall growth in carriage of passengers and vehicles continued through the past year"? "Exploration activity in the oil and gas industry continued on a similar level to that in 1968"? I say let's just have one or two speakers and get on with the business of the House. Are we supposed to debate about the gold watches that are being given to the civil service? I just wondered if that was one of the Mr. Worley's recruiting devices for college graduates.

Well, Mr. Speaker, we're going to have a new Motion Pictures Act and I suppose that means a sequel to the good life. I hope that the Government will take acting lessons in between and that the public purse will be spared just a little.

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't get anything less as an actor.

MR. McGEER: But if we're going to have such an Act, bring it in. There's no point standing here for two weeks speculating on what might be in the Act, we can be debating the Act itself. Bring the legislation in — you've had a whole year. If the Cabinet weren't taking their vacations in Acapulco and places like that, they'd have had their programme ready when the House opened. It wasn't my job to prepare the Government programme or I'd have been here working on it.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I think it's time that the House automatically referred all its Bills to Committee, that we brought them in early in the Session. No reason why you can't have your legislation programme ready. We should have a cut-off date for Bills and that automatically every Bill be studied in Committee where the public can present their point of view, with witnesses, and this way we won't have the last minute legislation put through in the dying days. I hope the present Attorney-General won't attempt what the last Attorney-General did, in bringing something like 18 Bills in on one day, two or three days before the end of the Session. That's a good way to pass legislation.

Now I want to say one further thing, Mr. Speaker. Once this Legislature prorogues, for ten months of the year Government operates in secrecy. There is no board room in British Columbia that guards more secrets more jealously than are guarded behind the green oak doors in that room upstairs.

AN HON. MEMBER: Downstairs — around the corner.

MR. McGEER: It's around the corner, but as you come in it's the one room that has the venetian blinds drawn, covers over the window. We pass a lot of legislation in this House which has phrases like "the Lt. Governor-in-Council may set regulations for this or for that" and I say that Cabinet secrecy should end, that whenever you're — oh, the Minister laughs — you know it's bad enough to semi-expose to public, but where would you be, my friend, if there were complete exposure? Well, Mr. Speaker, I say that every Order-in-Council that's passed should be passed in public, because when the Cabinet passes its Orders-in-Council it's acting as an extension of the Legislature and the secrecy that we have right in this Chamber is enough, but to carry it on to a higher degree into that Cabinet Chamber is even worse. If we're going to have new politics and tell it like it is then we've got to expose public business to the public, and that means an end to Cabinet secrecy. You can have your Cabinet caucuses with policy the way you have a caucus of your whole party,

[ Page 31 ]

and we don't need to end that as far as policy is concerned, but when it comes to doing public business, do it in public.

Well, I want to salute the Premier, Mr. Speaker, on his return to the Legislature and I know his great feeling of satisfaction to be back in the hurly-burly of which he's so much a part. The Premier has a lot of gifts and I don't think being humble in victory is one of them, but some people have even referred to the Premier as being arrogant.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh no, oh no!

MR. MCGEER: Now I know that's an exaggeration…(laughter)… and I know the Premier hates exaggeration, and it's because it is such an exaggeration, and I hate exaggerations too, that I want to try and mention some of the things that just might have caused some members of the public to develop this erroneous impression — not all but just one — maybe he can refute them and reassure us all. But he does double duty, and some have referred to him as arrogant as Premier, others as arrogant as Minister of Finance. Of course, Mr. Speaker, he has powers, and one of these as Minister of Finance — it's an unusual power, it's a great power — as salesman.

But one of these powers is to determine what's a religious, a charitable, or an educational institution. The Premier, no, the Minister of Finance — you might consult the Premier on this one and ask him whether the Minister of Finance should have these powers — because since the time of Queen Elizabeth the First these religious, charitable and educational institutions have enjoyed a degree of immunity from taxation, but as it stands now in British Columbia there is not one of these foundations that isn't severely threatened because one man, the Minister of Finance, by section 52 of the Succession Duty Act, determines whether in fact they are charitable, religious or educational. What happens is that you rob the poor of their legacy.

I want to refer to the first one — the bombshell — and this was, the tax imposed by the Minister of Finance of $1,600,000 on the P.A. Woodward Foundation. When Mr. P.A. Woodward passed away he left his entire estate to that Foundation. The Foundation itself has completely changed the picture in the field of health care in British Columbia. It's made magnificent contributions to the Medical Faculty of our University, it's made major contributions to schools of nursing, to the Royal Jubilee Hospital in Victoria, to St. Joseph's Hospital right here in this city, and it's made contributions to the Emergency Department of the Royal Columbian Hospital in New Westminster — that one that's referred to by some members of the Opposition as a fire-trap — but it would be worse were it not for the donations of that charitable Foundation. You can't build a better record than that on which to base your claim of being charitable. It is administered by people who receive not a penny for their efforts. They include the Chief Justice of the Appeal Court of B.C., bankers and other people of impeccable reputation. That Foundation itself contributes to something like 60 charities, and Mr. Woodward himself was the man who year after year personally put the Red Feather Campaign in Vancouver over the top, and according to the Minister of Finance this is not a religious, charitable or educational institution.

Now we could question gifts to the Heart Foundation and the Cancer Institute. Now does anyone in this Chamber or anyone in British Columbia seriously believe that these Foundations are not to do good and would not qualify? How many more institutions like these are going to feel the talons of the Minister of Finance? How about the Crippled Children's Hospital in Vancouver? — which was started by the Women's Institutes of British Columbia. How about the Health Centre for Children? How about the G.F. Strong Rehabilitation Centre? How about religious organizations? We notice two of them are exempt — Central City Mission and the Salvation Army, so is the United Church Training School at Naramata. But how about the Anglican Church Foundation of B.C.? And let's talk about that pioneer Foundation, the Vancouver Foundation, which administers so many private accounts including the Chris Venture Fund for the education of needy children.

When do universities and colleges get the axe as not being educational institutions? Mr. Speaker, what's been happening is that the Minister of Finance has been driving money out of British Columbia for years, and it all started when we recreated the tax jungles in British Columbia by bringing in the Succession Duty Act. The result was double taxation on people who were not citizens of Canada but residing in British Columbia, and immediately they started moving their money out. For those who are Canadian citizens and do live in British Columbia they still face some double taxation, harassment by two sets of people assessing their estates, probating their wills. There is inevitable increases in lawyers' fees — they are really the ones who gain by all of this.

Some of the provinces have come to their senses — Alberta and Saskatchewan were the first to do this — not only by eliminating the tax jungles, but by giving forgiveness of the estate in order to attract development money into their provinces. Now the Province of Ontario has followed suit, and we struggle along behind.

What's happening is that if we keep amending our Act, trying to remove double taxation and inequity, we've got something as far as the charitable foundations are concerned which is not just foolish but it's primitive. We've got a Minister of Finance who says whether this church qualifies and that doesn't, whether this foundation qualifies and that doesn't, whether this medical research organization shall get its funds or that one won't. What are these institutions supposed to do? Strike the kind of relationship with the Government that some of our industries have done? Is that how they get on the list? Because if they don't, no one is going to leave any money to them. We can't have under the table dealings in matters like this, we've got to spell out clearly and unequivocally the criteria by which these Foundations qualify.

We've come to depend too much in British Columbia on work done by volunteers — the Minister of Welfare knows this, the former Minister of Welfare. They know how much you depend on organizations staffed by volunteers and financed not by Government but by philanthropists, to look after the poor and the needy, to support those things that industry can't and which Government is reluctant to support — part of the way our society functions. What's going to happen is that we're going to slash deeply into this essential aspect of our social operations in this Province, and I say that we've had an experiment in British Columbia and it's been an unsatisfactory one. The Minister of Finance should be shorn of his powers to make decisions about religious charitable foundations. We should go farther than that. We're losing out — it's too costly — we should get out of the Succession Duty field altogether. We should take the 75 per cent here that we now qualify for, it would bring us more money, not less, because it would start to attract back to British Columbia all

[ Page 32 ]

the private capital that has left this Province as a result of these laws. It's all hidden under the surface. You never see it, but it's there. I know of two huge estates that have recently moved out of this Province for this very reason. Now you say let's go ahead and soak the rich, which is perfectly good philosophy, but the problem is, we're not doing that. We're losing funds that we need in Government and we're losing funds that these private operations desperately require. (Applause)

On the motion of the Hon. L.R. Peterson, the debate was adjourned to the next sitting of the House.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I move Motion No. 1 on the Order Paper, seconded by the Honourable Leslie Peterson, "That on Tuesday, the 27th day of January, 1970, and on all following days of the Session there will be two distinct sittings on each day — one from 2 p.m. to 6 p.m. and one from 8 p.m. until adjournment — unless otherwise ordered."

MR. SPEAKER: You have heard the motion. Are you ready for the question? The Honourable the member from West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

MR. L. ALLAN WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): I move, seconded by the Hon. second member for Vancouver–Point Grey, an amendment to this motion, Mr. Speaker. "That Motion No. 1 standing on the Orders of the Day be amended by deleting from the last line thereof the word 'adjournment' and substituting therefore the figures '11 p.m.'."

Mr. Speaker, in my very brief experience in this House we have had many, many occasions when the members have sat long past the time when they were able to conduct a debate responsibly, and it seems to me we should come to our senses this year.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. BARRETT: I thank my neighbour in his foresight in preparing the amendment to the motion. I think the member is doing a very good service to the House and to the cause of Parliament by proposing such an amendment. In support of the amendment, Mr. Speaker, it must be understood that the amendment is given on the basis of making this Legislature work better. We have seen the results of long hours and its effect on the health of some of the members of this House. We've also seen the effect that it has had on some of the debates. It has not been difficult for Opposition members to have good material, but it's difficult for the Government to sustain itself on late hours at night. It is noticed that the Premier has found it necessary to be absent during most of those evening sittings, and we don't think that it's good for us to keep him away from his House for so long a period of time. I know that the Premier wants to participate in all the evening sessions, and if they adjourned at 11 o'clock he would have the opportunity of spending his time with us at that time. I want to say further, Mr. Speaker, in support of this amendment, it's in the tone of the kind of amendments and thrusts we are trying to give to this House to preserve Parliament. We don't have our question period, we don't have our Hansard, let's at least have some regulated hours.

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

MR. ROBERT M. STRACHAN (Cowichan-Malahat): Mr. Speaker, I join to support this amendment because in an aside the Premier said "not last year", indicating that there were no late sittings of any consequence last year. I want to remind the Premier that last year at 3:15 a.m. you called for discussion and debate in this House, the Estimates of the Department of Mines for the first time — 3:15 a.m. — so don't sit there and look at the press and say "not last year", because it was last year, as it's been every year since you were Premier.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Premier.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT: The Opposition is up to its old tactics again, almost before the House really opens. We see this new alliance between the Liberals and the NDP — two types of socialism — they were both defeated in the election and the people of this Province supported the actions of the Social Credit Government for over seventeen years, and I want to say this, Mr. Speaker, that I hope that during this debate we can do away with any night sittings if we get good cooperation from the Whips and the members of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Honourable Second Member for Vancouver East.

MR. ROBERT A. WILLIAMS (2nd-Vancouver-East): Mr. Speaker, the Honourable member for Cowichan-Malahat dealt with one of the evening sessions of last year. During that session we saw Parliament abused, we saw Parliament abused by the leader on the other side of the House, and we on this side do not want to see this overwhelming majority continue to abuse the rights of Parliament, the rights of all the members in this Legislature to do as we must to represent the people of our ridings. We don't want to see this overwhelming majority working against the people of this Province as they have done in the past. The Minister of Lands and Forests' Estimates during the last session were dealt with in one day. The economic base of this Province — lands, forests and water resources — were dealt with in one day, because the leader on the other side of the House was determined there shouldn't be a full debate. That's the reason — that leader walked up and down the aisles and said they were going to go all night because he didn't want the Minister of Lands and Forests' issues debated during another day. I expect the same thing to happen from that leader this session, when that Minister's estimates come up, and, Mr. Speaker, I urge those concerned with Parliament to vote for this amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the First Member for Vancouver Centre — Order Please!

MR. H.P. CAPOZZI (1st-Vancouver-Centre): Having now heard from the three candidates for leadership of the party of the Opposition, and having had as clear as possible an indication as we could have in this House of the aging of that party over there, when they are not prepared to sit and do the business of Parliament, when to earn their indemnity they want to limit the hours that they work, already in a party perceived to be depleted in their ranks, concerned that

[ Page 33 ]

they may not be able to match the aggressiveness that they will find from this side, and the determination that they will find, I can understand their reason in endeavouring to limit the amount of hours that we are going to need in this House. I say this, Mr. Speaker, that if we reach a stage where we will not do the work that has to be done and over there they are getting together again, leaving again, constantly, we're not sure at which point the two parties get together or disappear, but I would think that it would be a shame if we reach a stage where we are not prepared, those members who have been elected from across this Province, to sit and do the business of this House that has to be done, and not be concerned with limitations of hours, whether it be 10 o'clock or 11 o'clock but are prepared to sit until that business is done, and I urge every member of this House to vote against the amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kootenay.

MR. LEO T. NIMSICK (Kootenay): Mr. Speaker, I, more than anyone else here, probably know a great deal about staying up late at night along with the Premier in discussing problems concerning the people of British Columbia, and I, more than anyone else, know how many nights we have spent, until 3 and 4 and 5 and 6 and 7 o'clock in the morning. All that this resolution asks for is the fact that we go until 11 o'clock, and then if the House wants to re-convene, they've got to re-convene. I'm very surprised, Mr. Speaker, that some of the members on the other side who have talked to me during these long hours, and were disgusted with operating the business of the people in such a fashion. Many of those members will vote today against this resolution, which would maybe give them a chance to voice their opinion in regards to the limiting the debates until 11 o'clock. I feel that this motion is a forward step, it's a forward step in the interest of the business of the people of British Columbia, because you do not have good business at 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning when everybody is tired. You cannot function the way the people of British Columbia want, and it doesn't matter whether you are here two months or four months. You're here to do the public's business, and if it takes three or four months, by only going until 11 o'clock, then let's do it. But let's do the job properly.

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

MR. GARDE B. GARDOM (2nd-Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, it has been the practice of the Government to practise legislation by exhaustion. The most acrimonious debates we have ever had in this House have been in the tiny hours of the morning. We've considered legislation as important as Bill 33 at 3 o'clock and 4 o'clock in the morning, and the reason being, not by virtue of the fact of getting the public's business done, but because the Government had been so rotten in its programming of the public's business. If we had had our legislation, Mr. Speaker, on our desks in time, those night sessions wouldn't have been necessary, but the Government sits on it, and as the leader of the Liberal Party spoke today, at times we've even had 19 Bills come in in one day. That's the reason we have ended up in the middle of the night. Mr. Speaker, if we're going to have these night sessions, let's ask the Government side to bring in the television cameras after 11 o'clock, let's have them here at 3 and 4 o'clock in the morning, and let the general public see the disgusting state that this Assembly gets itself into. Mr. Speaker, what I'm asking for is that we have something in here that is efficient, something that works, and something that is business-like, and it's utter nonsense today to suggest that people can intelligently discuss and consider the business of the Province of British Columbia at 3 and 4 o'clock in the morning when it is totally unnecessary. We know the reasons for it, everybody on this side, and as the last member who spoke stated, lots of you people over there talk about it in the coffee shop when you're enjoying yourselves up there. Why don't you have the gumption to stand up today and vote? No guts, eh?

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Saanich and the Islands.

MR. JOHN D. TISDALLE (Saanich and the Islands): The member that just sat down, the second member from Vancouver–Point Grey, I think for the records should be corrected. If we had the time we could go through and prove it that when he accused this side of the House, the Government, of being delinquent in bringing in its Bills, that last year and the year before when the Bills came in here, it was too fast for the Opposition to deal with them, and you will find in the record they moved adjournment over and over again, when the Government called the Bills. Back in the Journals, we'll find one evening here in debate that an honourable member from the Opposition moved a motion that we continue sitting and discuss the people's business and that was around 11 o'clock at night, and so we continued, accepted the motion. Yes, you did, yes you did, the member from Kootenay who is 62 years old is not too old to remember it, and so I don't think we should sit here and take the accusations from the other side who are not actually recorded as they are in the Journals, and therefore I bring it to your attention that the business of this House has had to continue in evenings in long sessions over previous debates, because the Opposition wished to boycott the legislation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh! Oh!

MR. TISDALLE: That's all it was. I don't call it a filibuster because there wasn't any filler in it, they just simply wanted to boycott it. If we had recordings last year of the Legislature, we could just replay it, we wouldn't have to go through this exercise right now, because you did the same motion last year as you did this year. So maybe we should have had tape recordings last year.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, Please. The Honourable Member for Burnaby North.

MRS. EILEEN E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): I have made a point of checking with most of the other provincial Parliaments in Canada, and I do not recall any other Parliament which sits to the lengthy hours which this Parliament does. As a matter of fact, in talking to MLAs or MPPs or whatever they are called across Canada, they were shocked when I told them that one of our Educational Estimates debates actually went on until 5 o 'clock in the morning. Now who can stand up and try to produce the necessary questions and be able to put across what you want at 5 o'clock in the morning, and yet we were all exposed to this. Now this was not because we in the Opposition wanted

[ Page 34 ]

to do this, it was because the Honourable Premier had decided that Education must be finished by a certain time. I hope that when, it comes to vote, that you, the members of the government side who have spoken, I know, against these long exhausting hours in private, I would hope that you would not vote against it just because it was produced by the Liberal side of the House. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Yale Lillooet.

MR. WILLIAM L. HARTLEY (Yale-Lillooet): Mr. Speaker, I'm surprised to hear any of the members say that we have tried to rush the business of this House through. At no time have we tried to do this, but what actually happened, the reason we had late night sittings, is simply this, that the nature of the business is such that the Premier doesn't want the press to cover it, or doesn't wish the people in the galleries to hear it, then he sees that it is brought up as the other speakers said. Last year they brought up mining legislation at 2 o'clock in the morning, when the galleries were empty, because they knew the legislation involved the emotions of many, many people. Mr. Speaker, I would like to repeat now what I proposed in previous sessions. I would like to say this, Mr. Speaker, that instead of trying to rush the business of this Province through between now and the 27th of March, which is Good Friday, that we adjourn at Easter, and finish the first, and if necessary the second readings of the Bills, and then have a further session in October. There are no provinces that have a budget the size of the Province of British Columbia who rush it all through in the short period of time that the Premier will try to do it this year. So there's no reason why we couldn't have a Spring session between now and Easter and a Fall session to finish and give final reading to legislation, after taking this various legislation back to the hospital groups, the school boards, the municipal groups, and get their opinions and their advice.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question on the amendment? The Amendment reads that "Motion No. 1 standing on the Orders of the Day be amended by deleting from the last line thereof the word 'Adjournment' and substituting therefore the figures '11 p.m."'

The amendment to Motion No. 1 on the Order Paper was negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 17

Messieurs

NAYS — 33

Messieurs

MR. SPEAKER: The question on the motion. The Honourable the first member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. McGEER: I would like to make a little proposal that perhaps the Government would accept regarding this motion, and certainly I would be willing to support the motion if there were some indication that — I wouldn't want people to think that these late night sittings, and I know the Premier wouldn't want the people to think that these late night sittings were held because legislation or estimates were being introduced that it would be better to have discussed in the middle of the night. Three o'clock is just as good as two o'clock the next afternoon. Perhaps, since we are considering this partial Hansard this year, we might for all sittings after 11 o'clock when the press is normally finished, bring in radio and television at these late night sittings, because I think if we could see ourselves as we are in one of these late night sessions of the….

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member is introducing new material into the debate.

MR. McGEER: But I just….

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member is out of order. You have heard the motion. Are you ready for the question?

The motion was agreed to on the following division:

YEAS — 33

Messieurs

NAYS — 17

Messieurs

The House adjourned at 5:11 p.m.