[ Page 553 ]

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 1970

The House met at 2 p.m.

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

Bill (No. 18) intituled An Act to Amend the Constitution Act, was introduced, read a first time, and Ordered to be placed on the Orders of the Day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

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

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

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

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, Bill No. 9 is the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority Act of 1964, amending Act. The sole purpose of this Bill is to increase the borrowing authorization of the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority from $1,000,000,000 to $1,250,000,000. Population growth and economic expansion has given British Columbia the highest per capita use and the largest annual percentage increase in the use of power of all the provinces in Canada. It is therefore vital that the Authority prepare to meet the expected continuation of this electric power demand. To this end the Authority's generation, transmission, and distribution services must be expanded in an orderly and planned manner. While the borrowing authorization of the Hydro is being increased by $250,000,000, it does not mean that Hydro will necessarily borrow this sum immediately or in the near future, but it will be able to go forward with its plans. As I stated in my 1970 Budget Address, during this current tight money, high interest rate situation, the Authority will be required to use this authorization with utmost caution. Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

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

MR. D. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, let me say at the outset that the New Democratic Party has been on record as being in favour of public power in this Province, unlike any other party in this Legislative Assembly, and has been in favour of that policy since its formation as a party in 1933, and before the election of John McInnis, Mr. Hawthornthwaite, and Parker Williams at the turn of the century. Ever since there have been Socialists in this House we have believed in the concept of public ownership for the public good. We have never been opposed to the community itself borrowing money to improve the community. Our philosophy has always been committed to the betterment of human life and the development of opportunities of that human life here in the Province of British Columbia.

So let me make it very clear that if there are any political overtones on the debate of this Bill, let it be said that our policy has been consistent since our very beginnings in this House, Mr. Speaker, and we were in this House long before Social Credit was ever heard of or even dreamed about. This party has had representations in this House since the turn of the century as Socialist and now as the New Democratic Party.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I am glad that we did get on to this Bill today. Through the Premier's usual courtesy we learned that the Bill was coming on the floor through the press, rather than informing the Whips of this House, as was traditional in the past. The business of this House is done through newspapers ahead of time, not through the Chamber, Mr. Speaker, but I'm glad that the Bill has been called. After it was called in the corridor it's now called in the House.

We stand now on the threshold of permitting the debt of this Province to escalate to a very large figure. The current situation in British Columbia is, prior to the passage of this Bill, our total debt is over $2,250,000,000. For those who still cling to the myth, for political symbolism or for any other reason, that this Province is debt-free, let me disabuse you of that idea as quickly as I can.

When I have a mortgage, Mr. Speaker, I have to pay interest on it, and if that qualifies me as a financial expert I'm talking about the mortgage on this Province put on by the Premier, Mr. Speaker. My friend, the mortgage on this Province now stands at $2,250,000,000. The annual interest we pay for this debt is approximately $157,000,000. The daily interest is $431,500 every day to service the debt of this Province. The annual interest per person is $78.75 per person in this Province. And it is a good investment, it is a good investment. But let's be absolutely clear about one thing — it is debt, Mr. Speaker, we are legally and morally obligated to pay for. And let's not play the games of the debt-free nonsense.

This Bill intends to increase the debt of this Province by an additional $250,000,000. The Premier says that they wll be careful with the expenditure. I trust that. I know that the people who are going to be responsible for making decisions have already publicly stated that politics have interfered with their decisions, and we hope that politics will not play too important a part in the engineering and fiscal decisions that they have to make. But what of those decisions, Mr. Speaker?

Before the Premier closes the debate on this particular Bill we have to know exactly where this money is going to be spent. We face a very serious situation in this Province, Mr. Speaker, because in my opinion this Government has lost its nerve, Mr. Speaker. This Government has not in its past policies provided the kind of opportunities to give a full life and a good life to the citizens of this Province who must carry the bills. This money will be taken out of revenue returned to this Province by the Federal Government and from general revenue, as well as some of it being borrowed on the open market When we make a drain on those kind of funds, Mr. Speaker, we are asking the people of this Province, because of this Government's policies, to wait for its schools, to wait for its hospitals and wait for its other services, but we must be sure that that wait is worth it.

What will you do to see that secondary industry is developed through the hand of this Government in this Province through expanded electrical power generation? What will you do to make sure that the economic boom in the Pacific Northwest will not by-pass British Columbia, as the ill-fated Columbia River deal forced industry to go to the State of Washington and the State of Oregon? What is your position, Mr. Speaker, I ask the Government, on the prospect of a nuclear power plant on Vancouver Island? What are the dates? What are the dates that site one on the Peace will be brought into full production? What are the dates that we can expect the Mica Dam to be completed and producing power?

[ Page 554 ]

We asked the Minister of Recreation yesterday and he said that some time in the future. These are the dates we must know now, Mr. Speaker, we must know whether or not this Government, because it has lost its nerve, has lost its ability to make hard and fast decisions about power generation in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, we now have over 7 per cent unemployment in this Province. Over 7 per cent unemployment. We need jobs in this Province, Mr. Speaker, and the only way we can have those jobs is through industrial development. I'm glad that the Premier appreciates the fact that we are over 7 per cent in the unemployment figure. The Premier also recognizes that we have over 100,000 people on social welfare in this Province, and the number is climbing, and to say that it's entirely Ottawa's fault alone, without any positive action and positive decisions by this Government, is to fail the people of British Columbia.

I Mr. Speaker, in passing this money we expect a fair percentage of it to go to the expansion of a rapid transit system in the urban areas of British Columbia. We are very, very much opposed to an increase in transit fares, and we think that if we are going to borrow this kind of money, then we should commit some of it to an expanded public transit system in both the area of Greater Victoria and the Greater Vancouver area.

Mr. Speaker, let me say again that never let it be said that the New Democratic Party was ever against the expansion of public power in its concept in this Province. It was this Government, through its former Attorney-General, who in the 1960 election campaign had no faith in public power and campaigned through that election saying public power would ruin the Province of British Columbia, Mr. Speaker. It was this Government, through its present Premier, who ran around the Province in 1960 saying that public power would destroy the economy of this Province. Mr. Speaker, I tell you this, we have more faith in British Columbia and British Columbians than that, more faith in British Columbia than that. Now the challenge to you, Mr. Speaker, after you've been given another mandate and you come to this House with a Bill to borrow another $250,000,000, will you provide us with the faith, will you provide us with the drive, with the vigour and the nerve to expand British Columbia?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

MR. BARRETT: The answer will be found, the answer will be found in the performance of this Government in the next 36 months, because I make this prediction as I take my seat. Just as the Coalition in 1949 was given a huge mandate in this Province, within 36 months they crumbled because they lost their nerve and they couldn't provide for the people of this Province, and I say, Mr. Speaker, that that's the crossroads that this Premier is at now. Are you headed for another 1949 and 36-month disaster, or can you give us the kind of development? I tell you this, Mr. Speaker,

AN HON. MEMBER: Wishful thinking.

MR. BARRETT: We have not seen, we have not seen the depth and quality and drive behind the Premier that would give us that kind of confidence, and we expect the Premier today to state exactly what his commitments are and what his policies are.

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

MR. P.L. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I don't want to take the time of the House today to speak at length on this subject, because we heard yesterday that the people of British Columbia were not to be permitted to learn the details of how their savings were being spent by the Minister of Finance and the B.C. Hydro, and I think it only legitimate that a public power corporation should be accountable to the people and not just to the men on the treasury benches.

I think that the B.C. Hydro has been an extraordinarily well managed corporation, and I've paid compliments many times to the Chairman of the B.C. Hydro, who is with us on the floor of the House today, and I think anybody who was managing the corporation would do all that he could to obtain adequate amounts of money at the lowest possible interest rate, no matter what their source. That's his job, and he's doing very well at it. Too well, in my view, because as a legislator in this Province, with other responsibilities to schools and to hospitals, to the education of the coming generation as well as to the number of kilowatts in their homes, we have to see a broader picture.

We do not begrudge any increase in borrowing power to the B.C. Hydro and that's why we intend to support this legislation, but we do begrudge in this party, Mr. Speaker, money going to the B.C. Hydro that should be going for classrooms and hospitals, because there are power corporations all over the world that are expanding, perhaps all of them not as rapidly as the B.C. Hydro, but certainly Calgary Power next door is doing that, and paying taxes, meeting its load growth, and holding its rates constant, finding its capital, somewhere, but certainly not gobbling up the Canada Pension Plan money in the Province of Alberta the way that Canada Pension Plan money is being gobbled up in the Province of British Columbia.

One of the things that I would like to know, as an elected member here in British Columbia, is what alternatives do we have for raising the necessary capital, once we have given the authority to undertake this. Because this is the real question, whether we can have schools and hospitals in British Columbia, and Hydro too, in this most prosperous year in our history. I think that we have been unbalanced, Mr. Premier, I think we have been unbalanced, because I have never heard once coming from the treasury benches over there the crisis in school construction in British Columbia. I have heard many times the crisis in power at a time when you are getting permits to export power to the State of Washington, but never the schools, when we've got these portable units all over British Columbia and thousands of youngsters on swing shifts. Nobody in the treasury benches seems to speak for them, and so it is left for us to do that, but in doing it, I am merely stating what a balanced Legislature should be doing for its people.

I am emphasizing these things because the Premier and Minister of Finance and the men on the treasury benches won't, and the backbenchers who sit in this House turned aside their chance for power yesterday to provide a balanced view of what the responsibility that they have in this Legislature would be, by failing to make inquiries. Because how else will we learn if we don't ask these questions?

Just as an observation, Mr. Speaker, about telling it like it ain't in British Columbia, of which we have been doing for so many years, we have a debt in this Province or, if you like, it's an unconditionally guaranteed asset, which amounts to, as of March 31st of last year, $1,305,940,767 of long-term

[ Page 555 ]

debt for Hydro, $202,020,000 of short-term debt for Hydro. Well I remember rising in this House a few years ago and saying we should be converting those parity development bonds to long-term debt, when interest rates were running about 5 per cent, and the Premier said, you see that shows how little the member knows about finance, because the interest rates are going to come down. That's what you said. What are you paying on those parity bonds? They are coming down, he says. Well, they have come down from 5 per cent at that time to 6½ per cent now, and you wouldn't re-finance those parity bonds to long-term bonds then, you said that would be a mistake.

Well, we are continuing to do roll-overs, and knock the interest rates up each time, and that adds to the total debt that the people of British Columbia have to meet, and so what do we have in terms of the dead-weight debt that each electricity customer has to pay on his monthly bill? Well, according to the Seventh Annual Report of the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority, 29 cents of every dollar on the electric light bill goes for debt, and for the average light bill of $10 a month, $2.90 is debt, and that is going to go up in the future, not down. But those in British Columbia who have listened to the Premier tell it like it ain't, should know that their hydro electric bills which will go up, I presume, 20 per cent on the ist of April this year, will have included in them $2.90 worth of debt for each $10 of their bill.

Well, Mr. Speaker, we will support this legislation because we recognize that the Hydro must expand. We don't begrudge the Hydro the funds that it requires, but we still continue to say that the people of British Columbia require schools and hospitals just as much as they require hydroelectric power and that the priorities, Mr. Speaker, have gone for hydro-electric power when the hydro-electric company would have the easiest time of borrowing on the open market, far easier than the schools and the hospitals. You have turned your back, Mr. Premier, on your other responsibilities in this Province, and for that we condemn you.

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

MR. A.B. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I want to support and commend the Leader of the Opposition on the statement he made on behalf of his party. I know that the figures have been given in this House as to the magnitude of the Hydro challenge of the 70's. The challenge and the opportunities both, and I don't want to repeat them, but generally, speaking very broadly, we in this Province have to double our electrical generating capacity of all the installations we have at the present time within a period of about eight years.

AN HON. MEMBER: We told you that.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, the figures were there, they are there in black and white, and what comes on with the extra generators in the Peace River will help, but it won't solve the problem. What will come out in Mica Creek in 1978 will still leave us with a huge power deficit, and the point we make is that this Government still has no plans on the drawing board, no vision as to what shall be done to tackle the challenges of the 70's, and the great opportunities that lie ahead for our people if we properly electrify this Province. You are resting, Mr. Speaker, to the Premier through you, you are resting on your laurels. The ship of state is drifting down the two rivers, rudderless and underpowered, and we have heard nothing in the way of plans such as we heard ten years ago from this Government before, as the Leader of the Opposition said, it lost its nerve. We haven't heard of the plans and the engineering studies to electrify this Province as it should be electrified for the 1970's.

I want to support what the Leader of the Opposition said, too, about public transit and to repeat, Mr. Speaker, things that have already been said in the House. You have come to a turning in the road, Mr. Premier, through Mr. Speaker, and you have taken the wrong turning. You've turned away from public transit even only by raising it a nickel, public transit — fast, comfortable and cheap — and you have taken that other turning in the road that leads into a miasma of air pollution and traffic strangulation, and the cost of building freeways and throughways and a rising accident toll, and it is as simple as that. You've taken a decision significant for the future of this Province and it was a wrong turning, and we say, Mr. Speaker, that the Government really hasn't made the decision, if you will, on this question.

They have received a letter from the Chairman of the Hydro recommending rate increases. They still have time to reject that rate increase request that increased the subsidy to B.C. Hydro for public transit, and we say for heaven's sake, before it is too late, take your right turning in the road.

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

MR. G.H. DOWDING: Mr. Speaker, a couple of years ago in this House I suggested to the Premier that it's time that a very serious look was taken at the future of nuclear power in terms of generation for the 80's and the 90's. Some of the recent literature in the Scientific American, Science Magazine, Business Week and so on, deals with the breakthrough that has been made in the field of nuclear power, where they are going up now to over one million kilowatt generation. They are doing this at a cost of between three and four mills, which is pretty good when you consider what it is costing to transfer power 500 miles from a dam to a river.

When the Premier deals with the use of the growing power that is implicit in his Bill, I would hope that we will hear something about what plans the Government has to consider starting some nuclear reaction. In the United States it's fantastic the amount of activity that is now going on ever since the Oyster Creek findings that occurred in the completion of that particular project and the cost. It represented a nuclear power break-through, and this issue I am reading here, the Scientific American, February 1968, deals most extensively with that break-through in the field of nuclear generation of power.

Of course, the great advantage of it is feeling that you can avoid the effects of the atomic waste, which they have managed to do in Canada, in that there is no pollution. You don't get the thermal power problems with coal and gas and consequently it is something that, from the standpoint of pollution itself, is excellent. Secondly, you don't have to keep cramming up the rivers all into British Columbia, and also you don't have to worry about 500-mile transmission lines, because you can build these plants where your centres of power are needed.

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

[ Page 556 ]

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order Please!

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, Order!

MR. DOWDING: Mr. Speaker, I don't know what the plans are of B.C. Hydro to spend this money that is proposed to be borrowed in the future, but I think the Premier should let us know whether this aspect of power generation has received the attention of the authorities of B.C. Hydro, because the price is becoming completely competitive with other forms of generation.

Some of the proposals have licked part of the problem of the disposal of nuclear waste. There is no problem of pollution otherwise, and it makes for an ideal location of plants and operation, over a long enough period of time, to make it a cheap investment in terms of the expenditure of money, of capital expenditure. I would suggest that, if nothing else, that there should be either a committee set up by this Government, of scientists drawn from the technological resources within Canada, to do a study and report that to Hydro and to the Government on this field of nuclear generation of power. The break-through has been made ever since 1964, and it isn't generally known yet, and this article makes it clear what the predictions are. The forecast of nuclear power generated these past weeks in the United States, by 1980 will show a tremendous sharp increase in the graph of production, up to 160 megawatts of power by that time. The graph shown here indicates a remarkable rise in and transfer of interest into this field, but I don't know what the Government is doing about it. We are never told, when the authority to borrow money is made in this House, how the money is going to be spent, when it is borrowed. I think that the Government should frankly lay before this House, this future plan to generate into the 1980's, 1990's, and in what particular areas they are going to do this, and what are the studies that should have been made to determine which area of expansion B.C. Hydro will take.

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

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the people in our party, as the Leader of the Opposition indicated, have endorsed the principle of public power for long periods of time, and the main reason is that they wanted the people of this Province to receive the full benefits of public ownership of this critical utility. The real problem, Mr. Speaker, is that the benefits too often, at the handling of this Government, have been reversed. The benefits are going to the wrong people at the wrong time, and that is precisely what is happening now in British Columbia, Mr. Speaker.

Who gets their power at cost in British Columbia? The pulp mills. They get their power at cost in British Columbia, and they are already getting their trees from the people, far below what they should be paying for the trees, so these major corporations are getting significant benefits at the hands of the public Hydro corporation. Who is having to pay, Mr. Speaker? The people who are having to pay are the working poor of this Province. That's who has to pay, in terms of the light bill, 18 per cent increase, the 20 per cent increase. It's the pensioners in the single rooms, the people with a hot-plate in miserable quarters, the people with just a few lights and so on, that are paying the substantial increases in the hydro rates. The people that have to use the public transportation system. The people that can't afford one or two vehicles. Not the people living in the suburbs with two or three cars in the wealthier parts of our communities. It's these people that are being affected, and that is the tragic irony, Mr. Speaker, in terms of the situation we face.

We know that Hydro has to borrow, we know that Hydro has to have the added generating units at the Peace River Dam and the other parts of the Hydro development schemes. What we object to, Mr. Speaker, is that it is the poor people, the people without the means in this Province, that are bearing the debt unfairly, and that is what we object to. It is unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that the benefits of public development of Hydro should be shifted toward the sector of the economy that can well afford to pay their own costs, and the cost of Hydro, and the tragedy is that it is the poorer people of the Province that will be paying the bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kootenay.

MR. L.T. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words. We, of this group, endorse what the Leader has said in regard to public power, because ever since I have been in the House I have advocated public power in the Province of British Columbia. It is only unfortunate that the Government that we've got in power didn't take over, not because it was public power, but for other reasons. It is a little difficult, sometimes, to endorse a Government that we have really no faith in, because we have really no faith in the administration of the power development in the Province of British Columbia. Because it was their policies in the past years that have led them into the trap that they are in today, where they are not only asking for this $250,000,000, but they are increasing the rates to get still more money, because they have subsidized the wrong people.

In my own case, I know there is a shortage of power in British Columbia. I know up in Natal-Michel, if a family there wants to put on a toaster and a kettle at the same time they blow a fuse because there's not sufficient power. If you haven't got the power to put two appliances on at the one time, they haven't got the power. And, Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the honourable member down in the far corner that if he would read the questions that are put on the Order Paper and would read the answers he would know that the shortage of power is there.

Some years ago I suggested to this Government, when we were discussing the downstream benefits, that they should have brought a line into the East Kootenay from the United States to bring back those downstream benefits to boost the power in the East Kootenay. Now we find that we have a shortage of power, and there is little chance of industry coming in there until the lines get boosted up. I understand now that they are going to bring in some line from the United States, and also from Calgary Power.

But you know, the Premier has sort of mesmerized the people in this Province, election after election, election after election, into thinking that he was some sort of a financial genius when it comes to spending money on this public power. In 1960 he was opposed to it, at the election in 1960. In 1961 he went all out for it, and since that time we have had nothing but political interference in the administration

[ Page 557 ]

of the power development of this Province. Political interference for the purpose of furthering the Social Credit party in the Province, and that's why we find ourselves in the position we are in today.

Because if we had followed the right policies, and I thought, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier, when he was up today to move the second reading on this Bill, that he would tell us the plans for the future of B.C. Hydro, what they were going to use the $250,000,000 for. Was it for new machines on the Peace River, was it for bringing the power into the East Kootenay, or what it is all about? But he is asking for a blank cheque to go ahead and he tells the House nothing about it.

But I think really it is, Mr. Speaker, this $250,000,000 is exactly the amount that is going to underwrite the Columbia, that is going to subsidize the United States. That's what we're doing, subsidizing the United States, because they're the ones that benefitted from the great expenditures of the B.C. Hydro in regards to the Columbia. They're the ones that will receive a two and a half mill power, not British Columbia.

He talked about jobs, of building these dams in the West Kootenay. He talked about how many jobs he was going to make. You go up there now and talk to the people about the jobs. The job is finished, and at that time I suggested that the plans should have been made then to take up the slack when the construction work was finished, but we didn't produce any power for British Columbia and we don't intend to produce any power for British Columbia. I'm rather surprised at the Premier that he wasn't a little more humble when he moved the motion for the second reading on this Bill, a little more humble about the plans for the future, and tell us exactly what is going on. I suppose when he closes it he probably will tell us. I hope he does, but nevertheless I think that that $250,000,000 that we are subsidizing the United States on, if the proper administration had gone on over the years we would have that $250,000,000. It wouldn't be necessary to have it for the power, but we could have it for schools and hospitals and housing in the Province of British Columbia.

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

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I am greatly interested in the debate this afternoon on the second reading of this very important Bill. I am glad, too, to see so many people in the galleries, and at times we have important people in the galleries and members of the Legislature pick them out. I was very disappointed today that the Leader of the N.D.P. didn't welcome to the House a former member of this House, Mr.Stupich, the former member from Nanaimo (applause). It just shows how bad the memory is of the socialist party. Once defeated they pass to the side.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, order.

MR. BENNETT: I want to say this. I want to say this, that when he was in the House, the Opposition had one member that knew a little bit about finance, but since the last one, from what we've heard in the last few days, they know nothing about finance at all, Mr. Speaker.

They talk about direct debt, dead-weight debt, contingent liabilities. Can you imagine that any group of so-called intelligent men elected to office would think that a contingent liability was a dead-weight debt? All I'm going to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that just shows when they open their mouths they know nothing about finance at all. The direct debt of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Canada, or any place else — that's the dead-weight debt. The guaranteed debt is an indirect debt that you pay only on behalf of your guarantee and that's not dead-weight debt. It shows again how wise the people of this Province have been over these 17 or 18 years to always turn down these socialists and this little Liberal rabble, because they know nothing about the finances of the country. They talked about whether the Premier had lost his nerve or not, and I want to tell you this, they have a nerve to talk even about finances or power, and theirs is an abysmal record of opposing all our power developments. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, the Premier of this Province and the Social Credit Government and movement has not lost its courage. That's the question. It has not lost its confidence. It has not lost its strength. Neither have the people of British Columbia lost their faith in the Social Credit Government. How dismal you look this day. How dismal you look.

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

MR. BENNETT: My friend talks about marbles because he is still only in grade one, a six year old as far as finance is concerned. He has never grown up. He has never grown up. Still playing with marbles. Still talks about marbles. That's the only thing he knows about financing.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, order.

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

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

MR. BENNETT: I want to say that this Government, the Social Credit movement, took British Columbia from a have-not Province to the number one have Province in all of Canada. And when I represent the people of this Province at a Federal-Provincial Conference, the Prime Minister of Canada says, "British Columbia, in your fine financial position, Mr. Premier." He doesn't say it about any other Province. Because in British Columbia, and British Columbia alone today, there is no direct dead-weight debt on the people of this Province. None at all. We build up a surplus for times, because we knew they would come, due to wrong planning of financing by the Federal Government, because you know very well that it isn't the Provincial Government that controls finances of a country. It isn't the Provincial Governments that are responsible for 10 per cent, 12 per cent, 20 per cent money. It is these terrible Liberals, my friends, where they take out of this Province….

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, the Government plans to complete the great Peace River development, which the N.D.P. or C.C.F. or whatever they want to call themselves — they can change their name as often as they like. One day they have the labour support, the next day they say they don't want it, and then the Young N.D.P. say they've got to have it. I'm going to tell you they are just as changing as a bunch of little kids playing their games, because they have no faith in themselves, they don't know where they're going. They've advocated the great Peace River power development in 1984 — just imagine that, just imagine that, just imagine that! Talk about lack of faith, talk about no courage, and

[ Page 558 ]

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

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

MR. BENNETT: And so the great Peace River power development is coming into the great City of Vancouver, the lower mainland, and all through the Province of British Columbia, thanks to the credit of the people of this Province who supported an enlightened Government, an enlightened people. I resent the remarks made regarding the people of this Province, when they said the Premier cast a spell over them in this Province. I resent that on behalf of all of the people and the voters of this Province. I resent it on behalf of the 100,000 new votes we got in the last election. No wonder the people don't trust them. They don't trust the people. No socialist ever trusts the people. They're full of bureaucracy, dictatorship….

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh!…. Oh!….

MR. BENNETT: So the great Peace River power development will be completed, and that's part of the reason why we need new borrowing power, that along with other things.

AN HON. MEMBER: What other things?

MR. BENNETT: Great transmission lines. We are planning, and we will take it up with the Federal Government, because we think that they should share as they shared in other parts of Canada, with a nuclear plant on Vancouver Island. We plan to build the transmission lines to Mica, we plan to machine Mica, 1977, about that time we expect it to be completed.

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

MR. BENNETT: We have lots more on the line, my friend. But I want to tell you this. It isn't the river that your former leader advocated in this House, and you sat in silence when he wanted to dam the Fraser, my friend. Right in this last Session. Your former leader. No, you're not the former leader. You're twice removed. (applause and laughter) You're the former-former-former.

AN HON. MEMBER: What a shambles!

MR. BENNETT: Yes, what a shambles of the once proud party, the C.C.F., what a shambles is left of it today. Shrunk to that little wee group. Oh, I want to tell you — and that Liberal party went all the way around this Province in a bus, saying they were going to win 22 seats. Look at the measly little crowd, look at them. The people don't trust you my friend.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BENNETT: They talked about hydro-electric rates for the small person in the small room. I'll answer to that now, Mr. Speaker, because these are the people we think of first, and that is even the C.C.F. or N.D.P. say these people vote for us, and so they do. What would their average bill be? I looked into it, my friend, about 100 kilowatt hours a month. Ontario Hydro for 100 kilowatts a month at the present time, $3.30. Quebec Hydro, $4.15. Manitoba Hydro, in Brandon $4.50, in the rural areas $5.85. In British Columbia, under the new rates, $3.00. There we are, my friend, there we are, there we are.

AN HON. MEMBER: …And the pulp mills?

MR. BENNETT: Pulp mills. The Liberals made 20-year contracts with some that we, when we put a reduction in rates before inflation took over, we gave no reductions on rates in bulk, but last May we increased the rates 10 per cent, and they will be increased again.

AN HON. MEMBER: How much?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BENNETT: Ten per cent last May.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The honourable member will have the opportunity during the Estimates, surely, to ask such questions, not in this debate.

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please. Now the honourable members well know that interruptions of this kind, requesting information from Ministers, is not in order, and I can't permit it.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BENNETT: In the Province of Manitoba — and I don't just say it because they've got a socialist government there. No, they haven't got a socialist government, it's different from you, isn't it? That's right, my friend, they say so too. They say so too. In Manitoba, in 1968, electric rates were increased 12 per cent and this year they have already authorized another 14 per cent increase, Mr. Speaker. There you are, my friend, 12 per cent and then 14 per cent on top of the 12 per cent.

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

MR. BENNETT: Without any good government.

In the Province of Ontario they put a lot of its power development in because its development came early and has it all written off over its 50-year progress, and so there is no interest or anything or sinking funds or depreciation to apply to it. In some of their large cities they have low rates where that's happened, but they haven't got a postage stamp system throughout the province like we have, Mr. Speaker. They haven't got a government that treats the people in the province, all over the province the same. They haven't got a people's government, Mr. Speaker. But in 1968, Ontario Hydro increased their rates 12 per cent, and this year, 1970, they're increasing them seven per cent. Did the Opposition

[ Page 559 ]

ever say anything about this? Did they ever say anything about this? No, no. No, no. And in Quebec, in 1967, they increased from 12 to 15 per cent. In 1970, this year, they're increasing from 10 to 16 per cent more. No, Mr. Speaker, only in British Columbia, of all Canada, have we lower rates than we had in 1961, the only place, the only place.

I want to say this, that in 1961 and today, Mr. Speaker, because of the financial policies in the central banks of the world — and I don't blame Canada all alone — we haven't got the constant dollar today that we had in 1961. Do you know the Canadian dollar is worth 28.2 per cent less than it was in 1961? So when you pay your bills you're paying with a different dollar. Nobody knows that better than the working man when he says okay to increased rates, and that's what he says all the time. Only in this House the Opposition doesn't know anything about economics, nothing about finance. 28.2 per cent change in the Canadian dollar. Less value today. So you're not paying it for the same. So when you pay the same under the new rates as you did in '61, Mr. Speaker, if you take the Canadian rate — you take 28.2 per cent reduction, Mr. Speaker. But in British Columbia, due to the sound management of the Social Credit Government, we've had less inflation than other Provinces. And so the Consumer Price Index has dropped 28.2 per cent since '61, but only 21 per cent, 21 per cent, so in British Columbia, when you pay the same rates — the users of electricity after April the 1st — they'll be paying really 21 per cent less than they did in '61, because of the different value of the dollar.

Of course, if the Opposition can't understand ordinary economics,…. (uproar)…. if they can't understand the difference between a fluctuating dollar and a stable dollar, it just shows how ignorant they are, how stupid they are, how silly they are, and no wonder the people would never support them.

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

MR. BENNETT: Oh, you just got in by a slim majority this time, the lowest majority you ever had. Next time you'll go out, and this other chap, he just got it by about ten.

So, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to cars and buses, somebody says five cents would stop you driving your car, and you take a bus. Huh! How stupid do they think the people of British Columbia are? It costs a dollar more, at least, to take your car downtown rather than go by bus, so if a dollar won't stop them from using their car, five cents won't either, my friend. That's just straight common sense, and that's even common sense that the member from Vancouver Centre understands.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh!….

MR. BENNETT: One of the most brilliant members of the House my friend. Because he's like one of the Liberal members, who is the smartest one in the Liberal group — he, too, comes from Kelowna.

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

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

So at the present time, what are the fares on buses across Canada? Calgary, 25 cents; Edmonton 25 cents, and you're always quoting these places to us; Saskatoon, 25 cents; Winnipeg, 25 cents; Hamilton, Ontario, 30 cents; London, 25 cents; Ottawa, 25 cents; Toronto, 30 cents; Windsor, 30 cents; Montreal, 35 cents; Quebec, 25 cents. And so I say, our rates have been the lowest in British Columbia of any large city in Canada, and the wages paid the bus men are the highest in all Canada, my friends. So I announce today, because it's the responsibility under responsible government to take the responsibility, and we don't shirk from it for one second, so I announce this day that we accept the recommendations of the Hydro directors, both on the bus fares and the hydro rates.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Ohhhh.

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

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, British Columbia has had great days since the Social Credit Government came in power. We've had tremendous development and expansion, but we're only at the beginning of the beginning.

You couldn't get past the Pattullo Bridge before you had Social Credit. Prince George wasn't even hardly a village. Now the great power development in the Peace River, that great power development taking place in the Kootenays at Mica — four million horsepower, the great railroad developments that we have proceeded with in our north country — and we'll be talking about that later this afternoon as well, I hope — this shows that this Government and this Government alone has courage, not only in this Province but in this nation, because only in British Columbia is the real north being developed, only here. And from this development of this hydro comes jobs, comes business, comes more revenue for new schools, new hospitals, new social services, and all the fine things of life. That's the reason why in British Columbia alone could you come out with a film, "The Good Life, " Mr. Speaker.

You members on this Government side know full well of the great plans of the Social Credit movement. We've paved the decks, we've got the structure built, now we're going to build the superstructure, and we'll have, as we have now, the highest standard of living in Canada. And you'll find, you'll find the good life. Social Credit will give the people of British Columbia the highest and best standard of living in the whole world.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is, that Bill No. 9 be read a second time. All those in favour say aye. Contrary minded, no. The motion is carried.

MR. BENNETT: Division, Mr. Speaker.

The motion was agreed to on the following division:-

YEAS — 54

Messieurs

[ Page 560 ]

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

I would point out also that the matter was raised a moment ago in terms of a division with the number of people standing. Careful study of the Standing Orders should clarify that situation.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 7. (An Act Respecting the Purchase of Unissued Shares of the Capital Stock of the Pacific Great Eastern Railway Company)

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister of Finance.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, this Bill has to do with the purchase of unissued shares of the capital stock in Pacific Great Eastern Railway Company. The Pacific Great Eastern Railway is completely owned by the people of British Columbia and owns all the issued shares. In any great pioneering railway you must have a balance between equity capital and bonded indebtedness, and since we now plan further great extensions of the Pacific Great Eastern Railway in the northern part of the Province, that will bring great development in mining, in forestry, and other industries, then the Government considers it's sound business that the Government increase its equity capital in the Pacific Great Eastern Railway which it owns now.

The Pacific Great Eastern Railway is recognized as an important motivating force behind the rapid growth of the central and northern regions of British Columbia. Direct benefits are felt by all our citizens in those parts, and benefits do also spread through all parts of British Columbia. However, indirect benefits accrue to all the Province and the economy of British Columbia has been assisted materially from the Railway's operation. In fact, the great growth of the 60's was built on the Government's vision, courage, and foresight when other parties and other governments didn't want us to go ahead with the Pacific Great Eastern Railway. The Premier could hardly dare go into West Vancouver because they said he was going to put the railroads right through their living rooms.

AN HON. MEMBER: And did you?

MR. BENNETT: Certainly I did, for the good of the people of British Columbia, my friend. The Liberal party especially opposed it. Certainly, right, and I want to know how they're going to vote this day.

Then, Mr. Speaker, we went into the development of the north, and I took it to the Federal Government and asked for their assistance, as they assisted all other developing railroads for the development of this nation, and the Federal Government did agree to pay a subsidy in the first 50 miles north of Prince George. Read their Hansard and you'll see that the then Prime Minister in the Federal Government, in the Federal Parliament — because there wasn't a voice of the Conservatives, the Liberals, or the C.C.F. got up to support British Columbia — and when the Federal Prime Minister said that all the development he thought was worthwhile was 50 miles north of Prince George, and that is the only type of subsidy, to that extent, and the members there of the parties I mentioned stayed silent in their seats. But our Government then went on alone, having great confidence and courage in the future of this great Province, and the great Peace River country, one of the greatest places in the whole world, my friends.

And how proud I was in this House to recommend a number of years ago that we have two seats, two members in the House to represent the Peace River, and do you know these Opposition parties opposed that too, my friends. Oh yes, they did. They've never had any vision, any courage about the great Peace River country and the great North. Now we're building it way up to Fort Nelson, and now north of Prince George, north and west of Fort St. James, the former capital, now under construction at Takla Lake and Takla Landing, now proposed to go 300 miles more northwest to Dease Lake, opening up this great empire. So that's the reason why we believe the equity capital should be increased, because this is a pioneer opening up the world. I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. R.M. STRACHAN: Well, Mr. Speaker, I listened to the two speeches the Premier has just made, one was shorter than the other, neither was too informative, both were almost entirely politically motivated, and both did a clever job of concealing the true facts from the people.

The Premier talked about the two seats in Peace River which has nothing to do with this Bill, but just to show how far he was wrong, he said we opposed it. What we opposed was a gerrymander in the Province of British Columbia, the rejection of two years work of a committee, and a man walking into a committee and pulling a slip from his paper, after two years of work by a committee, and saying I move, I move, I move, without reference to the work that had been done by the committee. And the man who was then the member for Peace River couldn't even get a nomination. The man who moved the motion in committee couldn't even get a nomination in the Peace River. He came down to Cowichan-Newcastle and ran against me and got whomped! That's what happened to him.

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

MR. STRACHAN: Yes, we'll get to the Bill. That's what I'm speaking of, Mr. Speaker, because this Bill is to take public funds from the taxpayers of the Province and give it to the Pacific Great Eastern Railway so they can extend through the great northland of British Columbia.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I have flown across the great northern areas of this Province. I have seen them, I have seen what's there and I am happy to see this extension carrying forward

[ Page 561 ]

into the northern areas of British Columbia. Because the Premier might be able to mislead that group over there, he might be able to mislead some of the people of this Province, but those who know the record of this party in this House, men like Joe Corsbie and Harold Winch were standing up demanding extension of the P.G.E. into northern British Columbia. I challenge you to go into the Library and check the records, I challenge every one of you to go into the Library and check the record because it's all in there, it's all in there. We have always supported the extension of the Pacific Great Eastern Railway.

One thing we ask, Mr. Speaker, one thing we ask — we don't mind the extension of services, we have always supported the extension of services. We don't mind public funds being used for the extension of the services, but we believe that the people should be told how much it is costing to extend these services. We didn't object — quite a few have come into this House now — about 16 years ago, to wipe out the $94,000,000 that the P.G.E. owed the Government of the Province of British Columbia. We voted for the Bill, because it was an attempt to wipe out the mistakes of the past, to put it on a financial footing that would allow it to operate from then on as a viable working railway.

We have never objected to the extension of the borrowing powers of the Pacific Great Eastern Railway, but it is completely misleading for the Premier, as he did in his speech a few moments ago, to say that a Provincial guarantee is only something that is paid upon the default of that guarantee. Because just two years ago in this House, after the P.G.E. had accumulated a deficit of some $7,000,000, a situation which could not be allowed to continue, a Bill was brought in at that time I think — we already owned the railroad 100 per cent, now how you can own more than 100 per cent of a railroad I'll never know — but he brought in a Bill to take $25,000,000 tax dollars out of current revenue, out of current revenue. The Premier can meander around and repeat and repeat this myth about the fact that tax dollars are not being used, but tax dollars are being used for this, and that's all I ask, is that the people be told how much it has cost them.

If you go back into the early history of the P.G.E., how they got into that terrible position they were in for so many years, is because of free enterprise and its complete inability, its complete inability to control the forces that are allowed to run rampant within that kind of enterprise society. That's why the P.G.E. became such a mess. Go back and read the history of this railway. What happened? All in the name of the kind of society that you people say you support. Every problem we have in this society today, Mr. Speaker, is due entirely to governments like this one, who say they support this rampant private interest that got us into this position, where at a time when we should have been opening up the north at much less cost than is now the case, and had they taken the advice of Harold Winch and Joe Corsbie when they were in this House, it would have cost us considerably less than is now the situation.

So, let us not kid ourselves that it is not costing us any money. It is costing the taxpayers of this Province a great deal of money to open up the northern areas of British Columbia. As I say, I agree they have to be opened up, they should be opened up. I'm supporting this Bill because we have always supported the extension of a publicly-owned railway into northern British Columbia, and the job has to be done.

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

HON. R.G. WILLISTON: Mr. Speaker, no, no, I can't close the debate. Mr. Speaker, I think it would be remiss, though, if one of us representing the northern part of the Province, and knowing from actual experience the impact of the Pacific Great Eastern Railroad on our economy, were not to say one or two words here as to what this happens to mean.

The last speaker, the member from Cowichan-Malahat, indicated that the equity capital came from taxation. I don't know how anyone considers just where a particular quantity of money comes from, when it comes from consolidated revenue. I could equally say, this year, that the amount placed into equity for the Pacific Great Eastern Railroad has come from the increased revenue from the forest resources in the Province, which are up more than that much in this year alone, and a great deal of it, believe it or not, has come from the area north of Prince George along the extension of the Pacific Great Eastern Railroad. As a matter of fact it may interest the members of the House to realize that the best earning division on the Pacific Great Eastern Railroad at the present time is that small stub that comes out from Mackenzie on the reservoir behind the Peace River Dam, and feeding that traffic volume into the over-all Pacific Great Eastern Railroad system.

But, be that as it may, that's established. It's established into the Peace River. Right now it's heading for Fort Nelson, and when it gets to Fort Nelson it has to go on in due course and very shortly to Nelson Forks which is on the Liard River, and that gives the Pacific Great Eastern Railroad then command of the traffic moving down north. Because that will give it by far, at that time will give it by far the advantage of controlling everything going down to Inuvik, Tuktoyaktuk, and out to the Arctic Coast, because it will be by far the most efficient transportation system.

It may interest members of the House to realize that because the railroad is going into Fort Nelson the year after next, that we already have major inventory work going on in the Fort Nelson area at the present time, both for lands, forests and also for minerals, and a very large mine on the strength of that is just entering production at the present time, and will haul to Fort St. John until the railroad reaches that point.

But by far the most interesting and challenging and thrilling part of this whole business is the announcement which has been made this year to which this equity capital is attached, and that is the extension of the railroad from Takla to Dease Lake, and I don't know whether members of the House, many of them who do not know the geography there, realize the full impact when it gets to Dease Lake. But, for one thing, if some of you members have been, and I know the member from Atlin has, that getting up to Cassiar and the very large quantities of low grade asbestos fibres, for example, that cannot presently stand the cost of transportation out to the Yukon and down, once the railroad hits Dease Lake, a tremendous volume of mineral wealth right from that source alone will be immediately available for shipment. We've already completed some of our inventory work on the forests at Dease Lake surrounding that area. We already know from Galore Creek and Kennecott's investigations, and others, that this is likely one of the most highly mineralized areas left thus far on the North American continent.

[ Page 562 ]

All the way from Dease Lake down to Takla Landing you're moving through virgin forest area which is going to be the next thrust of development insofar as British Columbia is concerned. This extension of the railroad moves through an area, Mr. Speaker, when we talk about virgin area, likely on this continent of North America there is no more virgin area through which a railroad could run than would be this one going from Takla Lake to Dease Lake. It has, in fact, fewer people and lesser developments than was extending across Canada at the time when they first projected the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National Railroads through parts of that area. Outside of the odd trapper, fisherman, or someone who can enter the area on plane, or the prospector who gets in by plane, at the present it is virtually an untapped wilderness of solid resources.

I want to commend not only the directors of P.G.E., and I happen to be one, but the Government as a whole for taking this initiative, taking this stand now to project the extension of this railroad to Dease Lake within the next five year period. This is going to be one of the greatest moves in the history of the Province of British Columbia insofar as development is concerned.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burnaby Edmonds.

MR. G.R. DOWDING: …. (blank in tape) …. to give $35,000,000 of public money from the public revenues of the Province to the Pacific Great Eastern Railway. We think that it's much better than going on the bond market or elsewhere to raise that kind of money for the development of the north that is needed. One wonders, sometimes, how the directors of the Pacific Great Eastern decide to hold a meeting and issue shares to the Government in exchange for $35,000,000. I think they've reached more than 150 per cent ownership in the company now, and if we keep up we may end up owning 200 per cent of the company, which would be a great achievement that we can look forward to in the 70's.

Well, I want to point out that there is nothing, there is nothing that the Premier can't do with figures when it comes to ownership and equity in the Pacific Great Eastern Railway. We all know that he is not kidding the bond holders in New York if you buy shares in a company you already own 100 per cent. They can read, and you have a little prospectus to show this, of what the situation of the company is and how many shares were issued, the capital of the company is over the years. But this delightful fiction is used every time the directors want some more money, they decide to issue some more shares in Pacific Great Eastern, and a….

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

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

But the point of it is that $35,000,000 is needed and we're not going to lend it to our own Government railway, we are going to give it to them, and every one of us should support that if we believe in developing the upper half of this Province.

Well, I would like to put in a plea, Mr. Speaker, to the Government to consider some of the public monies of this Province going to what has now turned out to be the longest and most delayed project in the Province, the 16-year story of the failure to complete, 17-year story of the failure to complete the Stewart-Cassiar Road. We talk about development of the north. How long is it going to be before that area sees the completion of that road? I remember in 1955 and 1956 that in this House they had an investigation. At that time that road was under the direction of the then Minister of Lands and Forests, Robert Sommers, and that investigation showed that there were cost plus contracts, that there was great waste and inefficiency and loss of money. I think that it's time that the Government laid before the House some plan for developing that area of the north, and get on with it and get it completed in the same way that we are proposing to do by the subsidy of the Pacific Great Eastern Railway with the $35,000,000 called for in Bill No. 7. We support this Bill.

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

MR. P.L. McGEER: Well, Mr. Speaker, naturally the Liberal party will support this Bill recognizing, as did the member from Burnaby-Edmonds, that we are engaging in a little bit of delightful fiction here about increasing our ownership from 100 per cent to 100 per cent in this railroad.

I think it's a pity, Mr. Speaker, that the Provincial Government has been so unsuccessful in persuading the Federal Government to chip in on this development of northern British Columbia. I think had we a more reasonable Government there would be little doubt we would have gained support from the Federal Government, because I've heard the members of this House stand up one by one and attack the Federal Government in most unreasonable terms, and then when it comes time for us to get some return from the Federal Government you find you are completely discounted in Ottawa, and that's one of our great problems.

I well recall three of four years ago when the Premier of British Columbia went down with his, went down with his…. Could you keep order, please, Mr. Speaker? …. went down with his brief to the Federal Government, and instead of the report from the east coming out "the builders," he and the former Attorney-General of British Columbia were billed in the eastern press as "the wreckers." That's the problem that we face in this Province in trying to get support for worthwhile developments in this Province of British Columbia, because as far as national projects are concerned and nation building is concerned, the Provincial Government here is considered as a group of wreckers, and I say that we should have support from the Federal Government for these development projects.

We should have a Government in this Province that can negotiate and negotiate successfully with our National Government, yet they don't see, Mr. Speaker, that other provinces such as Manitoba under a Conservative Government, Quebec under a Union Nationale Government, and provincial governments of every stripe in this country, are able to negotiate successfully with Ottawa and they are able to come from provincial legislatures and produce positive effects, but this Government is completely unable to do so and the people of British Columbia are the losers because of your ineptness on the national scene.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. D. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I had not intended to

[ Page 563 ]

participate in this debate, but after hearing the leader of the Liberal party, let me say this, that there had better not be any Federal Government that plays politics at the Provincial level. If our friend doesn't understand the B.N.A. Act, he'd better start reading it, but I won't stand in this House — even if they are Social Credit, they are the Government of this Province — and I won't stand in this House and see any government be black-jacked politically by Ottawa at any time. I won't have any urban, rich Liberal come into this House and tell the people of British Columbia that if they don't vote right in Provincial politics they won't get proper treatment in Ottawa. Let it be clearly understood. But I'm sure that Liberal member doesn't speak for the Federal Liberal Government, because they would be embarrassed to hear his words today.

Now there is a responsibility at the Federal level, and my friend wouldn't have that attitude if he had been successful on August the 27th. He would have been standing here condemning Ottawa for its policy in the past of not giving money to the P.G.E. And had we been successful, we too would have taken the same position, because above all, we are Canadians, Mr. Speaker, but British Columbians, too — British Columbians too.

As this Province is going to progress, the people of this Province will decide who they want for Government here, and who they want to represent them in Ottawa, and I think that should be clearly understood. As far as our group's position on this, we have made it clear. We want to develop British Columbia, too. No one has a monopoly on that attitude. The differences are approach and the differences are commitment. My friend of the Liberals said that everything is lovely in the garden, all he wants to do is change the gardeners. That's not our philosophy at all, Mr. Speaker.

What I would hope, in closing this debate, the Premier would give us some indication as to whether or not now, after making these major thrusts in Hydro and P.G.E., if he will go the next step and that is in terms of all good approaches to a mixed economy, to use some of these funds to encourage P.G.E., as a Crown corporation, to stimulate the growth of secondary industrial development in this Province. I would hope that using some of the ideas from the B.C. Hydro railroad, that the P.G.E. would go into the north and start developing industrial parts and creating incentives and atmosphere for permanent jobs in the north, rather than just on the construction itself. I would hope, too, that the Premier is successful in Ottawa in requiring, or at least getting the Federal Government to give us some assistance. If that's all that the Liberal party in British Columbia has to offer, forget it, Mr. Speaker. We can get better fighters in Ottawa for us than that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Alberni.

MR. H.R. McDIARMID: Mr. Speaker, as I have mentioned before in the House, this is the time when interest rates are high, when capital is very difficult to get, and I am certainly happy that this Government has seen fit to produce $35,000,000 for the Pacific Great Eastern Railway. But as it has been mentioned on the other side of the House, this is capital which is not going into other things which are necessary at this time. I am just wondering whether or not we might not take a leaf out of the book of what was done in Alberta at one time, the formation of the Alberta gas trunk. This was to let the private small investors from the Province of British Columbia have a piece of the action. After all, the P.G.E. has been in the black now for a little while, it is on the move and, as we heard from the Minister of Lands and Forests, there are great new possibilities for wealth opening up in the north of our Province, and certainly this is going to be a valuable railroad.

AN HON. MEMBER: You want to lose control of it?

MR. McDIARMID: …. No, certainly I don't say that. Certainly for $35,000,000 the people aren't going to get control or anything of that nature, but I think that, why not limit to $500 or $1,000, the same way they were going to do with the Bank of British Columbia, and allow the small investor, the small person in British Columbia, to participate in the growth of the Province.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister closes the debate.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member from Alberni echoes our thoughts, because that is exactly the idea of parity development bonds, so that people could buy a small bond at $100 in the P.G.E. and in our Hydro. The people of the Province own all the equity, Mr. Speaker, all of it through the Government. The Pacific Great Eastern Railway is a private company, but the people of British Columbia own all the shares and all the equity capital and as I pointed out before, it's just sound business when you are developing this type of a railroad, of developing this whole empire, that you balance the equity capital along with, as the owner, along with the mortgage capital and keep it in balance — sound business, sound — call it enterprise business — sound business, the public enterprise where the public owns a private enterprise.

Now the question whether or not the people of this Province through the Government, will subsidize Government industries, the answer is no. We are the only Government in Canada that takes that attitude. We have these two great authorities, our power corporation and in its great development policies, industrial parks encourage industry along their railroad in Vancouver. And the Pacific Great Eastern Railway has a great industrial park at Prince George and all the way, it encourages industry.

But as the Social Credit Premier in this Province, I want to make it clear once again, we want enterprising people to come to our Province, we want enterprising enterprises to come to our Province. But we don't want hot-house industries here, we don't want industries to come who can't stand on their own feet. We expect them to be good citizens, not only individually, but as an industry as well. We don't expect to subsidize them. We expect them, when they come, that they will pay the fair share of taxation, for the social costs of education, the social costs of health services, the social costs of Medicare, the social costs of hospitalization. That is our philosophy. That is how we differ in the free enterprise system from the Liberals and the Conservatives, because Social Credit is different and Social Credit has the answer.

This railroad has a long history. You know, when Mr. Pattullo in the Liberals used to bring in their Budgets, Mr. Speaker, I have got their speeches sent to me by a great Liberal who is now a great Social Crediter. When they figured out the debt of the Province, they always separated the P.G.E. debt in those days, because they said that was debt,

[ Page 564 ]

because the Liberals were opposed, right from the beginning, to the Pacific Great Eastern Railway.

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that when we first became Government, we found a brilliant young man in the Civil Service. We advanced him, as we did some others, a number of others in the Service, and in due course we made him General Manager of the Pacific Great Eastern Railway. For a while we had him doing certain jobs for the Pacific Great Eastern Railway, and we advertised around the world for a General Manager, and we got one in Saskatchewan who had had a very successful career in one of our great railroads. But I say it without criticism, but only as the House should know, that he couldn't stand the pressure of operating the railroad and the construction, because building railroads in British Columbia, in that mountain terrain, is not easy, it is not easy. This young man at the time, along with the young man in the Department now, handled by the Honourable Minister of Industrial Development, Trade, and Commerce, I asked them to prepare an economic study on the extension of the Pacific Great Eastern Railway before he was the General Manager, when we first became Government, and they came along with this programme for bringing it into Vancouver and into the Peace River. We had a great pioneer in our Government in those days, too, the late Ralph Chetwynd, Mr. Pacific Great Eastern Railway himself in those days, and I pay tribute to him as well. (applause)

So we came into this House with our first Bill to expand the Pacific Great Eastern line, and I will never forget that night, it was a late night sitting. The member from Kootenay might say it might be legislation by exhaustion, but my goodness it was good legislation, and it's been good for the people of this Province, this Pacific Great Eastern Railway. And the Liberals, under a chap who was brilliant in many ways, but he lacked faith in the Pacific Great Eastern Railway, the then Liberal member, Gordon Gibson. He brought in a great questionnaire, and a great proposal, all the reasons why you shouldn't build the Pacific Great Eastern Railway, and they had a resolution before the House, by the Liberals, and supported by the C.C.F., to have a further survey — delaying tactics — a further survey. So I arranged at that time, ahead of time, that all the surveys, all the surveys that had been had before on the Pacific Great Eastern Railway, because you know, for these surveys, there is more pigeon holes than pigeons, my friends. (laughter) Then, that night when the clock struck twelve midnight, in wheeled a whole truck of these reports and surveys of the Pacific Great Eastern Railway. And that night, my friend, I pointed to the clock and said, "The twelve o'clock hour has sounded for the Liberal party in this Province, never to rise again," and we see it now! (applause)

The Liberal leader in the House today said, "Had the nerve, had the gall, had the lack of knowledge." Is he so innocent? Has he never heard of Thatcher, has he never heard of the Honourable Mr. Thatcher, the Premier of Saskatchewan, how he attacked those Liberals in Ottawa? Get a load of that, my friend! And he called on the Premier of British Columbia to support him, and so I did.

He talked about the great Province of Quebec. The only real friend in Quebec is a Social Credit member of British Columbia, because when they needed money, we loaned them $100,000,000 lower than market, lower than market, and they paid it off right on the due dates, Mr. Speaker. We are the genuine friend of a great united country. Mr. Bertrand — I saw him on the T.V. the other night — what is he saying about the treatment from the Liberals in Ottawa? Oh, my friend, you chose the wrong provinces to mention. You chose the wrong time to say it. Wrong, dead wrong, just as dead as your little wee party.

I want to say this, that this Province of British Columbia — and I'm happy that the Leader of the N.D.P. saw through their foolish partisan politics — it was even too much for my friends opposite, and they love to criticize the Government. We differ with the N.D.P. on philosophy. You're socialists, we're free enterprise, but he wouldn't fall in the trap of the Liberal leader, my friends, he wouldn't fall into that trap, because they are Canadians, certainly. I want to tell you, that Liberal party. I'm sure the Liberals of today around this Province, and those that have gone before, would have looked down in shame on the Liberal leader of this day. What would the great T.D. Pattullo say?

I want to tell you this, a great Liberal in the Province, John Hart, they treated him badly too, and they called him a third rate Liberal, Mr. Speaker. Vote for this Province and not for the Liberal party. They wouldn't appoint him to the Senate afterwards at all. And that's on the record, and that's the reason why there's hundreds of thousands of good Liberals supporting the Social Credit today. There you are.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The motion is that Bill No. 7 be now read a second time. All those in favour signify by saying Aye. Contrary minded, No. I think the Ayes have it. So ordered.

The motion was agreed to on the following division:

YEAS — 53

Messieurs

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Premier): Second reading of Bill No. 8, Mr. Speaker. (An Act to Amend the Pacific Great Eastern Construction Loan Act, 1954)

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 8. The Honourable the Minister of Finance.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this Bill is to keep a balance of the equity capital and the borrowing powers in line. It isn't the intention to go into the market at the present time because the interest rates are so

[ Page 565 ]

high, but already there has been, for the first time in a number of months a little, a very slight, just one sparrow in the spring, a slight decline in interest rates. It is not only here but it is in the United States, and I hope that it will continue. I hope it for many reasons, because lower interest rates will help the working man, the business man, everybody, and reduce, help hold down the increasing cost of living, and be helpful in many, many, many, ways. But I also hope that it will come down because it will prove again that the Social Credit Government was wise not to go on the outside market when it was advised by the Opposition parties to do so. They go to New York for high rates, nine to ten per cent per month.

So, Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this Bill is to increase the borrowing power for the Pacific Great Eastern Railway from $190,000,000 to $240,000,000 — $50,000,000. This increased borrowing is necessary to ensure the construction of the railway's northern extensions, and particularly the planned extension to the resource-rich areas in the northwest part of the Province to Dease Lake. The new borrowing power, as well as the new purchase of shares as far as our estimates can tell, and when you are going through new virgin country you never know what the final costs will be — but as far as we know now we believe, our best advice by engineers is that these two Bills will pay for the two extensions that will take us nearly to the last part of our Province in the northeast portion to Fort St. John, and to the Dease Lake area on the northwestern portion. These two great railroads leading into the north and out of the north, in conjunction with the great Williston Lake, the largest man-made lake in the world which will be a great transportation lake and already there are boats and tugs — how many, Mr. Minister?

HON. R.G. WILLISTON: Fifty tugs.

MR. BENNETT: Fifty tugs already on that great lake, and it is going up this summer. These two railways going up into the east and to the west will allow us to get real development in our whole British Columbia for the first time in our history. I am sure all of the people of British Columbia support this undertaking. I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. R.M. STRACHAN: Well, I won't repeat what I said on the previous Bill, Mr. Speaker. As I told you, I flew over all of that country not once, but several times. I remember once in the area that this railway is going to traverse, I was heading for Stewart at the time, and the pilot of the little plane said, "It looks pretty rough ahead. We'd better set down for a while." And we set down in the middle of this lake. It was in the middle of one of the greatest expanses of forest I have ever seen, and after a while he said, "Let's go in and take a look." We went in to the Coast Range and took a look, managed to get through those valleys into Stewart.

It is true what the Premier says, that for the first time, and I noticed this also, there is a very slight decline in the interest rate, and I, too, hope it bodes well for the future, because undoubtedly the postulations of our kind of economy are heading for real trouble unless there is a reversal of this kind. I don't think the Premier should be as proud of the fact that they have checked out of the money market, because in so doing he has been utilizing all of the large accumulation of capital annually which is under the direction of the Minister of Finance for the Government purposes, and has driven the municipalities and the other agencies into the money markets to get the necessary monies for their expansion, so that he had enough within his own jurisdiction to allow him to carry on.

This is going to increase the borrowing power, of the P.G.E. by $50,000,000. I again would impress on the people of the Province that, despite the Premier's fancy speaking about contingent liabilities and Provincial guarantees, a debt is a debt is a debt, and as long as the word of the Province of British Columbia is behind that debt, then there is a mortgage on every home, on every pay cheque, and every business in the Province of British Columbia. And if there is a default of any kind, then, as previous Governments have found out, then it has to come from out of the pockets of the people to meet the demand when it does arise.

That was how the original $94,000,000 debt which is owed by the P.G.E. to the Province arose, because they required sums to meet their commitment and, as a matter of fact, they required sums just for operating it in some periods. We wiped this out to try and make the balance sheet look more reasonable and give a more realistic picture of the P.G.E. as it existed.

So once again, as always, we support the expansion of the Pacific Great Eastern Railway into the northern areas of the Province, and we support this Bill.

MR. SPEAKER: You have heard the motion. The Honourable the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. P.L. McGEER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, I would just like to speak very briefly to this Bill. I hadn't intended to rise at all until the Premier made the statement as to how wise he and his Government were to stay out of the New York market in this time of tight money and rising interest rates. When borrowings in New York, if I heard him correctly — and we can perhaps play the tape again — were nine to ten per cent. Does that mean, Mr. Speaker, that the interest rates that are being paid to the captive funds in British Columbia — and I speak of the P.G.E. Pension Fund, and the B.C. Hydro Pension Fund, and the Teachers' Pension Fund, and the Municipal Civil Servants' Superannuation Fund — that these Funds are not being paid the interest rates that money is demanding these days, and that the wisdom of the Government in staying out of this open market has been to short change these Pension Funds? Did I understand that correctly from the Minister of Finance?

Because it may be wise, and I wouldn't presume to make a judgment on this, to carry our capital financing internally in times of tight money, but surely it is not fair to expect the people, whose savings are being used by the Government, to accept a low return on their money, because very often these are people with the least means to carry themselves in their later years — to have those people short changed by the Government by having the Government loan that money to Crown corporations, or any other corporation, at lower than market interest rates.

"What about Commonwealth?" says the member from Saanich. Well, we certainly hope to hear from the Minister of Finance and the Attorney-General about their supervision of some of these trust companies in British Columbia, because there are many who lost their life savings…

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

[ Page 566 ]

MR. McGEER: …as a result of the….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. McGEER: I am sorry to be distracted, Mr. Speaker, by the conversation….

MR. SPEAKER: Will the honourable members please keep order.

MR. McGEER: But in any event, this particular Bill, which we are asked to vote on at the present time, carries with it no presumption as to whom the money will be borrowed from, and what the interest rates for this borrowed money are likely to be. We are going to support the Bill, Mr. Speaker, and I hope that it is going to make it a unanimous afternoon all the way around. I am sure the Premier will be closing the debate again, and I hope that the hands of the backbenchers are able to stand the pressure that they have been put to this afternoon.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the First Member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. H.P. CAPOZZI: Mr. Speaker, just a few brief words. Firstly, in reference to the good leader of the Liberal party, he has been, in the past two days, in a series of rather large number of small little errors. He has managed to speak from the third page of a two-page letter and he has referred….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Will the honourable member discuss the Bill in front of the House.

MR. CAPOZZI: I am talking in regards to the statement that he just made in regards to the interest rate, Mr. Speaker, in which he commented on the interest rates which are paid through the pension plan which started out as the Canada Pension Plan and when, of course, Quebec opted out, it is actually now the British Columbia Pension Plan. I would point out to the good leader that the rates are established by the Federal Government, and the rates that are paid are the same rates which are established by the Federal Government, and if he wore aware of this he wouldn't be asking questions like that in the House.

But the other point I would like to bring out, Mr. Speaker, and point out to the Minister, and that is that this is an Act to amend the Construction Act. I would ask him, since he is raising this large amount of money, to point out one small thing in the construction of the P.G.E. and that is, and I have mentioned it before, that if you take that magnificent train and follow that great train route along the way through Squamish, up on its way to Whistler Mountain, it certainly passes through some of the greatest scenery in the world. But at the same time, Mr. Premier, it stops at the magnificent site of Whistler Mountain at perhaps one of the poorest facilities that exists, not anywhere in British Columbia, but perhaps anywhere else in the world. I would hope that he would give some consideration to building a new unit, in view of the fact that we are promoting this for skiers, we are promoting this for the next Olympics, and that we are bringing people in very often by train, and that perhaps now with this large amount of money, since obviously I am going to support the Bill, and all the colleagues here are going to support the Bill, that you would find just a small sum of money to improve that great facility just this side of Whistler Mountain.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Atlin.

MR. F. CALDER: Mr. Speaker, this is another Bill in which one may consider northern development and, like others, I am supporting this Bill because it deals with northern development and being, one, like yourself, that represents a northern district I would just like to contribute.

I would say, Mr. Speaker, that the spirit of the Klondike is still with us, and that the result of that spirit is most revealing in the current mineral explorations, not only in British Columbia but particularly in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon and in the State of Alaska. And in this modern Klondike we have the oil explorations and discoveries and developments which are now taking place in the far north of the boundaries of British Columbia, and I think British Columbia can play a major role in this respect in the way of accessibility, and I am particularly interested in the development of the Pacific Great Eastern Railway in this respect.

As you know, we have had our eyes focused upon the completion of the Stewart-Cassiar road and, of course, this is another means of access to the development of natural resources in the north, and I don't think we should overlook the economic value in this respect.

I don't quite buy the Premier's words that he does not intend to go beyond the bounds of the Province of B.C., because I don't think, although it may be of real value as far as the Government can see, that this extension to Dease Lake would be the end, but I think that a greater value would be accomplished if it was extended right into the Yukon. I don't think it's impossible to observe, Mr. Speaker, that if the Great Northern Railway can come in from the United States and terminate in the City of Vancouver, it is not impossible to continue this railroad all the way to Fairbanks.

Perhaps one day, perhaps after you and I are both dead, they may see one day a Pacific Coast Railway that would be of benefit and would create an absolute economic unit right from the State of Alaska right down into California. I think it is quite possible, and I think this is the reason why we should be much more broadminded, because I think as far as access is concerned British Columbia can play a major role, and this is one reason why I have been advocating an earlier completion of the Stewart-Cassiar road.

Just a few minutes ago, the Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources referred to a five-year period for the development of this railway to Dease Lake, and I also say that if a time-table can also be earmarked in the development and completion of the W.A.C. Bennett Dam, such a timetable can also be established for the completion of the Stewart-Cassiar road, and also on the development of the two extensions of the Pacific Great Eastern Railway.

So it is some of these thoughts that I have brought to your attention, and I am very glad to support this Bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Premier will close the debate.

MR. BENNETT: I am very pleased with the remarks of the honourable member from Atlin. Nothing would make the Government and the Premier happier than to extend the Pacific Great Eastern Railway into Whitehorse, but once we take the Pacific Great Eastern Railway outside of Provincial boundaries, we then lose complete control and can no longer

[ Page 567 ]

use it for developing railroads. It comes under Federal jurisdiction. Our great strength has been to operate it under the complete authority of this Legislature, the members of this House. But if the Yukon and that part of the Northwest Territories which is immediately north of our boundary, of their own free will and accord choose to join British Columbia, we will immediately build the railroad to Whitehorse. For I foresee, too, in future that railroad going to Fairbanks and so we will have it connecting with our great north country, our great north country. I want to thank the honourable member of Atlin, for while his comments and his remarks about the highways are not in this debate directly, the Government is giving a lot of thought and attention and is building it, and it will be a feeder to this railroad when we have the railroad to Dease Lake, and it will be a very important feeder.

A question has been brought up by the Liberal leader regarding investments in the Pacific Great Eastern Railway and pension funds, and I was so pleased that the first member for Vancouver Centre answered him so well. The Federal Government, in conjunction with the provinces, at our Federal-Provincial Conference, had many discussions regarding a pension fund for all Canadians, and it is a question whether each province would have their own or whether you'd have one collecting agency, the same as we have on the Income Tax Act. Quebec opted out, and so they call it the Quebec Pension Plan, and British Columbia could opt out as well, and we'd have been named the British Columbia Pension Plan, but we, and it is really the British Columbia Pension Plan, the Saskatchewan Pension Plan, just like our income tax, but the Federal does the collecting.

Then it was agreed that the pensions of Canadians, thus all Canadians, the investment of these pensions should be on the average rate, market rate, of all Federal Government bonds. That's the reason why the rates change from time to time as you've seen from the answers that I gave to the members of this House, and that's the reason they change, and now for the first time we have a little reduction in that interest rate, showing that there is….

That's right, that's right. I'm glad the member follows it so closely.

And so, all the pensions in British Columbia — your pension, my pension, everybody's pension is involved in that fund, and that is the interest rate. And so the Social Credit Government believes it's only sound business, if that is the right rate to invest these pension funds for all British Columbians, then that should be the rate, too, that the funds under the direction of the Minister of Finance's Department that it should follow that rate exactly the same, and so we do, and we think that's a very fair way. But I'm indebted to the Liberal leader for bringing it up in the first place. I don't thank him very often in the House but I thank him this day for that.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: You've heard the motion, all those in favour say Aye. Contrary minded, No. The motion is carried.

MR. BENNETT: Division, Mr. Speaker.

The motion was agreed to on the following division:

YEAS — 53

Messieurs

MR. BENNETT: Committee of Supply, Mr. Speaker.

Pursuant to Order, the House again resolved itself into the Committee of Supply.

(Estimates of the Department of Agriculture)

The Committee rose, reported progress, and asked leave to sit again.

The House adjourned at 5.57 p.m.

The House met at 8 p.m.

The Hon. L.R. Peterson presented to Mr. Speaker a Message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

On the motion of the Hon. L. R. Peterson, Bill (No. 19) intituled Corrections Act was introduced, read a first time, and Ordered to be placed on the Orders of the Day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

Pursuant to Order, the House again resolved itself into the Committee of Supply.

(Estimates of the Department of Agriculture)

The Committee reported Resolutions 3 and 4.

The House adjourned at 11:13 p.m.

[ Page 569 ]

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 1970

The House met at 2 p.m.

On the motion of the Hon. W.A.C. Bennett, the House proceeded to the Order "Public Bills and Orders."

The following Bills were committed, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed:

Bill (No. 1) intituled An Act to Amend the Contributory Negligence Act.

Bill (No. 7) intituled An Act Respecting the Purchase of Unissued Shares of the Capital Stock of the Pacific Great Eastern Railway Company.

Bill (No. 8) intituled An Act to Amend the Pacific Great Eastern Construction Loan Act, 1954.

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

Pursuant to Order, the House again resolved itself into the Committee of Supply.

(Estimates of the Department of Agriculture)

The Committee reported Resolutions 5 to 17, inclusive.

The House adjourned at 5.58 p.m.

The House met at 8 p.m.

The Hon. L.R. Peterson presented to Mr. Speaker a Message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

On the motion of the Hon. L.R. Peterson, Bill (No. 20) intituled An Act to Amend the Landlord and Tenant Act was introduced, read a first time, and Ordered to be placed on the Orders of the Day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

On the motion of Mr. W.L. Hartley, Bill (No. 21) intituled An Act to Amend the Taxation Act was introduced, read a first time, and Ordered to be placed on the Orders of the Day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

Pursuant to Order, the House again resolved itself into the Committee of Supply.

(Estimates of the Department of Agriculture)

The Committee rose, reported progress, and asked leave to sit again.

The House adjourned at 11:05 p.m.