[ Page 745 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Committee of supply: Premier's estimates

Mr. Richter — 745

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 747

Mr. Wallace — 750

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 753

Mr. Fraser — 754

Mrs. Jordan — 756

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 757

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 760

Mr. Phillips — 762

Point of order

Mr. Curtis. Irrelevant speeches — 774

Mr. Chairman's ruling — 774

Routine proceedings

Committee of supply: Premier's estimates

Mr. McClelland — 774

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 777

Motions

No. 29 (Hon. Mr. Stupich) Study of marketing system for B.C.-grown tree fruits — 778

Mrs. Jordan — 779

Mr. Wallace — 779

Reports

Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills.

No. 3 — 779

Nos. 4 and 5 — 780

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 1973

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Mackenzie.

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): Mr. Speaker, we have with us today all the way from Bella Coola, five student teachers accompanied by their host, co-ordinator of teacher recruitment, Mr. Philip J. Kitley. I ask the House to join me in welcoming them.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Cariboo.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Mr. Speaker and Hon. Members, in the Speaker's gallery today we have Mr. and Mrs. Les Bunk from Horsefly in the Cariboo. Mrs. Bunk is the chairman of school district 27 (Williams Lake). I would like you to join with me in welcoming them.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. First Member for Vancouver South.

MR. J. RADFORD (Vancouver South): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like the House at this time to join with me in welcoming the students from David Thompson high school, South Vancouver. They are accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Ellis.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Highways.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Highways): We have in the galleries today, Mr. Speaker, a group from a college in the United States that's been coming regularly to this legislative chamber. I refer to Prof. Balmer and his political science group from the Lewis and Clark College in Oregon. I'm sure the House would wish to welcome them.

Orders of the day.

House in committee of supply; Mr. Dent in the chair.

ESTIMATES, PREMIER'S OFFICE

On vote 2.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Boundary-Similkameen.

MR. F.X. RICHTER (Boundary-Similkameen): Mr. Chairman, we're very interested in the various renovations that have taken place, particularly in the Premier's office. Not that it didn't need some touching up, but certainly it's gone considerably further than the touching up. In fact, I think we have an author in Canada by the name of Pierre Berton who published a book entitled The Comfortable Pew. Now we have an author in British Columbia who has published something and I think it's entitled The Comfortable Few.

Certainly we realize that expenditures have to be made over a period of time in bringing up the standard of the various offices. We're not opposed to that.

We do appreciate going to the Premier's office. I particularly appreciate going to the Premier's office now because of the number of people who are there to serve us in whatever capacity. Also, the very comfortable quarters they have, which should make them more efficient. However, the efficiency has yet to be evaluated in that we had quite an efficient operation previously that didn't really cost nearly as much money as what it's going to cost this year where we have an increase in that one office vote of approximately $20,000. I hope that the efficiency can be justified and we will look forward to this.

About a year ago there was a great deal of concern, particularly when the present Premier was leader of the official Opposition at that time. That was in relation to the PUC (Public Utilities Commission) and its hearings in relation to applications that were made to install a natural gas pipeline to this island. A number of hearings were held, primarily through representations made. The usual process of the PUC was not adhered to. We opened it up, actually on suggestion of the now Premier, to all parties who were tendering on this particular gas line.

What's happened we don't know. We know the hearings were concluded in August. We have had no report of the proposals and recommendations of the PUC.

We are anxious in this way: we feel that British Columbia should get the benefits first of the natural resources here. The fact is that we do have a great deal of concern as to the preservation of the environment on the island here. We know the people want to obtain the use of natural gas. We know that it could be very expensive for them if there wasn't some means of equating the price of gas commensurate with that on the mainland. In view of this, we're anxious to see a natural gas pipeline put on to Vancouver Island to serve the whole island.

I mentioned a number of points previously in this House in regard to the natural gas and the commitments that the previous government had made in relation to subsidizing in some fashion to bring about equality of price between the island and the mainland. The original proposal by the former government was to have a pipeline bringing gas from the main supply line somewhere in the vicinity of Williams Lake

[ Page 746 ]

through to Powell River to serve the Sechelt Peninsula along with the island here. We seem to be a bit cut off from the mainland and the availability of the use of our natural resources, and as President of the Executive Council I am sure that the Premier has given this serious consideration and we would like to see some results coming from the investigation — the costs that were involved and so on.

We realize that the policy of the present Government would be to have Hydro install this regardless of whether they were competitive or not. We disagree with this. The official Opposition believes that it should be provided at the lowest possible cost. We know that there are extra imposts that are going to be made; it is going to increase the cost to the consumer and we are concerned about this.

There were a very extensive number of promises made through a publication — I don't know whether it is still in existence or not — known as the New Democrat during the election. Because of this multitude of promises we are very anxious to know the intentions of the Government in relation to the particular priorities in which these promises are going to be kept, or if they are going to be kept.

We know that the Premier and his Government are contemplating very greatly expanded powers in the field of investing public funds. At the present time I see no particular guidelines set out or restrictions as to what types of businesses or what types of investments will be constituted in which the government might enter.

This gives us distinct concern because of previous governments within Canada where very great losses were sustained by the public due to failures of government operated Crown corporations.

Another point which I would just like to touch on at this time because of an incident that occurred last June. We live in a more radical time and have to deal with more radical elements, particularly the uncontrolled mob violence that occurs not only in British Columbia but throughout the continent. We have had a case of a presidential candidate who was injured through an attempted assassination. We had a senator who was killed — Senator Robert Kennedy. We had a president who was killed.

It would be my recommendation to the Government — and I have had considerable sympathy from some of the cabinet Ministers who have listened to me — to bring in some form of bill which would compensate elected Members who in their line of duty suffer injuries or fatalities. Some means would be undertaken to assist the family should there be a fatal occasion.

There was a settlement within the last few days that has hung on for some time in relation to one of our civil servants. We are happy that there has been something done about that. But there is no guarantee on a cabinet Minister.

We had an occasion previously where we had to pass a bill in this House for a Premier who was injured in the line of duty — Byron Johnson. There is no guarantee that any one of our present cabinet Ministers today could not be injured in the line of duty.

There is also the fact that, as we contemplate, we are going to use more of our elected Members for committee work throughout the province. There is also the possibility of their injury or something worse happening which we hope will never occur. It would be my recommendation and the recommendation of the official Opposition that the Premier give consideration to introducing such a bill along that line.

I have one or two other small items here that are very important and one is the position the previous Government took in relation to the development of Squamish. I think that has been pretty well covered in the Press. We regret the fact that there have been differences between Mr. Davis and our Premier in the development of this all-important port.

As we see it, the Vancouver-Burrard Inlet is becoming more congested and will become more congested as time goes on unless the no-growth policy of this Government bars immigration to this province. I can't help but feel that the amenities that exist here in British Columbia will induce more people to this province and we are, by necessity, going to have to have growth in areas which are probably already crowded.

It was the consensus of opinion among the Members of the former government and the Premier of the day and also the Minister of Transport, the Hon. Mr. Jamieson, that Squamish should be developed. There were criteria set down: Squamish should be developed for the shipment of coal to Europe; Prince Rupert should be used for Japanese coal and wheat and mineral products; the federal port development would have regard for pollution and environmental control; the provincial corridor policy under the Environment and Land Use Committee would be brought into play; the environmental consequences of port development would be a matter in which there would be cooperation between both governments; local and provincial planning representation and municipal authorities would be brought into play. There were the matters of Port Edwards and Prince Rupert, for example, where complications have arisen. These were things that we felt had to be dealt with on a joint basis.

A joint group was set up; they did come up with recommendations. Land was provided for the federal government. The port of Squamish was to have the back-up land and the facilities constructed by the provincial government. The federal government was to do the wharfage and, along with this, the federal controlled railway should operate on the BCR in terms of the economics involved.

[ Page 747 ]

The rate structures and running rights were considered and this should be a two-way street, particularly in light of the fact that we are extending the B.C. Railway northward. Presently the terminus is at Dease Lake and that was only an interim destination in the previous government's mind. We felt that we must go further and Mr. Jamieson agreed. When it came to the time that we got to the northern provincial boundary it would come under federal jurisdiction and they would move on from there.

There was an agreement by way of a handshake between the then Premier and Mr. Jamieson. There were details set out at that time and we moved forward. I wonder if our present Premier — I know this is a long list of questions — is in any position to advise us as to what measures or what change in plans is being contemplated for the future of the port of Squamish? Is it definitely settled that Britannia will be the terminus? Is it definitely settled that there will only be a coal port?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, it's settled. It just has to go through the public hearing charade.

MR. RICHTER: These are ideas in which I think not only the official Opposition but the general public, the whole society of British Columbia, is very keenly concerned.

As we progressively move on to the various votes as they come up, I undoubtedly will be on my feet again and will have something to say as we move on.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Premier and, next, the Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Chairman, there is a number of points raised by the Member for Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Richter). First of all on a question of natural gas to Vancouver Island, no definite decision has been reached.

The next question was one that I find of special interest; the question of violence in a North American context. I don't want to embark upon a long dissertation, but I want to make a couple of observations on what the Member has said.

There is of course, the very unfortunate case of a former cabinet Minister, and the government has instructed that a review of the insurance policies that are held by all MLA's be undertaken. The first report we've had on that review indicates that the former Minister may be eligible for a certain period of coverage — I think it's 104 weeks — and the matter is being pursued as I understand it from there.

In terms of violence generally, we have the very fortunate experience compared to our southern neighbours, in that politics in the British Commonwealth is essentially focused on parties rather than personalities, although you cannot escape the personality focus from time to time. But we have not had a history of violence with politicians in this country — other than verbal violence. The fortunate experience has been that, I think, there has been only one assassination — it was D'Arcy McGee I think. He's not here to tell us of his experience. Other than that the violence to politicians has been limited.

There is perhaps a growing tendency, as North American society becomes more urbanized, to focus hostility towards a political figure. I think part of the responsibility to avoid that rests with the parties and the politicians themselves. I can't make too many comments about the North American structure. That's something that they have to live with. Quite frankly, I think the American society is a far more violent society than the Canadian, and it may be not so much in the nature of the citizen but the very fact of the pressure of the population.

The urban problems in the United States have drawn comments from a lot of Canadian politicians, notably the present Prime Minister. Early in his period of being Prime Minister he made a noteworthy speech in Montreal about the fear of the kind of violence in the United States cities spilling into Canadian cities. So far we've avoided that.

I don't know what can be done as an individual against the growth of such violence, but I do think that our political system has an outlet that should never be downplayed as a part of good mental health for this nation. We have a party responsibility that allows the opposition party to have direct access to those who are making decisions. All cabinet Ministers traditionally in our system are elected and must subject themselves to the scrutiny such as we're going through now with the estimates. I don't think they have that experience in the American setup.

The other thing is that the opposition is a viable alternative to governments on occasion. In my biased position I hope it's not too frequent. But nonetheless within the system there is a healthy alternative at any given time to any given government — witness the defeat of the last government and the number of people who are seeking to witness the defeat of the present Government.

The opportunity also exists in our political system for a variety of views to be focused into direct party activity. There is the escape valve of belonging to anything from the extreme left to the extreme right in our political system. Whereas in the United States system the definitions are not that clearly defined. Sometimes you can't tell the northern Republican from a southern Democrat without a programme in terms of his ideological viewpoint. A northern Republican might be far more liberal than southern Democrat. Here the definition is quite clear — Liberals, Conservatives, Social Credit and NDP; three free enterprise parties and one socialist party. So the identification is much easier for the voting citizen.

[ Page 748 ]

It would be almost pointless to assassinate a Canadian politician.

AN HON. MEMBER: Pierre LaPorte.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes. That was a pointless assassination. Tragic and pointless. Because with the loss of one politician, political parties in our context being what they are, when one person drops there's about four people ready to take his place — even in the opposition. So ambition is the spur, Mr. Chairman, that allows us to replace the person who is gone, for whatever reason he goes. So there's no point in assassinating a Canadian politician. And I say that with no self-interest. (Laughter).

Although the Member's point is well taken, I think it would be a mistake, in my opinion, to consciously enact legislation protecting politicians, because it would be tacit acceptance of focusing hostility on the politicians.

On an individual basis we do have that policy — it's something that I would welcome a review of — but I think it would be a mistake to go to some form of built-in compensation. We don't want to encourage people to acts of violence in political life.

The other point made by the Minister is most interesting — the tragic loss, just yesterday in an automobile accident, of an Alberta cabinet Minister. That is a valid point and a valid concern. I would suggest that perhaps a House committee review the whole matter.

It's unlikely that many politicians are individually wealthy. Most politicians are not people who are wealthy in their own right. That's changing more and more every day. As we allow people more opportunity to get involved in political life, we're finding people from all walks of life getting involved and their degree of security, I think in many instances, is limited. So I would suggest perhaps a motion to a House committee to review this would be worthwhile.

I want to thank the Member for his comments on the Squamish port location. He had intimate knowledge of the type of negotiations and the content of the negotiations that went on between the B.C. Railway, the British Columbia Government and the federal government.

It is unfortunate, in my opinion, that the difference between Mr. Davis and me has been focused entirely on the difference between two people. If you separate the public statements of Mr. Davis and my public statements, you come back to what the real facts are in terms of the situation as we found it. There was an agreement, albeit a handshake agreement. But there was an agreement by the federal government to locate that coal port in Squamish. The former Minister, who is now the Member for Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Richter) was the first to state that publicly.

When we came to office we were confronted with a matter that was almost a fait accompli. I then proceeded to initiate a meeting with Mr. Davis and his staff. At that time we disclosed to him that we would be asking for an independent research analysis of the Squamish port area as a viable coal port.

The first proposal that was given to us was to move the port from an already-agreed location to examine the Mamquam Channel — close to the original place, but still in the Squamish estuary. The report that we received indicated that there would be serious ecological damage and it was on the basis of that report that the Squamish estuary as a site for a coal port was scrubbed. Then the impression was promulgated by the federal Minister concerned that it was he who ordered the scrubbing of the Squamish estuary as a coal port; when in actual fact that was not the case at all. The federal Minister was part and parcel of the federal government agreement to go ahead in the Squamish estuary.

I must compliment the previous administration in that every step of the way the B.C. Railway and the former Social Credit administration cleared their plans with the federal government and did not make any moves — unlike other situations — did not make any moves without first clearing with the federal government.

When we decided that the report from the Mamquam Channel area was negative and we must not go there for ecological reasons, the next alternative was Britannia. We ordered an independent study of Britannia and first draft that we received indicates that there is no ecological damage at all to that particular site. We're thinking of building on an old, abandoned mine site essentially, a site that Anaconda has worked over as an industrial site for many, many years.

We have made no firm decision. We are attempting to gather all the pertinent facts, lay them before the people of British Columbia, hold a public hearing and then we'll make our decision. However, you must recognize that all the economics that were involved in the government preceding this one in locating that coal port in Howe Sound are still a factor.

That hasn't altered a bit, and the economics are sound because the great bulk of that coal to be shipped from the Sukunka project is to go to Great Britain. I might say that the very fact that we have an alternate market for coal, not just the Japanese, but the potential of an alternate market for our coal in Europe is a good thing for British Columbia because it gives us some leverage in terms of the bargaining that we're faced with. Coal is a non-renewable resource but according to the best information we have, there's a 400 year supply of coal. Forbes was the last indicator that I took of it. So we are in a competitive position in terms of selling coal.

[ Page 749 ]

I've said publicly that we would not agree and do not agree with the former administration's royalty of 25 cents a ton. There is no way that that will be a factor, and I know that the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) was concerned about me bargaining too severely in that particular matter. Well, I want to tell you, and I want to tell the House, that as a social worker I can't accept 25 cents a ton, and I don't see how any business man could either. There's just no way.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, I appreciate the Member's concern, but we are in intimate negotiations at this point. But the figure is not around 25 cents a ton. It's a figure that we think is reasonable and that the industry can pay.

The location is a factor in the economics, because the location is closer to the European market, and it also is a matter too, of the economics of the B.C. Railway. Now, before I go on to make any further comments about that — I am going to come back to that point — I want to point out too that the federal hue and cry now for the development of Rupert is a new found concern in my opinion, because up to the time when we took over, the federal government had the position of going full blast for Squamish.

AN HON. MEMBER: With a handshake.

HON. MR. BARRETT: With a handshake. All right, we'll just leave it at that.

Now, the interesting thing is that as much as we disagreed with the former administration, it must be said again that in one aspect, in terms of the publicly owned railway, my predecessor as Leader of the Opposition and myself have never been critics of a publicly owned railway. As a matter of fact a publicly owned railway was one of the greatest things done by the previous administration. No question about it. It's a form of socialism, but I suppose that the free enterprisers who practise socialism get less heat for that practice than do avowed socialists who try to practise free enterprise. That will come later when I discuss your comments about investments.

I will say this, that the research that is available in terms of ecological protection of the Prince Rupert estuary indicates that there have been only two studies done. One a major one, and one a minor one.

The major one was done on the basis of fisheries examination. It was close to Ridley Island, as I understand it, and it was a certain fishing bank.

AN HON. MEMBER: Flora Bank.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Flora Bank, that's correct. Thank you, Mr. Member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea). It indicated that if we went in there with a coal port, there would be massive ecological damage. Since that time, there's been another brief study on which only a memorandum has been produced. It was not a full scale study and only a memorandum has been produced. That was a 28 point study of collecting areas around Ridley Island and the other areas.

There is no conclusive report available by the federal government that indicates that any area around Rupert is ecologically safe to handle a coal port. Certainly, nothing like the environmental protection that Britannia offers.

Now back to the economics of the railway. It is a fact that since coming to office we have discovered quite a great deal of correspondence between the previous administration and the federal government, asking that the people of British Columbia have the same benefits that other provinces have had and other jurisdictions have had when they built railroads. As a matter of fact, the former Premier totalled an estimate re the federal government, that the federal government owed British Columbia, on the basis of equal treatment to British Columbia in terms of its railroad construction, a total of $19 million in a minimum and perhaps as high as $27 million right now.

Now I say this as a British Columbian, along with my political philosophy, that I agree completely with the position of the former government. The federal government does have a responsibility to pay its fair share of what we're doing here and what was done here in British Columbia. I have made this a condition, and I'll say this publicly now, that before we complete any arrangements with the federal government on integrated use of the railway in the north, and the northwestern section of British Columbia, there must be a lump sum payment of the people of British Columbia to make up the money in the past that they owe the people of British Columbia. That's my position. It was the position of my predecessor, and I agree with him completely, because there is no reason why other provinces should receive cash supplements for expansion of railroad routes or for ferries, for that matter, without British Columbia receiving those as well.

Now we are negotiating with Ottawa, and we are continuing the negotiations started by the previous administration. There are some alterations. There are some differences of opinion, but the mood of the negotiations is very, very good. The economics are such that the outlet at Squamish, or at other than Howe Sound, is a factor, and the market is a factor as well.

The last thing that I want to elaborate on re the markets is what I mentioned earlier about an alternate market. Up to now, the Japanese have had very good coal deals out of British Columbia. Kaiser has lost a bundle in their contract with the Japanese.

[ Page 750 ]

Now that's on their head; that's the way it goes, But the tragedy of it is that not only has Kaiser lost a fortune as they interpret it, and not only Kaiser been involved in inside trading, which was less than frank, I think, with the previous administration, and certainly with the people of British Columbia, but the return from that Kaiser deal which we are locked into, is that we have scarred landscapes that are a brand new experience in terms of open pit mining. All that we're getting out of that Kaiser deal is a volunteer 10 cents to 25 cents a ton. Kaiser doesn't have to pay us anything. We have discovered since coming to office that Kaiser didn't have to pay a nickel on that coal. It's a volunteer assessment of 10 cents to 25 cents a ton.

That's a matter, Mr. Member, that is currently under review by the government. We have the commitments from Kaiser on the basis of hopefully more than good faith, that they'll restore the area, but I certainly hope that their good faith is not conditioned by the experience we had in terms of their inside trading, because that wasn't good faith. That was sharp practice. Now, we're locked into Kaiser, but we hope that something better will come out of that. But as it stands now, the economics are that Howe Sound is the area.

What is the question left with Howe Sound? The question really narrows down to one of aesthetics. There is a great deal of shipping in Howe Sound now. We have absolutely no intention of further industrial expansion in Howe Sound. If we go ahead with a coal port, although there appears to be more land at Britannia than at first glance, it will be limited to the coal port. The other land, if we go ahead, will be developed for maximum recreational use. We want to embark upon a growth concept, and a no growth concept, but a growth concept that incorporates both industrial use and recreational use.

The coal itself will be handled as was planned by the previous administration. The previous administration agreed to have the coal loaded in silos, which is a better method than anything that exists in handling coal on this coast right now. It is expensive, but we've agreed that if we go that route, the coal will go through the silos fashioned by the previous government, and the coal cars will be covered, as was agreed to by the previous government, and accepted by the federal government. So the new cautions are related to the location, and I've made it as clear as possible. I think that covers the Squamish thing, Mr. Member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before we proceed — Mr. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) please be seated for a moment — I just want to make a couple of observations. It's our first day in committee of supply, and I just draw your attention to a couple of points regarding the rules. The first one is that if a Member is suggesting or proposing legislation, he should not do so in this kind of discussion but rather should have a bill on the order paper or a motion on the order page.

I'll just read the section in May which applies: "The administrative action of a department is open to debate, but the necessity for legislation and matters involving legislation cannot be discussed in committee of supply." So if you are suggesting or proposing a bill, the remedy is to put it on the order paper in the usual way.

The second point is that if you wish to speak, each time a person is finished you may stand and I'll try to apportion the speaking order as fairly as possible. The Chairman reserves the right as to who he will recognize. Therefore I would just ask you to stand in your place and I'll make a mental note — we don't keep formal notes — to ensure that you get your chance to speak.

Also, I would request that Members, so far as possible, keep their remarks brief and, if possible, extemporaneous. This is in keeping with the rules of debate. Otherwise, the rules are the same as the rules in the House. I recognize the Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I must say I very much appreciate the comments of the Premier, with particular relation to the Squamish–Howe Sound controversy. I'd like to comment on that in a moment. I'll try to be brief, Mr. Chairman.

In commenting on the Premier's office, I think the immediate question one asks is with regard to the increased expense of the office. By my calculations, we have increased the staff by an administrative assistant, a press secretary, one secretary and one clerk. Travelling expenses are up by $5,000. I'm not saying, Mr. Chairman, that I disagree with that. I think that government is a very complicated and difficult business. As is demonstrated in situations such as the Sukunka coal, Squamish situation, governments need more and more information to reach intelligent decisions. If we can be assured by the Premier that this is not the start of an ever-increasing retinue — such as happened in the Liberal administration in Ottawa, I might say — and that the main reason for the Premier's increase in staff is the open government which he wishes to demonstrate to the Members and to the people of British Columbia, then I think this may well turn out to be money well spent. But I would sound a note of caution from our side of the House that if we come back next year and find another four or five on the Premier's staff, or maybe a few appointed between terms or some such obvious steady increase, we will be most anxious.

As I've stated already in this House, while we're only two seats in the House, we also find it extremely

[ Page 751 ]

difficult to function over the whole range of government business without any assistance. I don't reject the reason given to me that because we only have two seats out of 55, we're not entitled to a research assistant. But I think that the progressive attitude which the Premier is showing to getting adequate staff in his office might — and I say this not jokingly and without bias. I really feel that for any party, however small, in this House to function to the peak of its ability really depends on some form of research assistance. Other than that the Members are certainly working day and night seven days a week trying to keep up. That's a little off the point, Mr. Chairman, I'll leave it right there.

I just would like to comment on the subject that was raised regarding the risk to politicians of violence in our society. I agree with the Premier that I don't see that we should expect any special protection. But I think we should expect the same kind of safeguards that apply to other citizens in other walks of life. If each of us is not at the present moment legally covered by compensation, perhaps there should be mechanisms brought into play whereby this can be done.

I would like now just to make some remarks about the B.C. Railway. I think that the actions of the Government in investigating in the way that has been done, first of all, whether Squamish is suitable or not and, having found that it is not ecologically advisable, deciding to seek another outlet, is very commendable and must surely give the people of this province some confidence in the election promises — that in fact ecology would be given serious concern in this province.

The more I thought about this whole issue of Sukunka coal and Squamish and Prince Rupert over the weekend, the more it seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that this raises this whole big issue that we've touched upon many times in this session already. That is the equating of the need for continuing economic and industrial expansion but in such a limited or in such a supervised manner that the ecological end results are acceptable to society, in the light of the standards which society is now demanding. In an earlier debate I mentioned that the people in the Howe Sound area were very naturally concerned about the idea of a coal port interfering with the tremendous recreational and aesthetic beauty which exists there at the moment.

As an aside, Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to say that while I commend the Government for the rational way in which these studies were set up, I really was just a little annoyed when I read this report by Paish about the terminal at Britannia Beach. I think with respect, Mr. Chairman, that Mr. Paish should stick to the professional field in which he's employed.

While I respect and accept his professional judgment and the fact that there appears no likelihood of ecological damage if the coal port is located, he goes on to say on page 13 for example:

"The vital role of a Howe Sound outlet for the B.C. Railway Company has yet to be adequately explained to the people of the province. Long-term direct benefits to British Columbia as a result of coal haulage revenues and other direct benefits related to the whole coal shipment operation should be spelled out in order that people are able to place the scenic and recreational aspects of Howe Sound in a total perspective."

All I'm saying, Mr. Chairman, is that I think that's a valid observation but I don't think it has any place in this kind of report. If he wants the Government and the people of British Columbia to weigh up the pluses and minuses, I think really that all he was asked to do was to give any opinion as to whether the coal port would, in fact, damage the ecology. He's found that it doesn't. I won't take up time but there are other statements. I won't take up time to quote the other one, but on the report on Squamish he even goes into quite a lengthy discussion about whether we're on sound ground or whether our policy is wise to consider exporting coal at all. Again, he makes some very valid observations, namely that coal is becoming a more valuable resource and that perhaps we should be keeping all the coal in our own province as a source of thermal energy for production of electricity.

So, in passing, Mr. Chairman, I think we should perhaps recognize that the expert called in to give us an ecological opinion should have it made plain to him that that's all we're asking. We don't need any political debate in his report.

To get back to the point, it seems as though this whole question of coal development and where it should be shipped from and so on, really is the best example of this philosophical argument that the two sides of the House have had to some degree in both the throne speech debate and the budget speech debate. Here we have undoubtedly a natural resource which should be developed and, if developed, should provide royalties. How much more than 25 cents a ton, I have no idea, but I think everyone agrees that this is a development of a natural resource which makes good sense. It could only make sense if there's a deepwater port through which it can be exported. There's the rub — we have to decide where and under what circumstances the coal can be transported and exported with least damage to the environment.

I feel that the arguments that have occurred between the Premier and Mr. Davis, the Minister of the Environment, were unfortunate. But I appreciate the Premier's explaining exactly what has happened and the role of the former government. I think this has put things more clearly on the record than I've been able to decipher from news reports.

With regard to Howe Sound, many people have contacted me. Again, because we only have two seats, we don't have a Member from that area. Their

[ Page 752 ]

concern is very real. With respect, Mr. Premier, it has not always been the custom of former governments to live up to their word. While you, through you, Mr. Chairman, reassure us that there is to be no expansion beyond the possible coal terminal, I think, with respect, that the people of this province and the people in the Howe Sound area will be very difficult to convince. Their feeling is that this is just a foot in the door.

Inevitably, if we start exporting coal, next year or the year after or the year after that, there will no doubt be demand, or some attempt will be made to export many other products, giving some simple explanation that they have no alternative and that, having developed the Britannia site, why not expend it and use it.

In fairness to the Paish company I think, having criticized them, I should also say that he makes one point very plain, and it should go on the record; that he feels the public concern is that the coal port would be the thin end of the wedge. He says, however, that the built-in limitations of the site should be pointed out and that the land-use plans that have been set out already accommodate environmental aspects, and that the flat ground in the region of Howe Sound is being largely committed to recreational and park use.

Once again, although we would prefer that Howe Sound be not used at all for this kind of development, when the whole total picture and whole issue as regards the use of resources and the best thing for the people of British Columbia in the total context — when we look at it this way — certainly I personally have to say that there is a great deal to be reconsidered, compared to the point I made in an earlier speech, that we were totally opposed to any development of an industrial nature on Howe Sound.

In reconsidering all the points that have been raised, and in listening to the Premier today, I would have to say that I, in trying to be objective and non-partisan, would consider that with the safeguards the Premier has given: (1) that it will only be a coal port, not to be expanded for other exports; (2) that the coal will be covered. I understand that from leaving the mine — it's not only on the loading on ships but the whole process — I believe it is agreed with the company that the coal will be covered. On that basis I think we will reserve any further comment on the pros and cons of that controversy.

I agree also that if the federal government is providing subsidies to other railways, I think we should press very strongly that we should be treated as equals in British Columbia in the case of the B.C. Railroad.

I would just make one small criticism, Mr. Chairman, in that I notice that the annual report of the B.C. Railroad is dated January 23, 1972. Yet I had some difficulty getting a report to study it today. I understand it was filed with the House. Through you, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask the Premier is it not customary that as soon as reports are filed with the House that each Member receives a copy? I would like to have the Premier's explanation as to why we had to search around and get the one copy with the Clerk's office and get it photostated.

Interjections by an Hon. Member.

MR. WALLACE: I've got the 1971 report. I don't remember having this much trouble getting it. Anyway, it's simply a question I am asking for information.

I think there are some interesting facts in this report, Mr. Chairman. The net profit seems to remain much the same — in the region of $1 million. That raises another philosophical point I think worth mentioning; that I don't think the railroad should exist necessarily to make a profit. I think if it can make a profit then this is something we would appreciate. But I hope it will never be a case of insisting that certain products be transported on this particular railroad, let us say, if there were good reasons why it should go out through Prince Rupert.

Certainly it is a policy we feel in this party, that while the railroad is an integral part of the continuing expanding economy of British Columbia, it should not be given pre-eminence in any considerations in the total context of what is best for the people of British Columbia. There may be times when the railroad would in fact be earning revenue in certain ways in transporting certain products. But if it is altogether better that we should export using the CNR out of Prince Rupert, then I would hope that the total picture would be considered in the same light in which you've considered ecology and economy in the case of Squamish.

I think one point that's worth mentioning, Mr. Chairman, is that — and I don't know if this is a misprint — the total payroll is $28 million and the average income per employee in 1972 was $10,102. It's worth making plain on the record that this railroad is not only a source of employment for many people but they are obviously received good salaries, which is much to be admired.

The report also gives some very useful data on the upgrading of the railroad. The one and only time I travelled on the B.C. Railroad to Prince George, I was really amazed at some of the wooden trestles. Considering the weight of the train on these wooden trestles and the vibration as you went over them, I sometimes wondered if we'd make the other side. But I understand that in the last year you've replaced eight trestle-bridges with concrete structures and that there are to be at least another eight replaced next year. I wonder if the Premier would comment on this particular aspect of the railroad, namely the upgrading and replacement of worn-out track.

[ Page 753 ]

The last point I would like to make relates to the philosophy of the railroad. I'm told by some people who know a little bit about railroads that this railroad is viewed by other railroads in the North American continent as having been built predominantly at low cost. The cost of the bed is kept down on the clear understanding that the trains will not travel at high speeds, the theory being that you're minimizing capital investment and getting maximum return out of the railroad.

Since I'm no expert, and I don't claim to be about railroads, I think this is an interesting opinion that was expressed. I wonder if this has had anything to do with the accident rate in the past and whether the Premier could explain a little more about this. There's very little stated about safety or accidents in the 1972 report. I would hope that means there hasn't been any accident.

I notice that the tunnel in West Vancouver is to be constructed. About a year ago when we were all in this House there was very considerable concern about a landslide which severely damaged the track in West Vancouver. Since then a decision has been made to build a tunnel. I wonder if the Premier would comment on the safety record in the last year.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I'll go through the items as they were raised by the Member (Mr. Wallace).

First of all on the question of increasing staff in the office: the staff in the Premier's office is far lower, I would venture, than that in any other Premier's office right across the country. There has been an increase and the increase has been brought about by two matters — first of all, the fact that all correspondence is now being answered from the Premier's office; whereas it only took one person to dump all the correspondence in the wastebasket that now takes a number of people to deal with.

As a matter of fact, Mr….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's an irresponsible statement? It's a reflection of an irresponsible policy that I found was being carried on. As a matter of fact, a significant segment of the mail is still being answered by myself. I find that to be a very onerous task and I am contemplating the addition of one other person to assist in the mail, The mail now is running at 250 to 300 separate pieces of correspondence every day in the office. At the very least we get out an immediate acknowledgment and we are setting up machinery to ensure that people get answers. Whether they're happy with the answers or not is another matter; but they are entitled to answers when they write the Premier's office, whether I'm there or someone else is there. That's my opinion.

The other part of it is that there was a practice in this province that people outside the public service were accepted by practice as either spokesmen for the Premier's office or "arrangers" for the Premier's office, or "facilitators" for the Premier's office. I don't have to use any names; they're well known.

No one outside of government employment says anything for the Premier of this province, arranges anything for the Premier of this province — that is, appointments, visits or anything else. I have my own staff and if people wish to see the Premier or to write directly to the Premier, they come through my own staff. I do not use outside public relations people or outside anything else.

There has been an increase in staff because of that, Mr. Member, and I hope that I'm able to keep it down. There is, as I say, a consideration to take on one more person in terms of the load of correspondence that we're handling.

The Paish report: the Member has raised a very interesting point. When I asked Howard Paish to take this job on, I asked him myself as president of the railway. I gave him no direction that would confine him. When Parish's report came in — the last one you referred to, on the Britannia site — there were the pages of gratuitous remarks put in by the consultant.

There was a moment when I hesitated and was of the opinion for a moment that I should phone Paish up and say, "Look, take that out of there. That's not what I asked for." I resisted the temptation by knowing that if I asked that that be taken out, I would have mental reservations in discussing the report from that point on. I could safely be questioned, if I asked that to be taken out — the proposition could be, "What else are you going to take out?"

It is the policy of this Government that we will be asking outside consultants to prepare a report. When we hire outside consultants, we want a professional opinion. If the person who is hired feels motivated in their own true conscience to add gratuitous analysis of facts or factors or impressions as they see them, then we must accept that because we are buying a professional report. Mr. Paish did go beyond what was suggested, but I made a conscious decision to leave every single thing that he said in there. That will be the same with any other consultant.

There are reports from economists and from engineers that we've received that I've gone through that, with the change of a word here or a comma there, would be most beneficial. But once you start down that route, you're compromising yourself and you're compromising the consultant. I'm glad you raised that, Mr. Member. I want it clearly understood that in the future, when we hire consultants, what-

[ Page 754 ]

ever they put in there is on their head. We will release it because it's a public document and that's it.

I must say that I did have the temptation for a moment to say, "O.K. Rip this part out." But I resisted it because there is that absolute necessity to be able to stand in this House and say, "I have not interfered in any way with that report or any other report." I didn't like the gratuitous comments myself, but nonetheless they were there. That's fine. I don't want to restrict consultants in any way.

The BCR report, Mr. Member — I have a copy here. I've learned that it came in last week. Rather than wait till this evening, I'll file it right now with the House. I did file the main part during the budget speech. I understand that that's the only copy we have. Is there another copy? We'll file both and then perhaps, while we're going through the estimates, with the permission of the Clerk…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, Hon. Mr. Premier. You cannot file documents when we're meeting as committee of the whole.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Could I move suspension of the rules with leave? Cannot suspend the rules in committee? O.K. I'll file it at the earliest possible opportunity.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: As soon as my salary goes through, says the Attorney General. (Laughter). He's picked up some bad habits from earlier experience, I must say.

The question of profit. It's quite right that the primary motivation of a public agency or public utility should not be one of profit. I have been concerned about the use of B.C. Rail essentially as an industrial route. Incidentally, people have said to me, "What are your qualifications for being president of a railway?" Well, I do have some qualifications. I spent a whole summer cooking and washing dishes. I must say that that's the most dramatic rise in the history of railroads; right out of the kitchen to president, with a few intervening years.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Thank goodness it's a government-owned railroad. Anyway, be that as it may, I've asked the railway to examine the whole area of passenger service.

In my opinion, passenger service on the B.C. Railway has been very poor. For those people who have had to use the B.C. Rail as access to services, the food services have been really pretty bad. There has been an upgrading since we came to office. Also, the use of the railway as a tourist expansion: as you know, I was successful in buying an old steam locomotive for $1 and we are seeking other locomotives. I've asked for a report on the whole concept of using the BCR as a tourist attraction in itself.

The kind of circuit routes, for example, that I've asked them to study is, for instance, a day trip on an old sternwheel paddler down the Fraser — getting on the BCR in North Vancouver, travelling up to Lillooet and then taking the bus over, coming down to Hope and taking the sternwheeler down. A one-day circle tour or a two-day circle tour. It would be a great tourist boon, I think, and let people have a good view of British Columbia. I don't see the railway as only an industrial railway. I see the tourist potential and also the service to passengers.

I have ordered a review of the auditing procedures of the railway. I hope that the report will in fairly soon. As I understand it, it's in the works now. The question of safety was a matter of concern when we were in Opposition. I asked for a report. I've received a preliminary report indicating that the locomotives the railway purchased were beyond the capacity of the men responsible for controlling them in terms of the kind of railway we have. So there has been a cutback on the power of those locomotives.

The rail upgrading has been a problem. It is a continuing process and they are upgrading the weight of the track. When we were in Opposition, and I'm sure the Member will remember, we received many briefs from the running trades on the railway expressing their concern about the weight of the steel. A decision was made before we came to office to change large sections of track with higher grade steel and that is continuing. I think that covers all your questions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Cariboo.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Mr. Chairman, I have a few observations to make on the vote for the Premier's salary. First of all, I might say we're pleased to see you have the two portfolios, where you always said you wouldn't have. I know, being in a more junior office, it's very nice to control the purse strings and keep control. That's what you'll be able to do by keeping both these portfolios.

We don't appreciate on this side, as we said before, the increase in taxes, really, for our political philosophy. It appears also that revenues are underestimated. I want to, though, make an observation about the Premier's salary. I don't really think that anybody in the province is that concerned about the Premier's salary. Certainly he should be well paid as the Premier of British Columbia and the Minister of Finance, because it's probably the largest, most responsible job in the province. Certainly if it were in the private enterprise sector, it would probably pay

[ Page 755 ]

even more than is recommended here.

One thing that I would like to observe, Mr. Chairman, is this. The salaries for the elected people have been computed on a basis of "catch-up", as I see it, at roughly 6.5 per cent per year. Of course, this applies to the Premier's salary as well as the MLA's and the other cabinet Ministers. The observation I have is that I think you're pulling a little steal here, Mr. Premier. Because you weren't Premier in 1971 and 1972. You're going to get the catch-up on the basis that you were the Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I voted for the foreman. (Laughter).

MR. FRASER: I think there's something there to be observed.

I'd like to now discuss the areas of jurisdiction for a moment, as I mentioned in my budget debate. I refer to the Public Utilities Commission as such. I could never understand, as I said earlier, why this administrative body is under the Minister of Finance.

I suggest to you, Mr. Premier, that this should be transferred administratively — certainly and definitely the motor carrier division of the PUC — to the commercial transport division. Because you have the citizens out there, as public carriers, quite confused. I think that we should be thinking of serving the public. Now they have to deal with so many jurisdictions.

As I said before, I think this transfer should take place to relieve the responsibilities to some degree of your office of Minister of Finance. The commercial transport is really the police department of the highways department. They do everything for the motor carriers.

We then have the motor carrier branch of the PUC controlling the rate structure of all public carriers, whether they be public or freight carriers. I can't see the sense to this at all, and I would like you to seriously give it some thought. You've had briefs from the industry on it since you've become Government. It seems to be a logical and sensible move to be made.

On the B.C.R., on which by the way I'd like to make an observation that I still don't like the name. I wish we had the old name. I get a real kick out of the people who discuss the BCR. For the information of the House, I've lived in Quesnel all my life. It was the termination of the railroad for many years. When I was younger, I've ridden the railroads from Quesnel to Squamish and then taken a cattle scow to come from Squamish to North Vancouver. Of course, I've seen what's happened in the last 20 years. Believe me, it is the main thing that has opened up the whole interior and north of this province.

When it was the PGE it had a lot of nicknames — "Please Go Easy," "Pigs Going East," "Prince George Eventually," and it was the laughing stock of the whole country. Now, of course, we don't hear any more of that. It's been built into a fairly modern and certainly very efficiently operated railroad.

I'm tickled to death to hear the Premier say here today that he has asked the railroad to look into the passenger service. There is a lot left to be desired in the passenger service, Mr. Premier. I congratulate you for having the management of the railroad look into this. I think there has been a feeling in the management of the railroad in the past to downgrade the passenger service in preference to the freight service, which is enormous, the business they have now. But I can tell you the people of the Cariboo — those in my riding and I'm sure those in the north — would support the passenger service if it was upgraded to a better quality than they presently give the general public.

I would like also to congratulate you — and by the way I don't want this to be an admiration society — on what appears to be your stance on supporting the citizens of British Columbia over Sukunka coal and that the BCR should haul that coal. I certainly think that the BCR should be given top priority and it appears you are giving it that; but as you well pointed out, most of the coal apparently is going to Europe and therefore it is the shorter distance to bring it.

I don't buy all this "gas" about how much damage it is going to do the ecology and environment of Howe Sound. There's been a lot of smoke caused about it but, as you well know, the proposal to haul this coal — if and when it ever happens — is in covered hopper cars and in silos when it gets down to be unloaded. I don't think in any way it will affect the environment of Howe Sound or I wouldn't say that.

While I am on the subject of BCR, I am still upset about the remarks made by the Hon. Member for Fort George (Mr. Nunweiler) the other day about insinuations about what is going on within that railroad. I happen to have a lot of respect for the management of that railroad. I want to ask the Premier, as the president, to please clear up the particular inference that was made regarding contracts let for construction of right-of-way extensions. I haven't the figures exactly in front of me, but different contractors were named, one in particular, where the contract was let for $5 million and they were eventually paid $11 million.

For the information of the House, Mr. Chairman, this is going on in government every day all the time, no matter who's government. I refer to highway contracts and so on. All the quantities are estimated by the staff, in the railroad in this case, or the highways department, The bidders are then asked to bid and the low bidder usually gets it. But they get into individual slide conditions and so on, and further yardage has to be moved. Certainly they're paid for

[ Page 756 ]

the additional yardage that was estimated, but based on the original bid per yard. I don't think it's cricket where a Member of this House gets up and infers the contractor got double what he bid. If he wants to go on, he should analyse all the contracts, because very few of the contracts let by the government — in the past or the future — will show that you can get off with paying the exact price of the original low tender that is awarded.

The other thing is about the roadbed. I'm fully aware of the roadbed of the BCR. It runs through my riding for a distance of 250 miles. I want to tell you they are continually upgrading the roadbed with heavier steel and so on. I would like to see them lay off a bit because I'll tell you, Mr. Chairman, every time they upgrade 10 miles of the roadbed in the Cariboo, they raise the level crossings on all the farms about two feet with new ballast and new track. Then the farmer can't get home. He gets locked on the tracks and he phones me at 2 o'clock in the morning and wants to know what I'm going to do about it.

I don't like the inference made by the Member that everything has gone to pot and this railroad is not being looked after. I want to say that they are upgrading all the time, not only last year, but during the last five or seven years. Quite frankly they have to with the amount of freight that that railroad is hauling out of the central and northern interior.

I think we've had enough on the BCR for now. There'll probably be another opportunity when maybe the management is also here.

I would also like in your office, Mr. Premier, to give serious consideration to opening the government offices, as I spoke earlier, during the lunch hour, again to give better service to the citizens of British Columbia.

Regarding your office as Minister of Finance in bringing in the budget, I am very concerned that possibly, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) doesn't understand the role of municipalities. I am not saying that critically, but they didn't come out very well in this budget. Actually their share of the budget this year is 3.3 per cent of the total while last year it was 3.6 per cent.

The per capita grant, I notice one of the Members even said that it should go to $36. Well, I'm not sure what it should be, but it certainly should be more than $32 to at least keep up with inflation. They have their problems in the municipalities with that, as well as all levels of government.

I am a little dubious of what I see going on about legislation — I know we can't discuss it — but when the legislation is finally passed, and I say this to you as the president of the council, Mr. Premier, than once the legislation is passed it delegates it to bodies outside of this House. I don't like to see that trend taking place in this government and Province of British Columbia.

One other thing and then I'll sit down for the time being. Again, you as the Minister of Finance, Mr. Premier — I think a lot of the citizens of this province, and certainly I am one, are concerned about no tender calls. Now it has happened already and a reason has been given. But I'd like to hear a statement from you as to whether you are going to continue the tender call basis or philosophy, or whether you're going to decide when the government wants something whether it will actually be tendered or not. I think this is a very bad departure.

I'm going to have a lot to say about the Purchasing Commission, the way they're operating. I'm not happy about that at all. I'll deal with specifications and so on, because in my opinion they're not calling their specifications properly and the public purse is not being served because of this.

Without any further ado, I hope that I have raised a few points of interest in this debate. Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for North Okanagan.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN: (North Okanagan): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to refer back to a statement made by the Premier earlier on the B.C. Railway. Other Members are speaking in terms of technicalities, which I don't intend to do. I sort of had a feeling he was filibustering his own estimates. Also, he took half my speech. But I do compliment him.

Looking at the B.C. Railway from the family point of view, I would suggest that there are railways all over the world today increasing their passenger service. While I don't agree with the Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) in his approach to subsidization of the railway service, I think from the industrial point of view that there is a real place in British Columbia to look at the passenger service on the B.C. Railway with the idea that it is going to have to be subsidized for many years.

I think if the railway undertook a number of accompanying factors that this would encourage its use. The obvious advantage to having the B.C. Railway used as a passenger service is to ease, even slightly, the heavy pressure on the highway from the north, particularly during the tourist season. Its potential I think during the winter season would be great if you would do a number of things.

First of all, I agree with you that the food — and this was always a pet project of mine when I was in Government — the food service was non-existent. Then it was improved slightly, but to my knowledge it still hasn't been improved enough. I think one of the areas to improve the food service, is to improve the attendant service and to make it very clear to people, particularly in the lower mainland, who are using the B.C. Railway as a passenger service, that it is

[ Page 757 ]

a long trip. In spite of the fact that they look at the map, I think mothers with children getting on the train don't realize that it can be anywhere from 8, 10, 12, 14 hours or overnight trip. To make this very clear, we should perhaps put out a little folder that explains fully what provisions are provided on the railway and also what they should be mindful of that isn't provided.

I would agree with the Premier, and I am glad he is taking it up, again I was going to bring it up, that much can be done to encourage the use of the B.C. Railway as an internal tourist attraction for our own people in British Columbia as well as for visitors coming to British. Columbia.

I think one of the things that you might do, as far as the railway itself is concerned, is use it as a means of summer employment for young people. It's a long trip. Perhaps there could be some entertainment on the railway itself by young people — I don't mean anything too formal — but I think a guitar or two would be entertaining to the children.

In company with this there could be a baby sitting service, or a mother assistance service to help mothers with young children — they're very hard to control on the railway. Perhaps if you ever get around to ordering new passenger cars, there might in fact be a very small play area for children that crawl. They're a major concern, I think — where there would be some carefully selected toys that they wouldn't hurt themselves with, but that would serve as a diversion for them from time to time. It wouldn't have to be very big, because they certainly wouldn't be in there all at the same time.

Another thing, Mr. Premier, does relate a bit to the tourist industry and the Minister of Tourism, but I think it should come under yours. He might use his good offices through the Tourist Advisory Association to encourage people in the tourist industry in the north to put together, through the B.C. Railway, three day or week package family programmes. I think that people hesitate to go to the north without their car because they don't know what's going to happen or how they're going to get here to there.

You could utilize all the forces of the free enterprise system certain motels putting on a programme, fishing programmes, and perhaps there's a little theatre such as at Fort St. John that is putting on summer programmes. This would be included in their package programme, but it wouldn't necessarily be so tight that they were running from spot to spot. I believe that this would encourage people from the lower mainland to go up and perhaps spend a week in the north. This would be good for the tourist industry there as well as being good for the people of British Columbia in the lower mainland to find out more about British Columbia.

I don't think this necessarily has to be in the summer months. With the new school system that the Minister of Education announced there's going to be a spring vacation period, and this might be a good time for a mother and her children to go north. She would venture to do this if she knew she wasn't going to be confronted with problems of transportation and what to do. I would ask the Premier to explore this.

Something that I think might be done to encourage people to use the passenger service in the winter time, as well as in the summer, would be to enter into dialogue with the Rent-a-car services, to see if they would not make available very low cost cars in Vancouver or in the lower mainland, so that when you come down on the railway there would be a bus service by the railway to the various hotels, but there would be an arrangement to pick up small cars like Volkswagens or Datsuns or Toyotas, so that you could use them roughly for a cost of $5 a day. This is really all that a business man needs or that a small family needs when they're in the lower mainland area. They don't need a great big expensive car. They could arrange this when they leave the north. It would be at the station for them and they'd know it would be about a maximum cost of $5 to $7 a day. I think this would encourage them to use the passenger service, more than it would their own car. In the long run it would probably be a good deal cheaper for them.

On that again, I know the plan that the Premier mentioned regarding the sternwheeler approach and the two day trip, and it was one I was interested in. I hope that he really will look into it. I think that we must do more of this in British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: Does anyone know where there's a sternwheeler?

MRS. JORDAN: Well we have one docked in Penticton. I don't know whether it could be re-floated. Yes, there is one if I can remember and I'll be glad to look into it. There's one in B.C., I think that is repairable.

AN HON. MEMBER: We looked at two at Whitehorse.

MRS. JORDAN: That's all I wish to say, Mr. Chairman, on this part. I hope the Premier has made note of some of these things. I know baby-sitting isn't important to the over-all economy of the province but it is important to the family.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am happy to rise in this debate. Some comments — it has been mentioned earlier that the

[ Page 758 ]

number of people employed in the Premier's office has increased, and I have no quarrel with the increase, inasmuch as I think it has been adequately explained by the Premier.

However, approximately half of the increase in expenditure in this Vote 2 deals with increases either in salary or travel of the Premier himself. I was wondering perhaps if the Premier would indicate how it was determined that he required extra from $23,000 up to $28,000, merely for purposes of the record.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) was in the House…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's the formula we passed in the previous House.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The formula passed in the previous House, the Premier mentions. So we can assume then that increases of this nature will be taking place on the same basis as — since the last increase to the Premier's salary. On the basis of a formula.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The formula was passed last session.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Then that will continue to operate in effect in future years.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Not necessarily.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'd just like to straighten our procedure. When you put your questions, would you put them all first and then let him rise and answer them in his place? Or one at a time as you wish, just so that we observe the rules.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I understand then that the increase of the $5,000 in salary is on the basis of that formula. The 50 per cent increase in travel expenses is, I believe, not calculated the same way. I may be wrong on this but, in any event, in a government happy to depart — and I quote their statement of policy — happy to depart from "acquisitive North American values," it strikes one as curious that 50 per cent of the increase under this vote, and there are 10 people involved in this area here, goes to the Premier's salary or his travel expenses.

Perhaps we are to continue to follow formulae arrived at by previous governments. It's clear that this has happened before, both in the way the budget was written, and in other matters, but at some time I expect the government to be announcing when it is going to get away from the previous practice and start living up to the words such as "departing from acquisitive North American values."

I'd like, at this time, to say one or two other words on the question of coal and royalties and transportation. First, if I understand the Premier correctly, he has indicated that there is no possibility of backing down from a Howe Sound port, because of previous decisions by the previous government. The Premier shakes his head so I will then proceed, as I apparently am wrong in that assumption. What I would like, Mr. Premier, is some explanation not only of the environmental aspects, but also of the economics of the two routes.

Articles have been written on this. We've been given, of course, a number of reports on the environment, but the economics are interesting. Friday's Province gave us an article by Norman Hacking, but it's quoting a transportation economist by the name of R.D. Chestnut. He's talking about the two routes. He says that the CN route is longer but better for a number of reasons. Mileage, he says, is not the critical factor. There is alignment, gradient and condition of track and, in the case of the single track lines, the length of passing sidings. "The CN route is superior in these factors,…and this means a lower capital cost for equipment and significantly lower operating costs thereafter." He indicates that the B.C. Railway would require four trains with 65 cars per train, totaling 260 cars and 17 locomotives. The Canadian National would require three trains, 85 cars per train, totaling 255 cars and 10 locomotives. The net capital saving is approximately $2.2 million, a difference for BCR of $11.6 million and CNR of $9.4 million. Therefore it does appear on the capital account there's an appreciable saving by delivering Sukunka coal to tidewater at Ridley Island, instead of delivering it by way of Howe Sound.

Comments were made, of course, about the curvature. Evidently 2 per cent as opposed to .5 per cent — four times the grade. Curvature of the track — BCR has 12 degrees of curvature and CN has 8, which means, of course, a great deal more wear on equipment.

The statement was made, Mr. Chairman, through you to the Premier, that the coal would be going to Great Britain, and therefore it would be shorter. But the difference in length of routes is dealt with, about 300 nautical miles shorter if you are going down to Panama and about 50 miles greater if you are going to the Far East.

Translated into cost — and this is the important thing because distance means little unless it is related to cost — this means Britannia has an advantage of about 20 cents per long ton on shipments to Europe and a disadvantage of about 25 cents per ton to Japan.

He goes on to say, "However, because of the other advantages this distance advantage is of no particular significance as to which port should be used."

The sum total of this economic study goes on to

[ Page 759 ]

point out that the rail transportation cost through Prince Rupert is probably 75 cents to 1 dollar cheaper per ton. In view of the fact that we in the province wish to take over royalties and we don't want any company to make too much profit on the export of a raw material, the difference means that that 75 cents or dollar a ton could go directly into provincial coffers. It would be an obvious increase in royalty.

If the present royalty is 25 cents and we can make a savings of anywhere from 75 cents to a dollar, obviously you can have the royalty increase four or five times what it presently is and yet the company would suffer no loss because essentially the savings would be in the transportation costs.

On this question of royalty — and I think it is important — the royalty may be set at 25 cents a ton, it may be set up at five dollars a ton. But if the province or the provincial taxpayer is somehow subsidizing the transportation of the coal in any other way, the royalty figure may be totally irrelevant. On the one hand, 50 cents, a dollar will be taken away in terms of royalty; on the other, the province will be slipping into B.C. Railway, somewhere along the line, perhaps half as much through some subsidy. The net result is that your royalty figures are simply irrelevant in terms of calculating the returns to the people from the exploitation of that particular resource.

Well, that is the economics of the question of port site. We haven't had a proper explanation of the economic analysis of the two port sites as yet in this debate and I request the Premier give it later. He's taking notes; I'm sure he will.

I don't guarantee that these views of this transportation economist are exactly correct. I don't know. There has been a great deal commented and written; perhaps the time has come now, as this debate as has developed along this line, for the Premier to lay out what the economic advantages are to the people of British Columbia as a whole — not just those living along the line — of having a southern delivery system.

After all, we know that there are two other coal ports within 40 miles of Britannia. It seems curious that we are putting a third port within 40 miles of the other two in the south when we have no port at all for delivery and export of coal in the north.

My own feeling is that in the process of decentralization of the Province of British Columbia there is a great deal that should be done and can be done in the north. In particular, in the northwestern area: Prince Rupert, Kitimat, Terrace. I feel that those people there are owed an explanation for this decision. The Premier has indicated that he was not bound by previous decisions of the former government. Therefore he must have made his own mind up to choose a southern route. As yet, we really haven't had an explanation as to why he chose it from an economic point of view.

The next area I would like to deal with just briefly is the environmental one. The question of environmental reports, which I've had a fair amount to do with in the last three years, is interesting. An environmental report is rarely, if ever, definitive.

I see the Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams) is looking up at this point. There are always the possibilities of new studies being done and the scientists, in their desire to be as precise and 100 per cent accurate as possible, are always calling for more time to deal with other aspects which they didn't discuss in their initial studies. They are always trying to follow up the leads which they come across when they are making their initial studies.

But in the case of the Rupert area there was a proposal by the CNR back, I believe, in 1970 — it may have been even earlier; perhaps in '71, but around that time — to set up a bulk loading port at Flora Bank, which the Premier referred to earlier.

Initial studies were done by the federal Department of the Environment at the request of the CNR, I believe, although it may have been the Department of Transport. I believe it was directly asked for by CNR and certain studies were made. These indicated pretty clearly that Flora Bank was a productive area; not a good area to put in a port. It also naturally led to an examination of the other nearby areas and some, indeed, some distance away.

These studies were continued and, if they ever terminated, I guess the date we could use is August 22 of this year. Although, as I mentioned, they never really have been terminated because there is talk of carrying on from there.

Anyway, in the summer of '71, a preliminary study was done and it was indicated that Flora Bank was not a desirable area.

Now I will comment a little further on this. The cursory study of 1971 was greatly expanded in 1972. The effort was to determine the utilization by fish of all the major bank areas and passages in the entire estuary and to hopefully define alternative site locations for boat loading facilities which would not have a negative impact.

This was done. Data was gathered and I'll quote from a memorandum that I know at least one Member of the Government has and I believe the Premier himself also has, where he goes on to say, "The data and samples gathered are currently being analyzed. Present indications are that area D is a major rearing area for juvenile chinook, chum and coho salmon while area C is predominately utilized by sockeyes and pinks. Area A, Ridley Island, was the least productive station of all the 28 stations."

This information confirmed the earlier work done in 1971 and I'll quote directly from this report. The Premier nodded his head, so he obviously has a copy too. It goes on to say, "The study was conducted just

[ Page 760 ]

about the same time as the National Harbours Board received the Wright Engineering report which recommended the utilization of Ridley Island for a bulkloading port and Fairview as a general cargo port. The utilization of Ridley Island as a bulkloading site would not, on the basis of our studies, appear to be inimical to the interests of fishery resource maintenance."

That is the type of work that has been going on in the area. It has been extensive over many years. True, the Premier is dead right in saying there is no conclusive report on this, but the information is available. While this conclusive report has not yet been bound, printed and put in his hands, this type of information was certainly available all this past fall and winter. It is the type of thing, if the Premier was not bound by previous decisions, was available to him if he requested it.

I find it curious that we are in this battle by way of Press statements between himself and the senior federal Minister for the province when it really isn't necessary. This type of work is being done. It's well-known. It was known years ago. I can remember when the Headland-Menzies report first came out. As a member of the federal British Columbia caucus we were very interested in the northern studies and the transportation potential. It was obvious at that time that the normal procedure would be for environmental studies to be done when anyone zeroed in on a particular port proposal.

So we have both on the economic side and on the environmental side a fair amount of information. Also a large number of questions.

The report of Mr. Paish, one that has been referred to earlier both by the Premier and by the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace), I think is correct in saying that the major objections to a coal port located in Squamish — he was referring to the earlier study — do not lie in the immediately quantifiable aspects of possible environmental damage. Rather, the main concern is that the scenic, aesthetic and recreational attributes of Howe Sound and the lifestyle associated with them will be impaired by further industrial development.

This is the point I think we should be zeroing in on. Do we or do we not want such development in Howe Sound. The Premier stated that this will be the last ever but this type of argument I have heard so often before especially when the environment is being considered. I tend to question it.

First, he might not always remain the Premier of the province and it may be that his successor may well have different views. Naturally, this possibility has not occurred to him so he feels willing to bind the government for all time. But not so long ago there was a change of government in this province and in some areas a change of policy, although many fewer than I expected.

It is a question that has to be looked at fairly carefully. If we want this thing to develop as a port we cannot simply assume that because the Premier says here and now it's only going to be one development there will be nothing following it. Let's remember that when that area was developed for copper no thought was then given to using it as a coal shipment port. The same type of development occurs once you have ships coming in and loading facilities. Of course the likelihood of an increase in traffic is fairly certain.

So this question must be considered. It really has not been considered yet, as people argue back and forward whether or not a report is a report, or whether or not a study is a report, or when is the study completed and things of that nature. There is information, regardless of what formal nature it has — information on economics and information on the environment.

I think it behooves the Premier, who has stated just in this House a short time ago that he was not bound by previous decisions, to face up to the fact that he has, if he easier for us in this party than it is for the official Opposition to put this point to the Premier.

I don't think that he was locked in to any previous decision. He has said that he wasn't locked in. Therefore, if both economics and the environment and aesthetics seem to indicate that there is a potential other route, I think we should know more about it. Certainly we should get more information than we've had today on this particular point.

Perhaps on this point, Mr. Chairman, of whether it should be Howe Sound or whether it should be the north of Ridley Island, I'll request a few answers from the Premier.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I'm never amazed at the presentations given by any Member in this House. I've been in Opposition and now I'm in Government. But I find it somewhat less than consistent, coming from that Member to rely on the memorandum he referred to as a basis for some kind of scientific decision to be made as an alternative to Prince Rupert.

I know the Member wouldn't purposely leave with this House the impression that that page-and-a-half memorandum is a sufficient scientific evaluation of Rupert and Ridley Island and Flora Bank. Because it isn't.

I think it should be made perfectly clear that I telegrammed Mr. Davis just last week, asking him for clarification of a statement that appeared in the newspaper a week ago today, that final reports were completed on Prince Rupert. To this date I have not received a reply to my telegram asking Mr. Davis for those final reports. All that we have is the memorandum that you refer to.

I tell you this: if the Member is telling this House in any way that he would make a decision based on that memorandum, then I think you damage the image that you're trying to create as a great ecology

[ Page 761 ]

protector. As a matter of fact, Mr. Member, for your information, there are many memoranda available, geared on preliminary studies, to indicate that the decision that's already been made is all right.

If you want a case in point, just examine the file I submitted to you, Mr. Chairman — the file on Squamish — when we arrived in office. There was an agreement between the federal government and our predecessors in office that the Squamish estuary was O.K. — not only in memoranda, but in letters directly from Davis, one of which was released by the mayor of Squamish dated last August.

So, please don't submit to me or to this House that in any way that page-and-a-half study that says "perhaps, maybe," is in any way a clearing statement for the ecology of Rupert. All right. Now, we do have a clear statement on the ecology of Britannia. That's a fact. Let's deal with facts.

No one is going to submit to this House — and I'm sure the Member didn't intend to — that that memorandum was somehow a clearance for Rupert. No complete environmental impact studies have been undertaken in Rupert, to my knowledge. There have been fisheries examinations and there have been conflicting statements from the Minister of the Environment, Mr. Davis, as to the results of those.

The two documents you refer to we have too. Everything else that we've done is also available publicly. We've rejected completely the Squamish estuary. That included the original site that was agreed to by Mr. Davis. It was agreed to by him, except that you move the loading facilities back 1,000 yards. Read the letter from Mr. Davis to the mayor of Squamish. Then we looked at the Mamquam Channel and then we said "no" to the Mamquam Channel.

So the Rupert situation, in terms of ecology, does not compare with the Britannia site. It's not an "either-or" situation, Mr. Member, through you, Mr. Chairman. It's not an "either Rupert gets the coal, or there's no port." That impression, unfortunately, may have been left with this House. There's a great deal more that can and will be shipped out of Rupert. There's a lot more to be said in terms of the kind of studies that must be properly done before the federal government makes a commitment to building a port in Rupert.

We're the government of all of British Columbia, not just Rupert or not just the Howe Sound. The aesthetics are just as important a matter in Rupert as they are in the lower mainland. But I also want to point out to you that the ecology is just as important in Rupert as it is in the lower mainland. Surely you're not suggesting out of that one memorandum that we make a decision that that area is safe.

"Work from that memorandum," the Member suggests. Well, where is it? We've asked the federal government for it. We've had two documents: one, the Flora Banks study that says, "No, no, no," and this memorandum. Secondly, the question of economics. The Member makes a case based on presumptions. He reads two newspaper clippings and asks questions based on presumptions out of those newspaper clippings. The economics are wrong that are suggested there.

I submit to you, Mr. Member, through you, Mr. Chairman, that the suggestions made by the authors of both, either the article or the report, differ from the information we have. There's not a difference of $2.5 million in capital. That's incorrect, just simply incorrect. The presumption is made that the CNR would be a cheaper travelling route. I submit to you that one of the factors that must be considered, if you're going to examine hard economics, is what I discussed earlier. That is that there is a back payment owing to the people of British Columbia of some minimum of $19 million plus interest, or a maximum of $27 million, that the facilities were paid by the taxpayers of the province in constructing that railway.

If you're going to look at it on that basis, then that is an economic factor too. That's an economic factor — that we're running a railroad and so is the federal government. We want to cooperate but why should the British Columbia taxpayer be used to subsidize the federal railway in terms of getting services to it, without the federal government having paid their proper share of developing the BCR? It's just as simple as that.

You say I sound just like Bennett? Well, I suggest to you that whether it is me or the former Premier, anyone who is president of that railroad has an obligation to ensure that the people of British Columbia have their fair return on their tax dollar. I make that very clear.

If the Member wants to put it off as an aside that I sound like my predecessor, it just so happens that on occasion your vote has been recorded — and so has my vote been recorded — in favour of certain government policies. Perhaps your vote will be recorded in the future in favour of some of the things we do, although that may be even more difficult for you. But the simple fact is that the former government did have a position that we think is correct. We're not going to alter it just because they were Social Credit and we're NDP. We happen to agree with that particular position that they had.

That's a matter of fact. I have no apology to make for that. There were times that we agreed. We agreed with a publicly-owned railroad. But that's not the factor. That's a conditioning matter. We've discussed ecology, the economics. Now we talk about the development of the north itself.

The whole thrust of the development of the north has been in the north-central area. This was an agreement that was reached between the former government here and the federal administration. But we're not bound by that agreement. There is a whole shift to the Pacific northwest that must be examined. We're in the midst of intimate discussions with the

[ Page 762 ]

federal government on an amiable basis — on a very friendly basis — on a review of the thrust of the economy in this province.

I must say that as a government we've abandoned the idea that it is a manifest destiny of the government to build to the north come hell or high water or another election. We have a whole region in this province that we can look on from a whole new framework. That framework is getting as much input from industry, from regional people and from the government in terms of the best development of the resources of the north and access to those resources.

I must say that I'm favourably impressed with the level of sincerity that both Mr. Jamieson and Mr. Marchand are bringing to those conversations, along with my colleague, the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams).

The question has not been finally made at Britannia, but we have completed all of the ecological studies. There is no question that the matter is now confined to an evaluation of the aesthetics. We will hold a public hearing and that's what will be discussed. I have said that if we go ahead we will develop the Britannia site, which is an old departed mine site — a blighted sore there now. We will redevelop that in terms of both an industrial and a recreational use, if we go ahead.

But on the basis of current information, I'm sure this Member would not like to leave, through you, Mr. Chairman, the impression that there is an opportunity to immediately go ahead on Rupert. Because there isn't. The vital ecological information is not in and is not available. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot fight for the ecology of one area and dismiss the ecological protection of another area.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for South Peace River.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to comment for a few minutes on the sales ability of our Premier this afternoon. He has been able to calm the House and smooth over the troubled waters. I don't know whether he put any Members to sleep or not because there aren't too many of his Government Members on their benches, but I can see when the chips are down and the Premier's salary is up for a vote that he certainly has the ability to come forward in this instance and really put everybody at ease and really lay everybody down. It's really nice. It's a fantastic performance, Mr. Premier. I want to commend you for that.

However… (Laughter).

Now we've heard from the president of the CNR this afternoon and we've heard from the president of British Columbia Railway. I've been able to stand here unbiasedly and assess the arguments of both of the presidents and I must say that I'll have a few words a little later in some of my comments on that particular subject.

Mr. Chairman, it's certainly an opportunity for me to be able to stand in this House this afternoon and make some constructive suggestions one of which, if adopted, Mr. Chairman, will arrest the slide, the downhill slide, that this province is taking towards economic disaster.

I hate to say that, after all the kindness that's been spread around the House this afternoon, Mr. Premier, but I think we have to do something. And you are certainly the man, as I intend to point out, Mr. Premier, who has to do something to save this province from complete economic collapse. If it keeps on going the way it is, that is exactly what is going to happen, Mr. Chairman. Make no mistake about that.

If just a few of the suggestions that I am going to put forward this afternoon are adopted — not all of them; just a few of them — we can at least arrest the trend that this province is taking.

We are standing here this afternoon in this chamber, Mr. Chairman, debating the spending estimates, the salary and the office and all the other costs that go with the top executive in the biggest business in British Columbia — the Premier and Minister of Finance.

Make no mistake about it, Mr. Chairman, and other Members of this Legislature, this is the man who makes the final decisions in this province. I want to establish that very firmly. Regardless of what the Premier says, he is the man who makes the final decision. He is the top executive. He is the man who runs the province, and he is also the man…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, your wife. I notice your wife up there; a very charming wife. She may have the say at home, Mr. Premier. I hope that she influences some control over you. I'm glad to see that she's here this afternoon, Mr. Premier, because I know that if you don't care to listen to me, your wise wife will. (Laughter). When you get home tonight she will say, "Mr. Premier…. (Laughter).

HON. MR. BARRETT: You're wrong already. (Laughter).

MR. PHILLIPS: She probably calls you "Dave", does she? She'll say, "Dave…."

HON. MR. BARRETT: Only in the good moments. (Laughter).

MR. PHILLIPS: She'll say, "Now you listen to that man from South Peace because he knows what

[ Page 763 ]

he is talking about. He has some good firm suggestions and you listen to him."

I know that she's going to listen to the suggestions I have, Mr. Premier, through you, Mr. Chairman. I'm glad she's here because I hope that she can talk some sense into you.

HON. MR. BARRETT: She's given up.

MR. PHILLIPS: As I said before, Mr. Chairman, this is the man that holds the purse strings in this province. I don't want anybody in this Legislature to get any other ideas.

The Premier has said, and it has been said, that he's no longer running the province. His cabinet Ministers run the province, and his cabinet Ministers run their own departments.

But I've noticed otherwise, Mr. Chairman. I've noticed that when something important comes up, anybody who wants to make any decisions on the British Columbia Railway or on the petroleum industry or the mining industry goes to see the Premier in his new suite that cost the taxpayers of this province $24,000 to renovate.

They get right into the executive suite. They don't get shuffled off to see any Minister and that's as it should be. I have no quarrel with that. The only thing I have a little bit of quarrel with, Mr. Chairman, is when a Member of the Opposition wants to see the Premier, the Premier says, "Go see my cabinet Minister. He runs that department."

HON. MR. BARRETT: Who wants to see me? Which one?

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, the problem is that when there is more than one department involved, it has to be the top executive in this province who makes the final decision. It has to be the top executive in this province who can pull his cabinet Ministers together if two of them are having an argument.

Supposing the Department of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources is saying one thing and the Department of Highways is saying something else and they can't get together to solve a pressing problem in this province, there's only one man, Mr. Chairman, who can pull these two together and make the final decision and that's the way it has to be. He has to accept this responsibility. That's the way it's got to be.

That's what I'm trying to establish. I don't want him to say that he's shuffling everything off on to the cabinet Ministers. Make no mistake about it, it isn't so. He's the man who controls this province. He's the man who makes the final decision — and if he doesn't, he shouldn't be where he is. I want to establish that very firmly. He's top executive. He controls the money. And in all fairness I want to say he's a bit of a dictator, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please,

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes. Certainly. I think that's in order. (Laughter). I certainly agree with you. And I think that's probably as it should be, Mr. Chairman.

If he's going to do an effective job he's got to be a little harsh, hasn't he, Mr. Chairman? Certainly he has. You know that. You'll find out in dealing with him, I'll …

MR. CHAIRMAN: I wonder if the Hon. Member means it in the most kindly way?

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes. Certainly. We're talking about the Premier and we're talking about how he should run the province. Right, Mr. Chairman?

The Premier also likes to travel a bit …

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance): How about quitting the personality stuff and getting on with the business of the House?

MR. PHILLIPS: I'll have you know, Mr. Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance, you spent the money in this province. You're in a portfolio that spends money.

HON. MR. COCKE: I'm a dictator.

MR. PHILLIPS: If you're going to spend the money you want to spend, Mr. Minister, I just suggest that you listen to my suggestions and maybe you'll have a little more money to spend. If the economy of this province doesn't continue to grow, you won't have all that money to spend on your health services. So you just let me continue on and maybe you'll learn something too. You maybe want to become Minister of Finance one day yourself. Instead of just spending the money you may have to learn what it takes to make money.

I would suggest, Mr. Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance, that you just sit quietly in your place and leave me be.

Now the Premier likes to travel, Mr. Chairman. I would like to think that if he's going to travel he's got to be a bit of a travelling salesman. I always feel that no matter whether you're in politics or business, you're still a salesman. You've got to sell your ideas. You've got to sell the ideas, isn't that right? The Premier acknowledges that. So he realizes, and let me establish that fact, fact number two: he realizes that to be an effective Premier of this province that he has to be a good salesman.

The Premier came out very shortly after being

[ Page 764 ]

elected Premier and he said, "We're going to have a new era of cooperation with Ottawa. No more of that damning Ottawa; no more of saying that they're not cooperating with us and that we're not getting our fair share. We're going to go down to Ottawa."

So he took a trip to Ottawa, Mr. Chairman. He travelled down there in great style and I sort of thought, "Well, it may be a new era and maybe he's going to get along with Pierre Elliott down there and things are going to…."

Madam Chairman, I'm pleased to see you in the chair.

(Ms. Young in the chair)

HON. MR. BARRETT: Don't look so pleased to see me on my feet. No favours.

MR. PHILLIPS: The Premier went down to Ottawa and it was fantastic. The Press coverage was just out of this world. You'd have really thought, Madam Chairman, that there was a new era in British Columbia. His friends down there in the CBC had him on nation-wide coverage so that all the people down there in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and all over this great nation of ours could see him.

He did a fantastic job really, you know. He smiled and he talked about a new era in Canada and a new era of cooperation and I'm telling you, he almost had me convinced. Madam Chairman, he almost had me convinced.

But then he came back and he said, "It's great, boy! Ottawa is a little out on their semantics," and he was talking about getting some cooperation in his new Mincome. He said, "Everything's great. They're going to look at it. The new era."

But then, after he's back a few days, lo and behold, Pierre Elliott came out and he said, "No way are we making any special deals." And I was disappointed because I thought when the Premier came back that he had everything all fixed up down there in Ottawa.

I'd like the Premier to comment on it because he sort of misled me. Maybe he didn't mislead the other people. I won't say he misled me, but how shall I phrase that? You sort of gave me the wrong impression? I thought that you were going to come back with some good news, because you went down there with such earnestness and you came back feeling great that you had made so many accomplishments.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: However, to date we have no signature. I would like to ask the Premier, did the Minister of Finance in Ottawa tell you, while you were down there, that he was going to increase the old age assistance in this budget? Now, that's a very good point, Ms. Chairwoman, a very good point. So that you, last October, could stand in this House and say what a great thing you were going to do and you were going to get Ottawa to do this and all the time you knew it was going to come out in the federal budget. I would like you to comment on that, Mr. Premier, when you stand after I have finished my short remarks.

He also went down to Ottawa to deal with the Columbia River Treaty. He dealt with Ottawa on the Skagit Valley. He went down to Washington to deal with the Governor of Washington on the oil tanker business. He was going to get Ottawa to increase its share of the social welfare programmes, and he has been dealing with Mr. Davis on the Squamish port.

I really, in all sincerity, cannot see that there has been a great deal of change in British Columbia's dealings with Ottawa, in spite of what the Premier said, in spite of the high-handed statements he made, and in spite of all of his good intentions. I cannot really see that you have made any progress whatsoever, Mr. Premier, and I would like you when you stand to make a few comments to tell me what progress we have made in dealing with Ottawa.

So far as I am concerned, the relations with Ottawa have not improved one single bit and I wonder why. I think you still have to accept the fact we are a "have" province. Ottawa realizes that, and they want to take all we have or as much as they can possibly get out of this province. No, as a salesman and as a traveler, Mr. Premier, you haven't really shown up that great so far.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, as a travelling salesman he hasn't shown up that great either. This is a disaster, because if you had exercised the same influence on the people in Ottawa and the people down in Washington as you have been able to exercise in this House this afternoon, I would suggest that you would have made a lot of progress.

Then the Premier takes off for Washington on another sales jaunt. He is going down and he is going to create a new era of cooperation between the State of Washington and British Columbia. I would like to point out to you, Mr. Premier, that if you are going to sell something, you keep a few cards under the table — you don't shoot your whole wad at once.

You go down to Washington and take your cabinet down, and you are supposedly going to try and delay or do away entirely with the shipment of oil down the British Columbia coast. What do you do? You tell the Governor down in Washington that, "Well, the shipment of oil from Alaska down to Washington is going to be inevitable." I would suggest, Mr. Premier, that you go to the bookstore and get a book on how to sell, because if that is the way you are going to handle the affairs of British Columbia, I don't know whether I'm going to vote on your salary or not. I think some improvements are needed.

I want to go back to what I established. You are the top executive in this province. You are the top

[ Page 765 ]

financial man in this province. You do make the financial decisions. You do all the negotiating, basically on a top level with all the other governments — Ottawa, State of Washington. Now you are going down to the capital of Washington. I would suggest, Mr. Premier, that if you are going to be the top executive, if you are going to deal on behalf of this great province of ours, you are going to have to sharpen up on your techniques.

Now I would like to discuss one other phase, Mr. Premier. If you are going to be the top executive in this province, you have got to be a diplomat. Do like you did this afternoon. You have been very diplomatic in the House — kept everything very calm. We'll vote your salary in without rippling the waters. You are going to have to be a diplomat when you deal with the business people in this province.

Last October, Mr. Premier, you said that you were going to have a "love feast." From the Vancouver Province October 14, 1972: "Premier David Barrett this week invited business from British Columbia and other places to what he calls a 'love feast'."

Well, I say that's some love feast and some love affair, because four months later nobody has reached a climax.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. PHILLIPS: No decisions have been made and you haven't sat down and had this love feast with business that you promised.

Mr. Premier, if you don't sit down and have this love feast — put any terminology, any nomenclature on it that you want, I don't care what you call it — I would suggest that you start making a few positive approaches to the business community. You haven't done it yet and, as I said a few moments ago, the economy of this province is on the downhill slide. All you have done to the business community is prove to them that you are going to take a big gluttonous salary yourself while 90,000 unemployed people live on the dole. That's exactly what it is.

Since you became Premier of this province, you haven't taken one positive step to arrest this increase in unemployment — not one positive step, Mr. Premier. There are 90,000 people on the soup line; they live on the state. I want to point out to you, Mr. Premier, what could be done with the dollars and cents that are being paid out in unemployment. Did you ever stop and think about that? While you condemn what you call bonanzas in natural resource industries, you haven't mentioned one thing about the union rip-offs in this province, about the money that is going out of this province to the United States of America. Isn't that a bonanza? Isn't that a rip-off? I haven't heard the Premier say anything about that. You are the chief executive officer in this province. I would suggest you give us some indication of what you plan to do about this rip-off.

If you are going to stand here in this House and talk about business rip-offs and resource rip-offs and resource bonanzas by companies that are doing business in this province, I would suggest that you give us some indication of what your comments and what your thoughts are on the union rip-offs. I would suggest that some of the elected Members in this new Government with the large salary increases they are taking could almost be termed as political rip-offs. It is a very serious matter because it is very inflationary and the example is not being set for business or for industry or for the working man in this province.

AN HON. MEMBER: What did you make last year?

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you accepting your raise?

MR. PHILLIPS: How has the Premier been at keeping his promises? I would like, for just a few minutes, to mention a few of the promises the Premier made to this province before he became Premier. I'm talking about one of the most important matters in this province today, unemployment. The Premier, on July 24, 1972, was talking about what he considered the most important, economic problem in this…

I wish you would move your mike down, Mr. Premier, I can't look at you. I have to have contact with you — I can't see. Would you move your mike down please? That's better.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I want to thank the Member for the compliment.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I do like to have contact with man on whose salary I'm voting. Would you please put that speaker down. I'm serious. As a favour to the Member from South Peace, would you put that speaker down. It gets in my way.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Does it really hide you?

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, you're hiding behind it and I can't have contact with you.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, I want to thank you.

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you very much, Mr. Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Some people say that I'm portly.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Premier, on July 24, 1972, you said, and I'm quoting you, "Jobs will be the most

[ Page 766 ]

important election issue.' Opposition leader" — at that time, Mr. Premier, you were Opposition leader — "David Barrett" July 24. I want you to put that in the back of your mind for just a moment.

Then again, further back in history, September 24, 1971 — and we're talking about unemployment again, Mr. Premier — "NDP leader Dave Barrett called Wednesday for the provincial government to put $75 million into a winter works programme in B.C. municipalities." Quoted in the Vancouver Province September 24, 1971. The government must lay out its plans to deal with unemployment, he insinuated, and he said, "If the money isn't there, go borrow the money."

The unemployment rate on September 24, 1971, Mr. Premier, was nowhere near what it is today. I suggest that you either eat your words or that you take $75 million out of the finances of this province and put them into spring employment. Winter is just about gone, but spring is coming.

Interjection by an Hon. member.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'll talk about the winter works programme in just a moment.

Now let's go in history to just recently and see what the top executive officer in this province had to say about unemployment on January 9, 1973. He says, "To date I have not had a response from the Prime Minister. However, I expect action shortly." That was on January 9. Today is February 26. I don't know whether you'd call that "shortly" or not.

"We haven't had any injection of all of those federal funds, " he said, "the $37 million. We just didn't receive the money in time."

The Premier was down to Ottawa last fall. The Premier knew that it was going to be a heavy unemployment winter. Did the Premier, while in Ottawa, discuss unemployment with the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Turner) while in Ottawa? Did the Premier think ahead to what is happening today? Did he make any plans? I'm afraid not. And it bothers me, Ms. Chairwoman, that the Premier, the top executive officer, the man who controls the finances in this province, was not able to see what was going to happen this winter. He sure had lots of vision when he was in Opposition. He knew years ahead what was going to happen. But now that he has the responsibility of his office, his vision seems to be narrowed down somewhat. And I'm concerned for the unemployed in this province.

Today is February 26, 1973. There are over 90,000 people unemployed. Unemployment in December was 79,000 people; 85,000 in January, over 90,000 in February. I would hope that before the Premier gets his salary voted on that he stands in this Legislature and tells us where we're going. Because, as I said before, if we continue on this downhill slide, if we continue on this uphill climb so far as unemployment is concerned, I fear for the very economy of the Province of British Columbia.

Will we have a return to the 1930's where the investments will be lost; where everybody will be in the soup line; where farmers will lose their farms; where businesses will go broke? Mr. Premier, you owe it to the people of this province to tell us what you're going to do. You have the answers…

MS. CHAIRWOMAN: Hon. Member, kindly address your remarks to the Chair, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'd be most happy to address my remarks to you, Ms. Chairwoman, and through you, Ms. Chairwoman, I would like to ask the Premier what he is going to do. What concrete steps are you going to take? Because if you're not going to explain to me what you're going to do, Mr. Premier, I'm not going to be able to vote on your salary.

Mr. Premier, you have stood in this House since August 30, you and Minister of Industrial Development, Trade, and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) and said, "Oh, everything's going along fine. We're going to have another good year." I wonder if we are going to have another good year. I certainly don't want to frighten the business people in the province, but I do want to point out some facts to you, Mr. Premier. If we don't do something this year of 1973 will be a disastrous year for the Province of British Columbia. The decisions that you make during this session, while unrolling your economic programme, are going to affect the province not only in 1973, Mr. Premier, but are going to affect the province for the next decade.

If we don't want to be in the same position as the have-not provinces, where we're going to Ottawa begging for more money, you'd better do something and you'd better do it fast, Mr. Premier.

Twelve months ago you had lots of ideas. Let's hear some of them here today.

Mr. Premier, you called for the spending of $75 million in winter works. You said, "If it isn't there, go borrow it." Well I'm going to give you some suggestions where I don't think you'll have to borrow $75 million and I don't think you'll have to spend $75 million on, as you have said, a "quick-create-job-now" situation. I'm going to lay out a few suggestions for you, Mr. Premier, as I said I would when I stood here. I would like you to weigh each one of them, because they are good suggestions and they will affect the economy of this province. They will arrest this decline and they will set it going up again.

You have said, and I agree with you, that, "We don't want employment at any cost; we don't want to give away our resources." However, I don't think we should have unemployment at any cost either. There must be a levelling out, Mr. Premier.

[ Page 767 ]

While confronted with a no confidence motion on this very subject in the throne speech debate, Ms. Chairwoman, all the Premier could say that he was going to do to change the economy of this province was to build a merchant marine fleet. I listened with awe to that speech, Ms. Chairwoman. If the Premier wants to create employment in this province by building a merchant marine fleet, I suggest he get with it. But I suggest that that alone is not going to solve the problem.

If you want to solve some of the problems, Mr. Premier, of unemployment in this province, I would suggest that you call to your offices, not after the session is over, not a month from now, but immediately, call in the mining executives, call the mining industry into your executive suite and sit down and discuss things with them now. Tell them what you're going to do.

Mr. Premier, you know and I know and all of the Members in this House know what there is definitely a cold war between the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) and the mining executives of this province. This has created, Mr. Premier, and deep in your heart you know — I'll give you intelligence enough for knowing — that you know nothing is happening right now in the mining industry. If the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources were as conscientious as he should be in that very important portfolio, he would tell you how many mining claims have been deserted. He would tell you how much exploration has been stopped. He would tell you how mining companies have walked away from proposed mine sites.

Mining, particularly the exploration of mining, is a labour-intensive industry. I'm just asking you, Mr. Premier, for the good of this province, for the good of the mining industry and for the good of your own government, to call these mining executives into your executive suite and sit down and in an intelligent, calm manner, Mr. Premier, discuss the issues of the day.

Never mind telling them that you're not going to rip-off the minerals of this province. Forget about your socialist theories. Forget about your ideology. Sit down as a businessman and talk to these mining executives in a businesslike manner.

So far as I am concerned, the way you have been communicating with them is on the floor of this House and in the newspaper, by saying, "You're not going to rip-off our minerals, No longer are you going to desecrate the province. No longer are you going to rip it up." The mining industry plays a very large role in the economy of this province.

We are building the British Columbia Railway up to Dease Lake. Why? What is that going to do — what are we going to haul out on that railway, Mr. Premier? One of the purposes of building that railway to Dease Lake is to tap the vast resources of that area. I've stood in this House before, and I'll say it again, behind the Alaska panhandle there's probably more known minerals than anywhere else in the free world.

Mr. Premier, I appreciate you standing in this House saying that the minerals won't rot. Years from now, the minerals will be there, but in the meantime, 90,000 people in this province go unemployed — 90,000 people go unemployed. Is that wasting a resource, Mr. Premier? What about that resource? Which is more important, the resource in the ground or the human resource? You're talking about being a government for people. I would suggest that those 90,000 people who are unemployed are a resource. They are people. If you're interested in them, get on the phone tomorrow or get your executive on the phone, Mr. Premier. Call in the mining executives and say, "O.K., let's cut out this cold war. Let's have a peace. I'll tell you what we want. You tell me whether you can live with it or not." Because right now, Mr. Premier, there is uncertainty, and that uncertainty is one of the crucial things in the unemployment of this province, Mr. Premier.

If you really want to do something, and if you really want to exercise your top executive position in the way it should be exercised, as Minister of Finance, as top executive in this province, you will call these people in, and call in your Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Nimsick), and have a meeting in your executive suite, and tell them what you're going to charge them. Then if they can't live with it, they'll tell you. Do it in a business like manner, instead of doing business with them over the television, radio and through the newspapers, and on the floor of this House. Now that, Mr. Premier, is a concrete suggestion. That, if carried out, and you put some warm air on the freeze that you have with the mining industry, will help to alleviate the unemployment in this province.

You know it, Mr. Premier, and I hate to lecture to you like this, I really do. But I've asked you before. I asked you last October. I asked you during the throne speech. I asked you during the budget speech, and you still haven't done anything. So now you get right down to the nitty-gritty, where you want some money yourself, and I have to bring it up again, and I hate to lecture to you, I really do.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's a broken record. Listen to this guy.

(Mr. Dent in the chair)

MR. PHILLIPS: Get some new mining developments underway. Get some exploration underway. Make some concrete proposals. I'll leave that with you as Number One.

Before I leave it, there is one other thing I want to say, Mr. Premier, and that is if you do get the mining industry back on the road again, and I'm not telling how much to charge for your minerals, or how much

[ Page 768 ]

to charge for your ores, but make a deal with them. Make a concrete deal. Then get on with the job of developing Prince Rupert and negotiating with Ottawa, because we're going to need it, and we're going to need the port of Stewart too. Negotiate with the federal government and get the CNR lines extended and get that area opened up, because that way, Mr. Premier, you can alleviate some of the unemployment situation in this province, and you can make some concrete proposals that will affect the economy of this province for the next decade.

Now, item Number Two, Mr. Premier. In spite of what you said on the floor of the House just recently about the petroleum industry, I think that you owe it to the people of this province, and you owe it to the people in the area where the petroleum industry is, to call the executives of the petroleum industry into your office, because, Mr. Premier, there are jobs being lost in the petroleum industry, regardless of the statistics you want to give me.

I was somewhat dumbfounded when you stood in the House the other day, Mr. Premier, and accused the Members on this side of the House of using cheap politics when we were sincere in standing before this Legislature, which is our job, talking for the people in our constituency, talking for the unemployed. Mr. Premier, you're the top executive in this province, and as I pointed out you must use restraint. You must be condescending. You must know. You must look into all avenues. If you're going to be a good Premier, you shouldn't stand on the floor of this Legislature and accuse Members, who are doing their jobs conscientiously, backed up by facts that they have from their ridings, of playing cheap politics, Mr. Premier. I was dumbfounded. Mr. Premier, I was really flabbergasted. I was disappointed in you, Mr. Premier, I was disappointed, because I know you didn't really mean it. Did you, Mr. Premier?

HON. MR. BARRETT: You're just saying that.

MR. PHILLIPS: If you didn't mean it, then call those oil executives into your office tomorrow. Why should they pay 30 per cent in British Columbia, when they can get it for 22 per cent in Alberta? As I pointed out when I spoke in the budget debate, it's much easier to do the survey to find the oil in the first place in Alberta than it is in the Peace River area. All of the exploration must be carried on in winter. That's item Number Two, Mr. Premier. Get hold of the mining industry. Get hold of the executives of the oil and petroleum industry. Call them into your new executive suite and sit down and talk like a businessman, because if you don't, Mr. Premier, I fear to think of what the statistics for the unemployment will be next month. And I fear for you. Maybe that's why you're getting your salary vote through today, because if you wait until the new statistics come out, Mr. Premier, we might be here all summer.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I don't think anything's going to prevent that.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Premier, I've talked about two very important industries, and when I say there's an air of uncertainty, you know that.

Now I want to talk about a third one, and also a very important one. I want to talk about the forest industry. I hate to use an old cliché, but I think that there's a little bit of a cold war between you, Mr. Premier, and I'll say you, not your Ministry, you. You are the one who has said that we're going to get more money out of the forest industry. But the thing boils right down, Mr. Premier, to how much more money? These are business men. They want to know, because in the meantime, while this air of uncertainty is about the province, is about the forest industry, is about the mining industry, is about the oil industry, nobody is moving ahead. Investments that could be made in the forest industry in new plans and capital investment to create new jobs, are not going ahead, Mr. Premier. You know they are not going ahead.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well there goes the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke), and I want to tell you, Mr. Minister of Health, that you'll need a lot more than the budget you got in this estimate if 90,000 people continue to be unemployed, because there is nothing harder on a man who wants a job, on his whole outlook on life, on his well-being, and on his thoughts, than being unemployed. You'll need more psychiatric wards than you've got now if you don't put these people to work.

HON. MR. COCKE: I'm convinced of that this afternoon. (Laughter).

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I can appreciate the Minister's remarks, and if you haven't got the intelligence to listen to what I am saying, and to take it constructively, well that's your problem.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Proceed with your comments please.

MR. PHILLIPS: Certainly, through you, Mr. Chairman. To hear the Premier talk in this Legislature, you would think that he was the only man that ever stood up to the petroleum industry. I want to remind the Premier of the mid-50's, when the then Premier of this province (Hon. Mr. Bennett) said to the oil companies, "You build that pipeline through British Columbia, or I'll take that oil to the refineries at the coast on our railroad." Do you remember that, Mr.

[ Page 769 ]

Premier?

You would think that the previous administration opened their arms and let the petroleum industry come in and walk away with the whole province. Not so! Not so at all. Things have changed a lot since the petroleum industry started in the Peace River area in 1952.

As I said in this House before and I'll say in this House again, certainly some contracts need to be re-negotiated, but that is the crux of the whole situation, Mr. Premier, they need to be negotiated. Not laws laid down by you without proper negotiation. Sit down and discuss it.

If you want to be so hard on the petroleum industry, if you really want to do something for employment in this province, Mr. Premier, tell all the people who were working on the gas wells in the Monkman Pass that they've got to live in British Columbia. If they're going to develop our resources in the Province of British Columbia, go and tell them that they've got to live in British Columbia, that they've got to take their salary home to British Columbia, and then build them a road.

You're talking about how you're going to lay down the law to the mining industry, and you're going to lay down the law to the petroleum industry. Lay down the law to those hundreds of people who were working on that gas development in Monkman Pass. Go up there and tell them that they've got to live in British Columbia, instead of buying their supplies in Alberta and taking their pay cheques back to Alberta. Sit down and discuss that with them, Mr. Premier. I'd like to hear your remarks on that.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Who held up the Fort Simpson road?

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm going to get to that area of the province in just a moment. And don't accuse me of not standing in this House and fighting for the Fort Simpson road. Who was the first Member in this Legislature who suggested the Fort Simpson road?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would you get back to the point of your discussion please, Mr. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, Mr. Chairman. We're discussing the chief executive's salary here and we're talking about unemployment. I'm just suggesting to him that if he wants to get some more people, get some more payroll — you're losing all that income tax too, with all that salary that's going out. You're not getting it.

AN HON. MEMBER: We've got the Fort Simpson road now.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm talking about the Monkman Pass. Don't try to shadow the issue because I'm coming up to that area.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You're the one who's shadowing the issue.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, I'm not shadowing anything. I told you last fall that you should build a road to that Monkman Pass so that British Columbia could reap the benefits of the development of that area. Certainly I did.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Do you know what's going on there today?

MR. PHILLIPS: You know…and your Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) stood up and said, "Oh, the situation has been there for 20 years." You're no longer in Opposition. You are now the chief executive officer of this province. You make the decisions and you make them based on what is happening today, not what has happened 20 years ago.

You must realize, Mr. Premier, that things change on a daily basis. New things are found. New situations develop. That is one of the necessities of the top executive man in this province — that he can make these decisions and make them on today's situation — not on what happened 20 years ago; not on some ideology that was brought out of the Regina Manifesto. This is 1973 in British Columbia, Mr. Premier. Well, I hope that 1974 doesn't have the same high unemployment figures that 1973 has, Mr. Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Macdonald).

Now, item No. 4: if you really want to do something for the province and create employment, I suggest that you take another trip down to Ottawa and start some negotiations immediately for the paving of the Alaska highway. I'm not going to go into all the ramifications of what this would do to the tourist industry. And I'm not going to listen to your Member for Atlin (Hon. Mr. Calder) when he says that all of the traffic is going to go up through the Stewart-Cassiar road.

Paving of that highway would be good for the entire Province of British Columbia. It would be one of the greatest tourist booms. The other thing is that regardless of where that oil comes out of Alaska, Mr. Premier — regardless of how it comes out of Alaska, whether it goes by tanker, whether it goes down the Mackenzie delta — the State of Alaska is going to have a boom. Eighty per cent of the people in this North American continent live on the eastern side of the Rocky Mountains — 90 per cent of the manufacturers. Regardless of how you look at it, when Alaska is in a boom situation, the traffic over that highway is going to be in a boom situation too.

[ Page 770 ]

I don't have to tell you about the natural resources along the Alaska highway or how the Alaska highway has opened up the economy of that country. I don't have to tell you that, Mr. Premier, because you know that. But not only would the actual upgrading and paving of the highway create employment, but the economic boom that would follow this in the construction of new tourist facilities, new roads going off into the west and into the mountains — and if you look, there are very few roads off the Alaska highway — it would create employment beyond your wildest imaginations, Mr. Premier. Take another trip to Ottawa.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, Mr. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just a point of order. That is that I would request that you relate this to the estimates that are before us. I believe that you'll have an opportunity to canvass the matter of highway construction during the estimates for the highways department. I would request that you keep this as relevant as possible.

MR. PHILLIPS: I happen to be discussing, Mr. Chairman, economic policies and the spending of money. If he isn't the Minister of Finance, I don't know who he is. I established that fact here on page 1 and I thought you were in the House and listening to me. That's why I went to all that trouble to establish that fact — that he is the top executive. He is the Minister of Finance, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I don't wish to enter into a debate with you. I'm just making the point that you should keep it as relevant as…

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I hope not. I'm having enough trouble debating with him. I don't want to take you on.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I'm sorry. I withdraw that remark.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would request that you keep it as relevant as possible.

MR. PHILLIPS: I will, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate your bringing the matter to my attention.

Spending of money; take a trip to Ottawa; negotiate with Ottawa; get the economy moving and create unemployment — I mean "create employment." (Laughter).

Item No. 5, Mr. Chairman: get busy and extend that British Columbia Railway into Nelson Forks immediately. Time is of essence. All we've been hearing about lately is the energy crisis. New finds are taking place in the Mackenzie delta every day — new discoveries of gas and new discoveries of oil. New mines in the Yukon are being discovered every day. As I said previously, the oil boom in Alaska waits to be developed.

If you build the railway to Nelson Forks, Mr. Premier, you will again create employment. Then you'll be able to barge all of these supplies up the Liard River, Mr. Premier, from Fort Nelson and up into the Mackenzie basin. That area is going to go through one of the greatest economic expansions anywhere in the world in this decade, Mr. Premier.

Regardless of what you say, you have no control over the minerals, over the oil, over the gas in the Mackenzie delta. The United States has got to have those hydrocarbons from the north slope of Alaska. This railway could play a very, very important part in the role of developing that north slope and in the role of developing the Mackenzie delta — your own British Columbia Railway. Provide employment for people.

This, Mr. Premier, is a decision that if you make here today or tomorrow to proceed with, it will help those unemployment figures almost immediately by creating jobs and will upgrade the economy of this province for the next decade. You will go down in history as one of the greatest Premiers in the province. Wouldn't you like us to say that some day, Mr. Premier?

We don't want to ask for your day in this House as done. You've already told us you're only going to run for two terms. We don't want to ask you. We know you'll never be defeated. You'll just walk out — "Thank you, I've served." That's what you said — only going to run for two terms. When you walk out of this House we want to say, "There was a man who was interested in the unemployed, who was interested in our greatest natural resource — the people in this province." That's what we want to be able to say about you, Mr. Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: What are you saying now?

MR. PHILLIPS: Now, item No. 6: this is a very important and a very ticklish problem. As you well know, Mr. Premier, there are jobs waiting in the interior of this province. Yet there are people who could fill those jobs on unemployment in the City of Vancouver and in other parts of the lower mainland. How, Mr. Premier, are you going to entice, talk into, cajole, sell, get these people who are unemployed in the lower mainland and living in that great climatic area — how are you going to talk those people into going into the rural areas, into the hinterland, to take up these jobs that are awaiting?

Women are working in the sawmills in the interior.

[ Page 771 ]

I've nothing against women working in sawmills and I've nothing against women seeking employment. But some of those jobs in sawmills, Mr. Premier, would be done much better by some strapping young man who at present may be on the dole in Vancouver, than by some housewife in Lillooet.

I would suggest, Mr. Premier, that if you have to give them some northern cost of living, if you have to provide some transportation, if you have to give them some incentive money-wise to go up and take those jobs, it would be far better than having them on unemployment. Do you not agree, Mr. Premier?

I would suggest, Mr. Premier, that you think of how you can solve this problem. Because you know and I know and the people in the interior of the province know there are people up there — sawmills and service industries — who are begging for people to come work for them. Yet you know and I know and everybody else in the province knows, Mr. Premier, that there are young men, married men, in Vancouver and the lower mainland area who are presently on unemployment. Because they don't have a job right in their own backyard, they remain on unemployment. I suggest, Mr. Premier, and I mean this…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would you please address the Chair rather than the Premier?

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I would suggest that you tell the Premier that he should make another trip down to Ottawa and that he should talk with the Minister of Labour down there. He should point out the amount of money that is being lost by paying these people unemployment. And you should come up with some concrete plan to move some of these unemployed out of the lower mainland area, Mr. Chairman. Do you agree with me? I'm sure that in your riding there are service industries and mills that are waiting and begging for people to work for them. Right, Mr. Chairman? Let's do something.

Mr. Premier, just to remind you again of what I'd like you to do to alleviate the unemployment situation — call in the executives of the mining industry tomorrow morning; sit down and negotiate with them in a businesslike manner. Show some of the expertise that you have used in this House this afternoon while getting the Members to vote on your estimates. Use some of that expertise. Use some of that sales ability in talking to the top executives of the mining industry. And get that highly employment-intensive industry back on the progressive road. Get it moving again. Eliminate the cold war.

Do the same with the petroleum industry. Find out what their problems are. Surely to goodness, Mr. Premier, if we're still continuing to get wires stating that — and I'm not going to mention any names — "the proposed royalty increases be moderated so as not to have a stifling effect on future oil and gas development in your province," I'm just saying that it's very well and good for you to stand in this House and say that everything is okay.

You know, Mr. Premier, everything isn't okay. I know everything isn't okay. The only way you're going to solve the problem, Mr. Premier, is to bring those executives into your newly-renovated suite and talk to them like businessmen. Get this problem solved and get it solved now. We can't stand any more unemployment. That's item No. 2. I'll give you two days to do that — one for the mining industry and one for the petroleum industry.

Get down to Ottawa and start negotiations to pave the Alaska highway. Talk to those oil people that are developing the Monkman Pass gas field and tell them to live in British Columbia if they're going to work on the resources in British Columbia, Mr. Chairman. Get together with your railway executives, the president and yourself, and get some concrete proposals going to extend that railway from Fort Nelson to Nelson Forks. And negotiate somehow with Ottawa to get some of the unemployed of the lower mainland moved up into the interior.

Now those are good, concrete proposals, Mr. Premier, proposals that will do something to arrest the decline of the economic situation here in British Columbia; that will do something to arrest the increasing numbers of unemployed in this province.

Mr. Premier, as I said, I would hope that when you talk after I finish in explaining what you'd like to do or what the situation is on some of these problems, that you won't stand here and accuse me of trying to be political. I'm trying to be helpful, Mr. Premier. I'm trying to be constructive. You know there's a problem. I know there's a problem. Maybe my ideas aren't perfect, but if they're not perfect you can perfect them. You're the top executive in this province, Mr. Premier. You've got to devote some attention to perfecting these ideas, to doing something and doing it now.

If you don't, Mr. Premier, I would suggest that we don't give you a pay raise; that we decrease your salary. And I mean that sincerely too, Mr. Premier, because this is a very serious problem.

I want to remind you, Mr. Premier, that when I stand in this House as a member of the official Opposition, that I represent 60 per cent of the voters in this province.

AN. HON. MEMBER: How do you get that?

AN HON. MEMBER: All by yourself?

MR. PHILLIPS: No, no, I said as the official Opposition. We recognize the other groups down here. Don't you consider yourselves part of the Opposition? I wonder about the Tories, the way they

[ Page 772 ]

stand in this House and placard the Government and say how great they are. I sometimes wonder if they're part of the Opposition or whether they're part of the Government. Why don't they move over there?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: What I am saying is that 60 per cent of the people in this province didn't vote for the Government. They voted for Opposition parties.

I also want you to think about this, Mr. Premier: A lot of people didn't even vote at all. You know why?

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you talking about your area?

MR. PHILLIPS: No, I'm talking about the whole province now. You talk about your own constituency when you have your opportunity. I wonder how many of the Government Members are going to stand on their feet in this debate on their new…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Mr. Member, would you get back to your extemporaneous comments on the estimates?

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, Mr. Chairman. We're talking about employment and I'm talking about those people who didn't vote who may be unemployed. Those people didn't vote because they thought things were going to be all right in this province. They didn't expect the unemployment figures to grow daily. Or I'm sure they would have got out and voted, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like, when the Premier is making his decisions and he realizes that maybe he really doesn't represent even 40 per cent…because if you took all the people who didn't vote, I wonder what percentage actually did vote. You should take this into consideration, Mr. Premier, when you talk to your cabinet. At your convention you ought to point out to them that you haven't got the solid mandate that you thought you had.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's shrinking all the time.

MR. PHILLIPS: Everyone would think a great deal more of the Premier if he would tell us what he is going to do to solve the unemployment situation. When are you going to get your industrial development corporation off the ground? You have said and your Minister of Industrial Development, Trade, and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) has said that you are going to have an industrial development corporation. Well I suggest that it be done now. Why wait for spring? Why wait for spring to hire back those Department of Highways people? Do it now. The crisis is now, Mr. Premier.

You're bringing up the Attorney General's (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) estimates next, Development, Trade, and Commerce, bring up his estimates before the Attorney General's? Development, Trade, and Commerce, bring up his estimates before the Attorney General's? That is the timely subject. That is what should be debated now.

Unemployment is the issue now, Mr. Premier. Unemployment, Mr. Premier, is far more important to the people of British Columbia than car insurance. You should have put the effort, Mr. Chairman, the Premier should have put the effort into developing an industrial development corporation that he put into the Car Insurance Act — all of the efforts of hauling in specialists from all over everywhere. That effort should have been put into solving the unemployment issue in this province. I would suggest that if you haven't got the answers, Mr. Premier, Mr. Chairman, that he call in some executives.

I can't talk about an Act that the Opposition brought in to create an industrial development corporation. It's a well-written Act. It would do something, wouldn't it, Mr. Chairman. If the Premier would adopt it it would do something to alleviate, because it would get small business enterprises going right now and create employment, Mr. Premier.

Mr. Premier, spend some money on computers to solve the unemployment issue.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, now honestly! Computers are being used for economic forecasts. I can't see anything wrong with that, Mr. Minister of Health. I'm sure that you're putting some computers into your department. Computers are used in all business areas by large companies in North America to make forecasts. So what is so all-founded funny about the biggest business in British Columbia putting in a computer to forecast what is going to happen and where this province is going to go economy-wise? You're the Minister of…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would you get back to your point in regard to the Premier's estimates?

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm talking about spending money. It costs a lot of money. It costs a lot of money to buy a computer, Mr. Chairman. But it also might save this province a lot of money in the long run. Any large corporation in North America uses computers for forecasts, for sales figures, for employment, for trends. They do studies, they feed the information into their computers, and they know where they're going. I suggest that it is time that the Department of Industrial Development, Trade, and

[ Page 773 ]

Commerce decided where it is going.

I know where it's going right now, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We are considering the Premier's estimates, not the estimates of the Department of Industrial Development, Trade, and Commerce.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your remarks. I…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you be seated please until I complete my remarks? Just be seated.

MR. PHILLIPS: Can I get up again if I sit down? (Laughter).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. Sit down.

MR. PHILLIPS: He's just giving us a rest.

MR. CHAIRMAN: When I am making a point of order, I would appreciate it if I was not interrupted by the Hon. Member. The point I was making was that we are considering the Premier's estimates. I have requested several times that you confine your comments to these estimates. You drift away from time to time. I would just call on you once again, as you continue your remarks, to keep them relevant to the Premier's estimates.

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I'll certainly endeavour to follow your suggestions.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I want to talk about some arithmetic here for a moment, as it pertains to the Premier's department, as it pertains to the Premier's salary and as it pertains to the spending of the Premier. And that arithmetic is just this — maybe the Premier will explain it to us — he is going to get an additional $9 million from the petroleum industry, with the possibility of creating up to an additional 1,000 or 2,000 unemployed in the province, all for $9 million additional royalties out of the petroleum industry.

AN HON. MEMBER: Additional revenues.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well additional revenues. Right. It could create — now I'm trying to scare the Premier, but I say it could — by trying to get this additional $9 million, this rip-off, this stuff that he says is rip-off because it is going out of the province, this bonanza for the oil companies, $9 million only. Yet the Premier is going to spend $64.8 million to create — how many jobs? I don't know. The Minister of…

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well now, I better be careful, Mr. Chairman, and I will try to keep this…

What I am trying to point out, Mr. Chairman, to the Premier, is that the arithmetic is wrong somewhere. Because if you are spending money to build houses, that is temporary employment. In the oil industry, it is employment that goes on and on and on. It just doesn't add up. I would suggest that the Premier, when he is talking to the oil executives in his office — oh, my gracious! — keep this in mind.

Now, Mr. Chairman, there is just one other thing I would like to say about the Premier's estimates. He has assured us that everything is fine and that we are going to have another good year. Mind you, I think I pointed out that the unemployment figures don't relate to what he has said. But why has the Premier taken so much trouble to assure the industry and the business leaders in this province that everything is going to be all right?

The Premier has stood and said that he is not going to kill the goose that laid the golden egg. And he says, Mr. Chairman, "We are learning." Well, I appreciate that the Premier is learning. He's got a lot to learn, But he should not learn at the expense of 90,000 unemployed, Mr. Chairman — 90,000 unemployed. These 90,000 unemployed draw approximately $400 unemployment a month. That is $36 million in unemployment a month being paid out in British Columbia. Yet the Premier says, Mr. Chairman, that he is going to spend $64.8 million to create jobs while we are spending $36 million a month on unemployment insurance.

There is something wrong somewhere, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Premier, there is something wrong. There is something wrong with the set-up. $9 million a week being paid out in British Columbia on unemployment while this top executive in this province does nothing about it. Mr. Chairman, that is a disaster.

I will have some more to say about some other things later, but I have another engagement. Thank you very much. (Laughter).

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Saanich and the Islands.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I trust that in view of the fact that I, with you, am a new Member, you will permit me a certain degree of latitude.

I cannot recall spending a more unproductive afternoon in my life.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would you continue with your point and then I'll answer it.

[ Page 774 ]

MR. CURTIS: The point of order, Mr. Chairman, is that I had hoped, when we were through with the unending debate on the Speech from the Throne, and the interminable debate on the budget, that we could then get down to some action in this House. This is surely why we were sent here by the people of British Columbia.

I wanted this afternoon, Mr. Chairman, to start to learn the business of government through questions and answers asked by more experienced Members of this House of the Premier, and then the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett), and then in turn the various cabinet Ministers. I simply cannot understand why, when we are moving into the 1970's, we are really working back in the 1920's or the 1890's. How can I possibly learn by listening to a speech which has gone on for over an hour, Mr. Chairman, from the Hon. Member, and I mean him no disrespect, which really would have fitted in very handily under the heading debate from the Speech from the Throne, or debate on the budget speech. Please, Mr. Chairman, may we have an answer from you or from the Premier, whose estimates are being discussed now, as to how do we get on with the business of this House and this province?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would like to respond to the Hon. Member before I recognize the Hon. Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland).

I believe that your point is well taken, in this respect — standing orders 43 and 61 (2) are both designed to expedite discussion of the estimates.

Standing order 43 says:

"Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman, after having called the attention of the House, or of the committee, to the conduct of a Member, who persists in irrelevance, or tedious repetition, either of his own arguments or of the arguments used by other members in debate…."

Now, this is a very difficult thing to rule on, because what one person may consider tedious another person may not. However, I would draw this to the attention of the Hon. Members in order that they give careful consideration to their comments to make sure that they are not tedious or irrelevant.

Standing order 61 (2) says:

"Speeches in Committee of the Whole House must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration."

Now it is the tradition, I understand, that in the consideration of the Premier's estimates more latitude is allowed than is allowed under the estimates for the other departments. That is why we have allowed a certain amount of latitude this afternoon. However, if it is the wish of the House that we more strictly enforce these two standing orders then we will attempt to do this. But we would ask for the voluntary cooperation of the House and the Members of the House in observing these two standing orders — 43 and 61 (2).

The Hon. Member for Langley.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I will be as brief as possible and I will try to stick to the point. However, I do want to make a point that we are here doing the business of this province right now.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, as I understand it we are here to decide whether or not we will give the Premier of this province a healthy raise in his salary, and I for one wouldn't want to vote for that healthy raise until I pose a few questions, through you to the Premier. Some of those questions have to do with the economic directions that our province has taken and some of them have to do necessarily with the ideological directions that our province has taken under the direction of the Premier of this province and the leader of the executive council. For it's him, Mr. Chairman, who must bear all of the responsibility for all of the actions of this Government. He said that himself.

I recall reading an interview with Paddy Sherman of the Province in which the Premier said that he does, in the end result, bear the responsibility for all of those actions. In other words, the buck passes at that chair across the hall. Or the buck stops at that chair across the hall.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to suggest, through you to the Premier, that there is a serious misunderstanding by the Premier and this Government of the mandate that he received from the people of British Columbia on August 30. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that the people of British Columbia voted for social reform, but not for socialism. In that, Mr. Chairman, the Premier has misunderstood what the people voted for. There are many people who have since this election been kidding themselves very seriously about what kind of a government the Premier of this province is leading, and in what direction the Premier of this province is leading his cabinet and the government.

We cannot blame the Premier for this, Mr. Chairman, because nobody believed him when he told us where we were going and which way he intended to draw us. But the people are now finding out that he meant what he said. He meant that he was going to lead us into a new kind of, not social reform or social democracy, but social-ism — the most radical socialism that has ever been seen in North America, led by the most radical Premier in North America, and operated by the most radical cabinet in North America.

[ Page 775 ]

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, they agree with me, because it is the truth. The Premier told us what was happening, but we didn't believe him. But we are starting to, thanks to some of the legislation that is being introduced.

I would like to ask that the Premier, Mr. Chairman, not only reconsider the mandate that the people gave him and understand what that mandate was — and it wasn't socialism — but you also reconsider some of the suggested programmes that you indicated in your course of time in this House since August 30, and particularly since this first budget was approved in this House. I think, Mr. Chairman, I would like you to ask the Premier to reconsider the increases in royalties for petroleum in British Columbia; reconsider all of the tax increases that are contained in the estimates so far in this Government because you do not need the money. You do not need the tax increases.

I would like to ask that you reconsider and tread carefully, through you Mr. Chairman, on the proposed changes to pension funds that have been indicated by this Government, because, Mr. Chairman, those pension funds are vitally important to the people of British Columbia.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, Mr. Member. I just remind you again of what I said earlier this afternoon — that you do not discuss proposed legislation that may be coming before the House, or may be suggested. Rather that you confine your comments as in May.

Order please.

"The administrative action of the department is open to debate but the necessity for legislation and matters involving legislation cannot be discussed in the committee of supply."

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, there is no legislation, I'm not proposing legislation. I'm suggesting that the Government reconsider some of the indications they have given through the Press and many other areas. I'm only asking for a reconsideration — that they tread very carefully when they talk about things like this. I think that's within the bounds of those rulings. I certainly don't want to suggest any legislation here, I'll do it at the proper time.

Mr. Chairman, there are indications that have been given in Press releases and other areas with regard to the possibility of unsound investments in this province and I would like this Government to tread very carefully there as well.

The increased mill rate in rural areas. Can we ask that that be reconsidered? The provincially ordered assessment increases that have been carried on all through the province, particularly in the Fraser Valley — can we ask that those be reconsidered? All of these moves, and all of them with the countenance of the Premier, and perhaps, as far as I know, with his act of direction, can really mean more trouble for the British Columbia taxpayer. That is, of course, what we are trying to get away from. Maybe we can just have some of those things, Mr. Chairman, reconsidered, before they are brought back to this House in the estimates of the other departments. The Premier is the man who can do this, of course, and I would ask that he do this.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to talk for a minute about something else that contributes to a serious tax increase in this province and that has to do with land speculation. Government is contributing in this province today to land speculation. I would like the Government to reconsider its actions in that regard, because right now in the Fraser Valley, there is a serious problem with regard to increased cost of land — not through any legislation but only through indications by Press release and everything else, of things that the Government might do. It's not telling us, because those things aren't in the estimates, but there is a serious problem in the Fraser Valley right now.

I'd like to relate something to you, Mr. Chairman, that sees property in the Langley area right now that has been lying idle for months and months because it was so vastly over-priced — nobody wanted it, nobody would buy it because the price was so far out of line. Now the people are standing in line to get that property at any price. Five-acre pieces of property in the Fraser Valley, Mr. Chairman, which nine months ago sold for anywhere from $17,000 to $19,000 are now selling for $32,000, in British Columbia, in the Fraser Valley today and the Premier must do something about that. He must reconsider.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. Would the Hon. Member just be seated for a moment, please. I still fail to see the connection directly with the estimates that are before us. Asking for reconsideration of something which is in fact going to be debated fully in the legislation coming forward, I fail to see the need of it at this time. Therefore, I would ask the Hon. Member to keep his remarks more relevant to the estimates before us — those of the administration of the office of the Premier.

MR. McCLELLAND: Thank you for your guidance, Mr. Chairman. I would just like to refer to something you said yourself — and it is very difficult, when you are talking about the estimates of the Premier of the province who is responsible for everything in this province, to confine your remarks to anything very narrow. We must talk about all the things the Premier of this province is responsible for

[ Page 776 ]

because certainly we are talking about the salary we are going to pay him for running the Province of British Columbia.

The Premier says, "trust me." Well, I don't know why we should trust you, Mr. Premier. There isn't any reason at this moment to trust you, as you have asked us to do, with regard to the spending of this money of British Columbia.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Don't get me wrong, Hon. Member, that doesn't mean you can't allude to bills, but I would prefer that we didn't take a position at this time.

MR. McCLELLAND: Right, I won't discuss them then, Mr. Chairman.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I might point out, as the Hon. Liberal leader has pointed out, we are talking about an order-in-council that caused the change in land values and certainly not any bill that is before the House. I am through with that — I won't make any more reference to it any more specifically than that.

The problem of trust is a serious one if we are talking about the leader of the executive council of this province. We must have absolute trust in his abilities. What we are getting really, is a series of actions by this Government which seem to be leading to complete control of all public bodies in British Columbia. I am not in favour of that. I wouldn't be in favour of voting a healthy increase for the Premier of the province if that's the kind of thing we are going to have in the future. I just couldn't see us doing that because we are seeing it day after day — things like put-downs of charitable organizations in this province by the Premier of the province and others in his executive council.

We are seeing moves by Members of this Government to re-organize all voluntary boards, up to and including hospital boards. We are seeing zoning by commission, or we are about to see zoning by commission. We are seeing for instance, things like takeover of community organizations and provincial organizations like the Pacific National Exhibition. This was mentioned in this House the other day, Mr. Chairman.

I was glad to hear the Premier say earlier this afternoon that he is responsible for the government of all of British Columbia. Mr. Chairman, I would like you to suggest to the Premier that so are his Ministers responsible for the government of all of British Columbia — certainly not just one part of it.

I would like to ask the Premier, Mr. Chairman, if he would ask the Members of his Government, how far they want to go down this road — whether we are going to have complete provincial government control of all the hospital boards, charitable organizations, and all the publicly sponsored bodies in British Columbia — because that looks like the way it's going. I would like the Premier to comment on that.

I would like the Premier to comment on whether he agrees with his Minister's remarks in this House the other day in which he said, when he was asked if he was going to turn the Pacific National Exhibition into a great community centre, he said, "You bet your sweet bippy I am." What's that got to do with being government for all of British Columbia?

Mr. Chairman, I can't vote for a healthy salary increase for the Premier unless he can bring his cabinet into line so that they understand as well that they must be government for all of British Columbia. Mr. Chairman, I'll bring that up in the estimates of the "bippy" government.

Because it is such an important issue to my area and it doesn't come under any specific department to bring this up again — under the Premier's estimates — about the Pacific National Exhibition because it is very important that we get this clear once and for all. We are not getting any indication — we never had it in the throne speech, we never had it in the budget and we're not getting any indication anywhere else. I would like to say that the Pacific National Exhibition is not a playground for east end Vancouver, it does belong to all the people of British Columbia. I would like to remind this House, through you, Mr. Chairman, to the Premier, that the Pacific National Exhibition spends $50,000 a year on 4-H programmes in British Columbia and that is vitally important to my community.

The Pacific National Exhibition spends $200,000 a year on livestock programmes and horticulture programmes in British Columbia and that is vitally important to my community and to all of British Columbia — not just the east end of Vancouver.

I agree, Mr. Chairman, through you to the Premier, and I would like him to pass this along as well as a criticism, that there must be local input to this from the community — there must be local use and there is local use all the time. I must say that the Pacific National Exhibition is most important to the agricultural community of British Columbia — to all of the Province of British Columbia. I must ask the question, Mr. Chairman, of the Premier, if he has written off the agriculture community in British Columbia because it sounds like it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, Mr. Member. We will have an opportunity to discuss these matters fully under the estimates for the Department of Agriculture. So once again I would ask you to allude to it, Mr. Member, but please do not discuss it in detail. Keep your remarks relevant to the Premier's estimates.

[ Page 777 ]

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, the Pacific National Exhibition will not come in under the agriculture estimates. I think I must ask the Premier what he is going to do about it and what he is going to do about the members of his cabinet who seem to want to turn a provincial facility into a community centre for the east end of Vancouver.

I also want to ask the Premier directly, Mr. Chairman, if he will ask his Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams) to apologize to the Pacific National Exhibition for his parochial, political ploy.

I also want to ask the Premier, Mr. Chairman, that if he won't ask that Minister to apologize, is it because that Minister's ego is so inflated and he is so power-obsessed…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please.

MR. McCLELLAND:…that he will not listen even to the Premier of this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. Would you be seated, Mr. Member, please. It is completely out of order to make offensive remarks about Members of this House. I would ask you to withdraw that term.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Especially where it's not my estimates.

MR. McCLELLAND: Would you tell me which was the part you wanted me to withdraw?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The last remarks that you made regarding…

MR. McCLELLAND: Up to where? Well, Mr. Chairman, if I've made any offensive remarks I don't want to do that and I shall withdraw them. I only want to ask the Premier please to straighten this affair out. Mr. Premier, through you, Mr. Chairman, let's allow private organizations in British Columbia, those charitable organizations, those volunteer boards, like hospital boards, run their own affairs. Let's not take everything away from the people of British Columbia, because that's where those kind of responsibilities belong. Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'm sorry that the Member who was here and who gave us some entertainment for an hour and 20 minutes had to leave. He asked all those questions and didn't stick around for the answers. I can't understand that. But since another Member was upset about it, maybe I can answer some of those questions.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's what it was, in my opinion. It was a matter of entertainment. The questions he asked could have been handled in 10 or 15 minutes, rather than an hour and 20 minutes. But that's fine. I don't want to curtail anybody's opportunity to debate. Far be it from me.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's right.

We spent $50 million out of surplus on second mortgage money for jobs. We are going to spend $5 million on park development for jobs; $5 million for reforestation for jobs; $10 million for land assembly so we can have houses for those second mortgages to rest; $10 million on community recreation centre construction; for a total of $80 million surplus funds directly into job-producing activities.

So the Member who wants this done voted against the budget that was going to get the very thing he wanted done accomplished.

At least $25 million has been spent to catch up on schools and hospitals that the former administration neglected. That $25 million has been authorized since we've been in power.

This morning I met with representatives of the forestry industry, fishing industry, mining, trucking and packaging. The former administration did not meet regularly with industrial leaders nor with labour leaders. Now industrial leaders are setting up machinery to meet regularly with myself and with my Ministers. That's the way it should be and that's the way it'll continue to be.

I want to answer two specific questions related by the Member of this House. One was the Fort Simpson road. Now the Member should have known that when he was the MLA for that area before, he did argue for the Fort Simpson road, but the money wasn't spent until this year when this Minister authorized its expenditure. It's ironic that that particular road is related to a dispute that…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The road work is going on right now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Premier please be seated? Would you make your point of order, Mr. Member?

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Chairman, the point of order simply is that the announcement and the authorization for the expenditure of the funds for the Fort Simpson-Fort Nelson road…

[ Page 778 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. That's a matter…

MR. SMITH: …were made by the previous administration. . .

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not a point of order. That's a matter of debate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member be seated, please. There is no point of order. Would the Hon. Premier…

HON. MR. BARRETT: The Monkman Pass is being kept open. There is an active count taking place now on the traffic. I don't believe that the Member is espousing Social Credit policy when he suggests that people must live in British Columbia. This is not a Fascist state. People can live wherever they choose to live in this country. I'd be the first to attack any administration that ordered people to live in one area because they've got a job in that area.

Then he goes on to suggest that this Government interfere in the choice of unions amongst working men. That too is Fascism. I tell you that no government in its right mind is going to tell workers what union they wish to belong to or they don't wish to belong to. There is a process that they make their own decisions for themselves and I completely reject his suggestion in that regard.

In that regard, Mr. Speaker, the question was raised about training people moving to the north. The present Member for Omineca (Mr. Kelly) came to the Government in November with a proposal that we enter into a cooperative training programme with the forest industry, with the federal government and with the provincial government with on-the-spot training, so that we can attract these people. That was part of the problem.

I am happy to announce that that training programme has been initiated with the cooperation of the federal government picking up 50 per cent of the bill; 25 per cent being picked up by the provincial government and 25 per cent by industry — the very thing that Opposition wouldn't do before. I suggest that Member check his facts before he speaks for an hour and 20 minutes, because many of the points he was talking about are already things that have been acted on.

I have no objection to answering questions, but unfortunately I couldn't separate questions from a long speech. In terms of the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland), the P.N.E. — I didn't know that I was on the board of directors of the P.N.E., but as I understand it…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Thank you. I'm an honorary member of the board of directors. Maybe I can go to a meeting some time.

As I understand it — and incidentally the P.N.E. is for all of British Columbia; there's no question of that — but when I read the papers, no one's taking away control of the P.N.E. from the people. As a matter of fact, the Member's intention obviously is to put control into the hands of the elected people of British Columbia in a process and a way that they've not had representation before.

There has been no shake-up in the P.N.E. board of directors for years. I welcome the fact that civic aldermen are going on and people from the area, the neighbourhood, are going on. Why not? Why shouldn't the aldermen go on the board of directors? Why shouldn't people who live in the area go on the board of directors? Why not? Why shouldn't they be a larger share? The city owns the P.N.E. It's not a private preserve.

Are they going to lock up the P.N.E. and take it away? Don't be silly. I think that the P.N.E. argument is…I just don't understand your reasoning in raising that under my estimates. But now that you do I give you my comments on it.

Mr. Chairman I move the committee rise and report progress and beg leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports progress and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I move that we move to motions and adjourned debate on motions. I ask leave of the House to suspend the rules to debate motion No. 29 referring a matter to committee.

Leave granted.

On motion 29.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Agriculture.

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, one of the problems facing the fruit growing industry in the province is of course that of the net return to the growers. There have been many complaints about what is happening in the fruit industry and many solutions advanced over the years. There's some concern among I think a growing group, although still a minority I believe, that part of their problem is the marketing of their produce.

We recognize that to conduct a full study of the

[ Page 779 ]

problems of that industry would take a great deal of time. The motion refers a very specific part of that question to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and I think even in a relatively short time the committee might do some valuable work looking into this aspect of the problem. I move Resolution number 29 (see appendix).

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North Okanagan.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): I certainly accept this motion and wouldn't oppose it. We'll support it but we would like to ask the Minister if these will be the only terms of reference in this motion or to be put before the agricultural committee during this session of the Legislature. With a number of highly contentious issues involving agriculture at this time, we would hope that he would expand these terms of reference as they relate to a number of bills before this House, and a number of vital concerns to the agricultural industry and the individual farmers in British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Very quickly, we support the motion and we'd like to ask the question whether the committee will continue to function after the session. It seems, as always in this House, that we don't get our committees going until half way through the session and then there's a great scurry at the end to get the report wound up.

I just wonder if we could have the Minister tell us whether the length of inquiry will be limited by the length of the present session, or are there plans to extend it?

MR. SPEAKER: Any further debate? The Minister winds up the debate. The Hon. Minister.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I can't really say at this point whether there will be any further questions. I don't think that really relates to this motion itself; this motion has to stand by itself.

As far as continuing work after the session of the Legislature is over, I would expect that possibly the committee may have some recommendation. I wouldn't like to suggest ahead of time as to what the committee will recommend, but I think the Government will listen carefully when the committee is making its recommendations.

Motion approved.

Presenting reports.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver Centre.

Mr. Lauk from the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills presents the committee's third report which was read as follows:

Report No. 3, legislative committee room, February 22, 1973.

Mr. Speaker, your Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills begs leave to report as follows:

Your committee has considered and approved recommendation No. 3 of Mr. Speaker's first report made pursuant to the Legislative Procedure and Practice Inquiry Act.

Accordingly, it is recommended with reference to message bills, that the following procedure be adopted: namely, that upon Mr. Speaker reading the message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor, the Minister in charge of the bill will then ask leave to move first reading of the bill. Any Member may refuse leave in which event present procedure of referring the bill to the Committee of the Whole House and reporting recommending introduction of the bill will be necessary.

In the respectful opinion of your committee, the adoption of this procedure would result in a significant saving of time while protecting the rights of all Members and retaining a procedure of long standing and historic significance for use on extraordinary occasions.

All of which is respectfully submitted.

G.V. Lauk

Chairman.

MR. LAUK: I move that the rules be suspended and the report be adopted, and in so doing, Mr. Speaker, I must say that that report was unanimously recommended to this House by the committee.

Report adopted.

Mr. Lauk from the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills presents the committee's fourth report, which was read as follows:

Report No. 4, legislative committee room, February 22, 1973.

Mr. Speaker, the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills begs leave to report as follows:

Your committee has considered but does not concur in recommendation No. 6 of Mr. Speaker's first report made pursuant to the Legislative Procedure and Practice Inquiry Act.

In the respectful opinion of your committee, the determination of whether or not a particular bill involves non-contentious legislation or is merely a housekeeping bill may itself become a contentious

[ Page 780 ]

issue thereby defeating any desired expediting of the passage of such bill.

G.V. Lauk,

Chairman.

MR. LAUK: I move that the rules be suspended and the report adopted.

Report adopted.

Mr. Lauk from the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders presented the committee's fifth report, which was read as follows:

Report No. 5, legislative committee room, February 22, 1973.

Mr. Speaker, your select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills begs leave to report as follows:

Your committee has considered and approves recommendation No. 9 of Mr. Speaker's first report made pursuant to the Legislative Procedure and Practice Inquiry Act. Accordingly your committee recommends:

A. That standing order 50 be repealed and the following be substituted therefore:

"50. All motions except the motion to adjourn and the previous question shall be in writing and signed by the mover before being debated or put from the chair. Upon the motion being moved, it shall be read by Mr. Speaker before debate. No motion or amendment shall require to be seconded before the question thereon is proposed from the chair except the motion for an address and reply to the Speech from the Throne, and the motion that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into committee of supply, and any amendment thereto."

B. That standing order No. 61 (1) be amended by deleting there from the words, "the seconding of motions and" in the third and fourth lines thereof.

G.V. Lauk,

Chairman.

MR. LAUK: Another unanimous recommendation to the House, Mr. Speaker, I move that the rules be suspended and the report be adopted.

Report adopted.

Hon. Mr. King files answers to questions.

Filing reports.

Hon. Mr. Barrett files the annual report of the British Columbia Railway, 1972.

Hon. Mr. Cocke files the annual report of Vital Statistics for the year of 1970.

Hon. Mr. Cocke files answers to questions.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:02 p.m.

APPENDIX

The following motion is referred to on page 778 of the daily Hansard:

That this House authorize the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture to examine the system of marketing British Columbia grown tree fruits with a view to determining whether it is providing for the needs of the producers in the industry from the point of view of net returns to the producers, penetration into provincial, national, or international markets, efficiency of the packing and sales system, or any other matters related to obtaining a satisfactory net return for the producer:

The Committee shall have the power to send for persons, papers, and records, and to hear representations from such organizations, agencies, companies, and individuals as may, in their discretion, appear necessary, and shall report its findings and recommendations to the House.