[ Page 817 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Premier's estimates.

Mrs. Jordan — 817

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 817

Mrs. Jordan — 817

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 821

Mrs. Jordan — 824

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 825

Mrs. Jordan — 826

Mr. Williams — 827

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 830

Mr. Williams — 831

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 832

Mr. Fraser — 833

Mr. McGeer — 833

Mr. Morrison — 836

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 837

Mr. Phillips — 838

Mr. McClelland — 845

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 846

Statement

Mr. Speaker on memorandum on changes in the rules of the House — 0846

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 1973

The House met at 8 p.m.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES, PREMIER'S OFFICE
(continued)

On vote 2.

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

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): If the Hon. Premier looks through his little gnome's vault there and finds that.…

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Just be careful how you say that. I inherited this (Laughter).

MRS. JORDAN: Well, there may be more truth than fiction in my comment at that.

Mr. Chairman, through you to the Premier, in his role as fiscal authority for the Province of British Columbia, I would like to talk about some of the special provincial funds which I believe come under his jurisdiction, particularly in relation to, first of all, the British Columbia Cultural fund.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's under the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall).

MRS. JORDAN: It's not in his vote. I think this is perhaps part of the problem, Mr. Premier — there's some concern on our part as to actually where these funds are and who's administering them. I did look in the Provincial Secretary's vote and, unless I am in error, it isn't there. I thought I would bring it up to you in your role as fiscal agent for the Province of British Columbia. In view of the fact that you have one of the signing authorities at your left, perhaps he could answer these questions. I don't think you'll find them too difficult.

I'd like to, in the interest of time, and not to burden you, put the Physical Fitness Fund questions and the cultural questions together. We would like to know, first of all, assuming that the original committees were disbanded, what committees are sitting now, and who's on those committees at the Ministerial level and in the departmental level, and if there have been any outside advisors brought in in relation to the actions of this fund, or these funds, also in relation to the spending of these funds.

We would like to know if there has been any renumeration from the interest of these funds going to any administrative expenses of committee members, or paid to any outside advisors, and any of the fund interest has gone to pay administrative expenses of the committees, either at the Ministerial or departmental levels, or used to pay for any administrative expenses, or travelling expenses of those acting in an advisory capacity.

We would like to know your policy about these funds in the future, as to enlarging them and expanding their scope. We would also like to know if the internal workings of the funds as to their policy has been changed up until this time under your administration.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I just want to make a comment regarding order, and I'd ask the Hon. Member just to be seated for a moment.

I would just like to have some direction to the Chair from the House Leader as to whether he wishes this particular matter to be considered under his estimates or under the estimates for the Provincial Secretary.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, I can only express a preference, but the Member is quite right, there is no allocation in any other Ministers, and the Member's quite right in asking the questions here. The only thing that I think the House should be advised is that I will tell the House exactly who has been delegated the responsibility by cabinet. Perhaps it might be more adequate later on if the House chooses to question those particular cabinet Ministers. But the Member is quite right in raising it under the circumstances in my vote.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Premier. You may proceed.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Premier, if I keep on the general terms of the funds now, would you, once you find out where they are, permit more detailed examination.…

HON. MR. BARRETT: It would be more fruitful then.

MRS. JORDAN: Fine. Well, in essence we'd like to know these facts about all these funds — where they are launched and whether there have been internal policy changes — and the specific questions that I asked you.

But I would ask the Premier one specific question in relation to the funds. I did mention in a previous debate the suggestion of the value of expanding the concept of the physical fitness fund and the cultural fund to include a cultural festival in British Columbia. I suggested and suggest now that, should you take this under advisement, we utilize the community arts councils and the regional arts councils as a vehicle,

[ Page 818 ]

and that for the first year, in order to get this started, we utilize the vehicle through the British Columbia Sports Festival. They have established contacts around the province. They have a mechanism in which they work in order to reach into all areas of the province to encourage people to participate. This might be superimposed for a year or two through the cultural area, or bring the cultural area up to it, in order to provide a vehicle that wouldn't use a lot of money in an administrative expense.

The second value, I think, in encouraging the cultural people and the recreational people or the sports people to work together, would be to bring much closer together these two areas which have been fairly distinct in the past. I'm sure you will find, and I've certainly found in going around the province, that there was a very keen desire on the part of a lot of people involved in so-called cultural activities and sports activities to work more closely together. They don't want to lose their own identity, and I don't think this would be wise, but they do recognize that there's a duplication of fund usage and services that might better be utilized for the benefit of the people in the communities if they were in closer contact.

I would ask your views on that, Mr. Premier, as Minister of Finance. I have a hard time calling you Mr. Premier. You look so young (Laughter). And boyish.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Big Brother.

AN HON. MEMBER: Little brother…

MRS. JORDAN: …with a big jar.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please, would the Hon. Member please address the chair.

MRS. JORDAN: There was an article in the paper yesterday, and it says the government will pay the way for chess champions.

"The British Columbia government will underwrite all the expenses of Canadian chess champion, Peter Baizis, for the up-coming international chess tournament, Larry Firstein, secretary of the British Columbia Chess Federation said on Friday. Firstein said that he had received information of the government's intention from the office of Premier Dave Barrett.

"Baizis will represent Canada in the world championship qualifying tournament in either Brasília, Brazil or Moscow in August. The 21-year old champion from Vancouver will not only have all his expenses paid by the province, but will also be allowed to take a second with him. The latter's expenses also will be underwritten by the British Columbia Government, Firstein said."

We would like to know, in view of the fact that this emanated from your office, Mr. Premier, who negotiated this arrangement, and why — I don't want you to misinterpret that we begrudge a merited situation; we don't, but we'd like to know the details — why when this young man is representing Canada as a nation would it be the provincial government that is undertaking these expenses for him and his second.

How much money is involved for Peter Baizis himself, and for his second? There's no figures mentioned. Is it just his air fare and his accommodation? Is it air fare and accommodation and so much per day? Is the federal government assuming some of this cost, and if so, how much? Have other similar grants been made to individuals from any of these funds over the past six months, for a national representation?

I would also ask one other question. If this is an amateur championship, will the payment of his way, whatever it is, affect his amateur standing?

With this in mind, I'd also ask if there has been any effort to assist such people as Karen Magnussen, and the team of Moore and Murray, who are from British Columbia, and are now skating in Czechoslovakia in the world figure skating championships. What we want to know is if you are establishing a new policy. If so, have you considered it for others? Why was this particular young man chosen?

In regard to the First Citizen Fund, we would again ask your policy, and I don't believe you answered it this afternoon, with regard to the Port Simpson cannery. You were in Prince Rupert in August, and you did announce that you would establish it and pay for it all. We would like to know: 1) if this is your policy, 2) if you are going to pay for it, and 3) if it is out of the First Citizen Fund. We'd also like to know how much money is involved, and what you projected your costs on. We'd like to know what the construction costs are, what operating capital would be required to initially see the plant in operation, and who will be the directors of the plant.

In looking at the First Citizens Fund, as you know, it was originally established to encourage new and constructive projects to advance culture and education and the economic circumstances and the personal well-being of the first citizens in British Columbia without, frankly, having these benefits taken away from them by the federal government if we encroached on their area. I think it's important not to get into a jurisdictional argument with the federal government; the efforts put forth by the province should not detract from any effort that the federal government is most anxious to make.

In other words, our efforts as a province should enhance their opportunities, not just leave them spinning their gears in a shuffle between the federal and provincial responsibilities. We'd like to know your policy on that position; whether the First

[ Page 819 ]

Citizens Fund will be continued with that as its objective.

The major thrust in this intent was given at the community level. While many projects should have had the band approval, the attitude was, as far as the committee was concerned, if it was a good idea and if it had a germ of possibility of success then it should be given every opportunity.

As you know, the First Citizens Fund provided money for feasibility studies for business undertakings that the Indians wished to undertake themselves. One of the express concerns was that when these feasibility studies were being done, the involved Indians should work with the people doing the feasibility studies in order that they learn from this experience so that at least they knew how to read their own feasibility studies.

When I look at the final interim statement when you introduced it into the House, I see that there's a balance of $2,465,445 unexpended in this fund. There hasn't been a great increase in expenditure, according to these figures, since you took office. We would like to know whether this fund is dormant or whether, in fact, projects are being okayed by the committee and that there is an opportunity for the first citizens at the community level to continue their undertakings or to expand them.

We would like to know about the Power and Telephone Line Beautification Fund. It has a capital funding of $10 million. In the interim statement as of March 31, 1972, it still has $10 million and there is no evidence that any interest has been spent. We would like to know, Mr. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett), when you finish your conversation.…

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'm just getting information.

MRS. JORDAN: Are you getting the questions?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, I'm listening,

MRS. JORDAN: We recognize that these programmes are cost-sharing programmes with the municipalities, regional districts and Hydro and that this takes time. We would like to know if any are in progress, if any are under consideration or if you anticipate any becoming viable and operational and utilizing the fund within the next year.

We also would like to know — and again it may be my own experience in reading balance sheets — but there was $27 million set aside for the third Narrows crossing. I certainly can't find in the budget or in your statements where this $27 million has been absorbed either on paper or in fact. We would like to know where this is.

We would also like to know your policy. In the last provincial election campaign, the Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann) stated that there would be no third crossing in Vancouver. This has obviously been a commitment that was met by your Government. But in light of the events that are happening and in light of your own statements in this debate that you would like to see the Howe Sound area developed into more of a playground and you'd like to see the Squamish area developed into a recreational area, you must certainly realize that this would mean a tremendous traffic increase, not necessarily from the North Vancouver–West Vancouver area and not necessarily from the extended Fraser Valley but from Vancouver proper and the areas going down towards the border.

We would like to know, in talking about this, if you have set up a commission to study this particular question and whether you have given any consideration to the thought of building a third crossing with a rapid transit provision, multiple lanes and room for extension of multiple lanes with a view to making it a second Narrows crossing by eventually doing away with Lions Gate Bridge. This would leave the entrance to the harbour wide open and very beautiful.

In developing a new Second Narrows crossing with the necessary facilities …

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. Member, would you please not discuss the details. You could discuss the details under the estimates of the Department of Highways. I think the point has been made.

MRS. JORDAN: All right. I don't know, Mr. Chairman. I'm not into the money. I just want to know if the principle is.… I think it's worthy of thought. We've got to do something to accommodate the traffic that's going to develop in the Vancouver–Howe Sound area over the next 10 years.

When one thinks about it, maybe the rebuilding of a whole new Second Narrows approach with the necessary vehicles in it that could be developed as the population increased and the demand was there, thus doing away with Lions Gate Bridge eventually, is worthy of consideration. I would like to know your view on that.

In regard to the Squamish area and your statement, have you commissioned any group or any planning board or any ecological or environmental study groups to take a look at the Squamish area in the avenue of an overview? I would ask, if you haven't, would you consider undertaking this in consultation with the local regional district in the involved municipalities?

I don't have to explain, I'm sure, that this is a magnificent area. I had the privilege of helicoptering all through the back area and could see that the potential for recreation in skiing, in snowmobiling, in cross-country hiking, in snowshoeing as well as major family tourist centres is unlimited. I believe this is

[ Page 820 ]

something that should be looked into over the next year, certainly from the principle point of view if not in detail. We would urge you and your views to discuss this with the local governing bodies.

I'd like to bring up another matter and ask for the Premier's views and perhaps a commitment tonight. As you know, the federal government has set up an advisory committee for women under the Hon. John Munro, the Minister of Labour, in which he's going to assign 10 to 30 members.

I fully support this proposal. I think this is a very good way of going about solving some of the problems that many women suffer. I did not feel that a separate Ministry was wise, but we do have a practice in Canada and in British Columbia of setting up special commissions to advise the government on areas where they might well move.

I would ask the Premier whether he will support this proposal federally. In light of the statements made by the Minister, Hon. Mr. Munro, that he will appoint people from across Canada, I would ask the Premier to contact Mr. Munro and suggest two names for this commission from British Columbia.

The first name that I suggest is Miss Beth Aulin, who is president of the Canadian Federation of Business and Professional Women. She represented Canada at the Federation Congress of Business and Professional Women of Americas in San Salvador on October 25 to 29, 1972. She is now the president of the Canadian Federation of Business and Professional Women. She comes from a small community; her home is in Kamloops, and she also was president of that local.

She's a young woman. She's experienced in the business world. She's experienced in the problem that women confront, and not in a radical nature particularly, but the day-to-day areas. She's very capable. I would suggest that she's non-political. Certainly to my knowledge, I have never heard of her being associated with any political party. The fact that she is in office at this time and that she does command respect on her own merits would make her very desirable.

I would just like to quote for you her views as they are outlined in the recent Business and Professional Women's Magazine of December. I think they're very impressive. Miss Aulin says:

"We are Canadians. What are our thoughts when we hear the word 'Canada'? I hear the name and my heart overflows with the sights and sounds and scents of my particular part of this beautiful land. And each of us will have a different vision of the wonder which is Canada."

And then I'll leave out some. Her next statement is:

"It is exciting to think of millions of men and women different from one another in origin, language, culture, history and tradition — all Canadians who think of this land as theirs. I love the thought that everyone is working to make our country greater still — more beautiful, more confident in herself and in her destiny.

"Those who were discoverers felt that way. So did those who came later and toiled to develop this broad expanse. So do those who continue to arrive on our shores, because they have faith that in Canada they will find security and freedom. Here they will build toward a brighter future because our land is as young as tomorrow and as young as hope itself."

I think the Hon. Premier and, I'm sure, the Hon. Members from the Government side of the House would suggest that this young woman's basic philosophy and her thoughts as she expressed them are the type of thoughts that we're going to need on that commission representing women in Canada.

The second name that I would like to recommend for the Premier to ask to have appointed to this council is Mrs. Chris Waddell, who is the director of the British Columbia Government Women's Bureau, Department of Labour. The Premier himself said this afternoon that he was impressed that the civil servants of British Columbia were non-political and that they were here before we came and they'll be here after we're gone. I think this is true. I'm sure again all would agree that Mrs. Waddell falls into this category very ably.

She's had wide experience in the real rough-and-tough area of toil and work. She's washed dishes in a restaurant. She's waited on tables. She's cooked. So she knows what tough work is all about. She has been a secretary. The Hon. First Member for Vancouver Little Mountain (Ms. Young) explained the problems of secretaries. She's conversant in this. She has been a member of a labour union and worked hard for the labour world. She rose through the ranks and is now, as I mentioned, director of the Women's Bureau of the British Columbia Government.

On top of this I believe, and I'm confident that it's recognized, that Mrs. Waddell is respected by men and women throughout British Columbia, and that her knowledge and her contribution to women's legislation in Canada is well respected. The federal government in their department know of her. They frequently call on her for advice and opinions. She's known in Ontario, Manitoba — in fact, she's known in all the provinces of Canada for her thorough understanding of legislation, not only how it pertains to women, but to families and in such areas as day care and health services.

I feel that we are very fortunate to have such a fine woman in government service in British Columbia. She is well aware that discrimination can't be legislated against in all fronts. I believe that when you examine both these women, you will recognize that they would have the ability to cut across all lines,

[ Page 821 ]

whether it's male-female impression of the public, whether it's party politics, or whether it's the economic lines.

This will be necessary if this commission is to fully help the public understand where there is discrimination that can't be legislated against and which is a result of social attitudes. It's in this light that I suggest these two names to you, Mr. Premier, and would ask your views on this.

The second point, in light of the women's commission which is being established in Ottawa within the next three or four weeks — so your action will need to be very quick — is to now establish a British Columbia women's advisory commission. You've got a framework to work with in Ottawa. Now we need it here in order to back up our British Columbia appointments to that commission.

I would suggest for your consideration that it be under the direction of the Council of Women of British Columbia, who initiated this final move, and that perhaps it be made up of 12 members: one lady from agriculture; one lady from labour; one lady from management; representation from volunteer groups such as hospital auxiliaries to mental health care; two MLAs if you wish, one from the Government side and one from the Opposition side; and regional representatives from around the province, who would represent all sections of that area — Vancouver Island, the lower mainland, the Kootenays — East and West combined, the Okanagan and the northern part of British Columbia.

I would also strongly urge that on this advisory commission of women to the Government of British Columbia and, in turn, to the federal government there be a representative from the elderly citizens. This should be a lady who has experienced the problems of the elderly and would be quite able to put forth their views.

I would suggest, Mr. Premier, and ask your views on the fact, that you give them reasonable expenses, so that women who have children or the elderly citizen, who might not have funds, can take part in all the meetings and carry out their duties as they are assigned. I don't suggest a lavish account, but certainly enough that they could cover babysitting if necessary and their expenses in living, to and from the meetings.

If serving on this commission proves a problem in light of their employment, then I would ask that as Premier of this province and Minister of Finance, you discuss this problem with management and endeavour to make arrangements that these women, whether it's Miss Aulin or Mrs. Waddell or any member of the commission, have the opportunity to leave their employment without losing any benefits and with the assurance that their jobs would be there when we returned, whether it's on a straight-period-of-time basis or whether it's on an intermittent basis.

Mr. Premier, I feel that, intentionally or unintentionally, you broke your faith with the women of British Columbia. They were under the impression that you were going to establish a ministry of women. There is now an opportunity — and I don't quibble with your decision not to — but I think now is the time. There is a concrete framework to work with with the federal government to establish an advisory commission of women's affairs in British Columbia.

Or, if you would rather call it an advisory commission on family affairs, we are not concerned with the name. I'm just concerned that it be established. Then you would have the opportunity of making amends to the women in British Columbia who believed that you were going to do this.

A question in relation to this, Mr. Premier, is: will you recommend these names to Mr. Munro? Will you provide the necessary expenses as I have outlined? One more point: when you establish this advisory commission — and I believe it should work outside the framework of government, with the exception of representation — would you see, within the framework of their terms of reference, that they hold hearings throughout British Columbia, not just in the mainland?

The Status of Women Inquiry Commission came to Vancouver, New Westminster. It went to all the major centres. But there are women in the Peace River area who have problems which are peculiar to them, as in other remote areas of the province. These commissions really don't mean very much if they don't represent all the people and give them an opportunity to make an input.

So I would ask, would you have this commission hold hearings in remote areas of the province, where women who are living on the farm, who are living and working in small country stores or managing families under these circumstances, have an opportunity to discuss their problems and make an input? I would be pleased if the Premier would answer these questions now, in order that I could ask any supplementary questions that I might have.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, the last thing we need is another committee or commission or travelling group on women's rights. We welcome Mr. Munro's federal committee. If he wants representation from British Columbia, I can't possibly take two names that are given to me across the floor of the House. We certainly need a great deal more input than that.

One thing I will say is that this Government will immediately implement machinery to put into practice any of the recommendations out of Mr. Munro's committee, as soon as those recommendations come out. The last thing they need is another committee to

[ Page 822 ]

stall some action. I think the federal government is to be commended in moving toward the committee. The last thing they need is another committee or hearing or group travelling around British Columbia giving over the same material that has already been worked over.

The women of Canada want action. There's a positive response to Munro's decision announced last night. We don't want to duplicate all that. Let's get some action. Now that the committee is sitting, as the results come out we intend to implement those recommendations as they affect provincial jurisdiction.

It doesn't need a ministry of women to do it. It just means a Government committed to see that some equality starts to take place for the women of Canada. The last thing they need is another commission, hearing, or travelling group. This comes from someone who's just won the piggy-of-the-month award (Laughter). Well, I rejected the award.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I wasn't reading a funny book. Someone in the never-neverland of the press gallery sent me some clippings intituled.…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, it was intituled, "Cartoons of the Male Chauvinist Pig." It was an anonymous missive. People shouldn't send anonymous missives. I would appreciate initials at least.

In any event, that's the course of action we wish to follow. A general statement on the funds was in the budget. We have just simply not had the time to sit down and do a thorough review of all the funds, and I made that clear.

In terms of administration of the funds; all funds have been brought back under the absolute control, in terms of the final decision to spend money, of the Treasury Board. That was not the case before. Now the Treasury Board has the final responsibility.

We have established two committees, both sections chaired by two cabinet Ministers. Hon. Mr. Hall (Provincial Secretary) is chairing the cultural fund and under Hon. Mr. Hall also is the physical fitness fund. Along with Hon. Mr. Hall is the native Indian fund with the Hon. Minister without Portfolio, Mr. Calder.

Hon. Mr. Williams (Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources) is handling the disaster fund (Laughter) and also the greenbelt fund.

I'm on the Treasury Board as of last committee hearing. These matters are referred to Treasury Board.

The matter of the chess player. I was approached and lobbied in my office and I said this sounded like a good idea and that I'd certainly put it forward to the committee. I certainly intend to pursue it to the committee with my very strong recommendation. The report came out of my office saying that it was going to happen. I hope it does happen. But the report is premature in that it has not been brought directly to the committee. I will be lobbying the committee because I think it's a good idea.

The reason for the full expenses was that although the young man is the Canadian champion, the federal government was only willing to put up a limited amount of money. I think it was $600. The total figures that I'll be submitting to the committee is $2,000. I'm not a chess player myself but I understand it enjoys a very great favour among a lot of people. I think for a young man from British Columbia who is a Canadian champ, $600 is hardly a reasonable payment. I don't think it endangers his amateur status at all.

It is my understanding that the last competition this young man went to, he didn't have enough to pay his hotel room and spent the night before the competition walking the streets, but he did very well the next day. Now, I don't know if that's good for chess or not, but it certainly is a reflection on his dedication to the game.

I think it's a worthy expenditure of the funds. There's no change in policy of any of the funds. They are all under review. We are trying to get citizens advisory committees structured for every one of the funds rather than leaving these to some kind of pressure that can be brought upon the politician or the interest. We just have not had a chance to do a thorough job on those particular funds.

The First Narrows crossing. That fund is still in existence. It's in short-term bank notes. We have not changed the legislation on it nor have we touched the fund. We've made our public announcement that we're not in favour of another crossing at First Narrows.

I don't know why I have to constantly repress a feeling of bewilderment about some of the issues that are brought up by the Opposition. I've been here too long to be naive, but I must confess a degree of bewilderment at some of the issues the official Opposition brings up. It is a matter of confusion to me to see the official Opposition stand up in this House and absent their minds, either individually or collectively, from any history.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'm just confessing some feelings. For example, when the Member gets up and talks about planning in Howe Sound. It was that government, when they were government, that did away with the Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board.

[ Page 823 ]

Because of the absence of the Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board, the whole problem that we're faced with — that great emotional thing about the land bill and planning of Howe Sound, planning the whole lower mainland — there is no overview. For the Member to come in this House and say, "Is there an overview?"; for the Member to come into this House and suggest that we need an overview of Howe Sound, when it was the Social Credit administration that killed the Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board…. When many of these Members have come through the political life of this province through municipal councils, some of them from the lower mainland councils, have suffered because of the loss of that planning board.

My friend who is very new, is happy to protest and is very vociferous in his denial of us. But had that Member been here in this House, he would share my bewilderment too. Because some of those speeches were absolutely incredible. You killed all the planning, and then you've got the nerve to come in and say, "Where is the planning?"

Mr. Member, I can't relieve your feelings for joining that party. That's your problem. The facts are that it was that group over there, when they were, that killed the Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): That was a valid document of British Columbia.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Nothing was done to implement it either.

AN. HON. MEMBER: It's implemented.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. BARRETT: In terms of the next question, Karen Magnussen and Moore and Murray, I don't know the last two.

AN HON. MEMBER: They're the pairs.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, the pairs champions. I don't know if they've made an application, but I can certainly check with the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall). I don't know if they have.

Port Simpson. Port Simpson became a political issue because, in my opinion, a decision was being made under certain political pressure — as you care to interpret it — about the native Indians establishing a cannery in that area. I've asked for extensive research on the potential of the project. We've had some separate and independent reports, in-government reports and evaluations, again from our own staff and one staff member of the Department of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce.

We have been very cautious in making a decision around this particular cannery, because success or failure around this project will not so much reflect on a government as on the native Indians themselves. As much as most of us in this House would like to believe that the native Indian population of British Columbia is no longer the subject of either prejudice or ridicule, the facts are otherwise. There is a great backup of feeling against the native Indian population in this province. I confess that I find it a matter of shame to even admit it. But if you ignore it, then you're not dealing with reality.

When the government decides to embark upon a programme of self-help for the native Indian, it's very easy and I think quite fair to criticize a government for making a decision or not making a decision. But the danger is that once a decision has been made, and if the particular project fails, especially if it's the first project, the hostility won't be focused on the government. It will be focused on that minority group. That's my opinion.

Within that framework we've worked very, very hard. I've been intimately involved in the project, in the negotiations. I've taken time out of other matters that I've been confronted with, along with my colleague, the Minister without Portfolio (Hon. Mr. Calder), the Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement (Hon. Mr. Levi), and the Member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), for many meetings and projects.

A statement was drafted today after our meeting with the Port Simpson people. Here is a draft of what was to have been released this afternoon and for some reason wasn't released. I read exactly from the statement:

"Premier David Barrett today indicated that the B.C. Government will give major help to the recently organized Pacific Northwest Native Cooperative, which is planning the erection of a major fish processing plant at Port Simpson. Mr. Barrett said the Government's support at the present moment is in principle, but will be prompt and definite, subject to clarification on certain points to be discussed by the native group."

That was after our meeting today. There were certain requirements that we wanted cleared up. They've gone back up north to discuss it with their own people. This is a statement agreed by both the government and the group:

"Simon Reese, chairman of the North Coast District Council, which includes Port Simpson, Kincolith, Metlakatla, Kitkatla, Hartley Bay, Masset and Skidegate and associate villages of Kitimat and Klemtu, who is also president of the Pacific North Coast Native Co-operative said, 'On behalf of all cooperative members and the people

[ Page 824 ]

of the north coast, I wish to express our sincere appreciation to Premier Barrett and the people of British Columbia for this favourable government decision. We have worked long and hard since 1969 with many uncertainties, but we can look forward now to a new future which will provide dignity and employment for our people whose heritage is so closely related to our fisheries resource.' "

Now we've come a long way in this agreement. I've been very, very hard in the conditions outlined by the government, but necessarily hard in my opinion, to ensure that every possible precaution that can be taken will be taken so that this project can be a success.

The funds that will be given will be given as an outright grant. They will be given to a co-operative. The details of the co-operative are the last matters that are now being discussed with the group. They are reaching out to bring in the best possible administrative help in running the cannery. They understand as well that the government will not only give the outright grant but will also guarantee, a yet-to-be-agreed-upon figure, the notes that are on the boats to permit these people to refinance their boats and come directly into the co-op with their boats.

I'm not going to go into too much more detail because some of the things that we discussed this morning in our final meeting must be clarified by the group up north. If the co-op accepts the administrative guidelines that we have advised them we feel are necessary to give at least some assurance of their success, then there will be no hesitation for that cannery to go ahead.

If the cannery does go ahead, I would urge every citizen of British Columbia to view the cannery not just as another competitive business in the fish industry, and not subject this particular industry as a selective buying item to the detriment of competitive fisheries in British Columbia.

But I would like the people of British Columbia to pay particular attention, when they have access to the purchase of goods, to give a little bit of extra consideration to purchasing these particular products, because there's a great deal riding on this project. There's a great deal at stake. I'm sure that if it goes ahead every citizen in British Columbia will wish them well.

The government will not be involved in terms of administering because of the grant. We are going to make sure they have the best possible advice. Every government department that can possibly assist them will be made available to them. In essence, after having done all this work, the concept is essentially "sink or swim," because if they're going to make it they've got to be able to make it on their own; to demonstrate not only to their own people but to all the people of British Columbia that the welfare image can and should be over forever.

That's where we're at. It did take a lot of time to do this, because I did not want to rush into something that may have built-in failures and that we would regret later — not so much as a Government but that they as the native Indian people would regret because of that one chance.

Let me say this about the outright grant. It's out of funds already established. I don't think there's one reasonable citizen in this whole province who would argue against spending those funds.

MRS. JORDAN: I'm not complaining. I merely asked you a question.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'm not suggesting that anybody would. There isn't a Member in this House who would. I am suggesting outside of this House I don't believe there is anybody who would make a case against this kind of expenditure.

The last item was the beautification fund. There are six projects approved, I am advised. The last one was the Lynn Valley Road, and it has to do with the power lines in Lynn Valley. I think that covers all of your questions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Supplementary?

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Premier, your comments on the Port Simpson cannery are very interesting. I would ask you if these funds are coming from the First Citizens Fund and whether this privilege will be available to other Indian groups in the province to form a co-operative and undertake other industries — for example, in the lumber industry.

I can't help but be very annoyed at this Premier's constant reaction any time a Member of this House tries to ask a reasonable question. You live in the past. We're not concerned about the past. We're concerned about the present and the future, and it's your policies that we're interested in. He has to, this Premier, when I ask a quiet, logical question, stand up and get into his boyish, pranksterish mood and try and distort the reasons for the question. It makes us feel that indeed we do have a "boy" premier and that he is going to.…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MRS. JORDAN: I would ask the Premier if he does know, through all the smoke and cloud and fuss he raised, that the lower mainland regional board plan was turned over to the new regional district, that it is a legal document today, that it is being implemented and that the people are being guided by it? If you know that, then will you acknowledge it instead of trying to cast dust over the past all the time? Live on your own ability, Mr. Premier.

[ Page 825 ]

Don't try and cover up your own inadequacies from others' ability.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MRS. JORDAN: I'll have more questions on these under the other estimates.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, there was a Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board made up of competent, professional planners, an accumulation of staff that took a number of years to get together. There were reports out of it. But what the Member doesn't understand is that the former government wiped out the board, not the reports. We've been without a Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board for the last five years. The reports are there.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member for North Okanagan please be seated? Order, please. Will you be seated please?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, all the excitement in the world won't wipe out the fact that the Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board, as a body, was wiped out by the former government. Period. That's all there is to it. Because of that the call for the overview at Squamish was one that found my bewilderment.

The continued absence of the knowledge of what was done by the previous government also boggles the mind, however it upsets the Member. Perhaps a review of the press clippings of the past will refresh her memory.

The personal invective of the Member is more than welcome. When an argument is reduced to the absence of fact, there's really nothing else left to say, is there?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for North Okanagan for further questions, but please, would you refrain from making personal comments.

MRS. JORDAN: The facts as revealed by the Premier, in regard to the expenses of the young man who's to go to the chess tournament, are very disturbing. He, by his own words, said that they got into his office and they lobbied, and he as a member of Treasury will be lobbying for that man.

I want it clearly understood that we don't oppose assistance to people who are going to national and international competitions, representing British Columbia or Canada. What we oppose is another evidence by the Premier's own statement that this government is, in fact, responsive to lobbying.

This government in fact has a Premier who will lobby for an individual without any consideration as to whether or not that's an exception to policy, or whether it is establishing a new policy, or whether it's making him popular with a small group of people.

We want to know: are you establishing a policy for athletes, cultural representatives and other meriting people from British Columbia, whether it is in the capacity of representing British Columbia or the capacity of representing Canada, to receive funds from the Government of British Columbia, either through the established funds or the Provincial Secretary or a lobby in the Premier's office to attend this type of international competition?

We want a policy, Mr. Premier, not the result of a quick minute-lobby on your behalf, and then you on the behalf of someone else. What is your policy? How does this action affect the policy of those funds as they have been established and as you outlined to us in this House a few minutes ago? Is the Premier going to answer the question?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I've answered the question.

MRS. JORDAN: Is this a lobby as a response to somebody who finally got through the maze of workers in your office on their behalf, or are you establishing a policy? Shall I repeat the question, Mr. Premier?

HON. MR. BARRETT: You've had an answer.

MRS. JORDAN: Is this a lobby action on your part or is this part of a policy?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: The Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) says yes. Is he the Minister of Finance now? What is going to be your policy as a Member of Treasury Board in regards to grants to individuals in this province?

HON. MR. BARRETT: All applications will be considered.

MRS. JORDAN: And how, in response to your answer that all applications will be considered, are these applications to be made? In writing?

HON. MR. BARRETT: In writing.

MRS. JORDAN: Verbally through your office?

HON. MR. BARRETT: In writing.

MRS. JORDAN: Was this application made in writing?

[ Page 826 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, but it will be.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. BARRETT: We just had a Member, I make it very clear….

MRS. JORDAN: Well!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member be seated while the Premier.…

HON. MR. BARRETT: I made it very clear that the announcement was premature — that I will be taking the request to my colleagues in Treasury. The request, I expect, will be coming to my office in writing as I requested, and I will not be approaching Treasury until I receive it in writing. If you have any other offer to make, or suggestion, put it in writing and it will go before the committee.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You have a supplementary.

MRS. JORDAN: This is one of a series of premature announcements that are emanating from your office — perhaps not as serious as others. You have emanated premature announcements on the British Columbia Telephone takeover. You've emanated premature.…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member please be seated. I have not recognized you as yet. Would you please be seated. I merely wanted to point out to the Hon. Member that I must recognize you before you can speak. Would you please stand, and I will recognize you. I recognize the Hon. Member for North Okanagan, and I would appreciate it if you would not ignore the Chair.

MRS. JORDAN: I'm delighted, Mr. Chairman. What I want to know, Mr. Chairman, is am I correct in assuming from your statements that a young man, or a representative of a young man in this province, went into your office and peddled you a story which on the surface looks very reasonable, that he needed $2,000 to supplement the federal grant for his expenses to go to another country and engage in a tournament — it's only a preliminary to a national event; it isn't a national event, if I recall correctly — and that you were quite taken in by this young man, and didn't even ask for a written request?

You didn't ask for verification that this tournament is taking place; that he has in fact won the right to attend; that he has in fact a commitment from the federal government for $600; that this is the date when this tournament is going to take place, and that these are the expected costs — and you, the Minister of Finance of British Columbia, the man that's going to sit down to tough knuckle-dusting financial bargaining with the Japanese and with the Czechoslovakians and with the Australians and with the European Common Market; you, Mr. Premier, Mr. Minister of Finance, you who are going to the vaults of the gnomes of Switzerland, said, "Oh, that sounds nice. Sure, I'll lobby for you in Treasury."

Mr. Premier, and Mr. Minister of Finance, I find this an incredible situation. What bothers me, is that it's a very…. Mr. Minister of Finance; you know, you as a social worker still have shown every indication that you don't understand the complexities of the marketplace.

You don't seem to understand — and I'd ask in the form of a question — do you understand that financiers and investors who handle large sums of money, other government's money, and people's money through investment portfolios, take the matter of investment very seriously? Do you not understand that, Mr. Premier? — Mr. Minister of Finance? Do you not understand that they do want to know about liabilities and assets? They want to know about the credibility of management?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would you come to your supplementary question?

MRS. JORDAN: I'm asking this question. This is a very serious matter to the people of British Columbia. This man is going to represent us as the fiscal agent, the fiscal lion of British Columbia, a province that has an A-1-plus credit rating. He let someone come into his lobby, into his office, the lobby of his office, and give him a story which may be very substantial or may not, and he says, "Sure, I'll pay up to $2,000 for you." Then he admits that without anything in writing, without any firm knowledge of this situation and the validity of this story, he's going to the Treasury Board of British Columbia and he's going to lobby, or influence that board, to hand out taxpayers' money — $2,000 of taxpayers' money, without anything in writing.

My question is, Mr. Premier, do you think this is credible? Do you think you are going to cut a credible figure when you go to international financing? What I'd like to know is, did you intend to inform this Legislature of this if we hadn't happened to find out about it?

If this in fact is going on, and we don't know about it, what other things are going on? What other deals are you entering into with the taxpayers' money of British Columbia without anything in writing, without anything to verify the validity of the business deal? And you have the gall to stand up in this Legislature and flim-flam and wave your arms and act like an impudent gnome when you're being

[ Page 827 ]

questioned (Laughter). And I'd like to ask another.…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, Mr. Member, my action might be unparliamentary, but I suggest that this Minister of Finance's actions are not only unparliamentary, they are un-responsible. And the people of British Columbia are concerned. They have good reason to be concerned. If there's any doubt in their minds, if there are any left-wing reporters up there that have had any doubt about the irresponsibility of this Minister of Finance, then let this be an example to you,- that he is indeed a financial boy. He's a boy in a man's world.

Interjection by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member be seated, please. Would you state your point of order please, Mr. Member.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): I would like to know, is this the player who might be blind in two years' time?

MR. CHAIRMAN: What is your point of order?

MR. WILLIAMS: Point of information, then. Is this the same boy? He's 21.…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member please be seated if you don't have a point of order? I will recognize the Member for North Okanagan, but before you begin, I would ask you please to keep your comments to questions to the Minister at this point.

MRS. JORDAN: I've been asking that Minister of Finance if he thinks he's credible. No answer. Gnoming around under that desk. The next question, Mr. Minister of Finance, is: has B.C. Hydro approved its one-third of the six projects that you mentioned were underway for the powerline beautification programme?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, before the projects go through Treasury, either the telephone company or Hydro approve.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, they are in writing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I can't help but comment on your attendance to the rules of this committee, how you could do otherwise than recognize the Hon. Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan), even shrouded as she is… (Laughter). It's incredible. You really are a great chairman, Mr. Chairman.

I'm pleased that the Hon. Member for North Okanagan has raised the matter of the chess championship, because I think that the government should do everything they can to uplift this sport (Laughter). Considering the broad expanse of experience that the Member for North Okanagan has, I think that the Hon. Premier should give every possible attendance to the request, which will be made to him in writing (Laughter).

I must also.…

Interjection by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. Would the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound be seated, on a point of order.

MRS. JORDAN: On a point of order: in the comment that the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound made, I wonder if, in fact, he's henpecked at home. He seems to have such an underlying hostility to women.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. There is no point of order. Would you be seated, please?

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's under the agricultural estimates.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you continue.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I also feel that I must comment on the matter of the questions that the Member for North Okanagan raised about the Squamish area. It's really very serious.

In my brief experience in this House I have come regrettably to the conclusion that the only overview of Squamish that was ever taken by the previous administration was when that Member flew over it by helicopter. That's the only way to account for the rape of Powder Mountain and the indecent assault upon Brohm ridge and the situation we have in the Squamish estuary today as a result of the kind of attention that the previous government gave to the matter of regional planning. To hear this Member — who was a Member of the Executive Council of the previous government — raise the question of Squamish at this time is incredible.

However, I want to raise another matter with the Hon. Premier which does not deal with Britannia or Howe Sound or Squamish or any of these matters. It

[ Page 828 ]

deals with a subject which I introduced into debate last Friday. It is the matter of the use — I think the abuse, Mr. Chairman — of the Strata Titles Act and the conversion of rental accommodation in this province into self-owned apartments.

I raised the question of Esquimalt Towers, and I dealt at length with the problem that was created there.

I wish to advise the Premier, through you, Mr. Chairman, that there are not one, not two, not three, but four apartment buildings in West Vancouver which are being dealt with in the same way.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'd ask the Hon. Member if he would mind relating this to the Premier's estimates.

MR. WILLIAMS: I shall in my very next remark, Mr. Chairman. (Laughter).

I trust the Hon. Members won't treat this matter with such levity because as part of the salesmanship which is being used in the attempt to convince the tenants in these buildings that they should buy is the fact that the home acquisition grant is available in such circumstances. Once having acquired their apartment on an ownership basis, they will, year after year, be entitled to the homeowners grant.

I appreciate that this is at the moment entirely in accordance with the law of this province, but it is an urgent and desperate problem. I would point out to the Hon. Premier on this basis. Two years ago when he was in Opposition and Members of his Executive Council were as well, we saw the sorry spectacle in Victoria of retired teachers coming to the government here in Victoria asking for some relief.

Now let me tell you, Mr. Chairman, that many of the tenants in this particular building that is now under this cloud are retired teachers. They are in a very, very difficult situation. The tenants in this apartment building have lived there — and I'll just read from the list — two years, six years, six years, ten years, one year, nine months, six years, ten years, ten years, six years, eight years, nine years. These are long-term tenants in this building.

AN HON. MEMBER: Name names.

MR. WILLIAMS: I'll table the list. They're all there. Tenants who have properly fulfilled their responsibilities and made this apartment building worth what it is today.

Now this apartment building was acquired in October, of 1972 as a rental accommodation. As I indicated on Friday, these tenants have now been offered the choice to "buy your apartment or get out."

Now it was purchased for about $500,000. I have here a list of the purchase prices of all of the suites.

The purchase price in the aggregate, if my mathematics are correct, is $753,300. The developers, the people who have taken the opportunity of the Strata Titles Act in this province, will pick up almost $225,000 without anything more than the original investment. They will get it back, because people who acquire these apartments will be paying up to 25 per cent down and the balance by mortgage. In effect; the owners of the apartment building today will be taken out of this thing between October 1972 and April 30, 1973.

The prices, Mr. Chairman: a bachelor apartment, $16,600; one-bedroom apartment $23,100. That's on the first floor.

When you go up, Mr. Chairman, to the fifth floor: one-bedroom, $25,000; two-bedroom, $30,600.

Now in addition to that — and I'll deal specifically with the two retired teachers with whom I spoke on Sunday night — they can buy their two-bedroom apartment for $29,600. They currently pay rent of $217 a month. When they buy, 25 per cent down, a mortgage payment plus their monthly cost of maintenance will cost them $241 more than the rent they pay today.

These two ladies are approaching that time of life when under no circumstances can they seriously contemplate this kind of investment. If they had wanted private ownership of their residence, they could have made that choice many years ago. This is happening to every one of the tenants in this building and in three other buildings in West Vancouver as well.

In the main, these people are over the age of 65 years. Now aside altogether from the plight that faces these particular people, let me assure you, Mr. Chairman, that others in West Vancouver who live in the same kind of buildings, paying the same kind of rent, are faced now with the prospect that any morning their mail may bring to them a notice that their landlord has sold the building and that the building is to be converted into a Strata Titles Act condominium. They'll be given 30 to 60 days in which to make the decision to buy or to get out.

The fact of the matter is, Mr. Chairman, that there isn't any place to get out to. You are offered a choice. You're offered, like the Godfather, a proposition you can't afford to refuse unless you want to go and live on the street.

Mr. Chairman, I just happen to believe that this is not the kind of future which we in this province should be holding out to the older members of our community.

It is also not the kind of future that we should be holding out to the younger members in our community; young men and young women recently married, starting out on life without the assets with which to acquire their own home, hoping one day that they will be able to do so, renting their accommodation in

[ Page 829 ]

the meantime but never knowing whether or not they're going to be faced with the obligation to buy which they cannot do, or move out.

Whey you move, Mr. Chairman, it costs about $500. They don't know if the building to which they move, if they're fortunate enough to find an apartment, is not also going to be turned into the same kind of proposition.

Mr. Chairman, there is a Member of the Executive Council who knows about this particular problem. I'm not going to raise that any more than to say that he knows how it works. But it is not fair, and it's going to happen again and again and again for one particular reason, and that is that we do not have in this province a sufficient supply of rental accommodation available as an alternative.

I'm asking the Government what they propose to do about it. It is a serious, degrading and continuing problem, which is our responsibility. Whether we made the situation that exists today or whether it exists by reason of actions of other governments or not doesn't matter. It's our particular problem. I suggest that we must move, and move quickly, to relieve these people from the terror that they currently feel.

So far as the people of Esquimalt Towers are concerned, if they accept the offer to purchase by March 15, they have been offered a discount on their purchase price. The suite I mentioned which can be purchased for $29,600 has a $600 discount available if they buy by March 15. If they don't buy by March 15, they face the obligation to remove themselves by April 30.

Another thing concerns me about this particular proposition. I have searched the records of the Registrar of Companies to find out who might be behind Vanguard Properties Ltd., the company that owns this particular building. The records of the Registrar of Companies indicate that the shares — and there are only two of them — are held by a lawyer and his secretary.

The company was incorporated in April, 1972. I appreciate that under the laws of this province the company is not obliged to file any additional information concerning shareholders until something like 16 months after they have incorporated. The directors, however, are also this lawyer and his secretary. I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that this lawyer and his secretary are the nominees of people who desire to remain anonymous.

I cannot confirm the information which I have, save that it appears in the Dun & Bradstreet report where it is suggested to me that one of the principals in Vanguard Properties Ltd. is one Walter Link.

Now I don't know whether Walter Link is still connected with Vanguard Properties Ltd. I make no criticism of that man with respect to whatever his activities are. But I think.…

HON. MR. BARRETT: What's the name of the firm that the lawyer is.… Is it Vanguard?

MR. WILLIAMS: The name of the company that owns the land is Vanguard Properties Ltd. It was incorporated in April, 1972. Its authorized capital is $20,000. There are two shares issued — one to Mr. W.E. Ireland and one to a person who I understand to be his secretary. They are the only two directors disclosed in the records of the Registrar of Companies.

HON. MR. BARRETT: How is Link involved?

MR. WILLIAMS: All the information I have, Mr. Chairman, is a Dun & Bradstreet report that I saw which indicated that Mr. Walter Link was a principal in Vanguard Properties Ltd. As I say, the records of the Registrar of Companies do not show.

Aside altogether from whatever associations there may be; aside altogether with the inadequacies of our disclosure laws in the Province of British Columbia, I suggest that something must be done to take the burden off these people in this apartment building. In the other ones — and I gather it's happening in North Vancouver; it has already happened in the City of Vancouver — it will be an increasing technique, a technique, Mr. Chairman, for which the Strata Titles Act was never designed in the first place. The Strata Titles Act was designed for a particular purpose, but not this, not to take rental accommodation and in a few months change it into a proposition of "buy or get out."

I must admit that I have canvassed the statutes of this province in the hopes that I could find a solution that I could recommend to the government. I have found one. Therefore, I think that some urgent remedy is required at the highest level.

I would suggest, at least as a beginning, that if existing rental accommodation is to be changed under the strata titles legislation into self-owned, that any tenant, whether month-to-month or under lease, be allowed to continue to occupy the apartment on a rental basis for so long as he or she might wish, paying nonetheless the fair rental value of that accommodation.

When that person decides to vacate, then the opportunity will be presented to the owner of the strata corporation to dispose of that suite and the interest therein by sale. But so long as any of these tenants wants to stay, they should be entitled to stay. I hope that the Hon. Premier can indicate tonight that some early and positive consideration be given to this problem.

The Hon. Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement (Hon. Mr. Levi), when confronted with a problem for senior citizens under Mincome said, "If there are improper increases of rent, we'll send out

[ Page 830 ]

investigators and we'll see what is going on." Now that was designed to protect senior citizens in respect of their housing accommodation.

I think that these people who have saved their money and who have paid their way are entitled to the same kind of protection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I welcome the debate, and I welcome the opinions and the analysis given by that Member. I think it's that kind of exchange, when you bring problems down from theory to reality, that the House itself perhaps can find some solution to the problems.

I want to put the debate in the framework of what exists as Members of this House. What you are talking about, Mr. Member, is free enterprise. Let's make that clear.

The social consequences of that kind of free enterprise are the punishment of those people, because they have been confronted under law with that choice — "buy or get out." You are suggesting then that the government interfere with private property rights. It's a matter that's already under some public discussion in a bill that will not go named right now. But you are suggesting when you give this social situation that the government perhaps has a responsibility to interfere with private rights to protect the loss of rights of other people. That's an interesting proposition, a very interesting proposition.

Somebody has to assume the responsibility to protect the individual against the vagaries of private enterprise. It's very interesting. An excellent plea, made on behalf of renters. But if we brought in a bill to say, "You can't do with your property, even though it's your private property, what you think you can do," what would be the response — on "hot-line" shows? What would be the response in the media? "The heavy hand of state socialism is curtailing investment and the construction of housing." "The heavy hand of state socialism is going to interfere." Ah, how a picture changes.

The sorry picture of a widow, and no question it's a reality, becomes a matter of great plea, and I agree with the Member, on the hearts and the emotions and the reality of the Members of this House. Because there is a social consequence of private enterprise that hurts people and there are appeals like the Member makes to us politicians to see that private enterprise doesn't destroy little people.

The rights of private property are a matter of great emotional debate. But you can't have it both ways. You can't have it both ways. You cannot say that private property has inalienable rights and then assume that when we give rights to private property they should be assaulted. I have great sympathy with what the Member has stated, and I appreciate his frankness in suggesting that he doesn't have the solution to the problem.

When we voted for the Strata Titles Act we saw that there were good possible social consequences out of that Act. It was one of the best debates that I heard in this House. I sat back and I heard the lawyers exchange their opinions; the former Attorney General, Mr. Bonner, was the one, as I recall it, who brought the bill in.

It has been abused. There are unscrupulous people in this world who do abuse property rights. A presentation has now been made to the government that the government has a responsibility to interfere. I hope that is well recorded so that the editorials in the newspaper can carry on the debate from one problem to another that are absolutely related — the whole question of private property rights versus public good for an individual's good.

I've given some thought to what the Member is saying, and it appears to me that one method could be this: that we would suggest by legislation that any apartment complex that was being built would have to be zoned, by law before it was built, into either being a rental accommodation or strata title accommodation before somebody moved in. That we would say, through zoning laws, that you cannot build an apartment unless you give a covenant that it stays as rental or that you're building it under the Strata Titles Act.

That would be hampering the flow of private capital by the government demanding zoning laws. Now wouldn't that be an interesting debate, the inhibition of private capital by the government or a municipality using zoning to tell people how their capital is to be spent for housing? What an interesting debate that would be.

Does the state have the right to interfere and demand that zoning be established on that basis, or does private capital and the dollar have the moral, ethical and right by priority of power to determine what the nature of the apartment building should be?

What would the debate be if we brought in that kind of absolute zoning? Would it be the cause for a Member to rush out of this House and scream "Communism" — as has been the case on other zoning legislation? Or would it be the cause of great welcoming debate by those individual Members saying, "At last you're protecting those poor retired people."

I suggest that in some instances it all depends on whose ox is being gored. The obvious responsibility of any government is to bring in legislation that protects as many people as possible for the common good. That's the motivation of legislation. It can't be isolated into one kind of right of private property from another right of private property.

I'm glad the Member raised it. I don't know the answer. But it appears to me that there have been

[ Page 831 ]

unfortunate abuses of the Strata Titles Act.

I would like to get a response from the municipalities to the proposition that we do lock the construction into either a rental accommodation or a strata title accommodation. Would the House be willing to entertain an amendment to the Strata Titles Act that would restrict the rights of private property by saying, as the Member suggests, that you cannot convert without the consent of the existing tenant? Would the House accept that kind of state interference?

It would be interesting — it's something that I think our own caucus should consider in terms of legislation. Perhaps the Member has the germ of a good idea, that the House would bring in legislation saying that private capital will be told in apartment buildings that you must not send the tenant out and go to the private use of your property because they were there first. You have to wait until they move out before you apply the Strata Titles Act.

Isn't that an infringement on private property? Should we test the House and the mettle of the House — I would welcome the caucus discussing this. Perhaps talking to the cabinet benches and suggesting that we introduce such a bill. It would be an interesting test, wouldn't it?

How would we answer the letters that we would get, saying, "Oho! The heavy hand of state socialism is interfering. It will stop the flow of capital from America. It will stop the flow of capital from the east. It will stop the flow of oil from the ground. It will stop the whole world from going around"? I find the consequences of this kind of debate out of one special situation that the Member has earnestly and sincerely given, and I agree with him that there are people being victimized by the economic system that we live under. But it is one thing to pose the problem within our economic system; it is another thing to pose the solution. Once you assault the myths of North America that the private dollar has a priority right over social values, then you get into the crunch.

So I throw the challenge to the backbenchers of this party. Get busy, draft an amendment, bring it in on the Strata Titles Act; let's have a debate on it. I would be very, very curious to see the debate on the social consequences of that kind of interference on private capital.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would give the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound an opportunity to ask supplementary questions.

MR. WILLIAMS: It is still on the same subject, Mr. Chairman. I thank you very much.

When I rose a few moments ago I complimented you on the manner in which you maintained order in this committee. I take it back. You have allowed the Premier of this province to abuse the rules of this committee by raising on the floor here legislation which stands on the orders of this House. You said not a word. If you can't control the affairs of this committee, Mr. Chairman, without asking the Premier what you do, I suggest you vacate the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member be seated, please.

MR. WILLIAMS: I will not be seated until I am finished. No point of order had been raised, and I intend to proceed with this debate. The Premier stands up like funny boy dealing with matters which have nothing to do with suggestions which are raised on the debate and placed before him and.…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member be seated please, until I explain a point.

I would ask the Hon. Member to rise on a point of order and state his point of order and his authority, and then I will deal with it.

MR. WILLIAMS: I'm not raising a point of order at all. I'm speaking to the Premier in a matter of debate. He deals with a bill which is before this House, and you are aware of it, Mr. Chairman. You say not one word about it.

The Minister deals at length and gives us these big speeches, big political answers. You haven't answered a question in this House all afternoon.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, nonsense.

MR. WILLIAMS: This is your responsibility …

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member make….

MR. WILLIAMS: You are making a mockery of this committee.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, you are making a mockery of this committee.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member please be seated once again for a moment. Would you be seated for a moment, please.

I would request again that if the Hon. Member is going to attack the Chair that he make a point of order that I can respond to.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, we have had enough smart remarks from the Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources (Hon. Mr.

[ Page 832 ]

Williams), the last few days.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the Hon. Member to make his point of order.

MR. WILLIAMS: He has got the nerve to talk about going on to TV, because we have got a tape of what that man said about the land bill. He will answer for that.…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member come to his point of order?

MR. WILLIAMS: I asked the Premier, Mr. Chairman, a very simple question. I detailed a particular problem that affects individuals in this province.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's right.

MR. WILLIAMS: I asked the Premier if there would be anything that his Government might do about it. Am I to understand that your answer is to turn to your backbenchers and say, "Why don't you bring in an amendment to the Strata Titles Act?" Is that your answer to these people who have difficulties? Individuals?

I'm not talking about your autocratic move to control all of the land in British Columbia. I'm talking about the ability of the Government to deal with the individual citizen. The individual whose rights you said in the budget address would be supreme in this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member please address the chair.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to draw these matters to your attention because it must be of the greatest concern, and should be to you as Chairman, that the Premier of this province sees fit to answer questions, which are properly proposed by Members of this House, by arm-waving speeches. It was better under the previous administration when the chair was turned with his back to us and we had no answers at all.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You don't like the answers.

MR. WILLIAMS: At least we weren't subjected to continuing political debate.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. WILLIAMS: The fact of the matter is.… Oh, you laugh. The Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams) laughs. He has been through this exercise. He made his profit out of condominiums and such development, and now he laughs. He laughs at these individuals in this province who are suffering the problem that his tenants suffered.

HON. MR. BARRETT: If you want the Government to interfere, that's fine.

MR. WILLIAMS: Now he laughs. Mr. Chairman, I just would like to ask the Premier if he has any particular solution for these particular individuals who are facing the problem in the next 15 days.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I have no particular solution, but if the Member will recall the comments I made, there is the matter of rights of private property. Those rights are what I discussed, and the Member suggests that we are concerned about the rights of individuals. How do you separate the rights of the individuals? I ask the Member the fair response — you relayed the problem.

I'm suggesting one solution — through zoning. We will certainly consider an amendment to the Strata Titles Act for that kind of zoning. My comments were directed to the particular matter you suggested within 15 days for us to come up with a solution to the vaguries of private enterprise. I'm sorry, I'm not that skilled. I wish I could.

If you can assist us in any way within the 15 days, we will certainly welcome your assistance, but how do you separate the private rights of the person who owns the building versus the rights of the tenants? That was the burden of my argument.

Mr. Member, I can appreciate your heat in response, but if you carefully consider my remarks, they were related to that very principle — the matter of individual rights as protected by law. The law in British Columbia says today that the individual has the right, under the Strata Titles Act, to do exactly what you say is taking place. They have the right to use the law that way. It is regrettable. I don't like it, but by golly, it's legal.

Whether you like the fact that I respond on that basis is really irrelevant. The fact is we are dealing with people who are obviously taking advantage and abusing a law that was designed to facilitate better accommodation for people. Therefore, you are suggesting — and I welcome the suggestion — that the Government has a responsibility to interfere with private property rights. That's the point that I made. I think it is an important time that your suggestion is heard in this House.

Now, we will consider interfering with private property rights to protect these people. We will find the best possible means available. We will consider any suggestion you have got.

My reference to the backbenchers, Mr. Member, if you can't see it in terms of history, is a denial of

[ Page 833 ]

autocracy. I expect these people to help me in my work rather than the absolute decisions we have been subjected to before that you made some reference to.

I welcome anybody's ideas to help these people — no holds barred. But you must understand that what you are asking is for the state to interfere in private property rights that exist under law today.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, if I may preface my question by a few remarks, the Hon. Premier seems to be under some misapprehension with regard to what he calls private property rights.

Most all legislation passed in this and in any other legislature is an interference with the free and unbridled exercise by individuals of their rights. Certainly the Hon. Premier would not suggest that the Landlord and Tenant Act of this province, which has been on the statute books of the province for many, many years, is just that — an attempt to regulate the relationship between landlords and tenants.

All that I am suggesting in my remarks tonight is that, in respect of that landlord and these tenants, some change be made in the law as it affects that particular relationship. That is the prerogative of the Legislature. That is a far different thing than a philosophical difference that exists between us concerning the ownership of private property.

I suggest that perhaps it's too important for us to discuss this in the heat of debate. The people in this building are your supporters as well as mine, there's no question. It's their particular problem, and I just hope that we can resolve this in some way.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, I will suggest to you, Mr. Member, that I will give serious consideration to the use of an order-in-council to protect those people.

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

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Mr. Chairman, I would like to bring up a point that I don't think has been brought up so far in the Premier's estimates. I take great pleasure in changing the subject here somewhat that's been going on for a while. I refer to the spraying of the rights-of-way of the BCR (British Columbia Railroad), the B.C. Hydro and also the highways department.

I would like to tell the Premier through you, Mr. Chairman, that the citizens of this province are fed up with the practice that is going on in these three government departments, spraying the defoliant spray. They're not only killing all the foliage on the right-of-way, but it extends and blows as it is picked up by the wind — ruining a lot of gardens and so on, on the route. I would like to ask the Premier, as President of the railroad, if this has been brought to his attention before, and ask him to direct the BCR, the B.C. Hydro and the Department of Highways to desist immediately, starting the year 1973. Regardless of party affiliation, I think all our citizens are fed up with this.

The alternate is more expensive. In other words, we'll have to get machetes and axes out. I agree that they must have their rights-of-way cleared. We can't have the foliage growing out of control. But I disagree with the method that they're trying to kill it under. I suggest that they go back to the machete or the axe, and maybe take some of the people who are on the unemployment rolls, put them to work, and charge it to the different government departments.

So I'd ask you, Mr. Chairman, to the President of the BCR — because I've got a funny feeling that he might get his vote soon and I realize that once he's got his vote, we can't talk about the BCR any more — I'd like to have a clear policy decision from him. What are they going to do about it? Are they going to stop this or are they going to let it continue, because it's gone on too long already? Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Chairman, before the dinner hour I asked the Premier some questions regarding Keen Industries. I wonder if he is prepared to provide answers to those questions?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, we were not able to reach Mr. Broadbent. I have no further information I can give you.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, he wasn't here today, and I wasn't able to reach him.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. BARRETT: If you care to put the questions on the order paper, they'll be answered in as complete detail as possible, as they have been up to now.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, perhaps the Premier can answer this question, then. He did draw attention to the fact that $60 million worth of provincial trusteed funds had gone to the B.C. Railway.

One of the requirements by legislation is that the

[ Page 834 ]

B.C. Railway, or the PGE, its precursor, hold an annual meeting of shareholders. I'd like to ask the Premier when that meeting was held, where it was held, who attended, and whether this matter of Keen Industries was raised at that annual meeting. In the event that no annual meeting of the shareholders was held this past year, perhaps the Premier could tell us when the next annual meeting will be. I'd like to attend, if it's possible. I realize, of course, that the only people entitled to vote at the annual meeting of the shareholders are the shareholders. This is one that the Government could win 18,000 to 0, or whatever it is the Minister of Finance has registered on behalf of the people.

The other questions that I raised, Mr. Chairman, and I was again very disappointed in what the Premier had to say regarding pension funds. He seemed to think that I was unaware of the order-in-council that the Government had passed, and indeed that the order-in-council could solve this serious conflict of interest. I want to remind the Premier — and I'm sure he's aware of this, Mr. Chairman — that historically there has been a far greater point spread between Province of B.C. bonds, provincially guaranteed, and federal government bonds, which represent the prime rate of Canada Pension Plan funds, that far exceeds that 0.25 per cent.

What I had hoped the Premier would say, and I ask him again now if he would consider this, is to open these pension funds up to the users. In other words, let the teachers have a representative speaking for how their funds should be invested.

AN HON. MEMBER: No way.

MR. McGEER: Who said, "No way"?

AN HON. MEMBER: I did.

MR. McGEER: I'm ashamed, Mr. Chairman, that we should take the pension funds of the teachers and the civil servants and the municipal civil servants, make those captive funds, and give them no say in the way they should be invested. They're not the Minister of Finance's funds. Those funds belong to the people who pass them.

AN HON. MEMBER: They're his responsibility.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I challenge that viewpoint. That has been the disease in this province for 20 years — that we should take the funds of the people of this province, make them captive funds, put them in the hands of one man who's not accountable by any legislation to how those funds are invested or how they've been spent.

Over the years what we've seen as a consequence of that is that the pension funds have been gypped of their proper return. When I stand up and speak on behalf of the teachers and the civil servants, it's to see that they'll get a proper return for the money they've been forced to contribute for their own retirement.

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't even understand pension plans. Cut it out.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, it's my hope that this open Government is going to become open, because we've got all the conflicts of interest we had before. We've got the Minister of Finance wearing all the same hats that he always has. We've got the same people doing the same things with the people's funds. I think it's as wrong now as it was under the Social Credit administration.

AN HON. MEMBER: They're doing a good job; leave them alone.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, the Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) is very exercised, and he's defending the Minister of Finance. You ought to enjoy this evening, Mr. Minister of Finance. He may not always be this much on your side.

I'd like to ask the Premier this time a few questions about the Columbia River treaty.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Just a minute (Laughter).

MR. McGEER: He has more hats than Rowan and Martin. Mr. Chairman. He's got a whole rack of them. Mr. Chairman, the subject really isn't a matter for humour, as I know the Premier realizes. If I interpret the answers given to questions on the order paper, it sums up something like this. The cost to the taxpayer of British Columbia to reach the point of the former Premier's promise, which was to construct the three treaty dams and provide half the machining of Mica, is $284 million. That's with the smaller generating system that was contemplated in 1963.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's your figure for half the cost of Mica?

MR. McGEER: No, the three treaty dams plus Libby, Wachin and general costs.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You're referring to his original figures.

MR. McGEER: His original figures were $410 million.

[ Page 835 ]

The three treaty dams plus Libby plus Wachin plus general, come to $592 million. We've got $182 million there. Then there is the question of the generator costs — $460 million is the full installation of the generators now for 2.6 million kilowatts.

Originally the plan was only for 1.8 million kilowatts, and originally the cost of that was $106 million. If you scale that up to the larger generation system.…

HON. MR. BARRETT: What are you using in that $400 million figure, now — $460 million?

MR. McGEER: The generators at Mica — the figure you gave is $460 million. Half of that would be $230 million. You have to scale it down a bit because originally, in that promise, it wasn't for 2.6 million kilowatts. It was only for 1.8 million. You have to take that $460 million divided by two, which is $230 million, and multiply it by 1.8 over 2.6.

MR. FRASER: This is Liberal arithmetic.

MR. McGEER: It's very tragic arithmetic, Mr. Member. How you arrive at the figures maybe includes what assumptions you want to make regarding what the installation that was promised at the time of the 1963 election was really intended to be.

No matter how you slice it, the British Columbia taxpayers have been saddled with this fantastic loss that came along because of inexcusably bad cost estimating in the first instance, and runaway inflation in the second.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You guys voted for this.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, you may remember…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. McGEER: …at the time when these debates were taking place in this chamber, neither the Columbia River treaty nor the 1963 agreement signed between the federal and the provincial government was ever referred to this Legislature. I have faulted publicly the federal government of the day because I think they made a tragic mistake.

They worked hand in glove with the provincial government of the day, agreed to the treaty on the provincial government's terms. Though the financial judgment, that blame must rest on the shoulders of the former provincial administration, there is still no excuse for the federal government having agreed to it. They should have seen the dangers.

Mr. Chairman, it's because of that culpability, really, of the federal government of that day that I think the premier has such a strong political case for re-opening of the treaty. I was disappointed, Mr. Chairman, and you will recall my speaking on this subject in the House last fall, saying that I thought the Premier had a strong case and that I would do everything I could do to help him see that this treaty was re-opened. I was disappointed that the Prime Minister did not give a more favourable reception in that meeting with the Premier, whatever was said at that meeting.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'll tell you about that.

MR. McGEER: Perhaps he wasn't aware of the degree to which the former federal administration and the Conservative administration before that, had been in drafting that treaty.

Mr. Chairman, I know I've said this before, but there are routes that the provincial government can take to try and achieve a re-opening of that treaty. The first of these is to use the article under the 1963 agreement of this joint study board. I'd like to ask the Premier whether he has named his two members and, if he has, who they are. I think it's extremely important.…

HON. MR. BARRETT: You're talking about the B.C.-Canada separate treaty?

MR. McGEER: Right. That's the one, Mr. Chairman, I consider the weakest route, but it is a route. It's something that gets this whole subject started.

AN HON. MEMBER: So try them all.

MR. McGEER: The second route — and I think this is the stronger and proper route — is to say to the federal government, this was a continental energy agreement. It didn't involve natural gas or oil. It involved energy. But the principle was the U.S. gives us the money, we give them the resource. We enter into a long-term contract. The money dangled in front of the politicians at the time the agreement is made looks very nice. Then in a few years it fades, and we're stuck with the bill.

It is because the Columbia River treaty represents everything that's wrong in a continental energy policy, when it comes to energy, the moral obligation of the federal government should be to place reopening of the Columbia River treaty at the top of the shopping list for any discussions that take place about energy in any form between Canada and the United States. What the Americans want right now is our natural gas and our oil next. What we need to do is to establish the principle that always these contracts can be re-opened and renegotiated, starting

[ Page 836 ]

with the one involving energy and the payments that are due the Province of British Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, suppose there is a third route, and I might just mention that too. That's to say this whole matter should be referred to the International Joint Commission. There is a provision under the treaty for a direct referral of any matter that Canada and the United States cannot agree upon, to the International Joint Commission.

It's very important, Mr. Chairman, for us to understand what we want to ask for if that treaty is re-opened. I submit that it cannot be those things that were mutually agreed to in the contract. Those things were firm power and flood control benefits. What we can ask for is things that were implied in the treaty, but were never written into a firm financial agreement. These things are peaking power, for which Canada gets no payment at all, but for which the Americans are using all the Canadian storage after the initial period of the treaty passes. In other words, we're paid for firm power but the payments to us will drop virtually to zero by 1990, while they use all our storage for peaking power and they get it scot-free.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. McGEER: It is not.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sure it is.

MR. McGEER: It is not. Not for peaking power — only firm power, Mr. Member. I've read and reread and reread and reread that treaty. Unless those terms are changed, we're stuck and we will never get another penny under the Columbia River treaty.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh!

MR. McGEER: Never. The Hon. Members should really read and study that treaty, and consult with people who have read the engineering reports on both sides of the border. If all that stored water is used for peaking purposes, and if the installation of firm power capacity is such that all of that stored water can be used at any flow rate by the plants that are installed, the entitlement to Canada is zero.

At the present time the Americans are quadrupling the size of the Grand Coulee. It will be able to handle, once that quadrupling has taken place, the most rapid flow that's been recorded on the Columbia River for the last 50 years. What that spells is nothing to Canada. So, Mr. Chairman, we must demand payment for peaking power.

The other thing which was not written into the treaty, but which we can demand payment for now is ecological damage — the fact that productive land has been lost to Canada. There's 150,000 acres of it, for which there is no compensation and for which we're not being adequately paid to clear and maintain the reservoirs.

If these things are asked for, it seems to me possible that British Columbia might be able to gain $300, $400, $500 million as indemnity payments from the United States for favours granted under the Columbia River treaty, for which British Columbia got no compensation. Because the potential rewards to British Columbia are so extraordinarily high — higher, I believe, than any British Columbians have realized to date — then I think that one of the most important political cases that we can pursue is this re-opening of the Columbia River treaty. I hope the Premier would give us a brief report this evening on how that's going and what he sees as the prospects.

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

MR. FRASER: I wonder if the President of the railway is going to answer what I asked about spraying of rights-of-way on the BCR.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I've got the answer.

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

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Premier, as the chief executive officer, if he campaigned at any time that the sessional indemnities for MLAs were too low, and if he also campaigned at any time that the salaries for Ministers were too low.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. These come up under legislation. They can be debated then.

MR. MORRISON: Then I'll refer just to his own, if I may. Did he campaign that his own salary was too low? I would also like to ask if he campaigned that the travel allowances and so on were too low.

I would further like to ask what his intended changes are for the next two or three years regarding salaries, his own in particular. I'd further like to know if there has been any arrangement or agreement reached with the federal tax department concerning what parts are taxable.

One additional question I'd like to ask him, as Minister of Finance, is if he is in favour of night ferries for Vancouver Island, particularly from Sidney to Tsawwassen.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I believe the latter question would come up more properly under the Department of Highways estimates.

MR. MORRISON: Well, I think that it would

[ Page 837 ]

safely come under that….

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The Minister of Highways will have to answer the ferries question.

It's great. What am I going to say, that what you're presenting is not correct? It's correct. You've flogged the historical points one by one. So have I. I'm trying the liaison committee route.

There was a misunderstanding, unfortunately. The Prime Minister was asked a question that was not related to what we had agreed on. He'd agreed that we would go the route of a liaison committee first. I've pursued that, and the correspondence is available.

I must say the Prime Minister was sympathetic. He was sympathetic, but he did point out the legal limitations that there were in terms of the binding treaty that was signed. But here is that avenue of the liaison committee. It's an avenue that is there by the treaty between British Columbia and Canada, and that's the route we're pursuing. I can't say anything more than that, other than we're continuing. We're not going to abandon it. Perhaps it's a drum that can be beaten every session and we talk about it. But I have hope that we can recover something out of that very, very tragic deal.

We've not named anyone to the liaison committee yet, because we've told the Prime Minister we're gathering more material in terms of the exact kind of presentation we want to make. The cooperation has been good. I have no complaint at all.

I really wonder, through you, Mr. Chairman, how many people in this province realize what a blunder that treaty was. You know, Mr. Chairman, when you talk in hundreds of millions of dollars, it's difficult for people to comprehend just exactly what we inherited out of that treaty.

I think the Member is quite right in his assessment and is shocked and disappointed. I share the feelings. But honest to goodness, through you, Mr. Chairman, I don't think the average man on the street really appreciates the magnitude of that blunder.

We are a wealthy province. We're going to be able to absorb that blunder. It's going to cost a lot of money — I'm not denying that. But had it been one of the prairie provinces or a province without the economy that we have in this province, what disaster. That goes down as another tragic page in history.

I'm not going to abandon it as long as I'm around. I'm sure you're not going to abandon it either. So any informal discussions you can have with federal people to press the urgency of our position will be welcome.

A question was asked about Hydro spraying. Hydro is looking for alternatives. I have not raised the matter with the BCR other than once when I received a letter on it in the fall. I was to get a report and I just don't recall, quite honestly, what the report was.

But I asked for them to discourage it. I'll double-check and see.

On the question of salaries, Mr. Member, I'd just like to refer to the vote. It was a very rare experience for me. As a matter of fact, it was the only time in 13 years that I've been here that we actually discussed salaries before we left the House. This is always a sensitive matter for politicians. The bill was brought in that was intituled Bill No. 37, An Act to Amend the Constitution Act, that limited salaries and laid out scale.

As I recall it, every single Member voted for that bill. There it was: tacit approval of the salary route that we're following by every single Member — the Opposition, the Government, everybody else.

MR. McCLELLAND: What year was that?

HON. MR. BARRETT: This was 1972, last spring. You remember …

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It was 6.5, retroactive to 1970. Read the bill. It was debated. Your colleagues — not the one next to you, but your colleague in the corner and your colleagues in the front row — all voted for it the same way that I did. It's just a simple fact.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, I campaigned because at that time there was some question that the bill was motivated because of the 6.5 limitation on teachers' salaries. We were told during the debate that that was not the case. We voted for it. Some of your colleagues who are still left were among those who voted for it. It was one of those rare occasions when a House was abolishing itself, and just before it dissolved itself it did vote on a salary. I think it's a good idea.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Did I campaign on 6.5? Certainly. I said that the bill had been passed. It was a matter of debate publicly and I mentioned, as the Government Members did in the campaign, about Bill No. 37. As a matter of fact, it was one of the planks in the Government's platform. Bill No. 37 and the Constitution Act amendment was used during the campaign as a demonstrative device by the Government to indicate that it was prepared to limit its salaries to the same that it was limiting the teachers to. That was part of the campaign itself.

My name is on record along with everybody else's who was here. Some of the people who voted for it

[ Page 838 ]

didn't recover from the election. Nonetheless, the legislation is there.

AN HON. MEMBER: The best of us did.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The best of us did? Thank you, Mr. Member. (Laughter).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 2 pass? I recognize the Hon. First Member for Victoria.

MR. MORRISON: I wonder if he would answer the second part as to what his intentions are for the next two or three years, and have they reached any kind of an agreement with the federal tax department as to what portions are or are not taxable.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You'll have to ask the Provincial Secretary. The intention is to carry on a pattern that has at last been established in the House. I would ask that the disappearing House, prior to an election, be confronted with the decision so that the interest would be limited. The House would dissolve after having resolved the decision of salaries so that the candidates out in the field would be there on the basis of what the previous House did. It's a good method.

It's always been a sensitive thing, the question of legislators' salaries. There's no question about it. When I first came to the House, we used to have a system called the round robin. "Would you agree on a raise?" Everybody initialed it and it was to be very quiet. This is a very sensitive area with politicians. I found that early. You signed a little space in the round robin and you gave your little pledge that you would never talk about your salary.

Well, I don't think it's a matter of embarrassment or shame or anything else. Quite honestly, I think that the legislators did vote on the Constitution Act — I welcomed the Act because it was a frank, open statement around salaries. We're in the unique position where we do set our own salaries. I've stuck by what we voted on. I would hope that three years from now, when we vote again, the House itself will decide the limitation on the incoming House.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, the interpretation you'll have to get from the Provincial Secretary.

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

MR: D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Well, Mr. Chairman, I had the opportunity to speak in this debate yesterday afternoon, and I asked the Premier some questions on what I considered to be one of the most important matters in British Columbia today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Then you left.

MR. PHILLIPS: We've had a lot of discussion here tonight about a lot of items that we can't do anything about right now. I'd like to get back on a subject that we can do something about — that the Premier can do something about.

After I spoke, the Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis) stood in the House and he said that he didn't learn anything after listening to my talk on unemployment. He said I talked too long. I say that if this House does nothing else in this session but does something concrete to stem the increasing tide of unemployment, it will have been a very productive session.

I would suggest that if that Member for Saanich and the Islands would move out of the capital area, where a majority of the people or a very large number of them indeed are employed by the provincial government, into the boondocks…

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, not the boondocks — "into the rural areas."

MR. PHILLIPS: …where employment is reliant on private enterprise, maybe the Member for Saanich and the Islands would know what was going on in this province.

I get a little sick and tired of this "holier than thou" attitude of the two Conservative Members in the House, who are on a big ego trip …

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. Would you get to your point, please.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's my estimates. It's not his. (Laughter).

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'm going to get to you right now. But I did want to get that off my chest because I get a little sick and tired of it. (Laughter). They need a research assistant. Maybe if they'd do their research as to how they can be critical of the Government instead of compliment the Government, they might not need another research assistant.

The Premier said after I spoke yesterday, "I'm sorry the Member is not here who gave us some entertainment." Well, I don't find it very funny that the first officer of this province thought that I was entertaining when I was talking about, as I said before, the most important problem facing British Columbia today — the problem of unemployment. I don't think it's entertaining at all. Unless, of course, the first officer of this government gets his kicks out of seeing how high unemployment is going to go in this province. If he does that, maybe that's why he

[ Page 839 ]

considered my dissertation on unemployment entertaining.

He complained that I talked too long and that I wasted the time of the House. Well, I've seen him here today filibuster his own estimates.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member please get on with the vote.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm talking about the Premier, the first officer of this government, Mr. Chairman. He wants to be paid and he wants me to vote on his salary. I'm talking about a statement he made in this House about a talk that I made in this House yesterday afternoon on unemployment. That's what I'm talking about.

Then he said I left the House and went out and said that he and his Government were acting like communists. That's what he said, Mr. Chairman. But I didn't hear him stand in this House and say that that was wrong. No, he didn't deny it.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Excuse me, I'll be right back.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, take your time, Mr. Premier. Take your time.

I'd like to look at some of the answers, Mr. Chairman, that the Premier gave me on some of the questions that I asked him. Is that permissible, Mr. Chairman?

Well, number one, he said in the estimates this year that he was going to spend some $50 million out of surplus on second mortgage money so that people could build houses. Mr. Chairman, through you, I would like to ask the Premier how he expects that unemployed people are going to build houses, whether they have first mortgages or second mortgages or third mortgages. I don't think people on unemployment can raise enough money for the down payment on a house. If they do, I don't think they'd be building a house.

So I don't know how this $50 million that he's going to put into — and it's not a great deal of increase over what's been put into the second mortgage field in the last few years by this great idea that was created by the Social Credit government of providing second mortgage money. I'm glad that he answered me that he's putting money into this great idea, this great fund that was created by the great Social Credit government.

Then he says he's going to spend another $10 million to buy land for these houses. If the Government is going to buy land, Mr. Chairman, are they going to rent the land back to people to put their houses on that he's going to loan them the second mortgage money for?

The problem is, Mr. Chairman, that the government cannot go on being the main employer. It's all right to spend money in the public sector and try to create money by the government spending it. But that's not what I asked the Premier to do yesterday afternoon, Mr. Chairman. I asked him to create an atmosphere in this province that would allow the private sector to progress so that they could be the number one employer.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): Don't repeat yourself.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'll repeat myself until I get an answer in this House, Mr. Attorney General.

As I said before you came in, I happened to be discussing, Mr. Chairman, the most important problem in this province. I think that it deserves some attention, and I think that it deserves some constructive answers from the Premier.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear. We're certainly not getting them from you.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I discussed the mining industry, and I'm going to get into that.

Then he goes on to say that he's invested $80 million — $10 million for community recreation. That's a good point, and they'll probably build some community recreation facilities. But this still is not going to solve the unemployment problem.

What the Premier didn't answer me is what he's going to do to solve the cold war in the mining industry. That was a specific question that I asked him, and I gave him a suggestion. It would help the unemployment situation. But I got no answer from the Premier.

Is he going to talk to the petroleum industry? He's had a lot of people in his office.

Mr. Chairman, I am not young enough that I cannot remember the 1930s when there was unemployment, when people couldn't find a job. There was misery. I fear that we're headed in that same direction. I think this winter will probably go down in the history of Canada as the history of mismanagement by the provincial and federal governments.

While our federal government tries to walk a tightrope between their own policies and those of David Lewis — who, by the way, hasn't got that long to go.…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm talking about unemployment.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

[ Page 840 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: The Premier stood in the House this afternoon, Mr. Chairman, and he read an article from the newspaper. It was written at the time that Jim Pattison recently addressed the Vancouver Board of Trade. Jim Pattison has a very large investment in the Province of British Columbia through his companies. He doesn't want the apple cart upset because Jim Pattison probably left here to go back to New York and borrow another $30 million. If he had said what he actually felt here in the Province of British Columbia, he might have been turned down when he got back to New York.

That doesn't impress me. Where we've got one statement where one man says that things aren't that bad — and I don't think Mr. Pattison has taken the time to really look into what is happening in the Province of British Columbia. I don't think he's really looked into it.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: I asked the Premier when he's going to bring in his Industrial Development Act so that we …

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That's my department. Ask me.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: It's a policy of this Government. I specifically outlined yesterday afternoon before I started talking that the Premier is the man who handles the dough in this province. Are you going to put your own money into this industrial development corporation, Mr. Attorney General?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. PHILLIPS: No. It's going to come from the Minister of Finance. And who's the Minister of Finance? He's the Premier. How much money do you intend to put into this industrial development corporation?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. You'll have an opportunity, Mr. Member, to canvass this matter when we consider the estimates for the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce.

MR. PHILLIPS: I am talking about money, and the money comes from the Premier. I spent quite some time yesterday afternoon, Mr. Chairman, outlining this to you. He is the Minister of Finance. He has to okay the money that's going to go into this industrial development corporation. I would like to know how much money he plans on putting in it, when he intends.…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member please be seated for a moment. I'd like to make a point.

I would draw the attention of the Hon. Member to standing order No. 43, which requires that a Member does not repeat himself too frequently. If he has new material to offer, then he brings it forward rather than repeating material which has already been contained in a previous address to this House.

I would ask him, therefore, if he has no new material that he discontinue his speech. Otherwise, I would ask that he introduce his new material.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, is there anything in there that the man the questions are asked to should answer them?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The answer is that no Minister is required to answer any question in this House.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I would like an answer to this very important question because, as I said, it deals with the most important problem in British Columbia today.

I also asked the Premier if he was going to do anything about developing the port of Prince Rupert and the port of Stewart.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I answered those questions yesterday.

MR. PHILLIPS: If you answered them yesterday, I wish you'd read to me because I didn't see where they were answered.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You don't stick around very much. Stick around.

MR PHILLIPS: Mr. Premier, as the president of the British Columbia Railway, do you have any intention of extending the railway from Fort Nelson to Nelson Forks? I asked these questions, and I didn't get any answers.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, I haven't heard an answer yet since this session opened about what this Government intends to do to solve the unemployment situation.

I pointed out that somebody is spending in this province $36 million a month on unemployment insurance. I made a suggestion, and the Premier said I was a fascist, because I made a concrete suggestion that maybe by some inducement, by either providing board and room or travel, people in the lower mainland could be moved into the hinterland to take up some of these jobs.

[ Page 841 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: That wasn't what you said.

MR. PHILLIPS: That certainly is what I said. Read Hansard. I made a suggestion that you do something, and you accused me of wanting to force these people. One of your own Members said that we should force young people into the north. I didn't say anything about forcing them. I said that you should deal with Ottawa.…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member please address the Chair; and again I would request that you introduce new material rather than repeating that which is.…

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Well, I'm going to leave this subject. But I would like the Premier.… Yes, I know you'd sure like me to sweep unemployment under the rug — the whole cabinet would like me to just forget about unemployment. You'd like to forget about unemployment yourself. The whole cabinet would like to forget about unemployment.

But you cannot sweep unemployment under the rug. Sooner or later you're going to have to face it. There was a lot of talk just a moment ago, Mr. Chairman, about the Strata Titles Act; about people in apartments that were going to be sold. The crux of this whole situation, Mr. Chairman, is — as raised by the Member — that these apartment dwellers have no other apartments to go to.

I would like to ask the Premier how many apartment buildings have been started since September of last year.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: It pertains to employment, and it pertains to investment in this province. And it pertains to the economic atmosphere that this Government is creating in this province.

Maybe that's why these people haven't got a place to go to. It's because there has been no apartment construction started. Maybe since the land freeze nobody can get any land to build an apartment building on. Maybe that's got something to do with it, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Say something new and important.

MR. PHILLIPS: I would like you to do the same thing, Mr. Attorney General. I would like you to stand on your feet, through the Premier, and tell me what you're going to do about unemployment. That would be new, and that would be constructive, instead of getting up and giving all this arm-waving; and accusing the Member, the other night, of cheap politics when he stood on the floor of this House and fought for the people in his constituency who are becoming unemployed.

You talk to me about repeating myself. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the Attorney General might take a lesson and get up and give us something new. To date we haven't heard — and I'll repeat it again — to date we haven't heard a word of what this Government is going to do to create an atmosphere.…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would you get back to the consideration of vote No. 2, please. I would request that the Hon. Members not interrupt the speaker, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: All right. Well, I'll leave it for now — when the Premier gives me some answers. When I finish a couple of other things and he gives me some answers, well, I'll leave it. If he doesn't, I'm going to come back to it. I'd like the Premier to know that, because I intend to get some answers about what this Government is going to do to solve the unemployment situation. When I hear it, I'll sit down and be happy.

There was some discussion yesterday afternoon, Mr. Chairman, about the report that was made by Howard Paish & Associates, his report on Britannia: whether it should be used by the British Columbia Railway to export coal from the Sukunka. I think he was well paid for his report. In the back of his report he made some comments which the Premier said.… Well, he was not going to ask him to withdraw them because that would be interfering with the report.

However, the same Mr. Paish on Friday, while addressing a meeting of the Richmond Teachers Association in the Hotel Vancouver, went on to put words in their mouths, Mr. Chairman. After being paid for compiling this report for the government, he goes on at this public meeting instruct these teachers as to a number of things they should consider about this report.

So far as I'm concerned he made a lot of comments, Mr. Chairman, that he should not have made. I would like to hear the Premier's thoughts on Mr. Paish talking to these school teachers.

He worked on a confidential report, so far as I'm concerned, for the government. He knew the report; he knows all the circumstances surrounding the report. And he goes on to tell these teachers who will go to their classrooms and tell their children, who will go home and tell their parents that the public needs to be informed on how important Howe Sound is to the British Columbia Railway as an outlet for coal.

I don't think those were the terms of his reference. He said, "We need to ask how much money the government has sunk into the British Columbia Railway. I estimated about $400 million."

[ Page 842 ]

I think Mr. Paish over-stepped the terms of his agreement. I think he should have tabled the report and left it at that. But now he wants to go on and create in British Columbia — stir up, as it were, the general public when he, I understand, also has laid down some of the terms of reference as to how this public inquiry is going to be held.

He goes on to say we also need to know what it would cost, in terms of revenues to the BCR, if the coal outlet were located elsewhere. He's giving an opinion, Mr. Chairman — "The government must have costly reasons for going ahead with the Britannia terminal. We need to know what those reasons are." He's advising these school teachers at this meeting to broadcast this loud and clear.

This man knows all about this project, was paid well for preparing it. He said that no one would ever know what he personally thought about the question. No one would ever know what he personally thought about the question.

Well I just read his article out of the paper, and I've got a pretty good idea about what he thought about this whole situation. "I prepared my brief to the government as a detached observer," he said. I would like the Premier to tell me what he thinks about what Mr. Paish had to say to these school teachers. We must ask ourselves whether the revenues from shipping are worth sacrificing in order to save our recreational areas.

He prepares a report that says that there will be no ecological damage to Britannia and then goes ahead and points out to these school teachers a number of pertinent questions that they should be asking. I think in the future that if we are going to have — and there probably will be because this government likes to have reports and studies done, which there is nothing wrong with — but I think, Mr. Premier, through you, Mr. Chairman, that in the terms of reference there'd better be something laid down about what the authors of these reports can say to the general public. As far as I'm concerned Mr. Paish should have said nothing. He should have kept his thoughts to himself.

Now, Mr. Premier, the budget was brought down in Ottawa recently, and in that budget was something that has been argued for quite some time by the agricultural community, in western Canada particularly, because of the large size of the farms. The Minister of Finances says that "…retroactive to January 1, 1972, when a farmer dies and leaves his farm to his children, there will be deemed no sale of his farmland. Therefore there will be no tax on the capital gain."

In other words, to preserve the family farm it can pass from father and mother to son and daughter without being taken over by the state. Through you, Mr. Chairman, I would like the Premier to answer me. The provincial government, are they going to follow through with this on the provincial succession duties so that family farms in British Columbia can stay in the family on the death of one of the original owners? I don't think there's any legislation on the books, Mr. Chairman, on that one. But I would like the Premier to answer me — that's in his department as Minister of Finance — I would appreciate him giving me an answer.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The house is already exempt.

MR. PHILLIPS: I realize the house is exempt, but when you start talking about particularly my area — acres and acres of land.…

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's a good point, well taken.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I would appreciate it if you let me finish here. There's a couple of other questions I would like to ask you, Mr. Premier.

I would like to ask you if you have any intention of rescinding the S.S. & M.A. tax on Hydro and B.C. Tel monthly bills. This is not actually a piece of merchandise; it's a service. Are we going to continue to pay tax on this service, or are you going to take it off? I'd like you to advise me, Mr. Premier.

I would also like to know, Mr. Premier, if you have any intention of taking the sales tax off mobile homes. A mobile home, I feel, should be considered as a piece of real estate. A lot of people and a lot of civic governments in this province have tried to ignore mobile homes, just as they tried to ignore snowmobiles when they first came in. I guess they thought that they would just disappear. But with the younger people we have in the province today, and with the mobility of it — at least what used to be the mobility of it, when the mining and construction industries were fluid — people buy mobile homes.

If I were a young fellow just getting married and working for the construction or mining industries, I'd buy a mobile home and I'd move it wherever I went. I think that it's a good idea.

I don't know why, if there are no taxes paid on the materials that go into mobile homes, same as in homes.… So is there any intention on the part of the Minister of Finance and the Premier to remove the S.S. & M.A. tax from mobile homes?

This year, Mr. Premier, the agricultural community has suffered a lot of setbacks. I would like the Premier to advise me if he has any intention of setting the date of farm taxes back from October 31 to December 31.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: No. It's October 31 now. Does he

[ Page 843 ]

plan to set it back to December 31?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, I would draw your attention to the fact that if the matter is something that can be remedied by legislation it should not be considered in the discussion of the estimates.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, this doesn't have to be remedied by legislation. All the Premier has to do is say, "I'm going to do it."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I just want to finish my points, and that is that if you are proposing something, the proper procedure would be to do it by motion or by a private Member's bill.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm not proposing something; I'm asking the Premier if he has any intention of doing something.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's already available, Mr. Member. All the farmer has to do is write in — that's all he has to do.

MR. PHILLIPS: Just until October 31, Mr. Premier?

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's right.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'm saying you have to set it back to December 31.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It never was December 31.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'm asking you — do you have any intention of setting it back further?

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's not under consideration at this time, but we certainly encourage people to write in if they feel they need beyond October 31.

MR. PHILLIPS: Very good point. Thank you very much, Mr. Premier.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I think the point is not clear. I just want to make the point clear, and that is that 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. So if some matter is a matter of necessity of legislation or consideration of legislation, then it should not be discussed at this time.

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to ask the Premier and Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) when he's going to turn the sod on the new automobile manufacturing plant in British Columbia.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Which company?

MR. PHILLIPS: I don't know. You're the one who said that there was going to be an automobile plant in British Columbia. I think that if you would get started on it, it would certainly do a lot to relieve the unemployment situation in British Columbia at the present time.

Is this, Mr. Chairman, going to be a Crown corporation owned by the province? Is it going to be owned by the people of British Columbia? Is it going to be owned by the workers, or is it going to be owned by some automobile company in Japan, Mr. Premier, through you, Mr. Chairman? I would like the Premier to advise me how his negotiations on this labour-intensive industry are progressing.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Do you want me to answer this, or are you going until 11 o'clock?

MR. PHILLIPS: Does the Premier and Minister of Finance and president of the British Columbia Railway (Hon. Mr. Barrett) have any intention of allowing the municipalities to distribute hydro? Does the Premier and Minister of Finance, Mr. Chairman, have any intention of allowing the municipalities and cities to distribute natural gas? Does the Premier and Minister of Finance, through you, Mr. Chairman, have any intention of allowing the municipalities to take over that portion of the telephone company which lies within their boundaries?

While I'm on that, Mr. Premier, what is the timetable for taking over B.C. Tel? Is it going to be this year, or next year? I'd also like the Minister of Finance to advise me whether he has negotiated with Ottawa as to how this can be done, because B.C. Tel is a multi-provincial organization.

I'd also like the Minister of Finance and the Premier to advise me, as I said before, as to where the money is going to come from. Are you going to allow the ordinary citizens of British Columbia to buy shares in this company? Are you going to float parity bonds, so that we can all have a chance at this? Are you going to New York to borrow the money, Mr. Minister of Finance?

HON. MR. BARRETT: No insiders.

MR. PHILLIPS: No insiders. You're not going to go to New York?

MR. CHABOT: He's going to Washington.

MR. PHILLIPS: Are you going to talk about this when you're down in Washington talking about the

[ Page 844 ]

oil spill, Mr. Minister of Finance?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Nay. No insiders.

MR. PHILLIPS: You know, Mr. Minister of Finance, I was looking at your estimates for travel, and you've only increased it by $5,000. Now, if the Premier intends to go to Europe, Mr. Chairman — and we've already heard on the floor tonight that there's a young fellow going to Europe and that it's going to cost him $2,600 — $600 from the federal government and $2,000 from the provincial government — if the Premier goes to Europe he is going to have to take an interpreter with him. He'll probably want to take his Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) with him. There's three. Maybe he'll want to take his wife with him.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh! Whose wife?

MR. PHILLIPS: But at least you'll need two or three other people in the group. Suppose, Mr. Premier, that you have five people with you. At $2,600 apiece, that's $13,000. That only leaves you $2,000 on which to do the rest of your year's travelling, Mr. Minister of Finance.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, maybe the Minister of Finance, then, will advise me what other vote the rest of his troupe is going to come out of. Certainly if he's going to Europe he's going to have to take some other people with him, because he'd be pretty lonely over there.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's right.

MR. PHILLIPS: Now, under Finance you've got another $10,000, but you're going to take two people down to Washington with you when you go in March — two other people, you said. I don't think you've allowed yourself enough money for travelling.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Could be. The former Premier (Hon. Mr. Bennett) spent $15,000 two years ago himself.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm concerned about this, Mr. Premier, because I'd hate to see you have to call us back here in August to give you some more money with which to go travelling.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Didn't you go on that steambath trip?

MR. PHILLIPS: Eh?

AN HON. MEMBER: Your Minister without Portfolio was there.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Do you wish to allow the vote to go through? Would you like answers? Or would you…

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I want some answers, but I still have some more questions, Mr. Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, we have an 11 o'clock closing time. Do you want to go past that, is that it?

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, you're the House Leader, Mr. Premier. I have some questions, but if you hadn't filibustered your own estimates… (Laughter).

I have some questions; I would like some answers. I'll sit down now. You haven't written half of the questions down — I'm going to have to repeat them to you anyway.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member continue with his remarks?

MR. PHILLIPS: Well now, the Premier asked me a question, and I'm trying to find out how he wants — does he want to sit down now and answer the questions I've asked thus far? Because I've got some more questions to ask.…

HON. MR. BARRETT: Carry on, carry on.

MR, PHILLIPS: Carry on? But you're not writing them down; that's what bothers me.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I got 'em up here.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'd like the Minister of Finance to advise me when he's going to start this British Columbia airline? Is he going to buy out an existing airline? Is he going to start an airline from scratch?

HON. MR. BARRETT: What airline?

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, you told me, or it's in the book, and if it isn't in the book maybe you'd better consider it. But I think that if you checked into your record you would find somewhere where your intentions are, or those of some of your backbench.…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, Mr. Member. I would ask you to address the Chair, please.

[ Page 845 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I'll address the Chair. Will you tell me, Mr. Chairman, are we going to take over an existing airline? Are we going to start an airline from scratch where we have to train the pilots and test the airplanes and buy the airplanes, start our own airfield, build our own hangars, hire our own mechanics, put in our own gas pumps, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member please relate this to the Premier's estimates?

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

AN HON. MEMBER: I'm asking him a question.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, if you want to ask a question, just wait till I'm finished, Mr. Minister of Highways, and you can ask all the questions you want. I haven't heard too many of the backbench or the other Members of cabinet ask any questions.

AN HON. MEMBER: We've not had much chance.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. Would the Hon. Member please address the Chair, and would the other Hon. Member please not interrupt.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I'll address the Chair if you would just keep the cabinet from asking me questions. I'm accommodating — if they ask me questions, I'll answer them. I wish that they'd give me the same consideration in this House.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I want to know. Where is the money going to come from to start this airline? There again I'll have to ask, are the people of British Columbia, Mr. Chairman, going to be allowed to buy shares in this airline? Are the MLAs going to be able to have free passage on this airline so that we can get home to our constituencies, Mr. Chairman?

Are you going to hire Mr. Gaglardi as your chief pilot? (Laughter).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'd ask the Hon. Member if he would please relate this to the Premier's estimates.

MR. PHILLIPS: Would you like to answer some of these questions now?

AN HON. MEMBER: You haven't sat down yet.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I want to know. If not, I'll continue with my questions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 2 pass?

MR. PHILLIPS: No, certainly it won't pass. I'm not through asking questions yet.

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

MR. McCLELLAND: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I only want to ask two questions of the Premier. One of them has to do with a question he didn't quite answer previously. That has to do with the Power and Telephone Line Beautification Fund. The Premier has indicated, Mr. Chairman, that six projects have been approved under the power line beautification fund.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's what I've been advised.

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, you've indicated that in the House. I'd like to ask if the money has been made available from Hydro. I understand that the money has been made available from the government, but has the money been made available from Hydro? If Hydro's one-third has not been made available, then those six projects are not worth considering at all. Now that's one question, Mr. Chairman, to Mr. Premier.

The other question has to do with some of the other things that the Premier said earlier having to do with trust and contracts and election promises and this whole idea about a breath of fresh air coming through these corridors, according to the Premier.

Mr. Chairman, the Premier has alluded a number of times in the discussion of his estimates this evening about the Lower Mainland Regional Planning Board. He's indicated many times this evening, Mr. Chairman, that the lower mainland regional plan is dead.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Not the plan.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say, first of all, that this was the finest land use plan in North America when it was developed. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to suggest that the Premier talk to the man who's somewhere in this building — upstairs, downstairs or down the corridor somewhere — who you've hired as a transit director in this government, who was the author of that plan. Talk to him about the plan. He'll tell you what that plan is about.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The board was dismissed, Mr. Member, and that's what I was talking about.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would you proceed on to your next point. I believe this subject has been sufficiently canvassed.

MR. McCLELLAND: No, Mr. Chairman, it has not

[ Page 846 ]

been sufficiently canvassed. The Premier has sat in this hall tonight and indicated that that plan is defunct.…

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, no, no.

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, you have, Mr. Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, no, no. I said the board was defunct. I talked about the board.

MR. McCLELLAND: All right. The board is defunct as a board, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would you please not carry on a discussion across the floor of the House. Would the Hon. Member please address the Chair.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, will you tell the Premier that I'm talking to you at the moment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm speaking to both sides of the House, Hon. Member.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, the lower mainland regional plan is basically intact. It was the solution to orderly planning of the lower mainland of British Columbia. It wasn't killed. The board perhaps was killed, but the power was vested within the regional districts of the Province of British Columbia, Mr. Chairman; the control was vested in the local authorities where it belongs.

The lower mainland regional plan, Mr. Chairman, through to the Premier, has been effectively controlling the orderly growth of the most populous area of British Columbia. It was working. No one can frivolously change that plan among any of the people who belong to it. I want the Premier, Mr. Chairman, to admit that the lower mainland regional plan is still intact and still operating. Or at least it was until it was scuttled by your Government which decided to supersede every local authority in the Province of British Columbia.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, there's a point I would like to make.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, one: every matter that's been referred to Hydro, according to the information that I have, in terms of the use of that fund, has been approved by Hydro and the money has been spent.

Number two, I referred to the elimination of the board, not the plan. If you want to go over the tapes tomorrow, you'll see I referred to the board.

Mr. Chairman, in view of the hour, I move the committee rise, report great progress — fantastic progress — and have leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Leave granted.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

MR. LA. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker, with leave of the House, at the supper hour we discussed the preparation of a memorandum by you, Sir, with respect to at least one of the reports from the Private Bills Committee regarding the rules of the House. On previous days there have been other similar reports presented.

I wonder if you would consider it appropriate for a similar memorandum to be prepared and submitted to the Members so that all these changes might come forward and commence perhaps at the same time. I was thinking particularly of the suggested change regarding introduction of message bills, which I think was adopted yesterday. I think it would be more convenient with a proper memorandum from you in the hands of all Members so that from that moment on we would all start off with the same rules.

MR. SPEAKER: I'll take it under advisement. I would point out to the Members that, when you adopted the report in regard to the sitting times on Friday, you thereby automatically made that a new standing order by the terms of that. The other matters I'll examine into and send a memorandum to each Member.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:00 p.m.