[ Page 1409 ]

CONTENTS

Motion to adjourn

On signing of agreement to purchase Ocean Falls. Mr. McGeer — 1409

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1409

Mr. McGeer — 1410

Mr. Speaker's ruling — 1410

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Ferry terminal at Hyde Creek. Mr. Chabot — 1411

Purchase of Ocean Falls. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1411

Compensation under the Municipal Act. Mr. Wallace — 1412

Willingdon Girls' School. Mr. Curtis — 1413

Railway accident chlorine spill. Mr. Nunweiler — 1413

Altering of oil spill proposal. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1413

Committee of Supply: Department of Lands, Forests and Water Resources estimates.

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1414

Hon. Mr. Williams — 1415

Mr. Smith — 1417

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1425

Mr. Wallace — 1428

Hon. Mr. Williams — 1429

Land Commission Act (Bill No. 42). Second reading.

Mr. Phillips — 1430

MONDAY, MARCH 19, 1973

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

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

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, sitting in this House for a number of years leading one of the great parties, a great Canadian today is in the Speaker's gallery. I'm sure we would all welcome him on the floor of the House, Mr. Speaker — the Hon. Arthur Laing.

He was not only an MLA here, he not only was the leader of his party here, but he was also a federal Member, he was a federal cabinet Minister and now is in the Canadian Senate. A great Canadian.

As person who has been leader of the government here for 20 years and gotten to know him very well indeed — all his talents and abilities and the contribution he has made to public life — I want to say that tribute to him here this day, Mr. Speaker, and ask all the House to join me in that tribute.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I too would like to welcome the Senator. I had the opportunity of meeting him earlier this morning. I have no knowledge of those great historical battles; I am too young to remember those old political fights. (Laughter). I am sure they were relevant in their day.

I want to say how happy I am that the Senator is here with us. He has on occasion met with me and given me sound advice, and I hope he will continue to do so in the future.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): It is a delight to find that other parties are so quick on their feet that they beat me to it, to welcome the former leader of the provincial Liberal Party in British Columbia, a former leader of the British Columbia caucus in Ottawa, a fine Canadian, an outstanding man and a great friend of mine, the Hon. Arthur Laing.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party also would welcome Mr. Laing. I am too young to know all that went on before also. (Laughter). But any man who can stand that much of public life must be a hero. (Laughter).

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North Peace River.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A little later this afternoon there will be a group in the gallery from Fort St. John — a touring hockey team that participated this past weekend in the B.C. championships, competing against other teams in B.C. to see who was the best peewee rep hockey team in British Columbia. They didn't win but they gave a good account for themselves and I am sure the assembly would welcome this group of students from Fort St. John.

Introduction of bills.

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

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, I move under standing order 35 (1) the adjournment of the House to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the signing of an agreement by the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams) to purchase industrial facilities from the Crown Zellerbach Corporation without the authorization of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia and on behalf of a provincial Crown corporation which does not exist.

Mr. Speaker, I attach here a Press release from the Minister's office.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, on the point raised, the Hon. Minister in question will be before the House with his estimates — as a matter of fact, I think today. So there is lots of opportunity for this House to discuss this and other matters within that portfolio.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Start on the Minister today and then legislation.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, if I may respond to that particular order, the House has no knowledge at this point of what the order of business will be. We do know, however, that the Press release was given after this House had risen on Friday. This is the first opportunity for us to call to your attention that an act outside the jurisdiction of the Minister has been undertaken in our absence. Accordingly, we should deal with the matter of the Minister's transgression as the first order of business today.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. The point of order has been taken as part of the argument, I presume, on whether it is urgent to discuss the matter that was raised by the Hon. Member today at this time, adjourning thereby the priority or precedence motion that is before the House which says that the estimates have first priority in this House during this time of

[ Page 1410 ]

the session. That is what we are engaged in by decision of the House: the priority of the estimates. It is, I think, known to the Members that when it comes to precedence of those estimates, the Minister's estimates are to be before the House as one of the urgent consideration to be taken up, I presume, today.

Now, I cannot know definitely — I can't know anymore than the Member — that that will happen, except the House has ordered that those matters take priority over other business. Therefore there is an early opportunity available to the House to debate in full the statement made by the Minister that you allege, if it was made.

Secondly, there is the opportunity to question him in regard to it fully in the estimates.

Thirdly, the Member has raised another point; that is that the Crown apparently, in his view, has not the power to make transactions in regard to purchase, or otherwise, of land. Of course, I can't see how that in any way affects the urgency of debate because this House does not have the jurisdiction to make purchases of land. That is retained within the royal prerogative when one looks at standing orders and the Constitution Act. It is not for this House to do it.

MR. McGEER: May I answer those points?

MR. SPEAKER: Certainly…

MR. McGEER: The first of these is that there is nothing in our estimate books which applied to this particular purchase. Since our debate is therefore limited to votes that are specified in our estimate books and which are in resolutions that the House Leader now has in his diplomatic pouch, then there is no way that we can properly bring forward this point under the Minister's estimates.

Mr. Speaker, secondly, with regard to the authority of the Crown to purchase land; the challenge is not to that authority, but to purchase it on behalf of a Crown corporation which does not exist. Sir, if you check the legislation governing our existing Crown corporations, you will see that none of them are entitled under the legislation to undertake the kind of business…

MR. SPEAKER: I don't want an argument on the merits; I just want the point.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, certainly.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with last year's budget when the Crown makes a decision up to April 1, this year. The Member knows very well that the Crown must be delegated authority and was delegated authority for this present budget during the last full legislative session. April 1 is when the new budget comes into power.

Secondly, if the Opposition is attempting to say that the Crown has no authority to conduct the business of this province while we're sitting here in this House, then the Opposition is missing its responsibility in scrutinizing the estimates for next year.

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

HON. MR. BENNETT: The Government missed the point altogether. The point surely is that the House, Mr. Speaker, is in session.

This matter has no doubt been discussed by the Government for some time. The Government had every opportunity to advise this House about this particular proposition. He could have advised the House the same day he did it. This announcement should have been made in the House first. It wasn't, Mr. Speaker, and therefore the Minister is open to criticism on that account.

The official Opposition will support the point taken by the First Member for Point Grey (Mr. McGeer).

MR. SPEAKER: I thank the Hon. Members for their advice. I have, as you all know, the difficulty here of determining whether the regular ordered session should be adjourned for this special matter in consequence of what the Hon. Members have drawn to my attention — both by the statement of the matter by the Hon. First Member for Point Grey and a Press release dated March 16 re Ocean Falls from the Hon. Minister concerned.

The Hon. Minister's salary estimate comes up today, and it's traditional in May's Parliamentary Practice and in our standing orders that his conduct in his office, and what he does and what he announces are the subject of the most strenuous debate.

MR. McGEER: He doesn't want the leader of the Government to answer questions asked.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. The point is that we have not yet got before us anything other than a statement of the matter which is the purported purchase or agreement to purchase the company town of Ocean Falls for $1 million according to the Press release sent up by the Hon. Member. Therefore I have to determine not whether this is a matter of urgent importance today but whether there is an opportunity to debate it. If there isn't, then it's my duty, as I see it, to agree that the matter be put to the House. But I can foresee that this matter will either be dealt

[ Page 1411 ]

with today or in the near future as the most important precedence matter before the House. The Minister's estimates are next in line, I understand — certainly alphabetically, and by practice in this House.

So I must rule that the matter is not of such urgency, in view of the rules by which we are bound.

MR. McGEER: Point of order. May I just speak to that point?

MR. SPEAKER: No, I've heard you on that point, and I have to make up my mind on the matter. There is no appeal from this decision under our rules. I can invite submissions — I don't have to listen to them — but I always try to hear what you have to say. So we must go on to the next order of business.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

AN HON. MEMBER: I challenge your ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. You can't challenge my ruling under that section, unfortunately. I would be glad to argue that out with you, but that standing order does not permit a challenge.

Introduction of bills.

Oral questions.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Columbia River.

FERRY TERMINAL
AT HYDE CREEK

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): I have a question, Mr. Speaker, for the Minister of Highways.

In view of the fact that 356 of the residents of Cormorant Island and Malcolm Island have expressed their desire to locate the ferry terminal at Hyde Creek as being a better solution to the transportation problem on the north island, is the Minister able to give the House an undertaking that the wishes of these residents will be respected?

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Highways): Mr. Speaker, the Member who asked the question only told part of the story. There's another port involved — Port McNeill. It's a three-point landing — the ferry touches on three points. You ignored completely it's not between Cormorant and Malcolm Island; it's running between Cormorant Island, Malcolm Island, and Port McNeill. The three of them could not agree as to where the terminal should be located. They continually disagreed, no matter where it was going to be, and as Minister of Highways I took the decision of putting it in Port McNeill, which meets the needs of the people and is the most economic.

MR. CHABOT: A supplementary question: does the Minister not agree that, applying the shorter run principle which he applied to the Gabriola mainland run, the same principle should apply to the north island?

MR. SPEAKER: I don't think that the Hon. Minister has to answer theoretical questions, or something that he has not already decided or that has been concluded.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: What, in fact, we're discussing is the perimeter of an isosceles triangle. You can move the three points in an isosceles triangle in different ways without increasing the length of the run.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

PURCHASE OF
OCEAN FALLS

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Minister of Lands and Forests whether he would inform the House why the decision regarding Ocean Falls was not made to this House prior to the release to the public.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources; Minister of Recreation and Conservation): I'd like to advise the House, Mr. Speaker, that the agreement that was made with Crown Zellerbach Corporation was not made in fact until Friday afternoon, so that the earliest possible time this House could be advised was today.

Now we feel we have an obligation to the people themselves as well outside this chamber. The people most directly affected are the people in that region and the people in that town. They are the people that were first advised, and I'm proud of that, Mr. Speaker.

MR. CHABOT: Too little, too late.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: A supplementary to the Minister's reply: may I ask the Minister why it took over six months to make this decision and why it was taken within two weeks of most of the residents leaving the town when this was a subject of debate last summer during the electoral campaign?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Well, Mr. Speaker, I've advised this House, I think on two occasions in the

[ Page 1412 ]

oral question period, that negotiations and discussions were going on with Crown Zellerbach. That is simply the case. Discussions carried on with Crown Zellerbach despite the fact that that previous administration had not pulled things together. Discussions carried on until last Friday afternoon, Mr. Speaker. Negotiations carried on. As a result I think the people of the province have benefited from the length of negotiations, in fact.

MR. SPEAKER: On the same subject? The Hon. Member for Point Grey.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister…

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

MR. McGEER: …if he has firmly committed this legislative assembly by signed contract to the expenditure of $1 million?

MR. SPEAKER: Order! When I call for order, I expect the Hon. Member to be seated. If we don't have rules of order then we'll get into the situation that has prevailed at other times. And it's not a happy situation.

I point this out because you were starting something that was entirely irregular, that is, that this Legislature has the primary jurisdiction and that this was taking it from the Crown. As you know, in our standing orders that is not correct, and to argue a question in a question is certainly stating a false premise. That's why I brought you to order.

The Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, may I rephrase the question?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order, order!

MR. SPEAKER: I recognize the Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR. McGEER: May I rephrase the question?

MR. SPEAKER: After the Member for Oak Bay, if you have a supplementary. Is it on the same thing, Hon. Member?

MR. WALLACE: No, I'm asking on a different matter, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On the same supplementary? The Member for Langley.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Speaker, on the same subject with regard to Oak Bay…(Laughter). I beg your pardon — with regard to Ocean Falls; Oak Bay will be taken over next.

Mr. Speaker, pollution control standards for pulp mills throughout British Columbia were laid down by the previous government and there was about to be required a series of improvements in those standards. I'd like to ask if the Minister could indicate to the House whether pollution control standards will be expected at Ocean Falls under the Government's operation of the mill, and what those standards will be. Will they be as severe as will be called for in other parts of the province? Forthwith, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The standards are all under review by the department at this time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Anybody else on the same subject? I hope the next ones are in order.

MR. McGEER: With your guidance, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister what Crown corporation he has made this purchase on behalf of. Is that in order, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, that's in order.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I'd like to advise the House, Mr. Speaker, that the question of the details of the acquisition itself is in the hands of the Attorney General's department. Whatever necessary programme is needed, I'm sure will be carried out.

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

COMPENSATION FOR
EXPROPRIATION UNDER
THE MUNICIPAL ACT

MR. WALLACE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker — I thought I'd never make it. Could I ask the Premier a question? Inasmuch as section 706(c) of the Municipal Act states that when expropriation takes place when land is zoned exclusively for public use in the Municipal Act compensation shall be paid. Would he like to comment on the public statements of the weekend which are completely contrary to this?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I would point out May, at page 327. You cannot ask an opinion from an officer of the Crown on any question of law. The Attorney General is an example. So it would be out of order.

[ Page 1413 ]

MR. WALLACE: But, Mr. Speaker, does this apply in such a public statement in all media by the Premier which clearly contradicts what is in law, stated in 706, sub section 2?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the comments referred to by the Member are dealing with the debate under Bill 42. I would be happy to engage in an exchange of opinion under that bill according to the orders and rules of this House.

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

WILLINGDON GIRLS SCHOOL
ALTERNATE LIVING PROGRAMME

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement. Could he inform the House with respect to some form of pilot programme which is about to get underway or which, in fact, is underway in the vicinity generally south of Duncan, which has been described as a community opportunities programme and which involves some form of farming?

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement): Mr. Speaker, I was asked a question yesterday by the Member from that area, Mr. Strachan. We're having a meeting this afternoon in my office with the people involved.

This is a group of people that we contacted last November to help us set up some alternate living arrangement for some girls who would be released from the Willingdon girls' school. I might say that I'm somewhat disturbed by the kind of open meetings that have been going on because at the moment we have not made any decision about budget. I would be quite prepared to tell the House after my discussion this afternoon what is actually taking place in respect of the group.

MR. CURTIS: Supplemental, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister: at this time no provincial funds have been allocated for such a programme?

HON. MR. LEVI: The only funds that have been made available are to individuals who did a series of interviews for us last — December and January with all of the girls in the Willingdon school. As to the actual project itself, it is still under consideration. No specific funds, other than the day-to-day consultant fees that we've been paying, have been allotted.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Fort George.

CHLORINE SPILL

MR. A.A. NUNWEILER (Fort George): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A question to the Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources on the matter of a railway accident by the Canadian National Railway about 100 miles east of Prince George which involved four chlorine cars. One of them had a chlorine spill. I'd like to ask the Minister if he has the results of the investigation that would have been conducted, this being in the Fraser River watershed.

Number two, are certain actions being taken to have the Canadian Transport Commission review the safety railway conditions such as speed requirements, running gear requirements and roadbed requirements?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the question of jurisdiction here really involves the federal Transport Commission. I certainly will obtain all material with respect to our own department and take action with respect to the federal authorities.

I might note that there is a meeting with the federal Minister of Transport just later this month. I'd be pleased to take up this serious question with the federal Minister at that time.

MR. SPEAKER: I would point out that the second part of the question relates to the federal jurisdiction and is not, therefore, within this chamber. The Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

ALTERING OF
OIL SPILL PROPOSAL

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Premier arising out of a report in Friday's Vancouver Province newspaper where the head of the Premier's task force on the British Columbia Railway, which we know as "The Way Out proposal," indicated that the British Columbia proposal is inferior to the Mackenzie Valley one. In the light of this, does the Premier intend to revise his submission?

HON. MR. BARRETT: That was Mr. Law's opinion.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. As Prof. Law headed up the task force and is described as the team leader of the British Columbia government's proposal, would the Premier perhaps think that it's more than just a professor's opinion?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I'd be happy to respond to the Member by pointing out to him that Prof. Law's first proposal was made to the federal government where it was dismissed without examination. On behalf of the Province of British

[ Page 1414 ]

Columbia and responsible for the railway, the BCR, we took Prof. Law's proposal, which had been rejected by one administration, and attempted to adapt it to our own administration on behalf of the people of British Columbia.

The federal government refused to take initiatives. We, the Province of British Columbia, with the backbone of our B.C. Rail, offered an alternative that is workable and feasible. That's why we proposed it. If the federal government wishes to pick up Prof. Law's first proposal, we would be happy to see that leadership from Ottawa.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. First, I would point out that the inaccurate statements made about the federal position are not helping getting tankers off this coast.

Second, is whether or not the British Columbia proposal, which has been described by the head of the task force which drew up the British Columbia proposal as being inferior to another…

MR. SPEAKER: Order. Is the Hon. Member asking a question?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: What is your question?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Would the Premier in any way alter the submission?

HON. MR. BARRETT: What I'm suggesting is exactly what I said in the beginning. If the federal government will come up with a proposal of its own and if Prof. Law's proposal is superior and the federal government will back it as an alternative to those oil tankers, I'll endorse that. What we're doing is being responsible, not just criticizing like the federal government with no alternative plan whatsoever.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey. Oh, I'm sorry. The bell has just rung.

Orders of the day.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Committee of supply.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): When was the question, Mr. Speaker? We were informed on Friday last that we would be dealing with legislative reports. I'm wondering whether…

MR. SPEAKER: I think that whether you were informed that or not, that does not constitute any binding decision on this House. The House Leader can choose the business for the day.

AN HON. MEMBER: The man you can trust.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

House in committee of supply; Ms. Young in the chair.

ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF LANDS,
FORESTS AND WATER RESOURCES

On vote 131: Minister's office, $64,032.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Madam Chairman, it is the practice while we're in estimates to move immediately to estimates for a short period so that we follow orders of the day, then go on to legislation. I want to say that in calling the Minister's estimates today and then finding the Opposition opposed to it after they wanted an emergency debate is somewhat contradictory. Despite the contradictory position, I have asked the Minister if he would come on today because an important Government policy decision was announced late Friday as soon as the arrangement was consummated.

Before the Minister goes into his report and questions on it in his estimates, I want to say that one of the proudest moments I've had as Premier of this province is participating with the Minister in arranging for the purchase of Ocean Falls. Through that purchase, we are saying to the people of this province and demonstrating that we consider jobs and the resources of this province to be paramount, and we would not let that town die as Social Credit had allowed it to.

This Minister has worked many, many hours pulling this package together after we inherited the mess from the previous administration. I notice now, as we see a pattern developing — and I want the people of this province to notice it — as soon as we get down to discussing cases, the official Leader of the Opposition leaves the House and refuses to participate in the debates in this House.

We want a full debate on the purchase of Ocean Falls. They wanted an emergency debate and the official Leader takes off out of the House to arrange another meeting somewhere else.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You call them to order, Madam Chairman, while I speak on this important purchase. I want to praise the Minister. I want to thank him and I want to tell all the working people

[ Page 1415 ]

of this province that this purchase demonstrates…

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Rip-off Minister.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Order.

HON. MR. BARRETT: …that we intend to govern this province, through this purchase…

MS. CHAIRMAN: Order, Mr. Premier. You must speak to the vote.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I am, and under this vote, Madam Chairman, the purchase of Ocean Falls has been managed by this Minister. The purpose of this purchase is to assure all British Columbians that we are concerned with their security first.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): Madam Chairman, it's typical of the Opposition in this House that the real issues are always ignored. The question of jobs, the question of the protection and preservation of a region…

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Order.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Madam Chairman, what do these people really care about? They've talked about jobs throughout this session.

In this particular situation we wanted to protect jobs in a region that has been left listless and on the vine by the former administration. When we took up the cudgel and dealt with the problems of that region, what did we get from them? We got the kind of nitpicking, narrow presentation that we've had throughout this session.

We see a responsibility to the region up there, a responsibility to the people who are affected, and to the rest of the taxpayers of this province. We feel we've carried it out.

That agreement was not signed until after this House rose on Friday last. It wasn't signed until later Friday afternoon.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Why not?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Why not? Because we wanted to get the best possible deal for the people of British Columbia. That's why not.

Then, Madam Chairman, the Hon. Leader of the official Opposition (Hon. Mr. Bennett) said…this is the man that signed the Wennergren deal, remember that? Where did he sign that? Was that announced in this House? Not on your life.

Remember the Northern Pacific Railway, the one that started nowhere and ended up nowhere — but elected that group once more? That kind of bafflegab, of promising jobs, promising the development of regions and never, ever produce.

The same Hon. Leader of the official Opposition even agreed to the Columbia Treaty outside of this Legislature, and made commitments of hundreds of millions of dollars in excess of what even he anticipated. And all of it outside of this Legislature.

I challenge the Members of the official Opposition to go up with the MLA from McKenzie (Mr. Lockstead) to Ocean Falls and to debate this issue there and see what the reaction will be in that community.

Just the same old narrow nonsense from the bafflegab crew that produced nothing in northern British Columbia.

I'd like to say what's happened just over the last couple of days in terms of a report from Ocean Falls, Madam Chairman. The report that we have is this, from Mr. Vesek, the man who will head up the management team in Ocean Falls.

Mr. Vesek advises me this morning that 87 people in Ocean Falls have already indicated they want to work in the new community and for the new group governing Ocean Falls. In addition some 10 people who formerly lived in Ocean Falls have indicated they want to come back and work in the community. In addition, there are those who want to stay for a period of time to make sure that the new venture is successful so that they can work through the initial six month period as well. So it's very clear what the reaction has been from both the people of Ocean Falls and, I think, from the province itself.

I'd like to talk generally, Madam Chairman, about some of the problems of northwestern British Columbia. Ocean Falls is a small part of a range of problems facing northwestern British Columbia. I must say that the former administration let this region just drift. Northwestern British Columbia has stagnated under the former administration.

It is no accident, Madam Chairman, that the New Democratic Party won every riding from Prince George west. It is no accident whatsoever. That was a region long neglected and the people knew it was a region long neglected. That's why they turfed you out. It's as simple as that.

Part of the reason for the neglect, Madam Chairman, was the fact that they could never cooperate with the federal government, no matter what. If it meant hurting the region, it didn't matter. If they could gain a few points in a narrow fight with Ottawa, they'd take it every time. So the future of

[ Page 1416 ]

that region was held back because that former administration could never co-operate with the federal government.

The question of harbours, the question of rail development, the question of integrating our resources with the development and working closely with those in the federal sphere just didn't happen. The gradual hardening of the arteries of the former administration plugged first in northwestern British Columbia under that administration.

I'd like to say, Madam Chairman, that we've had considerable co-operation with the federal government in northwestern British Columbia, with the Canadian National Railway Company. I'd like to say here and now that that company has been most cooperative. The problems of that region and of those towns depends on a co-operative pattern between Ottawa and Victoria. We are determined to see that that co-operation continues as it has in the last six months.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: That includes the question of railway spur lines, the question of the relationship of the railway to the British Columbia Railway; that includes the kind of infra-structure that is necessary for the existing industries in that region to develop and prosper.

You know, the kinds of things that happened in that part of the province under the former administration… I suppose the best example is the Bulkley Valley Forest Industries at Houston. There's a community that relied on the policies of the former administration and paid the price.

A single-shot answer: a multi-national corporation to solve all the problems of the region, parcelling out huge regions of this province to single multi-national corporations. That was the pattern of the past. The people of Houston paid for that pattern of the past. And the people on the coast have been infected as well.

It's a region that has been underdeveloped and underestimated, Madam Chairman. The forest resources of the tributary band along the Canadian National Railway is most significant. It's been underestimated by our staff in the past and it's an area that has received first priority consideration by this Government.

The analyses and work that have gone on by our staff in that region is excellent, I am proud to say. It was an opportunity in terms of overviewing the hopes and prospects and the sound economic base of a region that had never taken place before.

There are other remaining large companies in the northwest of British Columbia, Madam Chairman, that also have very serious problems — problems that can in fact be overcome. But they're problems that can't be overcome without considerable effort, both on the part of the companies and on the part of the government. It's the kinds of problem in that region that can't be tackled by any one group alone. That's why there has to be co-operation between Victoria, Ottawa, ourselves and the companies that are concerned.

The timber resource of that region, Madam Chairman, has neither been used wisely nor well in recent years. My staff in the forest service I think can document that; anyone with half an eye to see could document it as well.

The pulpmills up in that region are essentially using roundwood, wood that can be used for better purposes — for chipping and turning into pulp. It's very clear that the kind of industrial base that is necessary for both those mills and those communities to survive satisfactorily has not yet developed.

We cannot put these other communities in the same category as Ocean Falls, Madam Chairman. The problems of the industries and the future of those towns are indelibly intertwined. The problems of a community such as Prince Rupert are most significant. I don't think the people of this province realize how serious the problems of Prince Rupert are at this time. It's been one of the prime concerns of this Government to see to it that the economy of the northwest of British Columbia is stabilized. It's in the interests of all of us in this province to see that that is the case.

Prince Rupert, Madam Chairman, is heavily dependent on the two mills at Watson Island. Terrace, Kitwanga and the whole Skeena region are heavily dependent on the mills on Watson Island in Prince Rupert. The very fact that these communities in northwestern British Columbia are so dependent on the mills, both at Kitimat and Prince Rupert, is the reason we've spent the time we have on the question. It's the reason we took the kind of bold stand that I suspect the former administration would never have taken with respect to the Weyerhaeuser deal.

I can't believe, Madam Chairman, that Weyerhaeuser would have spent the time it did in trying to consummate a deal with Columbia Cellulose unless they had the tacit approval of the former administration. Had the Weyerhaeuser deal gone through in terms of turning over the southern profitable operations of Columbia Cellulose to Weyerhaeuser, then northern communities again would have been left in an extremely vulnerable position; one that this administration was simply unwilling to accept.

It's too important to that region and too important to the province to just let the usual kind of "business as usual" market transactions that the former administration was willing to live with continue. That's unacceptable to the new Government of British Columbia.

The economic viability of those towns in north-

[ Page 1417 ]

western British Columbia would have been under a dark cloud, and the future prospect of the economy in northwestern British Columbia would have been very black indeed had that deal gone through. These things are not just simple market transactions between a couple of companies. These are towns, communities, smaller businesses, regions affected. The transactions in the marketplace must reflect some kind of social responsibility.

This is a government that is determined, Madam Chairman, to see that the transactions in fact reflect social responsibility. We want those communities protected and we will not see the companies make their decisions unilaterally. The future of Prince Rupert, Terrace and Kitimat depend on that, Madam Chairman.

I've explained earlier, Madam Chairman, that the narrow view of the relationship between this province and the federal government has greatly hurt northwestern British Columbia — a narrow view too, I think, of the urban potential of these towns.

If we're really going to develop the north of this province, we're going to have to have important, significant cities that provide a cultural and commercial base for the hinterland as well. We can't really think in terms of just Prince George orjust the lower mainland being the key centres in the province. There has to be a strong urban base developed in northwestern British Columbia as well, Madam Chairman.

I believe that Prince Rupert was almost threatened as much as Ocean Falls, Madam Chairman. The prospect of breaking up the Columbia Cellulose Company and selling off the profitable southern end would have put Prince Rupert in almost as vulnerable a position.

The future viability of those major companies in northwestern B.C. is dependent upon major government action. The future of those communities is dependent upon major government action. There have to be changes in the infrastructure of northwestern British Columbia. There have to be significant highway activities, Madam Chairman. There has to be significant railway activity. There has to be significant co — operation with respect to the rate structure on the Canadian National Railway line from Prince George to Prince Rupert.

There must be, in addition, a major buildup of sawmill capacity and production in the region so that more and more of the residuals from sawmills are providing the base for the pulp industry of the northwest, rather than good groundwood that could either produce veneer or plywood or lumber. The future of those mills and those towns is dependent upon major change, Madam Chairman, and major action.

I'm afraid that the seriousness of the problems of northwestern British Columbia have not really got through to the general public. I think in a sense the Ocean Falls situation is one that has registered upon the general public of British Columbia because there's been a fairly long period for the public to absorb the situation of that one single community. But the problems of the other communities I don't think have got through to the people of British Columbia, and I must point to them today.

There's going to be much discussion, Madam Chairman, in the coming months with respect to those communities and those operations. It won't be just discussion, Madam Chairman; it's going to be action as well. This is a new era of social responsibility in British Columbia.

We as a Government are determined to see that regions such as the northwest, regions that have been allowed to drift and stagnate, will be transformed, will have a new sense of hope, a new sense of direction that they never had before. It is, Madam Chairman, a new era. It is a new attitude. It is a new government, one that is not afraid to move both with the times and with the people.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for North Peace River.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Thank you, Madam Chairman. If you'll give me one moment to organize my notes.

It does seem to me, Madam Chairman, that perhaps we should deal with one of the most important events of the weekend first, since this is the reason given by the Hon. Premier for bringing the estimates of the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources before the House this afternoon — when we were told on Friday that we would be in legislation this afternoon. So let's discuss this matter, Mr. Minister, of the intended deal and purchase of Ocean Falls by the provincial government.

According to the news release that I have before me, "NDP resource Minister, Robert Williams, who announced the purchase in Victoria on Friday night, said the facilities will likely be placed in a new Crown corporation to be set up by special legislation."

While the question was put to the Hon. Minister in the question period, he managed to escape really directly saying how this purchase was to be financed. I think the question is valid, Madam Chairman, and one that the Minister, when he is back on his feet again, should answer in detail.

How, Mr. Minister, do you propose to purchase the assets of a town for $1 million, when the legislation which would provide for the purchase of that asset is not through the House at the present time? What are the source of funds then, that you anticipate using? Is this an agreement that is tentative? Is it a firm agreement? Do you have a commitment to pay $1 million for those assets of Crown Zellerbach or don't you have that commit-

[ Page 1418 ]

ment? If you do, what are you going to do; bring down a special warrant to Treasury — an order-in-council through Treasury to finance the purchase?

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): Are you for it or against it?

MR. SMITH: I think, Mr. Attorney General, before the day is out we'll be asking for answers to a lot of questions; not only on the Ocean Falls purchase, but on a number of other important points that come under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources.

So let's just analyse without even knowing what the agreement says.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SMITH: We've got to see an agreement first. But just let's analyse and build some of the matters that are involved. We can be fairly specific, because I think that we do know enough about the situation at Ocean Falls to realize that there are problems both ways — both for the government…that's already been admitted by the Hon. Minister. He doesn't see this as any great startling accomplishment in terms of a viable company that they're purchasing, or that you're purchasing.

As a matter of fact, there is serious doubt whether it will make any profit at all, if that is the situation. On the other hand, we have a situation of a community occupied by a number of people, the main portion of which has already left Ocean Falls. Some are there that have not been able to find a means of getting out or, for one reason or another because of their commitments have been delayed. So just let's take a look at some of these points.

Who is going to benefit by the retention of Ocean Falls, and who may lose by that? Let's see. Well, what is this to the person who lives presently in Ocean Falls? Obviously they have a choice now as to whether they wish to remain in that community or not. If their decision is to remain, those that are left and who have not sold either their property or any of their assets are probably no worse off financially than they were a few weeks ago.

But what about the people who have already left, who have sold their property and their possessions at distress prices; what about them? The ones who have sacrificed a great deal knowing that they would not have a job in this particular area in a few short weeks or two months at the longest, so they have sacrificed a great deal and they've left, a lot of them; are they going to return?

Well, according to the Minister's own statements, a few have said they'll come back to work — ten, as a matter of fact, want to come back says the Minister. Ten, out of how many hundreds of people that have left, wish to return.

Of those that are there there is an indication that 87 want to remain in Ocean Falls and work there. Well, the disadvantage to those people that have left is that now it is too late to recoup the financial loss they may have suffered from moving out.

Frankly, Mr. Minister, I don't think that those who have left and found gainful employment elsewhere will be in any great hurry to move back. What is to say that the future in Ocean Falls under the NDP government is going to be any better or any brighter for them than the future was before under the management of Crown Zellerbach.

As a matter of fact, unless it is the position of the Government to subsidize that operation by one means or another, I don't see any department or any agency of government operating that plant any more efficiently than the people who have been in the business for 50 years.

If they are unable to make a financial success of that particular operation, then tell us, Mr. Minister, how you expect a Crown agency to make a greater success of it. What type of money will be involved in subsidies, either direct or indirect? What type of money do you plan to spend, for instance, on the modernization of the plant which, if you are going to be consistent, you must do? How much money will be involved in modernizing that plant and putting in pollution abatement controls which, if you are going to follow the policies that you have said were necessary in this province, you must do?

Certainly, you are not going to operate a plant, are you, that's old, antiquated, out-dated, wasteful, inefficient, just to supply a few jobs? Is this what you are going to do? Or are you going to not only be the authors of the type of controls that you want to see put throughout the entire industry or installed throughout the entire forest industry by the Province of British Columbia, but are you also going to abide by those rules and regulations yourselves?

In relation to the…

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SMITH: Madam Chairman, in relation to the actual costs in terms of financial commitment by the taxpayers of this province, we might very well find the number of jobs that are retained, the number of jobs you actually end up providing in Ocean Falls, could very well be the most expensive jobs that we had ever created in the Province of British Columbia. I think we are entitled to know a little bit more from the Minister than what he has given us in his opening remarks this afternoon.

It would seem to me that the biggest beneficiary from such a move is the ego, perhaps, of the NDP. Certainly it satisfies the party position of a socialist government that they must get into business, that

[ Page 1419 ]

they must control, that they must take over. I presume it also satisfies a minority of the backbenchers within your own party that it is going to be satisfactory in terms of a number of jobs to those people who will be employed at Ocean Falls.

While we are at it what about this price of $1 million which is quoted as being the purchase price? Is that a price subject to negotiation or change or is that a firm price? What could the Government have done in terms of a negotiated agreement if they really dealt toughly? After all, they were in a position to.

Certainly, when a company has indicated that they were prepared to close out the operation and suffer their losses at that particular time whatever that loss might be, it would seem that perhaps the Government was overly generous in the price they offered; overly generous with a private corporation, the type that this particular Minister continually berates when he speaks on the floor of this House.

There is also a situation with regard to the operation of the mill. As I understand it the present company, Crown Zellerbach, will continue to operate at least for a period of time — up to, I believe, 1975. If this is true…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SMITH: It's not true…the Government themselves will take over the complete operation? Is this what you are saying, the Government itself will take over the complete operation of that particular plant?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: With agreements from Crown Zellerbach.

MR. SMITH: With agreements with Crown Zellerbach, the Minister says. What kind of agreements, Mr. Minister? What type of agreements? Part of it's in the Press release, yes.

Regardless of that, just what type of a deal is this in terms of the economics of the Minister who represents a Crown corporation. What type of continuing finance do you foresee that you will have to pump into that operation in order to make it viable?

Even with an increased price of pulp and paper today — and we will grant that fact that there is an increased market demand and price for it — what type of money do you foresee the taxpayers of this province will have to pump into that particular project to keep it running, to keep it viable, to do all the improvements that must be done if you are going to conform even to your own legislation?

Has the Minister considered the problem that has been with that mill ever since it was first put into operation: that is the problem of people employed in a very isolated community? It is one of the great problems with respect to staffing a mill in a situation like that because it is isolated in respect to the rest of the lower mainland and places that people would like to visit occasionally. Has he given that any thought?

What type of money will we be committed to, to put in a modern ferry service to accommodate the people of that community so that they can have the same facilities available to them as other parts of the Province of British Columbia? In terms of investment, in government investment, how much money is involved in that one particular area?

What has happened in terms of loss of key employees in that particular situation? Certainly a number of these people have left. From what I understand and from what I read most of them have found jobs in the industry because there was a shortage of their particular skills.

Do you think they are going to be in any hurry to go back to a semi-isolated community? It is very doubtful. The only advantage a community like that has over some of the communities in the rest of British Columbia is that it has a different pace of life; that it is a small community not subject perhaps to the pressures of the large city.

In this day and age, for every one family who are perfectly satisfied with those types of situations because they enjoy that type of life, there are a hundred more that will have no part of it because they do not readily adapt to a situation in which isolation is part of their everyday life.

So how many good employees have been lost to other agencies or perhaps even moved by the same company to other positions? What is the cost of upgrading the plant to provide the type of pollution abatement equipment that will be required in order to continue that operation in a safe manner?

What is the situation with regard to the agreement between yourselves and Crown Zellerbach? What if the operation continues to show an operating loss? Is the Government prepared to make that information public? Or is it the intent of the Government to bury it in some manner so that the people of this province will never know what they have had to pay out in terms of dollars of tax money to keep the operation going?

Certainly the people who are left there will feel a temporary sense of relief. They know that their jobs will be continued for a short period of time. But I'll tell you this, Mr. Minister: in a situation like that, if I was a person living in Ocean Falls at the moment, I'd be very, very reluctant to tie my future and the future of my children into a community which might have a very limited life even under the artificial props that may be contemplated by the NDP.

I would think that any man or woman living there must have serious doubts about their future in that community. The tendency will be to try to find employment in the forest industry in other parts of

[ Page 1420 ]

the Province of British Columbia. Frankly, at the moment I understand there is quite a shortage of skilled technicians and skilled personnel in the lumber and logging industry and I'm sure that a lot of those people will find employment in other areas.

The Minister was speaking about northwestern British Columbia and how it is stagnating — how the communities seem to be drying up. He made quite an impassioned plea about the position of the NDP with respect to the growth of these areas, and that you were committed and the Government was committed to a growth policy that would help bolster the economy of northwestern British Columbia, which he referred to in particular. He referred to such communities as Prince Rupert, Smithers, and so on.

Let's take a look at some of the communities that are supposed to be drying up or growing smaller because of the lack of activity.

What does the record show? In Prince Rupert the population from 1966-1971 has increased. Not a large increase, but an increase. In Burns Lake it's remained almost the same; in Kitimat it has increased by 2,000 people; in Terrace it has increased by 2,500 people; and in Prince George by 10,000 — according to the information that I have, comparing the 1966 population with the 1971 population.

That proves this, Mr. Member: if the communities were dying for lack of an economic base, the population would not be increasing, it would be decreasing. It would be going down, not up, because the tendency would be to leave those areas and migrate to some other part of British Columbia where the possibilities of gainful employment would be better, chances of advancement would be greater.

So these communities, just on that basis alone, if you want to use that as a yardstick, have not dried up. They're not disappearing. Certainly something can be done to bolster their economies. But to leave the impression within this House that the communities are slowly disintegrating, that they're slowly stagnating because of policies of a former government is completely unfair and completely incorrect, Mr. Minister, and you know it.

The development of all parts of northern British Columbia, be it northwestern, north central, or northeastern, for a number of years to come will be dependent upon the development of basic resources in those areas.

For either you, or the Hon. Premier, or any other Minister of the Crown to suggest that these communities should be looking towards secondary industry as a means of survival at this particular stage of their growth is complete nonsense. They're not in an area where they can economically get into the second growth types of industry that we would like to see attracted to this province. As a whole, this province with the salary scales that we have prevalent are uncompetitive with other parts of Canada, even though we have the seaports right at our back door, and the Minister knows that very well.

So the economy and the development of these areas will be based upon resource development. It will be based upon further mining activities, the exploitation of forest resources, and the manufacturing of forest resources.

Certainly those are two areas of northwestern British Columbia, north central British Columbia, that will come into the fore. But it will only come into the fore, Mr. Minister, if the government of this day is prepared to carry out a programme of development. If the no growth policy that has been bandied about this province is the policy of this Minister, then these communities do not have a future in British Columbia because they will, in fact, disintegrate and dry up.

If the policy that we have heard enunciated time and again by Members of the NDP affects the entire province of British Columbia, and if you continue in the manner which you have started since being elected to office, then the communities of northwestern, north central and northeastern British Columbia are indeed in trouble. Because the manner in which you speak, and the policies which you lay before the people of this province in the bills that have come before this House are diametrically opposed.

In one breath you say you are going to stimulate the growth of British Columbia — that you're going to look after northern B.C. like it's never been looked after before. And 24 hours later we see a bill coming onto the floor of the House that is going to do nothing but suppress growth activities in these newly populated areas of the province.

Why doesn't the Minister say one thing or the other? If you are dedicated to a growth policy, well say so. But you'll have to do more than say so, Mr. Minister, through you Madam Chairman. You'll have to show the people of British Columbia that you mean what you say, and that you say what you mean because at the present time there is no resemblance between what has been said and what you are actually doing to the province. At the present time there are more bills before this House that will have the effect of suppressing our economy than anything we could have dreamed would happen in any government in the province.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You're out of order.

MR. SMITH: I didn't refer specifically to a bill. I said "a number of bills," Mr. Attorney General. And we'll be discussing and debating those bills, Mr. Attorney General, as they come before the House.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Address the Chair, please.

[ Page 1421 ]

MR. SMITH: Yes, Madam Chairman. I know the rules of the House enough to know, Mr. Attorney General, that there's nothing wrong with reflecting upon bills, as long as you don't deal with them in detail. And I don't intend to deal with them in detail at this particular time, Madam Chairman.

My point is this, purely and simply: what is being said and parroted by the Ministers in Press conferences, and what actually will be done by legislation which is before this House is completely and, I repeat, diametrically opposed.

People in northern British Columbia should know this — whatever smokescreens may be thrown up, whatever suggestions are made by the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams), or by any other Minister of the Crown, you cannot have a viable and growing and prosperous economy in those areas of this province without paying particular and special attention to the base of their growth which is the development of natural resources.

Now if we can turn to a few other matters within the framework of the Minister. If I might address a question to the Hon. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, before we proceed further: is it the intention of the Minister that he would like to deal with all the debate in this House regarding the Ocean Falls proposition before he moves on to other areas of his department?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SMITH: O.K. In that case, I see the Minister has indicated we can go beyond the Ocean Falls proposition into any of the other matters within his jurisdiction. So I would be happy then, Madam Chairman, to continue on a number of other points.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: …and conservation might be considered separately.

MR. SMITH: Madam Chairman, I didn't really intend to get into the Recreation and Conservation portfolio. I wanted to deal with other matters within your administration as Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources only.

One of the questions that I'd like to pose to the Minister is the matter of a new practice which I understand is not only contemplated but is now part of the policy of the department. This is the practice of establishing study reserves within certain forest areas of the Province of British Columbia. As I understand it, they may be within tree farm licences; they may also be in areas that are under some other form of tenure.

I would like the Minister, when he's addressing his remarks to the House, to indicate to us just how far and how widespread this practice will become. Does he have certain specific areas in mind within, say, the entire Vancouver forest district, or any other forest district, or just certain areas within tree farm licences within the province to set up study reserves?

I would also like to know if, in setting up the study reserves, the Minister has taken into consideration the loss of revenue to the Crown with respect to the allowable cut which will now be suspended for an indefinite period of time — at least it's indefinite with respect to the people who have the tree farm licences. They do not know at this time how long the study reserve will be in effect. They do not know when it will be cancelled or if it will ever be cancelled, for that matter. So I would like to know when you balance the allowable cut, which has now been suspended, against the loss in revenue for stumpage and royalties, against the potential loss of jobs for our labour force — because if the particular habit of establishing these reserves becomes widespread you can easily visualize companies cutting back on their labour force — if that's been taken into consideration. If it has, how many men will be laid off as a result of suspending these cutting privileges?

I would also like to know if the Minister has taken into consideration the impact that this will have upon the forest companies, the majority of whose allowable cut is going into the export market. Certainly, with the allowable cut in British Columbia, I think it's readily apparent to all of us that we cannot, as a province, begin to use domestically a very large percentage of that cut, regardless of how hard we might try, and that a good percentage of all the mill products manufactured in the Province of British Columbia must of necessity go into the export market, at least at the present time.

I would also like to know the position of the Minister with regard to the latest forestry guidelines that affect the Vancouver forest district. Certainly the guidelines, if they are to be enforced to the letter of the law, would place a number of problems upon the back and the shoulders of the forest company which it might find very difficult to live with.

In talking to the departmental officials who have appeared before the agricultural committee, there seems to be a tendency to indicate that there should be flexibility involved in the interpretation and the actual provisions within the guidelines — so that one forest area might be allowed to do certain things because of the actual topography of that area and the ecological problems involved, while another area might be allowed to proceed in a different manner.

I do think that this is of great concern to the forest industry generally in the province, and that the Minister would be doing a great service for not only his department but for the forest industry too if he were to indicate to them within general terms, while his estimates are before this House, what he really has in mind.

[ Page 1422 ]

When you read the new guidelines, and if you place a very strict interpretation on each one of them, it could very well result in many companies being placed in a position where they could not harvest the trees within their areas due to the strict interpretation of guidelines.

On the other hand, I find that in my travels the companies who operate in the forests of British Columbia are becoming very much more conversant with the desire and the need to take into consideration the multiple use of forests, the ecological problems that are involved and the preservation of areas for not only themselves, through reforestation, but also for the game and the fish and so on that might be involved with regard to either grazing areas or spawning grounds.

Certainly the attitude is changed from a few years ago by all people who occupy the forest areas.

One of the problems seems to be that it will be difficult to provide accurately, until they have had some experience, a plan for logging, particularly with regard to stream bank areas and so on, until they can find someone who is expert in that field to give them advice. They are entering new phases in the forest industry. I think that the spirit of the companies that I have talked to is that they wish to co-operate with the forestry and the department. But they are at a bit of a loss right at the moment to know not only how they'll proceed but also who they'll go to to get advice that's required.

Perhaps the Minister in broad terms could outline what his thoughts are on the matter and how he proposes to not only outline the requirements but perhaps to give some direction to the companies at to where they may go to hire the professional help and the services that are required.

I see the Minister is dealing with the same problem within his own department, because a clipping from the Vancouver Sun dated March 14, 1973, indicates that the department is seeking the services of an economist and that you have had some discussions with people in the State of Washington. It would seem that they may have people down there who have had more experience than we have. If not, we should certainly be looking to other parts of Canada, if these people are available.

The comment that I would like to make to the Minister is that by all means if the type of expertise is available anywhere within Canada then we, as part of this nation, should be concerned about providing jobs for Canadians and not particularly as concerned about providing jobs for people who may immigrate to Canada from the United States or other parts of the world.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

I know there is concern on the part of the forest industry with regard to reforestation and what part, if any, the provincial government will play in the reforestation requirements. The industry naturally would like some guidelines and also an indication, I believe, if there is to be either financial help or any offsets against either stumpage or royalty with respect to the amount of money that they will be involved in spending for reforesting ever greater areas of the Province of British Columbia.

"A senior forestry official said, 'The department is evaluating industry reaction, and it is not yet known how much the new regulations will cost industry. For the reforesting, however,' he said, 'the government is currently spending about $6 million a year on replanting but this now will be borne directly by the companies.' Williams said, 'At least some of this will be absorbed by the government in charging lower stumpage fees to the companies."'

This was reported on Saturday, March 10, in the Vancouver Sun. I do believe that the companies have a right to know just what the Minister has in mind in this respect and what type of rebate or reduction will be allowed to companies who wish to take on a much larger and increased reforestation programme than ever before.

I'd like to bring to the attention of the Minister another problem which is really somewhat of a local nature. This is the matter of the rates of stumpage charged in an area like Fort Nelson, which is a new area, as compared to many other parts of the province. As I understand it, the rate of stumpage they pay there is comparable and approximately the same as that paid by people logging on either Vancouver Island or the lower mainland where transportation is a matter of a few miles to the mill or to a ship in order to ship that lumber to an export market.

The industry in Fort Nelson is really just an infant industry in respect of its stage of development at the present time. It's really just starting to grow. If the facts that have been given to me with regard to stumpage rates are correct, no consideration is given to the fact that they're almost 1,000 miles from an export market. You can well imagine that a great deal of the timber that they cut and make into dimension lumber in the Fort Nelson area will not go to a local market. There aren't enough people in the area to consume it, so most of it is export market.

They feel that the province should be divided off into divisions. Some of the matters with respect to the costs of operation and the distance from market should be taken into consideration in setting stumpage rates in different areas at different levels. Certainly, it's not as major a consideration at a time when lumber prices are good as it is when the market dips. They very quickly get to a position not of return but of net loss in any fluctuations in the

[ Page 1423 ]

lumber market.

Another point I would like to refer to. It's a widely held misinterpretation, I do believe, that whenever the price of lumber increase $10 a thousand, lumber and lumber alone has been responsible for the increase in the cost of building a home. I think it should be pointed out to the public that the increase in the price of lumber has not been nearly as responsible for the actual final price of a new home as has been the requirement of higher interest rates and the price of property.

An article that I have before me indicates that the average home today requires around 10,000 board feet of lumber. Taking your average monthly mortgage payments on a 25-year mortgage on a $30,000 home, which is an average price, a $20 per thousand increase in the price of lumber will amount to only $1.25 per month increase in the actual amortization of the mortgage. A $40 per thousand increase in the price of lumber will increase the monthly mortgage payments only by $2.49. But a 1 per cent increase in the interest rate charged for the average CMHC home will result in a $14.57 per month increase in the mortgage payments, amortizing a $30,000 mortgage over 25 years.

So it does seem to me that in some respects the forest industry has been the butt of bad public relations in that respect, No one will quarrel with the fact that lumber prices have been increasing, but for people in public office to indicate that the price of houses went up substantially because of a $10 increase in the price of lumber is just not correct. It's a matter of land acquisition at the prices of today and it's a matter of interest rates more than anything else that has increased the price of new homes to a substantial degree.

I'd like to comment on another couple of matters. One is the whole matter of TFL licences within the province. The Minister has indicated that he's unhappy with a number of the TFL licences and that he's in the process of developing policies which will ultimately reflect upon the TFL licences. Some of these licences are in effect now for a period of 21 years on a renewable contract basis.

Is it the position of the Minister that he is going to force renegotiation of these TFL licences before the initial contract period is up? Is he going to place the industry in a position where they will not be able to count upon the presently negotiated contract, which was negotiated in good faith, to be in effect six months, a year or two years from now? I think the companies have a perfect right to know the position of the Minister and whether he will honour the contracts which are presently in force, or whether it is his intention to renegotiate those TFL licences regardless of the term that was originally involved when the licence was issued.

I'd like to know the position of the Minister with regard to the retention of the small independent logger in the operations in the Province of British Columbia. We have the truck loggers, of course, who do a great deal of logging under the umbrella of a TFL licence through a negotiated contract with whatever company happens to hold a TFL. Certainly they've had their problems in the past with respect to the unions trying to force them into a union shop whether they desire to be or not. They've had troubles in the past with respect to trying to provide the service that they've contracted to provide because of interference.

They have a right to know if they're going to be allowed to continue to operate in the manner that they have operated in the past. They have a right to know what their position will be in the plans of the forestry department as administered by the new Minister. These are problems that an industry that provides a great deal of employment to our province needs answers to, Mr. Minister. The independent logger would also like to know where he stands with respect to continuation of his operations.

One of the things in this respect that I believe is of paramount importance right now is commitment of timber to a number of small independent operators scattered throughout the length and breadth of the province. As a matter of fact, if the Minister wishes to talk about northern development I think he'd be well advised to look into the number of small operators who can provide a service, particularly to local people within the province and particularly to the local economy of that area, by staying in the business and providing those people with their dimension lumber.

It's a little difficult and perhaps almost impossible for them to stay in the logging business if they cannot get a cut or an area assigned to them. It's also impossible if they are required to bid against the larger, better-financed companies that operate within the province.

So I would hope that somewhere within the forestry industry in the province we will find a way of preserving the right of the small independent logger, that we will find a way of preserving the right of truck loggers to operate within the woods, without being detrimental to them or to the whole logging operation and the industry as we presently know it in the Province of British Columbia.

One other point — this has to do with pollution abatement. Many of the companies have been told by the Pollution Control Board that they must update their plants and bring in modern equipment to replace some of the antiquated types of operations that we presently have.

Is the Minister prepared to indicate to the House today his policy with respect to the installation of pollution abatement equipment? What type of programme does he anticipate? How long a period of time will he provide for the industry to phase in what

[ Page 1424 ]

could be very expensive new types of processes?

I notice in a clipping from the Vancouver Province, dated December 13, 1972, that "B.C. Forest Products indicate it will cost them $13.5 million to do a particular job in controlling pollution." That's no small piece of change for any company, regardless of the size of it. So if other companies are faced with the same proposition they would like to know, naturally, just how long a period of time they will have to phase in the particular requirements.

It's interesting to note also, Madam Chairman, that when the Hon. Minister was in Opposition we used to hear him take strips off the then Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Mr. Williston) for allowing the export of logs from the Province of British Columbia. It was one of his favourite topics, as I recall, sitting in this House listening to him. He took the Minister apart a number of times on that and many other matters and that one too, Mr. Minister.

It's interesting to note then that the Minister indicated in the Victoria Times of February 28, 1973 that he has no intention of cancelling the export permits that are presently in effect: "Williams said he hadn't seen the IWA's request, but added that log exports make up only 0.5 per cent of provincial production." I presume that if that figure is correct today it was also correct a year ago and the year before that.

All I can assume, in view of the position that the Hon. Minister took when he was a Member of the Opposition regarding matters of forestry policy, is that the position that he is taking today is somewhat watered down and moderated. If it's not, then he has a responsibility to reveal to this House in much broader detail than we've had at least so far the policy of the lands and forests department and the direction that you intend to proceed within the foreseeable future, because the forest industry is important to this province, being one of our prime natural resources, and one of our largest employers, both directly and indirectly, of working people within the province. It plays a very important part in our total economy. Any time the forest industry becomes depressed in the province, the whole economy — I'm not saying that it is right now, Mr. Minister, I think it's a known fact that when the forest industry becomes depressed the whole economy of the province becomes depressed.

That is why I would suggest to the Minister that everyone in the province, and particularly those intimately involved in the forest industry, are watching with great concern the directions that will be taken by the NDP and the policies that will be initiated by the Minister, where substantial change may be involved from whatever policy we had before. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I think probably most of the general points about Ocean Falls were covered in the earlier lengthy statement — except that the idea that the $1 million dollar price was overly generous seems to me to be stretching it a little. I suspect that we probably have $1 million of scrap metal alone in Ocean Falls, and that 400 homes, a power plant, a hotel, town houses, apartments, shopping facilities, and so on, are hardly insignificant. I think, in addition, that there are presently 140 people there now directly employed.

I gave the figure as being 87 with respect to the people there now who are interested in staying. That's a very significant indication of the attitude of the people in the community with information over just a couple of days. It does seem to me that the prophets of doom and gloom, in fact, are on the other side of the House, and that they take that attitude with respect to the northern coast of this province. It's one that we don't share. There is an underused resource base on the north coast and we intend to see it more intensively used in order to provide employment in the province.

The question of the towns in the north themselves: those towns are vulnerable, because their future rests on two major corporations that have had a fairly rocky road in recent years. Unless the infrastructure of the region is changed, unless there is a build-up in sawmilling capacity and a range of other things, unless there is something done with respect to freight problems and so on — they'll continue to have a rocky road, and the towns themselves will be more vulnerable than they should be.

Regarding study reserves in forest areas: yes, that's right; we're making up for the lack of study in the past and the lack of integrated resource management in the past. As a result we are putting reserves on certain areas. We have a study area at the moment in the northern part of Vancouver Island, covering Schoen Lake and Tsitika. We've also got a study reserve in the Purcells, and Frye Creek, and around the St. Mary's Alpine area. Those are the prime ones at the moment.

That has not had any direct impact on job creation at this stage, and it seems apparent that the programme on the northern part of Vancouver Island, which is a two year study programme with respect to the Roosevelt elk and other wildlife in the area, can continue without having an impact on job creation. That is, there can still be an annual cut that will create the same number of jobs that we've always had in the region. We simply have to shift the operations to some degree.

Regarding the forestry guidelines: as the Member is aware it is before a legislative committee. We do

[ Page 1425 ]

want it reviewed. I haven't been able to attend the committee, but I gather the committee met with the council of forest industries just this morning. We're certainly open to suggestions and we don't want regulations wallpapered over the landscape unnecessarily. We are interested in preserving the environment where it needs to be preserved — not just coming up arbitrarily with proposals.

The appraisal system: in the question of reforestation requirements that are presently under consideration, I think the key element there is that the old tenures were in fact not required to reforest. We do not see the old tenures as the kind of special privileged enclave that they've always been in the past. We want to see proper management of all the forest lands of the province, regardless of the tenure form.

Fort Nelson stumpage rates: there are already two factors applying with respect to the rates there. One is a distance factor which is a problem which is reflected in the appraisal methods, and there is similarly a differential with respect to being adjacent to the PGE area as well. So there's two additional factors that apply there.

The tree farm licences themselves — that's a matter of major government policy that will require considerable review. Each situation will be somewhat different from the other. It's very clear, though, that there have been great changes in the industry and that that kind of tenure in many instances simply is not required. In fact, as I indicated in the north for example, what they really need is a residual base to work from for the pulp mills, rather than the huge TFL tenure itself. There have been some where there has been considerable non-performance. That will be a matter of concern, certainly.

The question of small loggers: we're sympathetic and we hope to establish some policies that will encourage smaller scale activity. It's not easy, though, in terms of achieving the kind of utilization that we want to achieve as well. I would certainly have to commend the former Minister in that area, in terms of the progress he made with respect to increased utilization of the resource in the province.

The question of the pollution control board I might cover in more detail later. With respect to the B.C. Forest Products plant and their investment at Chemainus, however, it was not just pollution equipment that was involved; it was part of the actual guts of the operation.

With respect to log export — I think the bulk of my speeches were, in fact, in other areas — but there was an order-in-council two or three weeks ago that cut back on exports so that non-peeled logs are not allowed to go out of the province. The total export in the past year was 0.53 per cent, so it's an extremely low level. I think there's something to be said, just in terms of understanding markets, for some amount of export. I think that covers the main point.

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'll try to confine myself, not to the whole range of the Minister's responsibilities — which is probably next to the Premier, the most extensive in the House, and he has many things on his mind — but to only two points, the mill at Ocean Falls and northern transportation, which he mentioned himself.

First the mill at Ocean Falls: the question, Mr. Chairman, that we simply have not had satisfied in this party, is the question of time. We knew full well during the last election campaign that Ocean Falls was slated to be closed. Indeed, at that time it became evident that the previous Minister had been informed by the company in April of last year that this wind-down was proceeding. That was the date at which he knew — almost a year ago. Now many parties, all of us in fact, during the election campaign commented upon this, but as the NDP won I guess we have to ask the NDP why they didn't take this matter up earlier. I am asking the Minister.

The newspaper reports the Minister as saying that he has been negotiating this for three months. I really wonder why it wasn't done somewhat before that, inasmuch as it was an active issue back in August of last year, and the previous Minister — I believe rightly — was criticized for not taking it up prior to August of last year. Well if that's the case, I'm sure that the present Minister would like to explain his own somewhat tardy interest, in that he was Minister for many months before he took it up. As far as I can understand, it was taken up at the beginning of this year or else at Christmas of last year. I wonder whether the Minister will indicate something more, in terms of time, as to what led to the delay to even start negotiations with the company. Then once he's done that I trust he'll take on the second time factor — why did it take three months?

The Minister stated that the company was extremely friendly, well-disposed and helpful. Well, if that's the case, why was it necessary to wait right until the wire before going ahead with announcing this proposal? The fact that it is late is shown by statements in the paper. The statement in this

[ Page 1426 ]

morning's paper, which was I believe referred to earlier, on page 2 talks about: "Half of Ocean Falls Workers Say They Are Willing to Stay." Well, apparently that is half of those that are there now. We must remember that another 50 per cent of the original group have already left. So that half there is essentially, I understand, about 25 per cent of the total work force of Ocean Falls.

Friday's paper — I must say I'm forced to quote the paper because it was not announced in the House — indicated that: "Of all the Ocean Falls employees, all but 34 out of the present employees had found new jobs by Friday."

So I don't know, and I'd like the Minister's comments on this. Are we really talking about $1 million being spent and an outdated mill being kept in production to find jobs for 34 people, or is it indeed a great deal more than that? Because we must realize that other mills exist in this province, and the products of these various mills share the same market. It may not be that we're expanding the overall employment or the overall amount of paper being sold; it may simply mean that another mill elsewhere will have to cut back. The Minister shakes his head and I'll be delighted to hear comments from him on this. Is this a net increase in the number of jobs in the province, or is it simply keeping an old mill in operation when other newer mills could have taken up the slack, taken up the production runs, taken up the market and employed people elsewhere?

As far as the people in the area are concerned, the real question is: why did it take so long? The paper talks of the 600 people in the town, "all of whom were ready to move out within a month. Most were leaving in two weeks." It goes on to say that "the leaving was compounded by the minor material losses. Thousands of dollars of bulky household belongings were junked. Small pleasure boats were burned or given away, but the surplus of belongings was such, according to one resident, that 'you can't give anything away.'" Some of these people have purchased homes in other communities; they've found work elsewhere. Some are commuting — indeed there's a reference here to a person commuting between his new job and his home at Ocean Falls.

Now, I find it a bit difficult when we are told about a meeting at Ocean Falls which was to explain everything, Mr. Minister, and yet I see in the paper that there's a quotation from a local resident who went to that meeting. She says: "They haven't really come out with any definite plan at the meeting. We're not going to delay our move." Well, what precisely was said at the meeting if the local residents are not of the opinion that this plan will permit the mill to keep going?

The talk of this, and again the emphasis on why the timing has been so bad, is about the churches and service clubs."The town's many clubs and organizations had dissolved themselves and had distributed their assets or donated them to others," is another reference.

There was a year's notice in this affair. There was a year's notice to the previous Minister. What beats me is that even though there has been a change of government you do have, Mr. Minister, civil servants who are working on these matters, one hopes, on a day to day, week to week, month to month basis. These people evidently have not done their job if it takes you right till two weeks before the town is to really close down for anything to happen.

There has been a tremendous amount of material loss. I mentioned the items early in my speech. There's been a great deal of shake-up of the individuals concerned. But there has been no explanation, Mr. Minister, that really makes any sense to reasonable people of why it took so long and why these people have to suffer that way. As far as jobs are concerned, I think it's interesting to quote the newspaper here again: "With a year's notice there are few complaints about Crown Zellerbach's handling of the affair. About 150 employees were phased out in August and, according to industrial relations manager, Frank Robertson, almost all found jobs. 'The secret to beating the high unemployment statistics,' he said, 'was that Ocean Falls people like small towns and that's where the jobs are.'" Well once more this brings up the question of whether or not we are really keeping people employed, or whether or not it's just keeping them employed in one place, and the job will not be filled in another.

Those are the questions, Mr. Chairman, that I think are most important because they deal with the people of Ocean Falls: Why were they treated this way? Why was the department so late in handling this matter? Why was there no carry-over from the previous government by your civil servants, Mr. Minister? What was the reason for this delay that led to such a loss in terms of private property, in terms of the school year for the kids, in terms of a community? It hasn't been answered, and I trust it will.

As far as the proposal itself goes, we'd like some indication of future costs. We do know that this mill is an old one; we know that it's fairly well run down.

[ Page 1427 ]

It may be that this mill will be viable — I trust it will. But we really haven't heard anything from you, Mr. Minister, as to what the cost factors are. If it was not a viable operation for the company concerned, why does it become a viable operation when the government is concerned? The statement has been made about rising of newsprint. That's fine, that's well and good. But what happens if there's another turnaround and the price goes down? Do we then have to have Ocean Falls phased out a second time or will some steps be taken to keep it open again then?

These are the types of things which I really don't feel that your statement to the House, Mr. Minister, through you Mr. Chairman, let us know what the true facts are.

What are the cost factors? What is the expectation? Why did the company make the decision it did? What was their expected loss had they kept going? What is your expected loss — or your expected profit — if you continue? What is the price of paper that has to be maintained to keep this operation viable?

In the same line I'd like to know about re-equipping plans. Is this whole scheme simply to keep the present equipment going for another five or six years and then it's inevitable again that Ocean Falls closes down because the machinery will simply collapse on us? We just don't know how good it is. We don't know what re-equipping will have to be done.

There's a statement in the paper that a million dollars will be needed to repair a single-men's hostel in the community. How many other facilities in the community are in need of substantial amounts of cash to keep them functioning and operating in the community?

The Minister shakes his head. But I wonder whether he could list these things. I am not in any way trying to suggest that he hasn't thought of them. I am simply saying that we don't know. If the people representing the citizens of the province have no idea, I am not at all surprised that the citizens of Ocean Falls themselves find it very difficult to make decisions based on what was said.

The question of pollution abatement equipment was raised earlier, and it really has not been answered. This mill is an old one. What will be the cost of putting it in the best possible condition from this point of view?

It's a question of cost. The laws exist, and I trust the government will apply them equally to private companies as well as to Ocean Falls when it's owned by the government. What will the cost be? If it's to be paid for by the government, will the same concession be granted to other companies? And in this light, what other special treatment might be offered in the case of Ocean Falls?

Briefly, Mr. Speaker, those are my views on Ocean Falls. It's mostly a series of questions, which is of course why we're here in this debate.

We haven't yet heard and, until we get more definitive answers to these questions, I'm afraid they'll keep on cropping up.

With respect to the northwest, I was very pleased to hear the Minister's statements. I found it difficult to reconcile them with statements made earlier about B.C. Rail. I found it difficult to reconcile them with the map in the budget which indicated that the hinterland of many of the northern ports, Kitimat and Prince Rupert in particular, would be considered, as far as the government is concerned, the hinterland of B.C.Rail and Howe Sound instead, of course, of the area to be serviced by the port of Prince Rupert.

I am very pleased that there is in the Minister's statement some real concern for the northwest, which we really haven't seen up to now by this Government, with all due respect. We've had talk of developments in Kitimat, in Prince Rupert and in other parts of the area, but so far it's been talk.

The Minister was kind enough to say the federal government has been very co-operative. I'm delighted to hear it. I had the impression, from previous statements, that unless $19 million to $27 million was paid, there would be no further discussions with the federal government on the questions of integration and expansion in the north. I am glad to see there has been this departure in policy from…

AN HON. MEMBER: Get it straight.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: If you'll get it straight in your mind, and if you'll get your Minister to get it straight in his, perhaps I'll get it straight in mine.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You don't know what you're talking about.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The inevitable statement of the Premier. If anyone has any questions, they don't know what they're talking about.

[ Page 1428 ]

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: In terms of the north there are great potentials for development. If the Premier wants this subject discussed at greater length at this time, I'm happy to do so. There's the old Hedlin-Menzies report, Mr. Chairman — I say the old one. It came out in November of 1970. I would like to read six sentences from it, if the Premier is interested in this sort of thing. At page 84:

"It is evident in short that the Canadian northwest can be virtually transformed within the next two decades.

"(1) Annual timber harvested could be increased by 446 million cubic feet to a total of 466 million cubic feet. Major new rail facilities would in themselves generate approximately three-quarters of this growth potential;

"(2) Annual mineral production could increase by more than $560 million to a total of at least $620 million. Major new rail facilities would in themselves generate at least 10 per cent of this growth potential as well as acting to provide reduced transportation costs for mineral products throughout most parts of the region.

"(3) Employment in the region's forest and mining industries could be increased by 18,500 jobs, creating a total increase in regional employment of approximately 87,000 jobs. Major new rail facilities would in themselves generate resource development responsibilities for approximately one quarter of this employment growth."

The last point in this Hedlin-Menzies report is this:

"Population of the Canadian northwest could increase by some 129,000 people to a total of 236,000 people."

Mr. Chairman, the quotes from the Hedlin-Menzies report indicate that there is real opportunity in the Canadian northwest for this integrated transportation development. I don't want to go through the six proposals of, I think it was last June, which the Minister's predecessor discussed with Ottawa. I don't want to go into these things because I do feel that this is a debate more on Ocean Falls than it is on northern transportation, although I am commenting upon it because the Minister talked about it and the Premier indicated keen interest at one stage or another.

What I will say is this: if there is to be this type of integrated joint federal-provincial responsibility and progress, can we have some better indication of it than two, to my mind, conflicting speeches, one from the Premier and one from the Minister himself? I think it's very important that the rail routes in the area and the port development in the area be integrated and be phased together instead of having isolated developments for coal at Sukunka delivered to Howe Sound, even though economists say that this would result in a loss to the people of British Columbia of up to $1 per ton.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member get back to the estimates before us, please?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, the Hon. Minister mentioned the question of northern transportation. He mentioned it at some length. I am quite willing to discuss it now or later in his estimates.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the Hon. Member to address himself to the Minister's estimates and to his sphere of administration.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I was referring specifically and directly to the comments made by the Minister in terms of northern transportation and particularly port development in the north. One of the two ports he mentioned, Mr. Chairman, happens to be in your riding. So I am quite sure it interests you very much.

The point I want to get across is this: if we are to take advantage of proposals made last year, we're going to have to do better than we've done so far. It's no good simply leaving them in limbo. It's no good not integrating the proposals for development elsewhere with the northern development proposals.

It's simply to suggest that they're two separate things, but really they're not. The northern transportation proposals have to be integrated or a tremendous amount of money will be wasted. I am very pleased to hear what the Minister had to say. I thought his speech was constructive, helpful and very useful in this regard. I would just like him to expand upon it, indicating what is taking place now along these lines and what he hopes in the near future.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, I'll be very brief and confine my remarks to Ocean Falls, so that the House might be aware of the views of the Conservative Party on this important issue. We look at the problem in terms of people as well as economics. We think that the situation in Ocean Falls signifies perhaps an exception to the general rule. We are becoming very concerned about Government's

[ Page 1429 ]

becoming involved in enterprises which are financially in the red and appear to be destined to remain in the red.

We already have negotiations between Government and Brameda Resources, which is not financially sound, or which has had its problems. We have statements by the Minister, in answer to questions the other day, that the Government in negotiating with Columbia Cellulose, which is another company losing money and is in considerable financial difficulty. Now we have the Government investing in Ocean Falls and particularly in an industry which has been abandoned by the company concerned simply because they consider that it could not be made a financially viable proposition.

We must make it clear, Mr. Chairman, that we're deeply concerned that while the Government has expressed a policy of participating in business in this province, we are deeply concerned that so far the only enterprises that they've become involved in are all losing money.

The reason we look at Ocean Falls a little differently is that nobody wants to see a town die; to see input of human and material resources abandoned and have the wilderness grow over the town. So there are strong humanitarian reasons why we feel that Ocean Falls can be looked at a little differently from the other two examples I've mentioned.

In saying this I want to make it very clear, Mr. Chairman, that in our party we will strongly oppose any continuing action by government to participate financially in costly enterprises which are losing money. This is taxpayers' money, whichever way you look at it, that will be invested in losing enterprises; but in the case of Ocean Falls, it is very difficult for social and human reasons to sit back and let the town die and all these very considerable assets — and I don't just mean bricks and mortar. The efforts that went into creating the school and the facilities and these other parts of the town which have all, in fact, been purchased.

From reading comments by businessmen in the industry, I feel that the pulp market seems to be on an upswing, which possibly — and only possibly — means that a new approach to Ocean Falls might make it at least break even. The comments made by the Minister at the weekend make it plain that this is the Government's hope. We also hope that the enterprise can break even.

There's been so much written about Ocean Falls as to other possible uses. Having accepted the fact that it should be saved, we would like to know what reasonable hopes there are that in the future the town shall not be so utterly dependent on one economic base.

Many proposals have been put forward. I presume that no matter how you try to develop a town, one of the biggest obstacles is the question of communication and its degree of isolation and lack of access. Not being familiar with the area, I can't make suggestions. It seems to me, from what I've read, that this is a very fundamental reason that solutions are not easily forthcoming. Presumably, secondary industry of some other type is very difficult to develop in such a town where isolation is so much a problem. How technically difficult is the problem of highway access between Bella Coola, presumably, and Ocean Falls? These are some of the questions we ask.

In terms of the decision made by the Government, we just want it clearly on the record that we are opposed to the government participating with taxpayers' money in business enterprises which are clearly in the red and losing money. In the case of Ocean Falls, however, there is a human element which I've mentioned which we feel makes this rather a unique situation. We feel that the enterprise shown by the Government and the respect and concern for the people who are most deeply affected, taken with the fact that the pulp market perhaps can lead to a viable industry, and if the Minister can assure us that every effort will be made to change the situation so that the town and the people are not totally dependent on one enterprise, then we would support the decision.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm pleased to hear the positive attitude on the part of the Progressive Conservative Party.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: They're finding that in several areas certainly.

Regarding some of the points that have been made by the last two speakers: the question of time was tied to price, I'm afraid. I don't know if the Hon. Member has negotiated with hardnosed businessmen or not, but time was affected by price and price was affected by time. We're happy now with the price. We're not as happy as we might be with the time. That's the reality of the situation.

However, the former administration was aware of

[ Page 1430 ]

the problem long before it was made public. I think that should be made very clear. The former Minister was aware in early fall of 1971 with respect to Ocean Falls. I don't know if he informed the remainder of his colleagues. I suspect that he may not have. That may be part of the problem.

So the former administration had this problem on their table for a considerable length of time and chose to do nothing. The former administration also said one thing to the company and another thing to the people of British Columbia. That certainly isn't the case with respect to this administration.

I'm pleased that there is that feeling on the part of the Conservatives in terms of not seeing a community die. We don't want to see the community die either. That's a major factor in making the decision. But there are other communities that are in considerable trouble at the moment too. They're all human problems, all of these things. You can't just say it's a human problem in Ocean Falls and it isn't a human problem in Prince Rupert. I'm afraid it's a human problem wherever we go.

I think the question of diversification is a good point and one that concerns us very much. We've even got research people working right now on the question of aquaculture, for example. That is, can you grow fish in an accelerated way in a certain situation and so on. It appears, with tentative research, that that might, in fact, be feasible but we don't know for sure. We intend to carry on intensive work in terms of looking at ways of diversifying the economic base of the community.

One small point regarding the railway question that the Member for Victoria raised — leaving them in limbo. We're not leaving the northern transportation question in limbo at all. There's continuing discussion and research with the federal people in relation to resource development in the north. It's a most productive exercise that's going on at the moment.

I think those were the main points that were raised, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Leave granted.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I move the House proceed to public bills and orders.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 42, Mr. Speaker.

LAND COMMISSION ACT

(continued)

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for South Peace River adjourned the debate.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, it's been nearly a week since Bill 42 has been debated. During that week, of course, there have been certain things take place in the province concerning Bill 42. Now that we're back on Bill 42, I would hope that we would continue with the debate until such time as either it is withdrawn or the debate is finished. The time lapses in between the talks on Bill 42, Mr. Speaker, certainly just add more fuel to the fire.

Before continuing my discussion this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Government and ask the Premier — I see he's in the House — and ask the Minister of Agriculture if they will withdraw Bill 42 at this time.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Do you want your answer now?

MR. PHILLIPS: I would like to ask you if you would make a gentlemen's agreement to withdraw the bill…

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

MR. PHILLIPS: You're not going to withdraw Bill 42.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Carry on.

MR. PHILLIPS: You're not going to withdraw Bill 42. There's a great deal of concern, Mr. Speaker, out there in the province. There's a great deal of concern. There's too much concern, Mr. Speaker, out in the province concerning Bill 42 — too much concern from the free thinkers in the province. Mr. Speaker, there's much unrest out there in the province concerning Bill 42.

The inhabitants of this great province of ours — all of them, Mr. Speaker — are greatly concerned. They

[ Page 1431 ]

should be concerned. As time goes by, the more time there is for them to think about Bill 42 and the more time that the Minister of Agriculture and the Premier go around the province discussing Bill 42, Mr. Speaker, the more concern arises out there in the province.

The city dwellers are uneasy, Mr. Speaker, and the householders are nervous. The islanders are bitter and the villagers, Mr. Speaker, are champing at the bit. There is a great deal of concern. The people in the towns are restless. Most people in British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, are unhappy over the principle of Bill 42 and it is not necessary that they be unhappy. The Government could withdraw this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon, Member, when the Hon Member adjourned the debate, he had mentioned that as a major point of his speech at least four times and expounded on it for many, many minutes. Each time I drew his attention to the fact that he was repeating himself. He's now doing it again.

I will be forced, regretfully, to ask the Member to resume his seat if he continues repeating the arguments and the statements that he made in the previous debate on this question.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, after I cover a point I thought that the Government might reconsider, Mr Speaker, and want to change their mind. If they do, I wouldn't wish to prolong the debate of the House. However, maybe if they do reconsider, Mr. Speaker, they will notify me.

Well, Mr. Speaker, we have to listen to the people, certainly, on this side of the House. We have to give the people in British Columbia the answer to have their say on Bill 42. We have to listen to all of the people in British Columbia because Bill 42 does not only affect the land owners; it affects homeowners, it affects farmers, it affects the environmentalists who are trying to preserve certain things in British Columbia.

We certainly have to listen to everyone who has an open mind, Mr. Speaker, whether he owns land now or not because Bill 42, the principle of Bill 42, is going to have a bearing on their future life.

Workable legislation, Mr. Speaker, could be brought in. The suggestions we are receiving now, Mr. Speaker, with regard to changing Bill 42, are being brought in from people who are under pressure. The pressure they are under is from statements being made by the Minister of Agriculture and by the Premier of this province concerning the principle of Bill 42.

The Premier has said he will not back down from the principle of Bill 42 but he has said that he will amend it. On an open line show recently the Premier said we were doing in British Columbia, with Bill 42, a similar principle to what they were doing in the province of Alberta. However, I think if he looks at what is happening in the Province of Alberta…and I would like to refer to the same article that he referred to recently on an open line show. It is an article from the Financial Times with regard to land use in British Columbia and he referred to it.

He said that in British Columbia we were doing a similar thing to what Alberta was thinking of doing, or what Alberta was doing. This is not the case at all. The Agricultural Minister in Alberta, Mr. Speaker, has certainly warned land owners; but what he is doing in Alberta is saying that there will be a survey carried out and we will go to the people and we will get input. This is a lot different than the way in British Columbia we have brought in Bill 42.

A survey carried out by the Edmonton Journal showed only about 1 per cent of all real estate in Alberta in any year involves American funds. They are having the same statements made in Alberta that were made here — that the Americans were buying up all the land. About 95 per cent of that action came from U.S. nationals, mostly farmers and ranchers who were seeking a future in the province and who wanted to become citizens.

So, it is not a case, Mr. Speaker, of the Americans going into Alberta and buying up their land and being absentee landlords, which is what we are mainly concerned about. I think if people are coming into British Columbia and are going to take out their Canadian citizenship papers and are going to become residents of British Columbia, they should have the right to buy land whether they come from the United States of America or whether they come from England or whether they come from Italy, or no matter where they come from. I think this is a principle that we should certainly take into consideration when we are talking about Bill 42.

There was a conclusion to this survey done in Alberta and I would just like to read it to you. Here is the conclusion of John Tompkins, the Journal's reporter.

"With the negligible volume of deals in public lands, Albertans can rest assured that current ownership by Americans, many of whom become Albertans themselves in time, progresses at the rate of about .02 per cent of the land in the province each year."

I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it would be a similar situation if we had such a survey done here in the province of British Columbia. At that rate he suggested the complete purchase of Alberta by U.S. dollars should take about 5,000 years or about halfway to the next ice age. The reason I am pointing

[ Page 1432 ]

this out is again, I think we might be panicking under this. I am bringing it up because the Premier thought it important enough to bring it up on his open line programme not too long ago.

I think their suggestion and the way they are handling this in Alberta is a good suggestion and I think we could certainly take a lesson from what they are doing. The free enterprisers in Alberta are warned the same as they were warned here. The free enterprisers may be in for a rude shock some day in the future when they try to sell their own small farms. They cannot say they were not warned.

Premier Lougheed has said plainly that any land use regulations must not be discriminatory, must not be contrary to the Bill of Rights and must apply to everyone. The task facing the land use forum is not an enviable one.

This is the attitude they have taken in the province of Alberta. Yet the Premier would have led the people on his open line show to believe that Alberta was bringing in similar legislation, Mr. Speaker. It is just not the case. I resent the Premier making — particularly on a province-wide show — I particularly dislike him making statements that might have a tendency to mislead the people of this great province, who hang on every word the Premier says, sometimes.

Certainly if he continues to make statements on which they can't put any faith, then in the future they certainly won't take that much stock in them.

I say, Mr. Speaker, that if we did what we should do and what our conscience dictates to us to do, we would take this problem to the people. Mr. Speaker, the principle of Bill 42 has been changed somewhat since the bill was brought in. I would suggest the Minister of Agriculture has retreated from his original position already during the last week.

He has said, Mr. Speaker, in Kamloops at a farm meeting last week after the bill was discussed here in the Legislature and, I might say, after the bill was basically brought to a halt here in the Legislature — the Minister of Agriculture went out to a farm meeting and tried to pour salve on Bill 42. Mr. Speaker, I am suggesting that it will take a lot of salve to heal the wounds that Bill 42 has caused.

He says the bill is going to have four basic amendments. Now basic, to my way of thinking, is something that gets at the fundamental roots of the bill. So if he is going to have four basic amendments to the bill, why he actually maybe is even going to change the original intent of Bill 42, and this is something that should be cleared up.

We are expected to continue the debate on the bill. We have been told there are going to be amendments and yet we are in this House continually being asked to pass second reading of Bill 42, knowing full well that the Minister of Agriculture intends to make some four basic amendments to the bill.

Yet, Mr. Speaker, you say that I cannot ask the Government to withdraw the bill. I say, Mr. Speaker, that the bill cannot be amended. The basic principle of the bill still is to have a five-man commission. What I say, Mr. Speaker, is that a broad new approach to Bill 42 is needed.

The day after the Government came to their senses and realized that Bill 42 was not going to slide over the heads of the official Opposition, the Minister of Agriculture went out…and I want to say something about the amendments that he proposed at the Kamloops bull sale the day after we had a lengthy debate on Bill 42 in this Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture soft-shoed through the bull sale at Kamloops on Bill 42.

AN HON. MEMBER: Soft-shoed?

MR. PHILLIPS: Soft-shoed!…through the bull sale. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that some of those bull shippers up there in Kamloops were on the verge of losing their temper. At this bull sale he made a lot of promises to amend Bill 42. The day before, Mr. Speaker, he tried to pour this salve on Bill 42. The day before, he full well knew a large number of concerned farmers were going to come to Victoria to voice their opposition to the principle of Bill 42.

I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, the Minister would have been further ahead to take his action here in the Legislature.

Now we have been told Mr. Speaker, by another cabinet Minister that the official Opposition was over-reacting to Bill 42 — that we were over-reacting to the principle of Bill 42. Well, I suppose, as that Government over there throws the last shovel full of dirt on the grave, they will still say we over-reacted to Bill 42.

We are supposed to look up from the dark hole they put us in and say, "Oh, but we trusted you."

That is what Bill 42 is all about. No, there's no over-reaction over here, Mr. Speaker. The basics of Bill 42 are still very clear. I'm not going to go into them, because I know you don't want me to repeat myself, Mr. Speaker. But they're still there.

The next order of business, after they were covering in the grave, would be to say to the next person who comes along, "You dig your own grave and get somebody else to fill it in."

I want to discuss for just a moment, Mr. Speaker — and if we could have all the discussion on Bill 42 in chronological order, I could get all this done — but the Minister and the Premier continue to go around the province and make statements on the principle of Bill 42 and they must be discussed in this House.

I want to discuss with you, Mr. Speaker, so that the House will know, because at the present time — and correct me if I'm wrong — the House has no

[ Page 1433 ]

knowledge of the amendments that the Minister of Agriculture is proposing. So I would like to inform the House of the amendments that the Minister of Agriculture is going to propose on Bill 42. They are four basic amendments:

The right of the individual to appeal. Now that is very basic, because under the bill that we are discussing right now I've heard it said that the individual will have the right to appeal. So this leaves me, Mr. Speaker, at a loss. I don't feel under the present tenets of Bill 42 that a person has the right to appeal. And yet it has been said inside of this House and outside of this House that under the present Bill 42 a person does have the right to appeal.

So what I am asking you, Mr. Speaker, is this: if under the present Bill 42, the way we are debating it at the present time, there is a right to appeal, why would the Minister of Agriculture at a public meeting in Kamloops say that he's going to amend the bill, to put in a clause in the bill, so that an individual can have the right to appeal?

AN HON. MEMBER: He wants to make it clear to you.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, I see. Well!

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that the Attorney General is not really too concerned about whether I'm clear or not clear; but I would suggest that he is very out in British Columbia are concerned about.

It was the Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald), Mr. Speaker, who said, in the first discussion, that he was alarmed that there was no right of appeal. And then, Mr. Speaker, the Premier said, when questioned further on it, "He waffled around." That is really what the Premier said, "He waffled around." He said, "Well, you know, there should be some right of appeal," and he referred to a bunch of other Acts and common law and the right under British parliamentary law. But the Attorney General still didn't come back and say, Mr. Speaker, that in the way Bill 42 is presently written there is the right to appeal.

AN HON. MEMBER: He thought it was there, He didn't know.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, it isn't there. That's the whole point that I'm making. Because if it were there, the Minister of Agriculture would not be trying to amend Bill 42.

AN HON. MEMBER: He was surprised it wasn't there.

MR. PHILLIPS: All right. The second thing that is going to be put into the bill — which is another basic of the bill, Mr. Speaker, are the conditions of purchase. The Minister of Agriculture says that the bill will be amended so that people will have much more say about the conditions under which this five-man commission is going to purchase their land. And yet, when the Minister of Agriculture introduced the bill on the floor of the House, he wasn't concerned about this. He said, "Sure, we're going to listen, but we're satisfied with the conditions of purchase."

A third very crucial point which we have been discussing in the bill, of course, is the designation of land by the five-man commission without any right to compensation. These are the very points that have caused the official Opposition to become, shall I say, so vocal about Bill 42.

The Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich), when he was explaining this in Kamloops, didn't throw very much light on the subject. I don't know whether under the designation of land there's going to be right to compensation, and what powers the five-man commission is going to have. This, Mr. Speaker, is the problem of our discussing this without knowing what the amendments are.

Interjections by some Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Speaker, I'll just carry on. I'll just discuss the fourth basic amendment that the Minister of Agriculture said he was going to make — and he said this at this bull sale in Kamloops last week — and that is that there was going to be…

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, if it's the principle of the bill, it can be discussed. If you are discussing something that you say is not in the bill, then it's certainly not within the scope of debate.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I think it's in the principle of the bill, Mr. Speaker. I think that the principle of the bill is to set up a five-man commission which has all these powers. That's the principle of the bill. When I'm talking about this five-man commission's having power over civic governments and the Minister of Agriculture says that he's going to bring something into the bill so that there will be co-operation with municipalities — which is the fourth amendment that he said he's going to introduce — I think it's very much to do with the principle of Bill 42.

MR. SPEAKER: It has to do with what somebody has said outside the House, but it has nothing to do with the bill that's before us.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well I'm trying to inform the House, Mr. Speaker, as to what the Minister of Agriculture said he's going to do about amending Bill

[ Page 1434 ]

42. I think it's very, very much to do with…

MR. SPEAKER: The specific details of a bill are discussed in the committee stage, so far as certain sections of the bill are concerned or proposed sections. As you know, of the bill are concerned, or proposed sections. As you know, the second reading stage has been completed, one way or the other. If it's passed…

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm not going to argue that with you, Mr. Speaker, because…

MR. SPEAKER: Therefore we can't deal with the particular sections of the bill.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm not going to argue that with you. But I remember not too long ago there was a bill in this House and it was withdrawn before second reading was completed. It wasn't too many Legislatures ago. So as I say, I'm not going to argue the law with you. The Chair knows the law. You've made a ruling and I'll certainly abide by your ruling. But I am discussing the principle of Bill 42. It's a very wide-ranging bill, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I would point out that you're not discussing the thing at all. If you would leave what the Minister said about amendments out of it at this stage, we would get along, I hope, a little faster.

MR. PHILLIPS: Certainly, Mr. Speaker. I'll take those words kindly, because I know that you're not trying to stifle debate. I certainly know that because of the concern out in British Columbia, you know that this is a very important bill and there's a lot to be said about it. So I'll just carry on, Mr. Speaker. Thank you very much for bringing that to my attention.

What I want to say is that we have been condemning this bill, Mr. Speaker, mainly because of the theme of the bill that the Minister of Agriculture brought up last week. If, as the Minister previously said, the power was there before — and he has said that under certain other Acts this power was there before — I would like to know from the Minister why he has taken the trouble to endeavour to bring in these amendments and to explain them to this large group of livestock producers in Kamloops last week.

Mr. Speaker, I want to know what kind of a turn of policy there is in the Minister bringing in these. I want to say further that…

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, I've already warned you that you cannot discuss amendments that are not on the order paper or part of the principle of the bill. Even so, you persist in doing so. If you continue in this vein I have no other course open but to invoke standing order 43 relating to this question.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, the people are confused over the principle of Bill 42. I'm saying this is why they're confused.

MR. SPEAKER: That is not the question. You are debating a matter that is outside the bill. If you don't desist immediately, without long-winded explanations of why you're going to obey my ruling and then disobey it, then I'll have to ask you to be seated.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well I know, Mr. Speaker, that the Chair will certainly use the same discretion and fairness with me that you used outside the House last week, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I did indeed, take a very impartial view outside the House.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I would suggest that you take an impartial view here. I'll just carry on here.

The Minister said, Mr. Speaker, that the bill is misunderstood. That's what the Minister said in Kamloops and that's all I've been trying to say here — the principle of Bill 42 is misunderstood.

"I would not say that the bill is controversial." That's what he said. He said, "It's just that the people have not understood it. We're listening and concerned but we are hearing precious little from the Minister.

Why didn't the Minister explain the bill last Thursday to the 2,500 farmers that were outside the House, Mr. Speaker? Why didn't he explain the principle of the bill there? That would have been a wonderful opportunity, Mr. Speaker, for the Minister of Agriculture to let the farmers understand. Why didn't the Premier do his public relations job outside of the House last Thursday when he had a large group of concerned farmers?

The Premier said on the radio yesterday, "We did a poor job of introducing the bill. We did a poor job of letting the people of British Columbia understand the principle of Bill 42." Yet he had an ideal opportunity, Mr. Speaker, last Thursday, with 2,500 farmers on the front steps of Legislature, to explain the principle of Bill 42 to them. But he didn't.

So now, Mr. Speaker, there are amendments coming and prospects of amendments coming from all over everywhere. I wonder if the amendments are going to change the intent of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I think that Bill 42 should be taken to the people of British Columbia and hearings held. Therefore we could get some input into Bill 42. The Premier said that he would listen and the Premier said further that he was learning. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that he could learn a lot, from the way that Bill 42 was introduced. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the Government come down from the dream

[ Page 1435 ]

world that they have created; come awake from the Camelot world that they would like to create and come down to the world of real live people. Those, Mr. Speaker, with just a little more humility and respect, this Government could salvage its position from Bill 42 and accomplish the aim that everyone in British Columbia wants. That is to save the farmland of British Columbia and at the same time to save the farmer. I think, Mr. Speaker, that we all, both in Government and in Opposition, should have respect for the thousands of concerned people that there are in British Columbia today. Thousands, and indeed thousands, of people are concerned about Bill 42. Mr. Speaker, I think we should listen.

The Government has acknowledged that the bill is far from palatable. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the Government is being stubborn on the intent of Bill 42. Stubbornness at this point in time will only bury the Government deeper in their own shallowness. I'm very concerned, Mr. Speaker. Only a fool persists when everything is against him, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Only a fool persists. A wise man, Mr. Speaker, admits his error. This side of the House can't buy this sloppy legislation.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): The Attorney General doesn't even understand it.

MR. PHILLIPS: Surely last Thursday's demonstration must have given you something to listen about and something to think about.

Mr. Speaker, there's another article that I would like to inform the House about which I agree with to a certain extent. This article was in the Vancouver Sun on March 17. It has a lot to do with the principle of Bill 42. The headline is "Bill to freeze farmland won't work." This is by a UBC expert.

When I first discussed the land freeze — and it's been discussed in this House for quite some time — I said, "When does land become too valuable? When do you decide whether it's going to be agricultural land? When is it economically feasible to put the plant on the mountain top or on the side of the hill, and when is it feasible to farm?" This is, in essence, what this man says. I would like to inform the Legislature of his views. I'm quoting from this article:

"Bill 42 won't save the Fraser Valley's farmland, a University of B.C. agricultural economist declared Friday. Dr. Peter L. Arcus said the proposed B.C. land commission will inevitably find itself in the same position of municipal zoning boards forced to rezone farmland to permit urban uses for a growing population."

This is a very interesting thought, Mr. Speaker. Even with Bill 42 and the five-man commission and all the powers it has. And he continues on:

"'I just don't see the commission standing up under all the pressure indefinitely,' said Arcus in an interview. 'There is no zoning authority that has ever existed in the past that has been able to accomplish the goal of freezing farmland. The best that the commission will do is slow down the growth and make it proceed in an orderly fashion.' Arcus said he favours passage of Bill 42, which would establish a five-man commission to designate farmland and other open space anywhere in the province, because, 'It would stop the higgeldy piggeldy type of growth that you get with 80 conflicting authorities you have in the Fraser Valley.'

"He said the commission would be able to direct the growth into certain areas, facilitating establishment of satellite cities or whatever other concept the planners may envision."

What I am suggesting, Mr. Speaker, is that here is a man who disagrees with what the bill will do but at the same time would like to see it passed. This is why, Mr. Speaker, I would like to see us go to the people and put some study into this. I'm going to carry on now and I'm going to tell you why I would like to see this done, and what it has to do with the passage of Bill 42 and with the principle of the bill.

I discussed at some length the previous legislation. Since it pertains to the principle of Bill 42, Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise the House of some of the statements that were made by some of the cabinet Ministers when land use has been discussed in this House before. It might be interesting for the House to know what our present Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, who is not in the House today and who doesn't seem to be too interested in entering any discussion on Bill 42, had to say when we were passing the 1970…

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, there's 28 Members of the Opposition missing. That leaves 10 in the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where's your leader?

MR. CHABOT: Where's 28 of your Members?

MR. PHILLIPS: While I'm discussing what the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources had to say, I want you to realize that we were discussing the Land Act when it was being passed in 1970, which had control only over Crown lands. I'm quoting Mr. Williams. He's referring to the Land Act. He said:

"I think, Mr. Speaker this is an important

[ Page 1436 ]

statute, a most important statute, and I think it's unfortunate that it couldn't have been considered by a committee of the House where we might have heard various people from around this Province on this question. There's the new Regional Districts scattered throughout the Province which are starting to play a fundamental role in terms of how we manage land in British Columbia."

Mr. Speaker, those are the thoughts of a gentleman who was then in Opposition and is now our Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. That is a statement that he made while the new Land Act was being passed in 1970. He said he thought it was important enough that it should be taken throughout the province to get input. Why, Mr. Speaker, is there now so much urgency to put Bill 42 through the House without going to the people? Why the flip-flop? Why the change?

He was at that time, Mr. Speaker, the chief critic of the lands and forests department. It isn't as though he was just another Member of the Opposition. He was the official critic, as I understand. I'd like to read just a little bit further from his remarks. He said:

"I suggest that if this Government stays in power much longer they may well be the significant groups in terms of managing the land in British Columbia, and it would be as well to hear from groups like Regional Districts who are developing an expertise of their own."

When Mr. Williams was in opposition, he had a very high regard for regional districts.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member not refer to other Members by name please.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'm sorry, I'm just reading out of Hansard. The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver East (Hon. Mr. Williams). This was his attitude towards regional districts when the Land Act was being passed in 1970. We should…"hear from groups like Regional Districts who are developing an expertise of their own." Yet all of a sudden, the expertise of the regional districts has disappeared. I wonder why. I would think, Mr. Speaker, that within two years the regional districts would certainly develop more expertise in land management.

This, Mr. Speaker, is some of the concern that I have, and some of the reasons that I fail to understand why we are trying to put Bill 42 through the House without getting any input.

And another Member, the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) who was in Opposition and is still in Opposition, had some interesting remarks during the second reading of the Land Act. I'd like to quote from Hansard. The Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound said: "it is a new Act, it is a very long Act, but I agree with the last speaker," who happened to be the Second Member for Vancouver East; "that it could be a much better Act if we had had the opportunity for some extensive deliberation in committee, and I am surprised the Minister didn't direct the statute to such a body for careful examination."

Well, I guess I can say the same thing, Mr. Speaker. I'm surprised that the Minister doesn't direct Bill 42 to a committee for further examination. The Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound, goes on, and he has more to say:

"I am concerned principally about this legislation, Mr. Speaker, because as I recall in the Opening Speech in this Session, we were promised an Act which was going to streamline the procedures for the disposition of Crown lands and I must say that this Act has lived up to the letter of that concept, because what it has done is to streamline the provisions of the Land Act in such a way to give the Director of Lands the widest possible power…"

This is very interesting, Mr. Speaker, because the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound is concerned about the Director of Lands having too much power over Crown Lands. The thing I am trying to point out, Mr. Speaker, is that Bill 42 gives a five-man commission not only power over Crown land, but it gives this five-man commission, which will be appointed by the cabinet, control and say over private land as well. Because there are five of them, does it make it any less of a concern?

The Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound goes on and says the Land Act is formed, "in such a way as to give the Director of Lands the widest possible power, the widest discretion in dealing with this essential asset of the people of the province." He was referring to Crown land which is an asset of the province but he wasn't referring to private land.

"Section after section, after section, Mr. Speaker, gives to the Director of Land the right to impose terms which he considers advisable, the right to do what he considers advisable with regard to the publication of notices which we had been led to expect in the disposition of Crown land. Section after section after section, filled with discretion to this public official without any indication as to the standards to which he must obtain, as to the advice that he must seek in determining how his discretion should be exercised, and it leaves me to wonder what is going to happen if that discretion is exercised improperly and who it might be, Mr. Speaker, who would encourage the Director of Lands to accept one particular position or another."

That, Mr. Speaker, is all dealing with Crown land. I would like to just quote to you from the Land Act and read to you some of the laws, some of the regulations that are written in the Act. The reason I'm doing this, Mr. Speaker, is because in Bill 42,

[ Page 1437 ]

none of these powers to give the five-man commission are written into Bill 42.

Whereas the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound was complaining about the power given to the Director of Lands, I'm going to read into the record certain regulations written right in this Land Act."And it's the power of the Minister of withdraw Crown land from disposition." So if certain things were being said, or the Director of Lands was disposing of certain Crown lands that the Minister didn't feel he should, this was written in the Act. That's what I'm saying. There are no regulations in Bill 42.

"The Minister may, for any purpose that he considers advisable," and I'm quoting from the Act, section 12, chapter 17…. "for any purpose that he considers advisable in the public interest, temporarily withdraw Crown land from disposition," under this Act, "and he may amend or cancel such withdrawal." So this gives the Minister the right, if the Director of Lands is disposing of Crown land that he doesn't feel he should.

"The power of the Minister to withdraw Crown land from disposition except for designated use," is in section 13, and I quote.

"The Minister may, if he considers it advisable in the public interest, designate the most desirable use of any area or portion of Crown land, and he may withdraw such area or portion of Crown land from disposition under this Act for any purpose other than the use as designated, and he may amend or cancel the withdrawal."

These teeth are written into the Land Act. These are in the law of the land and the Director of Lands must abide by them. There are no teeth written in Bill 42, and Bill 42, does not only affect Crown land, it affects personal land as well — land owned by individuals.

Section 14 says, "The restriction on the sale of lands lying below a natural boundary." Another restriction, another tooth in the Land Act, as it were.

"Except by order of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-council and upon such terms and conditions as he may specify, no Crown land, filled or otherwise, lying below the natural boundary of a body of water shall be disposed of by Crown grant under this Act."

Another section that's very important, section 15, "Restrictions on sale of land for purpose of quarrying material."

"Except by order of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-council, and upon such terms and conditions as he may specify, no Crown land shall be disposed of by Crown grant under this Act, that, in the opinion of the Minister, is suitable for mining, quarrying, digging or removal of building or construction materials including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, stone, granite, limestone, marble, shale, slate, podzolan, clay, bentonite, sand, gravel, volcanic ash, earth, soil, diatomaceous earth, marl or peat."

Diatomaceous? Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Section No. 16. These are all very important, Mr. Speaker, because they are teeth written into the Land Act as it exists, and people go about the province saying that there are no teeth in the Land Act. I say, Mr. Speaker, that there are no teeth in Bill 42 because it's very general.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: That's right, no restriction whatsoever, A blank cheque. Blank cheque legislation.

Another section that's very important, Mr. Speaker, is the restrictions as to areas which may be disposed of by Crown grant.

"Except as provided in sub-section 5 of section 61, and in sections 62, or except where the applicant has first obtained a Crown grant to land covered by prior certificate of purchase in his name, no Crown land shall be disposed of by the Crown grant under this Act at any one time excepting 1,280 acres in area to any one applicant."

Now, Mr. Speaker, this is very important because there was an article in, I believe it was Friday's Vancouver Sun about the Gang Ranch which by the way was purchased in 1948, prior to the previous administration.

I think there were probably some errors made in granting too much Crown land to one particular company, previously, Mr. Speaker. But section 16 eliminates that. There are teeth in the Act. It says "no Crown grant under this Act at any one time exceeding 1,280 acres in area to any one applicant."

Now, I could go on, and on and on and talk about further sections of this Act which… Here's another one that is very important because it has restrictions as to areas which may also be leased. Section 17 of Chapter 17:

"except as provided in sub-section 5 of section 61 and section 62, no Crown land shall be disposed of by lease under this Act exceeding 1,280 acres in area to any one applicant, not withstanding sub-section 1 with the prior approval of the Lieutenant Governor-in-council."

The Minister may dispose of, by lease, an area exceeding 1,280 acres of grazing, commercial, industrial, railway, airport or watershed but it cannot be at the discretion of the director of lands.

I'm going to move on, Mr. Speaker, and I may want to refer to certain sections of this Act again, so I will just set it aside here.

There was the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams) talking about not enough teeth in our Land Act, and the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams) saying that

[ Page 1438 ]

we should go to the community; we should get input because it is a very important section. Yet we don't seem to want any input into Bill 42. We don't seem to want to find out what the people are thinking about and we don't want to go to committee.

There is just one other thing that I would like to quote from the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound. He said, "For all these reasons" — I've been referring to what he has been talking about — "I would urge the Minister if he would not consider, following second reading of this bill, whether or not it might be hoisted for further, more careful and exhaustive examination." That is the Liberal Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound. Very interesting to see what people said in the past.

The thing is, Mr. Speaker, under the Land Act as it presently stands, the director of lands cannot make his own regulations, which the five-man commission clearly can do and is spelled out in the bill.

Many restrictions are in the Land Act. We have another learned gentleman, the Hon. Member for Kootenay (Hon Mr. Nimsick). He was in Opposition when the Land Act was being passed and he was quite vocal about what the Land Act did and didn't do.

I would like to quote from Hansard as to what our present Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources had to say when the Land Act was being passed. He wanted the backbench of the then Social Credit government to speak up.

I'm saying, Mr. Speaker, I would like to see the backbench of the present Government to speak up on Bill 42.

I would like to quote from Hansard dated March 16, 1970.

MR. C.S. GABELMANN (North Vancouver–Seymour): You give us a, chance, and we will.

MR. C. D'ARCY (Rossland-Trail): We're waiting for the debate to start.

MR. PHILLIPS: The Hon. Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) had this to say:

"Mr. Speaker, I didn't like to take any part in this debate at this time of the night on such an important bill but there are certain thing that I have…"

It was 10 o'clock then. I'll read it a little later.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: 10 o'clock. He says:

"I didn't like to take any part in this debate but there are certain things I have got to say that you cannot say in committee, that are not covered in this Act…"

He is referring to the Land Act.

"…so you cannot cover it in committee. To start with I am very surprised that the bill that covers the most important resource in our province, that nobody of the government Members have spoken one word in this bill. Not one word on this bill, Mr. Speaker. Maybe behind the scenes someplace you might have talked, but you were not talking out in the open."

Well, I would suggest that many of the Government Members are not talking out in the open because they are not showing up at public meetings, if they are asked to attend and put some input.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about in the Legislature?

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, they are never in the Legislature during this very important debate on Bill 42.

I want to quote something more from the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Nimsick). He said during the passing of the Land Act in 1970:

"In the first place, I don't think that the Social Credit government has got the monopoly on all intelligence in the province in regard to land disposition."

Now, that's what the Minister said when he was in Opposition. You have to recognize, Mr. Speaker, that the land disposition we are talking about…

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): He's killing the Opposition with the bill, but still he's a good speaker.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. PHILLIPS: This, Mr. Speaker, is the present Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources speaking in 1970, while he was in Opposition.

AN HON. MEMBER: Carry on.

MR. PHILLIPS: He says:

"In the first place, I don't think the Social Credit government has got the monopoly on all the intelligence in the province in regard to land disposition."

AN HON. MEMBER: He certainly proved that.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, he is referring to Crown land. Yet we are asked in the Opposition today to take the attitude that the Government has all the intelligence on land disposition, not only Crown land but land that is privately held as well. This is the whole nuts and bolts of this Bill 42; this

[ Page 1439 ]

disastrous bill, this dictatorial bill, this vicious bill. That is what it is all about, Mr. Speaker.

And the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources goes on to say:

"By bringing this bill to this Legislature without letting the public or people concerned have anything to say about it, is nothing more than arrogance to the public itself."

Yet, Mr. Speaker, your official Opposition is being accused of over-reacting to Bill 42 when their own feelings were, when they were in Opposition, that the land bill which controls only Crown lands, should go to the people for input. My, how they have changed, Mr. Speaker. My how they have changed. What a little power does to a little man. Their past thoughts have flown out the windows. It's amazing.

I have discussed what our present Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams) had to say; and this is all during the passing of the land bill. There is just one more thing I want to quote into the records that the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) had to say.

This is the Hon. Member for Kootenay speaking:

"The land use committee that this House has set up should have some say in the disposition of land. Their authority should be enshrined in this Act. We've got problems in this province with big game and grazing problems. There are questions that should be considered on the whole land problem of the province."

What he is saying, Mr. Speaker, is: why don't we have input?

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): If you'd have done it then we would have had more time.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well I'm glad that the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) mentioned time, because before I finish my discussions on Bill 42 I'm going to point out something about time. I'm going to discuss what this factor of time has to do with Bill 42. I am glad that the Minister reminded me of that.

Now what did our present Premier have to say about land use when he was Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker? It's very, very interesting. That was in 1970 when the present land bill was passing through this Legislature, and the now Premier was Leader of the Opposition. I think you'll have to agree with me, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier has turned into an Irish bull, when you listen to what I've got to say.

I quote the Hon. Member for Coquitlam, then Leader of the Opposition. He says: "Mr. Speaker, I would like to share with the Minister a concept about land use as the Member has spoken of and also to urge upon him to accept the idea of the Second Member for Vancouver East."

What did I say the Second Member for Vancouver had to say? The Second Member for Vancouver East had to say, "Send it to the committee. Let the regional districts have their input." I've already read that into the record, Mr. Speaker. But here is our present Premier backing him up on it.

Our present Premier, when in opposition two years ago, spoke in this Legislature during the passing of our new Land Act in 1970 and, referring to the bill, he said this…two years ago: "I do think this bill is important enough to go to committee." That is our present Premier, Mr. Speaker, speaking in 1970: "I do think this bill is important enough to go to committee."

I quote him further: "I think this is one kind of a bill where a committee could sit year-around." No, the Premier didn't just want to send it to a committee for a short period of time or during the sitting of the House. He wanted that committee to sit all year.

Now what are we to think of a man who, as I have pointed out in this House before, is the leader of the Government? I would say, Mr. Speaker, that he makes monkeyshines in these chambers and also, Mr. Speaker, over the airwaves. I would suggest that to say one thing one time about something as important as land use and to say something else a very short period of time later means that somewhere along the line there's a two-faced policy. Because this is a complete turn-around.

Our present Premier, Mr. Speaker, is against sending Bill 42 to committee. So what he said in the House before was either a sham or a farce; or what he is saying today, Mr. Speaker, is either a sham or a farce.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, you are not entitled under the rules to accuse another Member of a sham or a farce. I would ask you to withdraw those words.

MR. PHILLIPS: I was accusing his statements. I was not accusing…I was accusing the statements.

MR. SPEAKER: You can't accuse him of statements in the House of being a "sham" or a "farce." I would ask that you withdraw that unconditionally.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'll withdraw the statement, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

MR. PHILLIPS: At your request. But it leads me to do a tremendous amount of thinking. It could almost be deceitful. Mr. Speaker, it's a complete reversal of himself.

He goes on to say — and I'm quoting what the now

[ Page 1440 ]

Premier had to say when he was Leader of Opposition. I certainly hope, Mr. Speaker, that his backbench are listening. I hope people will judge. I'm going to quote some more of what the Premier had to say. He says, "I do think this bill is important enough to go to committee. I think this is the one kind of a bill where a committee should sit the whole year round and throughout the whole Province of British Columbia and have the legislators of all parties on the committee visit local communities."

Now, Mr. Speaker, why the urgency now on Bill 42? The Land Act controlled only Crown land. Bill 42 controls private land. And that is no excuse from the Premier, Mr. Speaker. What the Premier wants to do now is to become like an octopus. He wants to get his fingers and tentacles into every community in British Columbia and into every citizen's back pocket. That's exactly what Bill 42 will do. That's why there's an urgency. That's why he says the people are misunderstanding Bill 42.

They're not misunderstanding it at all, Mr. Speaker. The thing that is amazing the Premier is that they do understand it and that they're giving their input and that they're opposed to it. That's what's bothering the Premier of this province.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, but I'd be quite happy to sit down, Mr. Premier.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. PHILLIPS: I can't say it but the Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) said it.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, I think the Premier of this province has turned inside out and the real colour is now showing.

You know, Mr. Speaker, we used to have scare tactics in this province. We used to be scared of the atom bomb. Now we're scared of the Barrett bomb — far more devastating.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would you carry on, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, I'm carrying on, Mr. Speaker. I'm suggesting to you that since the election all the cabinet Members have had an operation on their tongues. Now their tongues are split.

We have a very serious situation, Mr. Speaker, that I'm almost remiss to bring up in this House. I hate to bring it up in this House. Mr. Speaker, I'm almost ashamed to bring it up in this House because, it greatly disturbs me. It greatly disturbs me that our Premier, the man who is supposed to help all the little people of British Columbia, was supposed to have been elected by the little people…I heard him, Mr. Speaker, discussing Bill 42 over an open-line show. He was discussing the principle of Bill 42.

Mr. Speaker, this was no ordinary open-line show. This was an open-line show that was set up so that it would go into every hamlet, every town and every home in British Columbia.

Interjection by an Hon. Member,

MR. PHILLIPS: No, it's not tough competition. The people in those hamlets and the people in those villages and the people in those towns recognized the programme for what it was. They certainly recognized the Premier for what he was. That's why it distresses my heart to even have to discuss the subject here in this Legislature, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: O.K., sit down.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, you'd love me to sit down, wouldn't you, Mr. Member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea). They were calling from Prince Rupert my friend. They were calling from Prince Rupert.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. Please address the Chair and continue.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. PHILLIPS: The Premier was trying to impart to his very large listening audience…

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, the Premier…

Inteijections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, all the jokes and all the frivolity in the world, Mr. Speaker…

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order.

MR. PHILLIPS: …all of the laughs and all of the jokes and all of the smiles on behalf of the Premier for the gallery or the Press is not going to belittle the very fact that…I don't know whether he was trying to mislead the people of British Columbia but he certainly was not telling all the facts on this open-line

[ Page 1441 ]

programme. You were not telling all the facts.

It's not a matter, Mr. Speaker, for somebody to go "oh" about. This is a very very serious matter.

The Premier said, "I want to refer you again to the section of the Municipal Act where in 706 of the existing Municipal Act says, 'Property shall be deemed not to be taken or injuriously affected by reason of the adoption of zoning.'" Mr. Speaker, the Premier would have led the people who don't know the Municipal Act to believe that this was the same tenet, the same principle, the same idea as is in Bill 42.

Here again today, after me bringing this very serious matter to his attention, he continues in this Legislature to try and bring out the same idea without referring to other sections of this Act which give it an entirely different interpretation.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. PHILLIPS: The section that we're talking about is division 3 of the Municipal Act, Mr. Speaker. It's called "Zoning." To take one little section out of that Act, without informing the people of this province what that division of the Act really intends and what's in it, is misleading the people of British Columbia. Make no mistakes about it, Mr. Speaker. That is certainly not to be taken lightly. The people will learn, Mr. Speaker, that they can't trust their Premier. That's a very serious matter.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Liar!

MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Would the Hon. Member withdraw that statement?

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, he has deliberately misled this House.

MR. SPEAKER: No. Order.

MR. LAUK: Well, I'll withdraw it until I hear his full remarks.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SPEAKER: It must be, I agree. It must be unconditional.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I ask you to have him withdraw it unconditionally.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm taking it that he is withdrawing it unconditionally. Would you proceed? But I might also point out that the Hon. Member himself is offending, to some extent, in the same direction.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'm trying not to, Mr. Speaker. There are very strong words that I should be using in this Legislature this afternoon and I'm holding myself back.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm holding myself back. But the people won't hold back, Mr. Speaker. The division of the Municipal Act…and the people will know. The people will know, if I have to go to every hamlet in this province and tell the people. If I don't have the advantage of a province-wide open-line hookup, the people will still know because I as a citizen of this province cannot stand idly by while the Premier of this province…and I won't use the words. You know what I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, to the people of this province.

MR. SPEAKER: No, I don't unfortunately, I don't.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, I'll not stand idly by. And then to say, Mr. Speaker, "I never asked them to trust me." He said, "I've been around politics too long to ask anybody to trust me." That is a slur on my character, Mr. Speaker, so far as I'm concerned. What I say I certainly believe in and I would not try to mislead anybody. The Premier says, "I never asked them to trust me. I've been around politics too long."

That's why, Mr. Speaker, Bill 42 is being debated. That's why, Mr. Speaker, we're not going to take the Government's say that "you can trust me on Bill 42," not when they go out around the province and mislead the people the way they've been doing, and then to come up and say, "I never asked anybody to trust me."

Here it is, large as life — Vancouver Sun, Tuesday, August 29 — Dave Barrett in all his smile, a man you can trust. Oh, Mr. Speaker, they trusted him once. But I'll make a prediction too, my friend. He was making a few — that this Act would never be discussed, I make the prediction that the people will never trust him again. Everything I'm fighting for is important to all of us.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. PHILLIPS: Whether we lost or whether we didn't lose has nothing to do with what you were doing last Saturday — absolutely nothing to do.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'm glad you brought that up. Your performance on that open-line show was a disgraceful performance, Mr. Premier, and I'm not going to forget it for a long time. I could hardly believe my ears, big as they are, what I was hearing.

[ Page 1442 ]

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the Member proceed with his speech and…

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I'd be pleased to proceed with my speech. We're talking about the principle of Bill 42 and the Premier saying, "Let the bill pass and trust me." The Premier says, "I believe in co -operation, not dictation." Well, that is very, very apropos to what we're talking about here today when we're talking about Bill 42. It's funny to me that the Premier would bring up this very point when he was discussing the principle of Bill 42.

I believe the time has come to solve our problems and I intend to fight to solve them with every ounce of energy I have. Well, Mr. Speaker, Bill 42 has presented a problem to me. I intend to fight it with every ounce of energy I have. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, when I'm talking about Bill 42 I want the people to trust me. I'm not like another politician I know who says, "Politicians shouldn't be trusted. I never asked anybody to trust me." No, I will never say that.

But I want to get back to what I was talking about, Mr. Speaker. I want to read for the people of British Columbia what the Municipal Act actually says with regard to zoning, because they should know the truth — they should know all the truths. They should know the facts.

I'm going to quote to you, Mr. Speaker, from chapter 255 of the Municipal Act, division 3, zoning. I'm going to quote it to you in its entirely.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, I think that is really testing the tolerance of the House.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm not going to read the whole Act.

MR. SPEAKER: If you can apply it to this bill that is before the House, that is one thing, but merely reading every book in front of you is certainly contrary to the rules.

MR. PHILLIPS: I have no intention of reading every book in front of me. I have only read sections out of the Acts that were apropos to Bill 42, and I think it is an unfair attack on the Member for South Peace (Mr. Phillips) to say that I am reading every book in front of me.

MR. SPEAKER: I didn't say you were; I said, if you did — unless it is within the scope of the principles of the bill.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'll accept that. Well, if division 3 of the Municipal Act, which has to do with zoning, is not within the scope of Bill 42, then I'll eat book, cover and everything else, Mr. Speaker. I shall proceed. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. But I don't intend to read the whole Municipal Act and I can understand your concern if you thought I was going to, because it is a long Act. I just want to read this section on zoning and it is only a couple of pages.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Would you like adjournment?

MR. PHILLIPS: If you will agree to adjournment.

Mr. Phillips moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Filing reports.

Hon. Mr. Hall files the annual report of the Department of the Provincial Secretary for the year ended December 31, 1972 and the report of the British Columbia Centennial 1971 committee.

Hon. Mr. Strachan files answers to questions.

Hon. Mr. Williams files answers to questions.

Hon. Mr. Williams files the annual report of the British Columbia Water Resources Service, 1972, the annual report of the British Columbia Forest Service, 1972 and the annual report of the Department of Recreation and Conservation, 1972.

Hon. Mr. Strachan files British Columbia Government aircraft passenger log for 1972.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald files answers to questions.

Hon. Mr. Stupich files the annual report of the Milk Board for the year ended December 31, 1972.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance): Mr. Speaker, I would like consent of the House to withdraw the amendment on Bill No. 114 in my name and to propose this amendment.

Leave granted.

MR. F.X. RICHTER (Boundary-Similkameen): I wonder if I might inquire of the Premier what the order of business for tomorrow will be?

[ Page 1443 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I would like first of all to file answers to questions.

I thought we should carry on with the legislation tomorrow. I am sure the Member will want everybody to speak.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:55 p.m.