[ Page 2733 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Public Officials and Employees Disclosure Act (Bill 85). Hon. Mr. Macdonald.

Introduction and first reading — 2733

Bonded Businesses Act (Bill 123). Mr. Wallace.

Introduction and first reading — 2733

Oral Questions

Feasibility of copper smelter. Mr. Bennett — 2733

Inadequacy of telephone system in parliament buildings.

Mr. Wallace — 2735

Spending estimates covering new school district grants. Mr. Schroeder — 2736

Special Funds Appropriation Act, 1974 (Bill 7).

Report and third reading — 2736

Unified Family Court Act (Bill 49).

Report and third reading — 2736

Burrard Inlet (Third Crossing) Fund Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 10).

Second reading.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2736

Mr. Wallace — 2738

Mr. Phillips — 2740

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2740

Transit Services Act (Bill 70). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 2742

Mr. Fraser — 2742

Mr. Gibson — 2743

Mr. Rolston — 2746

Mr. Gardom — 2747

Mr. Wallace — 2749

Mr. Phillips — 2752

Mr. G.H. Anderson — 2754

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 2755

Division on second reading — 2755

Residential Premises Interim Rent Stabilization Act (Bill 75).

Report and third reading — 2755

Supreme Court Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 115). Committee stage.

On section 2.

Mr. Gardom — 2756

On section 3.

Mrs. Jordan — 2756

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2756

Mrs. Jordan — 2757

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2757

Mr. Gardom — 2757

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2757

Report and third reading — 2757

Sewerage Facilities Assistance Act (Bill 88). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 2758

Mr. Fraser — 2758

Mr. Gibson — 2758

Mr. Rolston — 2758

Mr. Chabot — 2758

Mr. Steves — 2759

Mr. Wallace — 2759

Mr. Smith — 2759

Mr. D.A. Anderson p2759

Mrs. Jordan — 2760

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 2762

Public Service Superannuation Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 95). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Hall — 2762

Mr. Morrison — 2763

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2763

Mr. Wallace — 2763

Mr. Gibson — 2763

Hon. Mr. Hall — 2764

College Pension Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 96). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Hall — 2764

Mrs. Jordan — 2765

Hon. Mr. Hall — 2765

Teachers' Pensions Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 97). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Hall — 2766

Mr. Morrison — 2767

Mr .D.A. Anderson — 2767

THURSDAY, MAY 2, 1974

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): I would draw the attention of the House to the presence in the gallery of Mrs. Barbara Wiskin and a North Shore study group, here to learn about parliamentary procedure, and ask the House to make them welcome.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to draw the House's attention to a guest on the floor, a former Member of this Legislature who had the privilege of sitting in the corner seat over there, occupied by another distinguished Member, before the present Member, (Laughter) who is also a distinguished Member. Our guest is now a federal Member of Parliament, Frank Howard, from Skeena.

MR. C.S. GABELMANN (North Vancouver–Seymour): In the gallery today are two groups of students, one from the Sutherland Junior Secondary School in my constituency. With them are a group of students from the Province of Quebec, on an exchange tour. I would like the House to make them feel welcome in B.C.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, before we proceed, I understand that a number of Members are singing the blues. I'd like to announce that I have made available in the chamber itself three copies of yesterday's Blues, which you'll find on opposite sides of the chamber, in case you wish to refer to them in any matters that may come up in debate. The pink copies, which are the Members' own copies of their own speeches, will be available for correction and returned to the Hansard office, as normally so.

I have a note here from the Chief of Hansard that all queries regarding distribution of the Blues or other matters regarding the transcripts should be referred directly to the Speaker's office in accordance with standing order 129.

Now there is another aspect I would like the House to consider. I would ask the party leaders if they would be prepared to meet with the Speaker, or any one they designate, to discuss the standing order 129 and see where we are going in regard to the use of the advance transcripts of Hansard. I would hope that I get the co-operation of the party leaders in that regard and that at an early moment we could arrange a joint meeting.

Introduction of bills.

PUBLIC OFFICIALS
AND EMPLOYEES DISCLOSURE ACT

On a motion by Hon. Mr. Macdonald, Bill 85, Public Officials and Employees Disclosure Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BONDED BUSINESSES ACT

On a motion by Mr. Wallace, Bill 123, Bonded Businesses Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce): Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to have the order for second reading of Bill 86 discharged.

Leave granted.

MR. SPEAKER: I take it the Hon. Member wishes, consequent upon the order, that the bill be withdrawn.

HON. MR. LAUK: I ask leave that the bill be withdrawn from the order paper, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I believe there are two steps, if I'm correct, Mr. Clerk.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are there two steps?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, I think so.

Leave granted.

Oral questions.

FEASIBILITY OF COPPER SMELTER

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, to the Hon. Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources. On Monday last I asked him a question, which he took as notice, regarding the conflicting statements between Mr. Jewitt, the president of Granby Mining, in regard to a copper smelter in B.C. I wonder if in the three days that have ensued the Minister is now able to determine to this House what the truth is in this matter and whether Mr. Jewitt is wrong when he said that the Minister's statement in the House was completely false.

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Mr. Speaker, I had a written answer of that for three days and the Hon. Member

[ Page 2734 ]

didn't show up in the House each day. (Laughter.)

The statement made in the paper that I was incorrect was wrong in the respect that I always stated that I had meetings with Bethlehem Copper in regard to the smelter in the north, and we both agreed. He said first that it wouldn't be feasible unless they were allowed to get rid of the sulphur in the air. I said we couldn't agree to that, and he said that he wouldn't agree to it either.

Following that my Deputy did have a couple of meetings with them, but the question of sulphur came up again. It was the understanding of my Deputy that they wanted the government to handle the sulphur situation in the copper smelter. He went to the Pollution Control Board — two members of it. I haven't got the names here; I had them when I had the answer ready. They gave him the lead and zinc controls, and he informed them that it would be better to lay down a definite plan.

I have informed them since that the Pollution Control Board is interested in a pollution-free smelter. It wouldn't be proper for the Pollution Control Board to say that you've got to have a smelter 98 per cent pollution free, if they could make it 99 or 100 per cent. So the proposal should come from industry to the Pollution Control Board, and that's the only thing that's holding them up.

I will apologize for one thing. A letter that came from Mr. Jewitt did get mislaid, and it was delayed in being answered. It has been answered now, and I'm sure that Mr. Jewitt will be happy with the reply.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. Do they have a firm proposal laid before the government and is the only hold-up to do with the sulphur emission? Is that the only thing wrong with their proposals?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: This proposal was only a suggestion that it would come that way. There was no firm proposal given to either us or the Pollution Control Board.

MR. BENNETT: Well, further supplementary, Mr. Speaker. My discussion with the individual — and sometimes you have to leave the House to go and collect this information — was that the offer was left open for the government to set those additional conditions and that they've offered several different ways that they would co-operate to build this smelter. I understand that the proposal was left open to the Minister, or to his officials, and I wonder if the Minister could make any documentation public so that we could go through it.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: The suggestion that they made in the letter of March 15, which as I said was delayed in answering, and I apologize for that, was so open that this is one of the reasons why we set up a task force, so that we can call these people in and maybe have an input and decide as to where they're going.

MR. BENNETT: Further supplemental: that isn't the reason that the Minister gave for the task force the other day. He said it was because private industry had failed to come up with any plan, not that he was calling a task force to aid them in their research.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Well, they failed. No definite plan came forward — they've been reticent. These are the words I said — that they've been reticent in laying before us a definite proposal for a copper smelter. I'm trying to urge them to do it and I think that the task force will assist them in getting their courage up to bring about a copper smelter.

MR. GIBSON: In view of this proposal, the Noranda Placer proposal and the Cominco proposal, could the Minister say how many proposals and suggestions are currently before the government for a copper smelter from private enterprise?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: This was in a letter to myself from Mr. Jewitt. There were two companies involved in this suggestion. They've got to make application to the Pollution Control Board with a definite proposal, and I suggested that that should be done.

How many proposals? Cominco has not come forward, except that we have discussed Cominco's proposal to build a copper smelter in Kimberley. I don't know what the hold-up is there except that it's bringing into operation, I imagine, Highland Valley. That's the only other one.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): A supplementary on the same subject to the Minister of Mines. You referred in your earlier statement to Bethlehem Copper and a smelter in the north. What do you define as the north? In other words, where are they suggesting this be located?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: They had a public hearing at Clinton. They were suggesting a copper smelter there, but it wasn't feasible if they had to take the sulphur out of the ore. I said that we can't have a highstack smelter and that we've got to get rid of the sulphur.

MR. FRASER: You're referring to the one that was north of Clinton.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: That's right.

MR. BENNETT: Just getting back to the sulphur

[ Page 2735 ]

content, I understood that they were prepared to convert the sulphur to sulphuric acid and, if that wasn't acceptable to us as fertilizer, to further convert to gypsum. Weren't those proposals in removing the sulphur satisfactory to the government?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: They're not altogether satisfactory because if you put it into gypsum you're destroying the sulphur, and you're destroying a resource. This is one of the problems of the task force. We want to save the sulphur. Even if we can't use it now, at some later date we will.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, a further supplemental. The first plan was to convert it to sulphuric acid, which is keeping it in a sulphur form. That would remove over 95 per cent of the sulphur content into the air. I just wonder if that wasn't a firm proposal to remove the sulphur, which the Minister says is the drawback to their proposal.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I haven't got the letter here today. There was no firm proposal but a suggestion that they possibly could get 95 per cent, but I wouldn't be happy with taking 95 per cent of the sulphur out. That's my opinion.

MR. SPEAKER: May we proceed to another question now, Hon. Members? The Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

INADEQUACY OF TELEPHONE SYSTEM
IN PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I think when the party leaders review the Blues we might review the question period too.

The Minister of Public Works doesn't get asked too many questions, but this is a good one. (Laughter.) Is the Minister aware that MLAs are virtually isolated from the public in their offices because of a hopelessly inadequate telephone system?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): Well, that's a real toughie, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Surely you could have phoned that message to him.

MR. WALLACE: No, I couldn't get a line.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: I'm afraid, Mr. Speaker, I'll have to give the Member for Oak Bay the busy signal on that one because he's directing it to the wrong department. We now have a new Department of Communications.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: Wrong number.

MR. WALLACE: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: could I ask the Minister of Transport and Communications how many additional telephone sets have been added to the switchboard in the past year without the addition of extra lines?

AN HON. MEMBER: That's the Public Works section. (Laughter.)

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): The installation of public lines within the chamber is the responsibility of Public Works. (Laughter.) No, I'm perfectly aware of the present situation of the telephone system. There seems to be a tendency, too, for the individual to think: "Well, it's easier to telephone." There have been additional lines put in. A completely new switchboard was put in under the aegis of the Minister of Public Works, but let me tell you there is a tremendous use of the telephones, unequalled both for long distance and for day-to-day use by the Members of this present Legislative Assembly and I appreciate it. I get the busy signal too when I try to get out so I'm very much aware of it, but I'm getting a report on the whole thing — the increase in utilization. I would suggest too that you try and use Telpak lines more than they are being used.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): You can't get on them.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, I've put in additional Telpak lines just this last six months.

Anyway, I draw your attention to two things: (1) there has been a tremendous increase in the amount of telephone facilities in these buildings in the last two years; (2) there has been an even greater increase in the use of telephones by the Members. We'll do our best.

MR. WALLACE: One more supplemental, Mr. Speaker. I think the Minister's answer is very fair but I think it must relate to the fact we are full-time MLAs. We're here twice as long as we used to be and the public are asked to make use of their MLAs, so I think it's fair to say that we could anticipate a tremendous increase in phoning. Could the Minister be more specific in telling us how many additional lines he proposes to introduce, and whether in fact, at least for the next month, there might be some kind of moratorium on introducing them into other offices to try at least to make the MLAs available to the public for the next several weeks?

[ Page 2736 ]

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, to the Minister, it's a very serious matter, as he has indicated in his answer to the previous question. Would the Minister agree that the problem is not restricted to the telephones used by the Members of this assembly but really it's a problem that exists apparently throughout the government service in greater Victoria? Would he not agree?

Have there been any instances, through you, Mr. Speaker, of telephone service being discontinued to offices because of abuses — that is, phones left off the hook, deliberately shut down during lunch hour and so on? Are you looking into that part of the problem?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: As a matter of fact some time ago I sent a memo throughout the general service asking them not to leave the telephone off the hook at any time, because it ties up a particular line. I sent a memo out, I think, about four months ago to that general effect.

MR. CURTIS: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: has the Minister's department asked B.C. Telephone to monitor the volume of incompleted incoming calls? It's a straightforward question.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, I have not asked the B.C. Tel to monitor the volume of incoming calls.

MR. SPEAKER: I wonder if we could get on to another subject. If it's an important supplementary, proceed.

MR. PHILLIPS: Would the Minister agree that the addition of 8,000 civil servants in the last 18 months has a bearing on the telephone situation?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, I think the length of some of the long-distance phone calls that some of the Members make has something to do with tying up lines.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Chilliwack on a new subject, I hope.

SPENDING ESTIMATES COVERING
NEW SCHOOL DISTRICT GRANTS

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): Surprise. After three days of knee bends I made it. (Laughter.) I don't know on what basis you establish your pecking order, Mr. Speaker, but I suggest that you revise the system.

This question is for the Minister of Education. Will the Minister be bringing before the House a supplementary spending estimate to cover the recently announced increases of grants to school districts?

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): That is not my intention at this time. The manner in which that will be handled will be decided by the Minister of Finance with cabinet.

Orders of the day.

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

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Report on Bill 7, Mr. Speaker.

SPECIAL FUNDS APPROPRIATION ACT, 1974

Bill 7 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Report on Bill 49, Mr. Speaker.

UNIFIED FAMILY COURT ACT

Bill 49 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 10, Mr. Speaker.

BURRARD INLET (THIRD CROSSING) FUND
AMENDMENT ACT
(continued)

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, as this is the second debate in principle of this bill, which is essentially to change the name of a fund to the Provincial Transit Fund Act from the Burrard Inlet (Third Crossing) Fund Amendment Act, 1974, I'd like to quickly reiterate points that were made earlier by other Members of my party concerning our position on this bill.

We feel that the whole question of rapid transit as well as the third crossing cannot be separated into the either/or proposition that has been made to date. We do not feel that it will be possible to simply force rapid transit, and some solution by way of rapid transit, by making it increasingly difficult to use private vehicles across the existing connections to the North Shore.

We feel that if there is to be some reasonable and adequate solution to transportation problems in an area of Vancouver which it is our belief the government's Land Commission Act and other approaches to housing will make more and more important for housing.... The North Shore, we think, will certainly have the housing that's predicted

[ Page 2737 ]

for it in the years ahead, particularly in the coming decade.

We feel that to ignore the need for a third crossing to take not only rapid transit but also existing private vehicles is short sighted. It isn't an either/or situation. There is no question that we're going to have to have both. We're going to have to have more rapid transit and we certainly applaud moves in that direction. But the fact is that we are also going to have far more use of private vehicles.

The suggestion is that the number of people using private vehicles on the North Shore will be, in terms of those using it now, substantially reduced. There will, of course, be new people coming into the area which will also be using a portion of the transit facilities, but those now in the North Shore will not have the opportunities they presently enjoy for driving their private vehicles to and from Vancouver.

There's no question that a policy which is putting this — as has been done by government speakers to date in the second reading debate — as an either/or situation is totally short-sighted. We are not going to solve our problems of transit in Vancouver, Victoria or elsewhere in the province which have difficulty simply by creating or allowing existing bottlenecks to get even tighter and more constricting.

The solution lies elsewhere. We have been very disappointed by the government's approach to this particular bill as represented by the second reading debates earlier this session. Indeed, I think we devoted the whole of our Saturday morning day to this particular bill.

The fact is that only if we proceed with properly planned bridges, approaches and, of course, properly planned rapid transit — be it rail, monorail, underground, trams or whatever — are we going to get the type of mix that will be acceptable to the public, which will satisfy the needs of the people presently existing on the North Shore, as well as the many, many scores of thousands who will be moving there in the next decade, according to all predictions. To adopt the approach that has been represented by government speakers, which is to say that this bill is for rapid transit and that rapid transit means no third crossing, we think is quite ridiculous.

I have no wish, Mr. Speaker, to go into the factual arguments put forward by the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) and the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson), but they went in detail through the studies that have been presented to Members of this House, pointing out that the very best expert and technical advice that we could get indicates that we're going to have to consider the two problems together: that a third crossing is necessary, and for it to be successful in dealing with future transit problems we're going to have to have a third crossing which incorporates both private vehicles and rail or other rapid transit modes.

There is no way that the government policy of simply allowing a problem to get worse and worse and worse, and then say that the answer to it is rapid transit — there is no way that's going to work.

There is another problem area which I think my colleague for Vancouver–Point Grey pointed out very well last week when he said that everybody has the idea that rapid transit is for the other guy; it's not for them. The Premier has his car, I've got my car, the Hon. Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) has a car or two, I don't know. But we all want to use our own cars and we want to force the other guy onto the bus and onto the streetcar. We want to force him onto the rainy street corner waiting for the bus or the streetcar.

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): When I get to Vancouver, I'd just as soon get on the bus.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The Hon. Minister of Mines says that when he's in Vancouver, he'd sooner be on the bus. Keep it up, yes; keep it up. He's got the right approach. I'm afraid the rest of us are more willing to admit that we're not as perfect as the Hon. Minister of Mines, and we tend to be selfish. All of us do, and everybody listening to this debate tends to be the same way.

Interjections.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I walk to work frequently in this building, but I've not often seen many other Members who live some distance from it walk to work. I'm not suggesting that I am any better than anyone else. I'm just as bad. But let's not have this holier-than-thou attitude whereby we're sure the problem will go away if only the other guy takes the bus and walks in the rain and suffers the inconvenience of rapid transit or public transit.

We are going to have to realize that we have developed in North America, rightly or wrongly, attitudes towards personal transportation, and while certain relatively small segments of the population will go ahead and use bicycles or use buses or use their feet, most won't. If we don't face up to that very human failing that many of us seem to have — most of us seem to have — we're being hypocritical.

The third crossing and, I think, this bill demonstrate some of that hypocrisy. It is not a question of being in favour of rapid transit or against it, and those who are in favour of rapid transit obviously have to oppose a third crossing.

The situation we are in is that the development of the North Shore, as it exists now and with the development that's coming forward in the future, will mean that more facilities will be necessary, even if half the people on the North Shore who presently use their private vehicles stop doing so and take rapid

[ Page 2738 ]

transit. Even if half of them do that, the increased development on the North Shore, the increase in the number of buildings, and in particular residential accommodation — probably the increase in rental units — will result in others using their vehicles; and the net result will be that we're going to need a third crossing anyway.

If we proceed as we are doing with this bill, and with the arguments that have been presented to date and say that it's an either/or situation, we will ignore some very real and pressing problems.

Mr. Speaker, you're a well-travelled man; you've taken advantage of your opportunities to visit the Mother of Parliament in London and you've seen the tremendous number of bridges across the Thames. Perhaps you've visited the National Assembly in Paris and you've seen the tremendous number of bridges across the Seine there.

Those bridges were mostly constructed in the days of rapid transit. There had to be; there was nothing else in the way of private vehicles in the days that most of those bridges were constructed.

Mr. Speaker, as an aside may I just welcome my friend Mr. Howard, a former colleague of mine, who I see leaving the House at this time? Nice to see you here.

Back to the question of rapid transit. These cities, which relied upon people walking, upon subways, upon trams, upon buses, developed a tremendous bridge system. It was necessary to move people. I just wonder whether or not the people who have argued to date in this debate on Bill 10 have realized that the experts who drew up those plans that were referred to — and given in detail by the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound and the Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Capilano — know something.

They might not be perfect, but they do know something. They've tried to understand the problem and they have come up with the recommendation of a joint transportation link involving both rapid transit and private vehicles.

Mr. Speaker, I raise this in no spirit of animosity to the government. I appreciate their desire to do something about rapid transit, although we have had plenty of arguments with the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) and others as to whether they are proceeding in the right direction. I think they do realize, somewhat vaguely, that there is a need for improvement in rapid transit; there is a need for improvement in buses and purchases of buses by the Minister — despite his attempts to slough off all the costs onto municipalities in terms of operation or recognition of this fact.

What has been very distressing in the debate so far on this bill is that the approach has been taken that somehow you are either for the private vehicle — and therefore for a new bridge, a third crossing — or you are in favour of rapid transit, and that is something else again and you are in favour of no bridge. The question is not that simple. If we continue to oversimplify complex questions involving the whole business of urban development in greater Vancouver, we are going to continue to go the way of cities whose planning simply has not brought them up to the realities of the present day, let alone the future.

If we proceed on the basis of ignoring the technical and expert studies that have been done, if we proceed on the basis of ignoring the wishes of people and their attitudes toward public transit as well as their own private vehicles, we will be doing so at our peril. Quite clearly, we are going to find that all the best intentions in the world, all the best efforts to persuade the other chap to board the bus are going to fail if this whole problem is not dealt with in an integrated and overall manner.

There really isn't a great deal more to say on this bill except that we urge the government to reconsider. Adopting the either/or approach will fail, and that is the approach we have been given so far. Adopting a much more difficult approach, perhaps much less understandable to the uninitiated, which is based upon the technical studies and predictions for the future, will succeed — with difficulty. Obviously, urban development is a difficult subject, but it will succeed.

Those who come along to this Legislature and the people in this province in the 1980s will appreciate that bit of foresight and thinking on our part. Rushing after slogans which say "rapid transit instead of the private vehicle," and which have led to the conclusion that the government has expressed in debate on this bill, simply won't work. We urge the government to reconsider.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Talking to the principle of this bill, we are discussing only the change of a title. I suppose if one were completely objective it still could be that under the title, Provincial Rapid Transit Subsidy Act, a third crossing could be financed. I think those of us on this side of the House have taken the change of name to mean that the government has decided not to have a third crossing or that, in dealing with the total problem of transportation in the lower mainland, in Vancouver in particular, a third crossing comes very low on their list of priorities.

It is very difficult to discuss that aspect of this bill without transgressing on Bill 70. But this bill, Bill 10, section 4 in particular, also relates to something similar to the contents of Bill 70 (Transit Services Act), so I assume that we are allowed a certain amount of latitude in discussing the principle of Bill 10.

The implication in the bill and the public reaction and editorial comment reveal that most people have concluded that this government has decided against a third crossing. In some of the debate that has already taken place this point has been made. In my reading of the bill initially it was my feeling that the

[ Page 2739 ]

conclusion need not necessarily be that the government had given up the idea of a third crossing but that they simply wanted flexibility in the spending of money on transit services, which might or might not include a third crossing. But I think the government, in debate, has made its point clear.

The Conservative Party feels, in light of the facts and figures and the way in which the population is increasing in Vancouver and on the North Shore, that, while it might be altruistic and desirable from an environmental point of view to say we will not have a third crossing, we in this party think that attitude is totally unrealistic. The increase in population has been quoted many times in recent debates in British Columbia. It is about 3 per cent per year, which is double the national average. If you study the increase in the production of motor vehicles of all kinds — I haven't got the exact figure available but it certainly is an annual increase — these vehicles are going to be on the highways, on the streets and on the byways in these increasing numbers regardless of what this government or any government does.

In my view it is really a little like King Canute trying to hold back the waves and just pretending that, if he makes a gallant and idealistic try, we can solve the problem by simply ignoring a very large percentage of the basic problem: the fact that there are more people living in that area; there are more vehicles in that area; and that trend will continue. I think it is short-sighted and unrealistic of this government to think that simply by telling the people "we will not build a third crossing but we will use other methods of dealing with transit problems," that this somehow or other is a rather quick and efficient and appealing way to tackle what the leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. D.A. Anderson) and the other Members of that party have very clearly described as a long-range and a very serious and difficult problem.

I would certainly agree. I make the point for this party that we are not in favour of this bill and do believe that a third crossing is needed. But that in no way should be regarded as any kind of indifference towards alternative methods of moving large numbers of people in metropolitan areas. It certainly is not true that if you are for the third crossing, you are against other forms of rapid transit. It is the clear understanding of this party that it has to be a problem tackled from many different directions.

I think it should be made clear in this debate that many other cities have introduced other attractive methods of moving people, such as the park-and-ride system. We have San Francisco with its BART system which, I understand, is losing money at a fantastic rate and is in real difficulty, not to mention the fantastic capital outlay that was involved in developing BART in the first place.

There is no simple solution to the transit problem. It is only more confusing to all concerned if some bill such as this, which is very simplistic and, in our view at least, unrealistic, is put before the people of the province, giving them the impression that we are on a new track which offers much more hope than a third crossing.

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce): How much money would we get back from a tunnel?

MR. WALLACE: I'm not knowledgeable enough to discuss the cost of a tunnel or the amortization or tolls or anything else. This, I think, would transgress on Bill 70 anyway, which is dealing much more with various ways in which transit can be handled. I mentioned at the outset of my remarks that this bill relates very intimately to Bill 70 which has not yet been debated in the House.

It does seem to us that the one central mistake in this bill is that it tries to put across the point that one is either for or against a third crossing and that the other methods which the government has in mind, however good they might be per se in our view, will not be adequate in the absence of a third crossing.

The other reason we feel very unhappy about this bill is that it does overlook a point that has already been raised in debate. It is a little bit like this lottery debate we had yesterday. Lots of people were against lotteries in the debate yesterday, but I wonder if there is any one of them who himself or herself had not at some time taken part in lotteries. It is always good for the other guy but it is not so good for me, or it is good for me but it's not so good for the other guy.

This kind of debate goes on in terms of transit also that these people, in a vague way who travel in and out to city centres every day should take the bus. Though when I go into the city centre it is all right for me to drive my car. This is another aspect in which I think this bill is unrealistic.

Maybe it is designed to make life so very much more difficult for the motorist that by a sheer subtle device of making life intolerable for him, he will seek some other method of transportation. But even if that were the case, Mr. Speaker, and all the motorists suddenly chose some alternative, I'm quite sure that the facility isn't there to transport them.

So it seems to us quite unreasonable to regard the third crossing as being something that can either be ignored for a little longer or can be treated in isolation from the total problem of transporting large numbers of people.

We feel quite strongly about a third crossing, particularly in light of the situation which now exists, as any motorist who has tried to cross Lions Gate Bridge at busy hours would know, and in view of the fact that both vehicles and people are increasing in numbers, and that we're the most mobile society that

[ Page 2740 ]

ever has been. If that wasn't the whole crux of the revolution that took place when the horseless carriage first appeared, I don't know what it was.

But certainly this is just a further step down the road whereby society has to acknowledge that individuals have the choice and freedom to drive vehicles, and that seems to be what they want to do, that's what they're going to continue to do, and therefore while we should offer them alternatives I think the government is being extremely short-sighted in suggesting for one moment that we can continue to try and prevent or to argue against a third crossing being necessary. So we're very much opposed to this bill.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Basically this bill is a name change only and as our leader said in speaking to the bill before the rugby recess when he spoke in the debate, any third crossing that comes up is going to have to have provision for rapid transit.

We're debating here as to whether people in West Vancouver will use these buses or a rapid transit system indeed, if and when it is installed. But the whole point is that the people of this province and the people who are debating this don't seem to realize that if rapid transit is indeed installed to carry the people from West Vancouver into the heart of Vancouver, they will ride the buses because this government will decree that they shall ride the buses. Because this province is getting like Russia every day that passes by.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I appreciate the thoughtfulness and the deep philosophical involvement in this debate displayed by most Members, the reasonable alternatives and the positive suggestions and the honest differences of opinions held by most Members.

Some people come to this House to contribute something and many of the people in the debate did. Those that didn't, I'll let the House judge that itself.

But I haven't changed my mind, and I'll tell you why I haven't changed my mind and why this government insists on defining the problem far more closely than perhaps the Liberal leader would want us to. But there are alternatives to the automobile and I disagree completely with the First Member for Point Grey when he said that the automobile is the great preference.

All right, if politicians are never going to lead, that's the safest position to take. Any politician in North America today that doesn't attack the automobile is generally safe, because most people have been geared by advertising and psychological conditioning to believe that an automobile is synonymous with success in our society. Some psychiatrists have even defined at one time in the late '50s and early '60s the great flashy attachments on the hoods of automobiles as being extensions of phallic symbols for the North American male.

Well, you know, Mr. Member, psychiatrists have given us other evaluations of the meaning of the automobile to the North American male's ego.

MR. PHILLIPS: You should go see a psychiatrist.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Now we hear again from that Member for North Peace River.

AN HON. MEMBER: South Peace.

MR. WALLACE: He doesn't even have a licence to practise. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. BARRETT: If we could only mobilize that energy that comes out of that one single mouth, we would solve the energy problems for a city as large as Vancouver. (Laughter.) If it only could be canned or bottled, or preserved, or put under pressure, just think — there'd be the Phillipsmobile, run on voluble amounts of hot air. But the problem is, with a lack of research, it would all go out as exhaust. (Laughter.) But nonetheless, he's trying to solve the problem in his own way.

AN HON. MEMBER: He sells cars. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. BARRETT: I didn't want to bring that up.

AN HON. MEMBER: I didn't either.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Because someone might suggest there was a conflict of interest. But far be it from me to do that.

Now, back to the serious aspects of the debate. There is a question of how do politicians get involved in assisting people to change their habits. First of all, you have to have a belief in an alternative way or an alternative system. I just don't believe that our cities should be committed to the automobile. I just don't believe it.

Every time we look to solve a traffic problem in North America, the emphasis, until recently, has been heavily towards meeting the needs of the automobile, not of the passenger or the commuter or the working person, or anything else. We've made no serious effort to even scale or alter working hours in congested areas. We've made no serious effort to really talk to people and say: "Okay, get together with your neighbour, get four or five people in a car." We've made no effort to do that.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're making a sacrifice.

[ Page 2741 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: Just bring in a bill.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I know it's a sacrifice depending on whose car you have to get into. But even in spite of that barrier, human contact of all kinds of people may modify points of view, and I don't even exclude the Member for South Peace River in that regard. But I'm suggesting that we must tell people that the total commitment of cities to the automobile must end.

That is our opinion and we're putting our opinion right in legislation. If people don't want the cities to be turned over to the automobiles, they'll support the government. If they want to destroy the cities on behalf of the automobile, vote against the bill.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): That's simplistic.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Certainly it's simplistic because that's what politics should have boiled down to a long time ago. If you want to keep on going out and fogging up people's minds with phony arguments and standing on the fence and never coming down on the side of an issue and saying we're in favour of rapid transit but we've got to build more bridges for cars, that's the kind of flim-flam politics that should have ended in North America a long time ago.

Yes, it's simplistic. We're saying we won't build another bridge across the First Narrows in Vancouver. That's it. Okay. We've said that's the end of serving the automobile. As long as we are government, I do not want in any way to contribute to ripping the guts out of downtown Vancouver with freeways, access roads and concrete jungles.

I've just come back from Hong Kong where they have a ferry service and they've also built a tunnel. The tunnel costs $2 a trip for an automobile, the Star Line ferry costs a nickel. I want to tell you, I've taken the $2 ride in the tunnel one time, and I took 10 rides on the five-cent ferry, and I was ahead 10 to 1, not only in money, but in social experience. As a matter of fact, I even binged. I bought five of my friends a first-class ticket each on the Star Line ferry. It cost me 30 cents all told. I don't mind going first class once in a while. (Laughter.) And there we were on the upper deck of the Midnight Star, enjoying our little eight-minute trip across the Hong Kong harbour among the various odours....

MR. PHILLIPS: How much of the province's business did you do on the top deck?

HON. MR. BARRETT: On the top deck, my friend, we did more on the top deck in the open than the Socreds did down in the boiler room, closed up for 20 years.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You know, Mr. Member, one of the aspects of your new leader is that he's shown that he does have some masochistic tendency — he still shows up when you're in the House. (Laughter.) But Mr. Member, I want to say to you, through the Speaker, this is really a simple matter of learning from other people's mistakes. It's not that we have any more genius, it's not that we have any more talent or skills. But if we're not prepared to learn from other cities' mistakes, then we can be condemned as being stupid. If people want to get in their car and choke on somebody else's exhaust, so be it.

We are providing alternatives through that Minister and the alternatives are a good bus system, hopefully a good ferry system across Burrard Inlet and hopefully a more human experience allowable for people in travelling to work and coming home from work.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's more than just money. It's a whole social structure and approach to life. We think cities should be a human, warm experience, and you'll never get that by building more concrete, more roads and more services to the automobile. The $27 million will be transferred for that Minister's use and he'll start using it and the test will come over the next 24 months, or 18 months, or 12 months, or six months, or whatever it is, that we go to the highest court in the land. (Laughter.)

Ernie LeCours is in the gallery, I'm told. He knows what I'm talking about. He used to argue for these things when he was with the government.

AN HON. MEMBER: They wouldn't listen.

HON. MR. BARRETT: They wouldn't listen to him and poor Ernie got dumped along with the government.

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): You'll know what it feels like next time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WALLACE: When's the date?

HON. MR. BARRETT: The point is that one of the reasons why this government has been attacked so severely is because it's had the guts to move into new areas and make decisions. The most popular thing would be to build that bridge over there and satisfy West Vancouver and North Vancouver and everybody else, but we've said: "No, we're going to do the right

[ Page 2742 ]

thing. No bridge. No more service to cars — let's get on with making our cities more human." Let's hope that people will satisfy North American advertising, North American pressure and start becoming something better than what industry and behaviour patterns have led us to be over all these years. We're willing to stake our political careers on that kind of decision-making and I now move second reading.

Bill 10, Burrard Inlet (Third Crossing) Fund Amendment Act, 1974, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, Bill 70. It relates to this bill.

TRANSIT SERVICES ACT

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): This bill provides authority for the province to carry out a programme of public passenger transportation services for British Columbia. The general programme in public transport is designed to give British Columbia an alternative to dependence on private automobiles for personal transportation. The reason behind the bill is that immediate action is required at the provincial level on transit plans to serve immediate needs and future requirements.

The transit industry has traditionally been an area of private initiative. Transit services have been generally carried on by individuals who are now finding it almost impossible to carry on their business due to the heavy losses which are being suffered in the transit industry generally. This government recognizes tremendous neglect of public transit and the need for provincial initiative now to upgrade existing services and to plan and institute new transit services of all kinds.

The government has acted this past year to establish a new outlook for public transit in both the Greater Vancouver and Capital Regional District areas. Government initiative, acting through B.C. Hydro transportation, has been effective in starting new services — in Coquitlam as well as North Vancouver. The next step involves introduction of more new services, purchase of further equipment and planning new transit systems for communities outside the Vancouver and Victoria areas.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. LORIMER: During the course of the past year's programmes, two private companies were acquired to provide extensions of new services to go ahead in Vancouver. In Victoria three private companies have come forward to offer their systems to be incorporated and planned as part of the regional network for public transit in the Victoria area.

Bill 70 provides the legislative authority for the province to act in all these matters.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): I appreciate the Minister's remarks, but I would like to make a few here and say that Bill 70, Transit Services Act, is another typical takeover bill of the NDP where it takes over all the transportation facilities in the province the exception probably being the CNR and CPR if they so desire. As an example, what happens to Greyhound Bus Lines in this authority granted to the Minister?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Can we take over B.C. Ferries?

MR. FRASER: Oh, no, you've already got those. They started needed services, but I don't think the province should get a monopoly on everything in the transportation field in the province, and that is exactly the authority that will be given when this bill is passed.

I would like to say again, as in so many things we discussed earlier, that it will be of great benefit in some of the things they'll do here in the lower mainland, but I'd like to hear more of what they intend to do to benefit other people in the lower mainland of the Province of British Columbia.

I don't know why any private interest party in transportation would invest with this kind of authority given to the Minister here to go into transportation, because the investment climate will be nil once this bill becomes law in the province. It further gives the authority, as I understand it, to go into the manufacturing of transit vehicles. Again, of course, we could have a repetition of the Flyer industry situation that the Government of Manitoba got in and have had quite a bit of difficulty with.

The other subject that I'd like to note here, Mr. Speaker, is the regard that this government has for local government involvement in transportation planning, and it's certainly evident in this statute. The Minister doesn't have that good an image with the lower levels of government when he suggests that secret discussions on transit....

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: Well, he said so, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Transportation (Hon. Mr. Strachan) who was groaning there. He really said: "Take it or leave it." This statute would seem to strengthen his hand.

It will have the effect, I think, of focusing off the real transportation needs of the Greater Vancouver Regional District with the supreme authority granted the Minister here.

[ Page 2743 ]

It further gives the Minister, Mr. Speaker, absolute control over fares and tolls. Maybe this is a method of instituting a new highway toll authority in the province without even coming back to the Legislature. I can well remember the tolls we had at Pattullo Bridge and Spuzzum in the Fraser Canyon and the ferry system at Kelowna and Nelson and so on. I would like to hear the Minister say whether this authority implied here is going to be used in this regard. We threw out tolls years ago in this province by that prior bad government that we're always hearing so much about. They were the government that got rid of all the toll authorities in the Province of British Columbia.

It would appear also on the authority under Bill 70 here, given to the Minister, that he can decide the location of power generation systems and transmission lines without any communication whatsoever with local municipal authority. I think that it is a pretty high-handed statute. If he so wishes he doesn't have to consult with them at all and I think that's a very bad feature of this bill.

Bill 70 provides for $50 million expenditure which, when made law, will be spent outside the direct control of the Legislature. Along with the $27 million which has just been passed, it amounts to $77 million that once this legislation is passed goes beyond the powers of the Legislature. It will be spent without authority from the Legislature. We get the stock answer, Mr. Speaker, that the public accounts committee can certainly check these expenditures but it's after the fact and there's no discussion on the estimating prior to the expenditure, and that is the feature of so many of the socialist bills that we have seen come forth in the last 18 or 19 months.

It also provides in here for five members to be set up as a committee to advise the members. Again, I think this provides jobs for probably five NDP supporters. With this and things that have passed before us, there certainly won't be many more left; they will have to go beyond the NDP. By the time the government finishes its plans there will be far more government outside the control of this Legislature than in any other Canadian jurisdiction.

I would just say in closing, Mr. Speaker, that this party certainly opposes this bill.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): I just have a very few words to say on this bill. The powers it gives to the government are absolutely immense and, in my view, are much more extensive than are required at this stage. It is more or less a blank cheque to the Minister.

The newspaper headlined the Act the day after its introduction as: "Transit Act Gives Government Hefty Clout," and it does indeed. We find in here even words which would, under one interpretation, permit the government to enter into the manufacture of rapid-transit vehicles and buses and so on.

The powers are extremely broad, and the Minister in his very short opening words, I think, might have taken more time to justify these very wide, sweeping powers. I would ask him in his concluding remarks, when he closes second reading, to give this House an undertaking that these powers will not be exercised without the closet sort of consultation with local levels of government in whatever areas this transit authority might be operating.

The history of consultation in this regard, at least insofar as the public has been able to see, has not been a good one. I appreciate the arguments which the Minister has brought forth on many occasions about the difficulty of consulting with municipalities with respect to specific alignments of transit rights-of-way and the problems this would lead to in terms of increasing the cost to the public of acquiring those rights-of-way once they were finally settled on. But I would suggest to the Minister that it should not be impossible to devise legislation which would provide that, whenever such rights-of-way were acquired, the acquisition cost should not be a cost that was escalated to take into account that right-of-way but rather one that would permit the acquisition as if that proposal had never been made.

The Minister has been held to account in quite extensive terms in his estimates with respect to the taxation costs to municipalities of his new transit authority and the heavy burden that that 2 mill assessment is going to place upon those municipalities. He should at a very minimum, as a matter of principle, when he is seeking to have the municipalities bear a new responsibility, provide at the same time a new source of revenue. He has clearly not done so in this case. Not only that, he has turned down requests by municipalities for sources of revenue such as 2 or 3 cents on the gasoline tax which the Greater Vancouver Regional District has specifically asked him for. They have also asked him for rather specific guarantees on consultation.

I would suggest to the Minister that it is only a matter of equity that he provide some kind of compensatory tax revenue and, further, that he should tell this House whether or not his offer so far is strictly a unilateral one or whether he has any kind of acceptance whatsoever from the municipalities to indicate that they are prepared to go along with his 2 mill proposal and 50-per-cent cost-sharing proposal up to that level.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the bill should be amended in committee stage to make very detailed provisions for reporting to this House insofar as the operations of this new unit go. Surely the other side of very broad powers and immense executive and discretionary powers must be accountability for those authorities. The reporting function is not at all well defined.

[ Page 2744 ]

I would like to ask — and I think the House is owed this — the Minister, in closing this debate before the vote takes place, to give us the benefit of his grand design or his master plan, in whatever stage of clarification it might be in his own mind, for the transit pattern in the Greater Vancouver Regional District. We have heard a great deal about this concept of streetcars or light rapid transit — "light rail transit" as the Minister referred to it in his estimates.

Does he contemplate in his master plan for the greater Vancouver area, being guided and pretty well bound by the existing light rail transit lines and rights-of-way that might exist? If he is to be bound by those lines, which are particularly old rights-of-way to New Westminster and an old right-of-way to Lulu Island along the old Arbutus alignment, has he studies which indicate that this is indeed where light rail transit is required? Has he studies which indicate what will be the resulting growth patterns in the Greater Vancouver Regional District as a result of this sort of transportation infrastructure being installed?

In that regard I would comment from an excellent article of April 17 in the Province by Mr. Mark Wilson, which goes through this question in some detail and which makes particular comment on a need for a proper transit system to have some provision for grade separation and the much greater cost that this entails. He concludes in this manner:

"If Vancouver is to have a revived local passenger train service, then it should be engineered at the outset to achieve grade separation. The magnitude of the expenditures involved should thereby ensure that routes are properly examined for their acceptability.

"The last thing the city wants is a non-segregated system with all its evils because somebody thinks they can get transit on the cheap and make use of some 100-ft. rights-of-way simply because they are there."

I think those are very wise words for the Minister to take to heart. He should as well have some concept in his mind about the use of the existing lines out towards Mission and the existing lines from the North Shore, over the CNR bridge, and into the downtown heart of Vancouver. Many people have suggested this as an alternate way across the inlet. I suspect that with current switching facilities it would be a pretty slow alternate. But the Minister may have studies which would indicate that in the longer run, perhaps with some extra trackage, this could be made into a feasible crossing pattern. The logical extension of that LRT pattern would then be from the ferry terminal on the North Shore, along the BCR right-of-way, perhaps up as far as the Whistler recreational area.

There are marvellous things that can be done by this agency, if imagination is applied, if the municipalities are consulted, and if the public is allowed to supply both its needs and its ideas to the Minister and to the transportation authority as things go along.

I think there haven't been too many mistakes made yet. But because of the critical implications this new agency will have for the North Shore, my own riding, for the entire Vancouver area, and for many other parts of the province, the Minister, I think, should give this House a very clear commitment of receptiveness to public input on the one hand and a close and annual reporting to this Legislature on the activities of the agency on the other.

I would suggest to him, too, that in considering the development of his transportation plans under this new agency, he should not underestimate the attachment of British Columbia to the automobile.

I want to quote here briefly from a report in Business Week, February 16, 1974, which is particularly relevant to the United States of America because that was during the time of gasoline rationing. It was found that even then, North Americans were found to be very reluctant to give up their automobiles. I'll make again this short quote:

"Economists estimate the short-term demand elasticity for gasoline at roughly minus 0.2, which means that a 10 per cent rise in the gas pump price inspires a mere 2 per cent drop in consumption. To be sure, auto travel in recent months has been down more than might be expected if one applies this formula to recent price hikes, but this appears to be the result of several other factors — 55 mile an hour speed limits, gasless Sundays, actual shortages in many areas and public attention focused on the energy crisis.

"Auto usage seems similarly unresponsive to parking charges. In 1970, for example, San Francisco imposed a 25 per cent tax on all non-meter commercial parking in the city. The tax was lowered to 10 per cent in 1972. According to Damian Kulash, an expert at the Urban Institute, the hefty tax caused a shift from long-term parking to cheaper short-term parking and cut garage revenues, but had no noticeable impact on traffic flows.

"One reason that gasoline prices and parking charges have such a small impact is that they represent only a small part of a car owner's expenses. The biggest bite comes from such fixed costs as depreciation and insurance. Moreover, the average commuter trip is six or seven miles, requiring only a gallon of gasoline for a round trip. 'You could double gasoline prices without significantly affecting commutation patterns,' says Wohl."

who is another man quoted in this article.

The lesson in that to me, Mr. Speaker — and I

[ Page 2745 ]

suggest that it applies as well to some considerable extent in British Columbia — is that if the Minister is going to base his transportation plans on the concept that people will voluntarily get out of their automobiles and into the transportation system because of changes in costs, I think that would be wrong.

I think that what he has to do is not make the cost of the automobile higher, but the serviceability of transit better — shortening headways; making waiting areas more agreeable, particularly shelters from the rain; service through more extended hours of the day; more complex routes taking people closer to their doors; more park-and-ride areas, which I presume will be a part of the object of expenditure of this new agency; and other matters of this kind. The real solution for transit facilities in the long run is to give service, rather than to be a last resort for the desperate commuter who has been driven to that transit system through simply not being able to make any progress in stalled city traffic at all. That to me means that attention must continue to be paid to the automobile.

I think it was wrong for the Premier to suggest that it is up to this Legislature or any other body to try and impose our idea of how people ought to travel on the general public. That's our very basic difference in principle, because the Premier believes we should impose ideas of how to travel — he says you simply shouldn't use the automobile.

Therefore, for example, we are going to select one community in this province where we have some leverage because they need something. We're going to select the North Shore and we're going to say to you people living on the North Shore: "Get out of your automobiles, because it's just going to be so rough to get across to the place where you earn your living that you're going to have to. We're not going to use any of the tax revenue which you contribute to this province, be it the directly related gasoline tax, or be it all of the other taxes that the people on the North Shore pay. We're not going to use any of that tax revenue to facilitate the crossing of your automobiles, even if you're prepared to pay for it through a toll. We're not prepared to do that because it's our judgment that that's not good for you and it's not good for the province." I just can't buy that philosophically, Mr. Speaker. I think that's incorrect.

When the Premier talks about getting the cars off the streets of Vancouver, once again he hasn't studied the situation very carefully, because the Thurlow tunnel which would connect with the end of the third crossing would, in fact, take 70,000 cars per day off the streets of downtown Vancouver.

HON. MR. LAUK: Nonsense! Where would they go?

MR. GIBSON: The Hon. Member says "nonsense." I ask him to stand in his place later on in this debate and explain just why it's nonsense and quote the sections of the Swan-Wooster report which note how those cars have to cross that area of downtown Vancouver in transit to other portions of the lower mainland.

HON. MR. LAUK: You know it would increase traffic — that's the way it generally goes.

MR. GIBSON: The fact of the matter, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, is that at the moment, according to those studies...and I challenge the Minister to stand up and find the flaws in those studies. I hope he's read them — he said he pored over them in a previous debate. I challenge him to stand up with that detailed knowledge and explain the flaw in the study that found that 70,000 vehicles per day would be removed from downtown Vancouver through construction of the Thurlow tunnel. I'll leave that at that point.

I was most encouraged at a hint in a newspaper report of the Minister some weeks ago which indicated that he didn't have a completely closed mind on the third crossing, so I will continue to keep my fingers, crossed and simply, on that subject at this stage, hope that he will keep an open mind and that he will recognize the place of the automobile in his transportation planning for the area that I have the honour to represent.

Mr. Speaker, one of the more popular ideas very often discussed in transportation theory, at any rate, is the concept of providing free rides, hoping by cutting the fare to zero to attract customers from out of their cars onto the buses, or the subways, or whatever. I want to quote again from this Business Week report:

"Another popular idea that draws fire from economists is the gambit of slashing fares or providing free transit to attract riders. Several cities, such as Seattle and Birmingham, are experimenting with free public transit in downtown areas, and others, such as Atlanta, have cut theirs substantially.

"While some officials argue that drastically reduced fares will pull people out of automobiles, the evidence is hardly conclusive. Numerous studies indicate that transit fare elasticities are fairly small, that it takes a very large fare cut to stimulate any significant rise in demand.

"Moreover, the new riders are not all refugees from the automobile. When the City of Rome experimented with free transit in 1972, for example, it found that ridership jumped, but that most of the new passengers were former pedestrians. Traffic congestion was

[ Page 2746 ]

unaffected.

"Atlanta is another case in point. In 1972 the city rolled back bus fares to 15 cents, a 62.5 per cent cut. Michael Kemp of the Urban Institute's Transportation Studies Group reports that passenger traffic jumped about 20 per cent as a result of the cut, and research suggests that perhaps 40 per cent of the added bus riders would formerly have used cars. The cost to Atlanta, in terms of transit income forgone, said Kemp, was at least $3 for each car trip removed from the road.

"What particularly galls many economists about the low fare strategy is that virtually every study of transit fare and service changes indicates that demand elasticities are significantly greater for service improvements. That is, ridership is more sensitive to changes in level of service than to changes in fare. Riders appear particularly responsive to reductions in door-to-door travel times. Thus a study by Charles River Associates, a Cambridge, Massachusetts, consulting firm, suggests that the reduction in auto trips that free transit would be expected to produce in Boston could be achieved at a fraction of the cost, simply by offering more extensive and convenient routes."

Thus, while I would definitely suggest to the Minister that there is a place for experimentation in slashed or even free fares at different times of the day and in different areas of the city, and I would invite him to start with the North Shore and the Lions Gate Bridge in making that experiment, I would say at the same time that he should give even greater priority to the service that his transit facilities offer to the general rider. There's no question that as the Greater Vancouver Regional District continues to grow, and as the complexity of our society increases, which of itself requires travel, mass transit has to be an increasingly important means of moving people throughout the area. It can be, I would think, a very pleasant means as well.

It can be clean, safe, fast, economical if imagination and dollars are poured into this new agency. It can be well located and of great service to the people of the area if adequate consultation is undertaken before the construction of the facilities concerned. And it can help build and shape a truly great metropolitan area, if these things are done properly. Those kinds of words indicate the enormous impact that will be had for good or for evil of this agency we are discussing today.

So I suggest to the Minister that the manner in which that agency is staffed, the manner in which it is accountable to him and to this Legislature and to the consuming public, is one of the very greatest importance and one that he should not fail to speak about in his concluding remarks on second reading.

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): Mr. Speaker, last Saturday about 6 o'clock a very beautiful sight went through the District of Mission. It was a Town and Country highway bus, Mr. Speaker, a brand new one. I went into the bus. I can't remember how many seats there were, but it sure looked like a nice bus to me.

Mr. Speaker, it was just the kind of concrete, nuts-and-bolts symbol of what I believe this legislation will be forecasting. This was a bus called "Town and Country," which I gather is going to be the extension of the old Pacific Stage Lines type of facility. It has a very nice light pea-green and brown logo on this highway bus — to be distinct, of course, from the fast bus, a service which already is going to Coquitlam and which is a great success, and which, I gather, in the morning and the evening during rush hour has standing room only accommodation.

Many of the people even as far as Mission, Mr. Speaker, including one of the alderman of Mission, who incidentally works down on Burrard Street.... It is not unusual to live in Mission and work on Burrard Street. He parks his bus at the park-and-ride place there in Coquitlam and takes a fast bus into work.

I believe this is really exciting news. It's one of the things that I really did try to say during the campaign. I think it's part of my upbringing. I grew up in West Vancouver. That municipality to my knowledge has had a municipal system — the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) can check me — that I believe goes back 30 years — roughly 30 years.

It's a very, very successful system, a system which the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) has used many times. I understand his wife picks him up at the foot of the street, but that's okay; at least that's part way. I think that this is an essential Act to see that the places where we live are as livable as they are now, and I hope, even more livable.

I understand, for instance, in going over the First Narrows Bridge, we see in a car 1.34 persons. That's not very good, Mr. Speaker. It's even worse going over the Pitt River Bridge — people driving from my riding, going to work — because right now the bus system is really not adequate at all. There are usually, I would think, about 1.25 people going over that Pitt River Bridge. In other words, there are mostly cars with one people....

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): You've gone too far now!

MR. ROLSTON: Even though there's a new Pitt River Bridge slated, this is not going to solve the problem of transit and the movement of people in a

[ Page 2747 ]

great, long, 80-mile riding like Dewdney. So I appeal to all the Members to support this kind of legislation.

I believe that long before this legislation there has been consultation with the municipalities — certainly in my experience. In fact, one of the first meetings I ever had was with the ex-mayor of Maple Ridge. We discussed, among other things, public transit of people. We have had many, many consultations since in both the councils of Mission and Maple Ridge. The aldermen have transit committees. We're planning future meetings with Vic Parker, the consultant, and with the Minister, and I know that things will be very carefully worked out.

I remember a caucus meeting last summer where the MLAs on our side of the House saw pictures; we looked at some of the planning and legwork that had already been done by our transit people, seeing what other parts of the world are doing.

I understand that there are all kinds of possibilities. I would hate to think that the City of Vancouver had totally rejected the possibility of putting some kind of surface rail facilities down that Granville Street mall. I hope that that at least was an option; I hope it was discussed. But I hear that it really wasn't — that the city wasn't even open to that possibility.

Now we have buses with hinges in the middle, Mr. Speaker, that could have gone up Lonsdale. We have a great variety of systems. I understand, Mr. Speaker, that the bus has its limitations and that in some cases with the fast bus we might already be at some kind of a saturation point. So we need other types of systems. We need to have light rapid, and eventually we need to have rail.

There are already consultations with the rail people, including the CPR. There was, I think, a premature release in the Province about three months ago about a rail service out to Mission. But at least we're talking about that, and with the regional districts I think a lot of very good work could be done.

In my case I don't think there's anything that the people in my riding look forward to more consistently than a fast, sensible way of getting into the greater Vancouver area to work. They ultimately look forward to an improvement of the rail systems into Vancouver. The MP, Mark Rose, and myself have gone to the CPR. We've talked with them and we've had correspondence with them.

I understand that in the nuts-and-bolts sense there's really not that much that needs to be changed. There certainly are certain areas that need to be improved. The CPR bridge over the Pitt is not adequate and there are certain places in Maple Ridge where a lot of ballasting and work needs to be done. But we have the system; we have the rail.

Of course, we know what's gone on in Ontario with the Government of Ontario rail system. We know of very attractive exchange points — interchange points — where the buses meet the rail. From their experiences we can learn what they have done.

Of course it's very important, as other Members have said, that it be a fast, clean, efficient system — that there are places where you can meet, where you can be out of the rain, where you can have coffee and meet your neighbours. I really do hope that this legislation is acted on, that all the MLAs take the movement of people seriously.

This isn't to say that we won't still have the private family car, which we use when we go to get the groceries or when we go camping or go on long excursions. We all expect that tradition will continue.

But I believe that it is true that we in our own lifestyle.... I'd like to take the bus home even from this Legislature, or walk partly to this Legislature from where I am presently living. I think that this legislation needs all the encouragement that we can give it.

I understand, Mr. Speaker, just in closing, that it is the old bell curve in statistics that reflects the type of people that use transit. I understand that it's the low-income people and the very high-income people that are the people usually who are freed up enough to use this kind of service.

It's the middle-income people who are locked into that car. We saw in that movie, "American Graffiti," the tremendous involvement with the car. They aren't that loosened up to get out of the car.

I admit, Mr. Speaker, that there are some people who go to places at work that for many years will still be off the given routes of the system. But I believe it's our responsibility to design a system. I think that this is a symbol of the kind of livability that I certainly expect in the more urban areas of this province. And I certainly support it.

I finally would like to have some kind of assurance from the Minister that areas around an exchange point do not.... If there is any great appreciation, I think we should look at legislation to ensure that the municipalities and the provincial government share in that appreciation of the land and real estate. We've seen this dramatically in Toronto.

We've seen this around Toronto and the subway routes where it's very obvious that the land has gone up tremendously in value. I think that the City of Toronto should have benefited from that, and should have had some kind of share in that increase.

Thank you.

MR. GARDOM: I'd just like to make a few short observations, Mr. Speaker, that this certainly appears....

Interjection.

[ Page 2748 ]

MR. GARDOM: Thank you very much. It's nice to see all you gentlemen in such great spirits this afternoon — the new Premier sitting in his seat. He was a little while ago sitting in the seat of the Hon. Attorney-General. He's moving around quite quickly these days. We do wish he'd spend a little time in his own seat and on his own portfolio. That would be in the interest of the Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member get back to the subject he loves?

MR. GARDOM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This well appears to be another plank, Mr. Speaker, in the platform of state control of this government. Once again it is a great illustration of the unlimited powers that they wish to grant unto cabinet. We find that within the bill they have an unlimited right to purchase or otherwise acquire motor vehicles, buses, ferry transportation systems, and the stock of any corporation carrying on the business of a passenger system which, I suppose, could well extend to Joe's Taxi if the government decided Joe's Taxi was something which should be taken over within the provisions of this Transit Services Act.

One can see from these very disturbing words that there's not any process or provision within the statute for compensating those organizations, facilities or services that are acquired by the government. We suppose the government, if it felt necessary — as it did unfortunately feel necessary in the case of the insurance industry — could here as well expropriate without compensation by taking the attitude and reaching a decision that it would be impossible for an independent transit service facility to operate legally within the Province of British Columbia. It could say: "No, your doors shall be closed immediately. We don't have to compensate you and we can take over that which you have."

Those powers are within this statute. Perhaps they will not be exercised; but if they're not going to be exercised, they should certainly not have been given in the first instance.

We find it somewhat disturbing that the agreements and consent of municipalities to the programmes of the government, which have not been described, under this statute once again are subject to the discretion of the government or, more particularly, of the Minister. He does not have to enter into an agreement with a municipality if he does not choose to do so. I think that should certainly be a paramount consideration. He has the ability to run roughshod over the municipalities in any manner if he so chooses, perhaps the only limitation being that it may well be politically untenable or politically unadvisable.

But that's not enough. If the powers are not going to be exercised, they certainly should not have been granted in the first instance.

It has the power to fix tolls as the Minister may deem fit in any city or in any municipality, perhaps completely contrary to the wishes of the city or the municipality or the inhabitants of such city or municipality.

It has the opportunity to compete with Hydro or to deal with Hydro. Perhaps once again we can see here a great conflict of interest between the Minister of Municipal Affairs acting as the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the Minister of Municipal Affairs being a director of B.C. Hydro. What is in the best interest of B.C. Hydro is not necessarily in the best interest of municipalities or in the best interest of public transit.

I wish to make this point very, very clear. I'm certainly not accusing the Minister of any personal conflict, but there certainly is a political conflict. I think it was a highly improper decision on the part of the Premier of this province to appoint the Minister of Municipal Affairs as a director of B.C. Hydro for the simple reason that we can find a terrific conflict between the two duties. That conflict could present itself in this bill, as it has presented itself and is already open and obvious to the general public by the Minister ensuring, as he must, by virtue of Hydro policy that it does not pay the bulk of municipal taxes, thereby depriving municipalities from that which it should receive from that public corporation. That opportunity for conflict unfortunately does continue within the confines of this bill.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Impossible.

MR. GARDOM: It's not impossible; it's absolute fact, and you know it, Mr. Attorney-General.

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: I beg your pardon?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The Crown is indivisible.

MR. GARDOM: Well, if the Crown is indivisible, we have a very funny picture of indivisibility of the Crown when we find the Premier making statements to the effect that Crown corporations are no longer to receive subsidies from the provincial government. They are receiving subsidies by failing, in the City of Vancouver alone, to pay half-a-million dollars worth of taxes last year. There's a big difference there, Mr. Attorney-General. It's an obvious conflict which you are quite thoroughly aware of, I'm sure.

We find, under the provisions of this bill, a very

[ Page 2749 ]

remarkable power granted to the cabinet to establish a corporation by order-in-council. This is a new one. Until now, we've usually had the government come into this Legislature and say, "Look, if we're going to establish a corporation, we're going to do it by a separate bill." But not here, no sirree, Mr. Speaker.

Under one section of this statute, specifically section 11, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council has the right to establish a B.C. Transit Company. That can come into being in the Province of British Columbia not by legislative Act or following legislative deliberation and legislative vote in this chamber but just by a decision behind the red door of cabinet. That is not good enough.

This B.C. Transit Company, if the cabinet snaps its fingers and decides it wishes to incorporate that company, can have unlimited funds until March 31, 1975. There is no check and balance in the statute whatsoever as to the amount of money that can be appropriated to this B.C. Transit Company if it is incorporated within the provisions of this Act. There's no check and balance whatsoever as to amount of money that can be allocated to it from the consolidated revenue fund. This is really one of the grossest examples of blank-cheque legislation that we've yet had come before this chamber.

It's not a question as to whether or not a person is in favour or not in favour of public transit, make no mistake of that. We're very much in favour and I'm very much in favour of having a public transit system. But I'm also very much in favour of having the government out and inform the general public of what it intends to do. Is this going to be another one of the many, many bills that will never, ever be proclaimed? It would be a very interesting bit of resource work for someone to check into the amount of bills which have or have not been proclaimed or sections of bills that have or have not been proclaimed by this government since it has come into power.

Is this going to be another balloon? If it's going to be a balloon, fine and dandy. Perhaps the Minister should say that. If it's not supposed to be a balloon, the Minister should come before this Legislature and the people of this province and inform them of his specific plans for public transit. This he is not doing. He is asking us to vote upon this bill blindly; he is asking us to give the cabinet the power to incorporate a company with unlimited funds. Surely to goodness, that is a denegation of the responsibility of this Legislature and certainly a denegation of the responsibility and duty of every backbencher. There are a lot of Members from municipalities and cities in this House, Mr. Speaker, and they are going to be precluded from having a vote or a say in the establishment of this company or what it will do or the amount of money it may have.

It is as I said, Mr. Speaker; it's just one more plank in the platform of state control. British Columbia is falling very, very heavily under the heavy hammer of socialism — and this is just one more hammer of socialism.

MR. WALLACE: I suppose this is one of these other bills that is euphemistically referred to as "enabling legislation." We hear that word frequently in this chamber.

The reason we're very concerned about this bill is that, in effect, it enables this government to do just about anything and everything it might want to do in the whole wide area of transportation. That's giving transportation a very wide definition.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: High priority.

MR. WALLACE: I would agree with the articulate Attorney-General that transportation must in our modern society have a high priority. I said in an earlier debate this afternoon that the mobility of modern society is perhaps one of its biggest problems. It is both a curse and blessing. It's a blessing that mobility takes people out of a limited physical environment and enables them to see more of their province and more of the country and more of the great wide world. But at the same time, it is a curse in that the ease with which the individual can be mobile creates all the problems we're now talking about in urban areas. I think in another debate I mentioned that, by 1990 or some such date, about 90 per cent of all the population of Canada will be in five main cities. This is certainly, as the Attorney-General says, one of the priorities of any government in any highly developed, industrialized society.

But, Mr. Speaker, all societies are still composed of many individuals. This government doesn't seem to have the message that many individuals in British Columbia today are becoming more and more appalled, apprehensive and terrified at the increasing power of this government over the lives of individuals.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): Nonsense.

MR. WALLACE: The Member for Kamloops says nonsense. He should read my mail, or maybe he's not even reading the newspapers.

The letters to the editor in any newspaper I read never fail to mention that, while this government may have many good intentions, the power which is being given to the state by legislation every time we come into this House is frightening many, many citizens of British Columbia.

I don't know how many letters the Member for Kamloops gets, but I certainly get a steady stream of letters from citizens in Canada who have previously lived in certain European countries. Time and time

[ Page 2750 ]

again I get the message from these letters that this is the kind of trend that was set in many countries in Europe where more and more power was taken over by socialist governments, and that the final situation is like that in Hungary where freedom is a myth and the individual lives at the whim of the state.

Now the Attorney-General can smile and shake his head, but there are many people in the province of British Columbia who are very apprehensive. I know very well that the Attorney-General is entitled to his opinion just as I am to mine, and we happen to differ. But I am trying to explain why this party opposes this particular bill even though the goals of the bill are very admirable and very important to a modern society. Nobody can question the importance of dealing with the transportation problems in highly congested residential and industrial areas in this or any other province.

Mr. Speaker, the members of the press gallery are coming in for a rough time these days. Another certain member of the press gallery wrote an article, I notice, saying that at the last session of the Legislature many Members of the opposition expressed apprehension at the sweeping powers given to this government, but that at this session the Members of the opposition were going to be somewhat less vocal in expressing this apprehension because the government that took so much power in recent months by legislation has not used that power.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I think that is a very facile argument. If somebody has a gun, there is not much point in getting concerned only after they have blown your head off. In applying this kind of reasoning to this bill there is a clipping from the Province of March 14, just after Bill 70 was tabled in the House, that I would like to quote.

The powers in the bill were being described, and the reporter goes on to say: "However, Mr. Lorimer said outside the House that the government does not plan to take immediate advantage of many of the powers granted."

Time and time again we get legislation from this government where there is very extensive power given to Ministers or to the cabinet. When this side of the House expresses the natural apprehension of the individual in society against the power of the state, we get this repeated answer: "Well, of course, the government doesn't mean to use all this power."

The Attorney-General suggested that I am exaggerating the situation and that either the power is not dangerous or it will not be used. Mr. Speaker, some of the attitudes that have been demonstrated by the Minister responsible for this very important public area have already, in my view, given very considerable concern as to whether he is the kind of person who should have this kind of power.

I repeat that I have nothing against the Minister as a person. I have great respect for him as an honourable man and an honourable Member of this House. But the record is quite clear. I won't read all of it again, but in an earlier debate I pointed out that Vancouver city Aldermen Bowers and Hardwick felt that they had been ignored by the Minister; and when in fact subsequent meetings were held, because certain information was disclosed publicly, the Minister simply said that if there was any further disclosure there would be no more meetings, and that since the provincial government is paying a large part of the costs of transit, "we will lay the plans and we will tell you, the municipalities and the regions, just exactly how transit is going to be run, organized and operated."

If the Attorney-General thinks that I am too concerned with powers in this bill, I think we already have examples by the Minister which suggest that if there are difficulties in reaching negotiated agreements with regions and municipalities, we may well imagine or fear that in the future he could be extremely authoritarian in his use of the power which is an integral part of this bill.

I know we don't want to get into sections at this stage, but section 2, in particular, which allocates the power, makes it very plain, particularly in the early part, that the Minister can plan transit services without any particular consideration for municipalities or regions. There again, he has the authority to make the decision and impose it on these local regions and municipalities.

An interesting part of section 2, Mr. Speaker, which I thought would have been mentioned earlier, is that the government can build restaurants and hotels under this authority. This shows just exactly how far you can stretch the definition of transportation or the need for a government to provide transportation when you give the Minister authority to construct and maintain buildings including restrooms and hotels.

I think it is quite reasonable for the individual in society to look at a bill like this one, which comes after many other bills, and say: just how far does the state in British Columbia want to go in getting its fingers into every aspect of the affairs of the individual?

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: To provide services to the individual.

MR. WALLACE: That's right, Mr. Member, to provide services to the individual. That is just where we are at a difference with your side of the House. We feel that the kind of services that you are seeking the power to provide under this bill are far too extensive and ill-defined, in the sense that the power seems to be endless. Some of the sections of the bill at least provide for cabinet decision and not just Ministerial decision; but the power which is given is

[ Page 2751 ]

something about which our party is very apprehensive. It seems to just repeat in Bill 70 what we have seen in so many other bills.

As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, although it may be that this government has not yet used some of the powers which we opposed in former debates, the fact is that the power is sitting there and can be used in the future. We certainly believe that it is power that has real dangers for the continuing freedom of the individual in our society to decide a lot of things for himself and to remain free from state interference and control to a degree which is unnecessary.

I know that the Premier will be up on his feet before long, giving the same simplistic argument again that the Conservative Party is opposed to rapid transit.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): You're opposed to everything.

MR. WALLACE: No, we are not opposed to everything.

I don't think that the record justifies that interjection by the Minister of Health. The Minister of Health knows very well that there are many actions of his government that we strongly support. I think it is not a fair statement, by any means, to say that we are opposed to everything.

We are in favour of responsible government, and responsible government means the responsible use of power. It means that in democratic societies governments don't ask power which they claim is not necessary or which they won't use. That's an old, old story. Even in my relatively short life I can remember the statement by certain politicians: "This is my last territorial demand in Europe; just give me what I want this time and I won't ask any more."

It is somewhat similar in this legislation: just give us this power; we are not really going to use it, but we just might need it. I don't think that it is a fair approach in a democratic society for governments to seek this kind of power in an area which affects practically every individual in our communities.

Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, when the Premier was waving his arms around and talking about transit earlier today and how strongly he was opposed to the automobile, I was just wondering: if that is the case, why are we building two enormous ferries to carry cars back and forth between the mainland and the Island?

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Don't give me that, Mr. Minister; it's to carry the largest number of cars of any ferry in the fleet.

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: So we're getting a rather ambivalent attitude from the government. In one respect, they are opposed to encouraging the use of cars; yet apparently we're spending $40 million to encourage the further transportation of vehicles between the Island and the mainland.

I'm not the only person who is expressing concern about not only the powers in the bill but the fact that some of the plans which the Minister has revealed up to this point are less than likely to be effective.

We have people in the automobile field such as BCAA (British Columbia Automobile Association) who say the ferry system proposed is like fitting a Band-aid on a broken leg. It seems to me that in that regard, too, even in the planning of the new ferry system to cross Burrard Inlet, we have had some very distressing statements by municipal people as a result of certain meetings that took place with the director of transit (Mr. Pearson) in which, again, some attempt was made to use political muscle and persuade the mayor of North Vancouver (Mr. Reid) to soft pedal his dealings with a company which had already entered into negotiation and had approval-in-principle from the council regarding the use of land on the North Shore.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: That was all dealt with.

MR. WALLACE: The Member for Kamloops says, "It was all dealt with." Well, it might have been dealt with to his satisfaction but it certainly hasn't been dealt with to mine. As in many other areas of important human affairs in British Columbia, this government means well...

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): You're darn right they do.

MR. WALLACE: ...and it tries hard. Yet it brings in legislation of this kind which scares the individual....

HON. MR. KING: Don't be scared.

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): You scare too easy.

MR. WALLACE: Oh, yes, I think we have every reason to be scared. The reason it scares me and scares a lot of citizens is that citizens take a great deal of interest and pay a lot of respect for the past and for the examples that have been set by other governments and other politicians who seek excessive control over the individual.

I think the most important point that should be raised in this debate — and many of the points were well covered by the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) — is that despite

[ Page 2752 ]

the need for transportation and rapid transit services, despite the intentions and the efforts of this government to bring about solutions, we have to vote against it...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WALLACE: ...for the very clear reason that there is power in the bill which is unnecessary, which further accentuates the basic difference between that side of the House, the so-called "heavy hand of the state," and this side of the House, which believes in preserving the freedom of the individual to look after more of his own affairs and to be left free to participate in planning and not to be told by the state what is good for him.

It's very clear, particularly in section 2, that this is exactly what this legislation empowers the Minister to do. Were it not for some of the earlier actions of the Minister, maybe our apprehension would be a little less. But this Minister, perhaps of any in the government, has shown that he is not slow to use all the power he has as a Minister to tell people that if they don't like it they can lump it. I think that's a shocking attitude for any Minister to have, and I think it's particularly serious that in this bill we should be giving such excessive power to that very man in the cabinet.

For that reason we are quite distinct and convinced that we must oppose this bill.

MR. PHILLIPS: I don't wish to prolong the debate. However, I do want to say that I certainly endorse many of the things that have been said by the two previous speakers in this House. This bill is more state socialism. It's just one more step towards setting up in British Columbia a complete socialist state.

HON. MR. COCKE: Read the bill, will you?

MR. PHILLIPS: The powers given to the Minister in this bill are typical of the type of powers which have been extended to most of the Members of the cabinet during the past 18 months. They are setting themselves up in power by these bills to be complete dictators. Very shortly, as more of this legislation comes into being, it will not be necessary to call the Legislature into session at all because the cabinet will have sufficient power to make all of the decisions necessary to run the province. That is exactly the way we're heading.

When the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) says people are frightened, he is accurate in that statement. The people of British Columbia, who love freedom and who realize that it was freedom which built this nation and built this province, realize that freedom is being eroded away. I suppose in this province there are people who really do not care about their freedom, who want to be looked after from the cradle to the grave and told by the state what they can and cannot do. But fortunately for this province there is a vast majority of freedom-loving individuals. It is those individuals, Mr. Speaker, who are concerned today.

A lot of the individuals who placed their faith in this government, which is taking all the power in bills such as this, are today themselves disenchanted because they thought they were getting a social democratic government. I have letters from some of these individuals. They themselves say that the government has gone too far and they didn't vote for a Marxist government.

AN HON. MEMBER: National socialist party.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I want to state unequivocally here that I am not against public transit.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, you go ahead, Mr. Attorney-General, and see how I vote. You've seen how I vote. I vote for the freedom of the individual; I vote for a democratic type of government. Never will I vote for legislation that takes away from this Legislature the duties of the MLAs.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: The Premier a moment ago said when he was discussing another bill that the government was being attacked for going too fast and being too bold. That is not what the government is being attacked for at all. The government is being attacked because they are turning British Columbia into, as I said before, a complete communist state. The Premier can make all the airy-fairy philosophical speeches that he wants to make in this Legislature, but he fools no one.

There are sections in this bill which will allow the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) to take over any method of transportation he desires to take over. This may be all very well and fine with this particular Minister because I have a great appreciation of the present Minister. But who is going to follow in his shoes?

AN HON. MEMBER: What section?

MR. PHILLIPS: I'll tell you what section. Take a look at section 10. Take a look at section 2. Take a look at section 7.

Interjections.

[ Page 2753 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: Every time you start baring the facts about what is happening and what powers are contained in the legislation, we always have to have some quips from the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) whom I think is afraid that he's going to have to enlarge the mental hospitals around this province because that government is driving people crazy. He's concerned, and if he were really concerned about....

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: The Minister of Health should look after a sick government, that's right.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who gave you that line?

MR. PHILLIPS: Our freedom in this province is disappearing.

This bill permits the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) to go into the dicey business of manufacturing transit buses. The power is in the bill. Are we going to have another Western Flyer No. 2 manufacturing plant here in British Columbia?

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: Could be. The Minister has the power. Why is the power in the bill if you don't intend to use it? Why are all the powers in this bill?

It is very difficult to visualize any private money or private industry investing or enlarging their transportation services in this province once this bill is passed. All they are doing, if it is a successful operation, is setting themselves up so the Minister of Municipal Affairs can move in and take it over.

We have seen this happen with the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. All that has to be decreed by that government over there is that it is supposedly in the interests of the individuals of the province. But what they are really saying is that the government is going to tell the people of this province what is good for them.

As I said just a short time ago, if the public transportation system is set up and the people won't ride the buses, won't use it, and continue to use their own mode of transportation, it won't be long before we will see a bill introduced in this Legislature to compel the people of this province to ride the public transportation. Make no mistake about it; this government wouldn't give a second thought to bringing in such legislation.

HON. MR. COCKE: Where were you when brains were given out?

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, it is unfortunate maybe for you, Mr. Minister of Health, that I have brains enough to see through some of the legislation you present in this Legislature. I think if you were to get out of the realm of the cabinet — where I think you brainwash each other and tell each other what a great job you are doing — if you were to take a month off and do some thinking about the powers that have been taken unto yourself and the other cabinet Ministers, you might be astonished yourself. You laugh it off, but I want to tell you that the people of British Columbia aren't laughing today.

HON. MR. KING: You've got them all laughing.

HON. MR. COCKE: Charlie McCarthy.

MR. PHILLIPS: They're scared.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. PHILLIPS: The people of British Columbia are frightened. The people of British Columbia don't want this province to be known as Little Russia. They don't want it to be known throughout the rest of Canada and the rest of the free world as Little Russia.

There are not words strong enough in the English language to point out to these blind-eyed Ministers what they are doing to this Legislature. Maybe they really don't appreciate the power they have. But there could be more dictatorial — I won't say more socialist-minded — Ministers....

Interjections.

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

MR. PHILLIPS: Does the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) have any respect for the House at all? I suppose because it's the government you don't have to have respect at all.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: If anybody is embarrassing their leader, it's the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Lauk). He is not only embarrassed by the lack of action on behalf of the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce, I think he's even afraid to allow his estimates to come to the floor of this Legislature to be debated. I think the Premier is going to arrange a trip out of Victoria somewhere, and he's waiting for that to happen. Maybe it will be next week when he goes down to Minneapolis to get his doctorate.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order. We are supposed to be dealing with Bill 70.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, would you ask the Minister

[ Page 2754 ]

of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce to just...?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'll see that you have the floor.

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you very much.

HON. MR. LAUK: I was trying to get you on the track, Don. I know you're so easily distracted.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

MR. PHILLIPS: I think it's been expressed here before, and I think I've expressed it as strongly as I can what is happening in British Columbia.

Last spring, when we talked about excessive powers in bills, we were right on because some of those excessive powers are starting to creep up here and there. They are starting to show. The same type of thing will happen here.

It would be far better if, when the Minister closes debate, he would tell us what he plans to do. But I really don't think he has a plan. He'll give himself in this bill broad enough powers to do anything he wishes to do. Then, if somebody comes up with a plan and he thinks it's a good idea, he has the power to do it. The fact that he has $76 million of taxpayers' money to spend without coming back to the Legislature doesn't matter. That's what he has under the terms of this bill: $76 million that he can spend without even coming near this Legislature, without consulting with the people who were elected to look after the taxpayers' money. That's a nice hunk of money for a man to play with, particularly when he is not limited in any area by this legislative measure which is before us this afternoon.

So I hope, when the Minister closes the debate, he will give the House some idea of where he is going and some assurance that this $76 million of taxpayers' money will be prudently spent. Also, give us some assurance that when this system he is going to create comes into being, he is not going to force the people of British Columbia by law to use it.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: The last three speakers in this debate seem to follow a lot of the usual trend we've been hearing in the House for the last few days. There was a little bit, I would say, of legitimate criticism perhaps. But as far as the principle of the bill itself, the principle of the government assisting in establishing a decent method of transportation in communities that cannot afford it, there wasn't one item of criticism. There was only the usual frustrated attacks on the government because it is this government that is doing it and not a different one. Otherwise, a lot of the objections we've heard from the last three speakers would not have been made.

We are in the same situation on the principle of this bill as the principle of others. I said once before that I feel sometimes, when I come through the doors of this House, that I've come through the looking glass. That is certainly reinforced today. When the day comes that I see the tea party going on up in that corner, I'm quite sure who will be pouring the tea.

HON. MR. LAUK: They don't understand. They never read the book.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: I'm sure the previous speakers could not have ridden on some of our famous Bluebird buses in the City of Kamloops. I don't know what their age is, but if they make it to the time when the government assists the city in setting up the proper transportation system, which should be very shortly, I'll be extremely surprised.

We've heard complaints all through this session about the lack of aid to the municipalities. Member after Member of the opposition said we're not doing anything at all for the municipalities. Here the municipalities are being offered assistance that's going to cost a lot of money they would have no hope of raising themselves. I imagine the next time something comes up in the Department of Municipal Affairs, these Members will once again say there's nothing being done to assist the municipalities. If this was the only assistance being given to the municipalities it would be quite significant.

As I look through the bill I find the cabinet in council will have quite a lot of authority. It will have quite a lot of power to spend money, and every dollar will be spent so that people won't have to hitchhike or take their cars downtown or go in a pool system. They will have a decent, modern, fast, clean transportation system if they wish it. And they are not forced to take it.

I don't think, Mr. Member, we have to worry for quite a few years yet about a new cabinet. I know we've heard that before: one-termers; wait until next time. But I find most of the people who complain and say this are the ones who get in with the least votes.

I certainly intend to support this bill, Mr. Speaker. I have had queries from Kamloops over the last two weeks on the telephone and by mail from the city council and interested citizens. As far as they are concerned, they're in a hurry for it. I imagine that the cities of Prince George and Smithers, if they have any transportation system at all, have ones that can only be considered as antiquated, such as the one in Kamloops that has been subsidized by the city for the last three years and which the city feels that it cannot afford to subsidize much longer.

Under this bill the municipalities are going to get a real break in their financing; they're going to get a decent system that's going to help move citizens

[ Page 2755 ]

downtown without, as the Premier has said, continually smelling the exhaust pipes of the hundreds of cars that would have been on the road.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

HON. MR. LORIMER: This has been an interesting, roving discussion this afternoon. I want to congratulate the Members for Kamloops (Mr. G.H. Anderson), North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) and Dewdney (Mr. Rolston) for reading the bill. The remainder was basically rubbish.

They talk about a takeover bill. I can assure you that the companies are lined up at our door asking us to take them off the hook. That's the way the transit business is going throughout North America. There's no money in transit; the private companies realize it, and they want to get out.

There's no expropriation rights in this bill at all. I just wish that our legal advisers would take a look at the bill before they talk about these sweeping powers.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LORIMER: There's very little power in this bill.

Interjections.

HON. MR. LORIMER: But we've had an interesting discussion.

The other sweeping powers were the incorporation of companies that are permitted in this bill. That section was plucked out of a fine Tory bill from the Province of Ontario, intituled Northern Ontario Railway Act.

MR. WALLACE: We're in British Columbia.

HON. MR. LORIMER: Yes. That is sweeping powers we were talking about — copying the Tory Act.

MR. WALLACE: I don't approve of it.

HON. MR. LORIMER: It was also suggested that there was no reporting to the House. Section 10 deals with reporting. There's very little power in this Act. It's inadequate, really. We should amend it. There's very little power in there.

I might say that there were a number of points raised by the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson), and by and large I think we're basically in agreement with the transit system there. Only one difference might have been the corridor he was talking about. That might be something we have to consider at length and have more debate on.

I might point out that a transit service will take people from behind the wheels of their cars. Before the transit went in in Coquitlam and North Vancouver, at the park and ride at the PNE there were some 750 to 800 people using the parking lot facilities. When the other two services came in, that dropped down to 550 for about a month, and gradually within a month it was back up to about the same figure as before the service started. So that indicates that when you give a service, the people will use it. It's where there is no service or inadequate service that we still have the problem of cars. So I'm convinced that with good service we can get people from behind the steering wheels of their cars and use the transit service. I agree that a lot of people won't, but by and large I suggest that they will.

I now move second reading.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 31

NAYS — 14

Bill 70, Transit Services Act, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House at the next sitting after today.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Report on Bill 75, Mr. Speaker.

RESIDENTIAL PREMISES
INTERIM RENT STABILIZATION ACT

Bill 75 read a third time and passed.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Committee on Bill 115, Mr. Speaker.

MR. GARDOM: Point of order. Would it be possible for the House Leader to inform the

[ Page 2756 ]

opposition what the order of business is going to be this afternoon?

I think it is a gross discourtesy to all Members of the opposition that we have not received any indication of the order of business from anyone in the House. I did receive from the Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) — and I thank him very much for his co-operation — a statement to the effect that we were going ahead with bills 70 and 88, to be followed by 95, 96, 97 and 98, and then 18 and then to a motion. With all respect, I don't think it is the function or responsibility of the Member for Cariboo to deliver these statements to the House, although I do thank him very much for the assistance that he has given. If we are going to run this Legislature in a competent fashion — no evidence being given of that fact to this point — will the House Leader, or the Premier, or somebody, please tell us what the order of business is going to be?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SUPREME COURT AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

The House in committee on Bill 115; Mr. Liden in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MR. GARDOM: I would just like to point out, Mr. Chairman, that nowhere in the bill is the reference that we find in the explanatory note to be found. Everyone is human and errors can be made, but I do feel that the Attorney-General has a responsibility to explain his bills to the House. He has not done that.

It refers, in the explanatory note, to a provision under the Laws Declaratory Act being amended. These weak old eyes of mine cannot find any reference whatsoever in this bill to the Laws Declaratory Act. It is not there. Obviously the explanatory note is referring to something that should be in another bill.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That's 2(d).

MR. GARDOM: Well, if that is 2(d), that's fine and dandy. I think you should explain that to the House and also the reason for it. The proposal is very interesting and very necessary; it is that the Laws Declaratory Act will apply under this particular amendment, which is to the effect that questions relating to the custody and education of infants shall be governed by the rules of equity, which is a procedure which has always been followed by the supreme court. I understand this amendment is required to cure a deficiency in the provincial court's responsibilities and duties.

If I am incorrect in that then I would like to know. Otherwise, I think it is a redundant provision and a redundant request.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The Member is quite right.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Chairman, I wonder what the Attorney-General means by inserting after the word "stenotype" in the third line "or sound-recording apparatus." This interests me because I happen to be aware of a pilot project going on in the United States which is causing a great deal of controversy where they are introducing testimony by tape recording in the courtroom. I think this is in civil cases, not criminal cases. I want to know, through you, Mr. Chairman, if this, in fact, would lend the opportunity and provide the necessary permission to have testimony used in the court through tape recordings.

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MRS. JORDAN: Who said no?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order.

MRS. JORDAN: I will reserve the right to ask further questions. Would the real Attorney-General stand up, please — the author of that Harold Wilson bill that came in earlier this afternoon — and tell me whether or not this paves the way for the use of any type of recording equipment in the court?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The Member is right that this allows and validates the use of recording equipment in the court, not just the official stenographic notes taken in shorthand. But it does not admit recorded evidence taken outside of the court or video tapes — that is, filming — of evidence outside the court. That is something that is also being explored and will be a subject of interest under the new rules of court that are being developed. We expect that video tape might be used in discovery very shortly, but it is not in this section. This applies within the courtroom; it is just modernizing the rules to validate the technological change which has taken place.

MRS. JORDAN: I wonder if the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce concurs with the Attorney-General in this point.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Down, boy.

[ Page 2757 ]

(Laughter.)

HON. MR. LAUK: Absolutely.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Attorney-General, could you enlighten me as to the type of use it will have in the court? Is it, in fact, going to be used to record evidence which might be presented in a further court case?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes.

MRS. JORDAN: So it would be recording evidence and statements by witnesses?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Right.

MRS. JORDAN: These would then be used in another jurisdiction of the court?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Which could be transcribed for the use of the judge on that case or on appeal.

MRS. JORDAN: The use of the judge. Does this mean that the attorney for one party could use the tape of a witness for the other party in the second case? In there words, if I am testifying in one case and everything I say is recorded and the case is appealed and goes to a second level of court, could that tape be used by the opposing attorney in his cross-examination of me as a witness?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The answer is yes.

Once the evidence is given it becomes public property. It is a matter of record and you could order a transcript of it.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Are the blues of the transcript circulated for use?

MRS. JORDAN: Would the witness also be privy to that transcript, or is it just the privilege of the lawyers involved?

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: Okay. I just want to know. I deal with all the little people in the province. They are going to ask me these questions.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: A witness could order a copy, too.

MR. GARDOM: Just to clarify one item for the lady Member, surely to goodness these will still be reduced to transcript form, Mr. Attorney-General, will they not?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, certainly. You're after my job, too. (Laughter.)

MR. GARDOM: No, I'm just asking a question, These still will be reduced to transcript form, will they not? That is the intention. For the use in court they would be reduced to transcript form.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Not necessarily.

MR. GARDOM: Well, all right. In whose custody are these tapes going to be — in the custody of the registrar of the supreme court?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Official court reporters.

MR. GARDOM: They're going to maintain them in custody? Well, you're going to have to provide facilities for them because we've just experienced now the very serious tragedy that they ran into with all of their premises being completely gutted with fire and the transcripts burning up. They are in a dreadful mess.

It's slightly off the topic, but I certainly hope that you're finding them some more suitable accommodation.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, they're in the custody initially of the official court reporters and then after the case they go to the court registries.

MR. GARDOM: Is that the procedure?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I think so.

Section 3 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 115, Supreme Court Amendment Act, 1974, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, just before I call the next bill, I'd like to give the order. We're going to do Bill 88; and following Bill 88 we'll proceed with second readings of 95, 96, 97 and 98.

Interjection.

[ Page 2758 ]

HON. MRS. DAILLY: They will stand, period.

MR. GARDOM: On a point of order, I would again request that the House Leader inform the House at the commencement of the day, preferably at the termination of the former day, what the order of business is.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Hon. Member has made that request....

Interjections.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Second reading of Bill 88, Mr. Speaker.

SEWERAGE FACILITIES ASSISTANCE ACT

HON. MR. LORIMER: I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if I could have some order here. There seems to be a debate going across the floor.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. LORIMER: This bill I consider to be a real breakthrough in the programme of allowing communities seriously to get on with the work of providing sewage treatment and sewage facilities for the municipalities within the province.

The formula is worked out more or less on a 20-year situation, where the province will pay 75 per cent of the sums over three mills in all municipalities and specified areas. The bill covers not only treatment centres, but also the major sewer lines in the whole programme. So I think that this bill will go a long way in giving assistance to municipalities throughout the province.

MR. FRASER: I would agree with the Minister that hopefully it will give assistance on sewage facilities to some municipalities. But I think there are a few things that will probably happen that will nullify the good parts of this bill. I refer to the new programme on assessments. This bill is tied into assessed values, and if we raise those, it will have the effect of reducing the good part of this bill.

I would refer to an article that if the assessments are changed, the Port Coquitlam people say it will raise their mill value from some $187,000 to $400,000. And this is going to happen in quite a few instances. If that does happen we should look to changing and amending this if we do anything at this session with assessments.

I would think, Mr. Speaker, that this would probably help smaller municipalities whatever happens, but for the medium size and larger, I'm very much doubtful of the assistance. But we on this side certainly are not going to oppose this legislation.

MR. GIBSON: I'd just say, Mr. Speaker, that the legislation appears to be helpful. It's difficult to know, without having the information that's available to the Minister, exactly how helpful it will be and in which parts of the province. I wonder if, when he closes debate on second reading, he would be kind enough to give an estimate as to the possible annual charges that will arise under this legislation, assuming that sewage facility construction continues at, hopefully, a somewhat higher rate than has been the case in the past.

MR. ROLSTON: I believe that last year this would have meant around $49,000 for Mission — I think $48,000 for Maple Ridge. Admittedly there's going to be some confusion with the obviously larger assessment and hopefully not larger mill rates in these towns. I think my towns are the towns that really will benefit from it.

We've had lots of discussions about unprecedented growth in certain areas. It's these growth areas where some of us on this side of the House, and I think on all sides of the House, are greatly concerned. You know, it should be recorded that the provincial government in the past paid $20,000 — that was the maximum they paid — for helping in sewage treatment facilities. If they are calling the shots and if it's their Pollution Control Board which is doing the regulating, and we set the specs for municipalities, surely we will pay more than $20,000.

Now I believe, when we think of the old type of assessment, it would have meant around $5 million expenditure. I think we are now putting our money where our message is. I should also remind this House, and especially MLAs in the Greater Vancouver Regional District, of the service by immense facilities like Annacis Island. Tiny little municipalities like Harrison and larger ones like Mission and Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows all have operating secondary treatment plants.

I believe the Member for Quesnel.... He's out, but I believe it was one of the first places to have a secondary treatment plant. We are a drop in the bucket, Mr. Speaker, as far as damaging the Fraser River. I would hope that the MLAs will really do something and exercise the kind of influence they should have on immense facilities like Annacis Island.

I support this legislation. I am especially happy that we can do something about large trunk lines. We expect that the lateral lines have been looked after by developers, but we have got to put money where our belief is. I support the legislation.

MR. R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Speaker, I stand to support this legislation as well. It's not often that I stand in my place and say that I think that the government has introduced good legislation.

[ Page 2759 ]

This legislation will be far more beneficial to the two incorporated small communities within my constituency possibly than it will be in some of the other larger municipalities. But where a mill rate raises very little money, such as in Golden, where the mill rate raises about $7,500, and Invermere where it raises only $2,700, I want to assure you that a piece of legislation like this is extremely beneficial to these small communities.

In fact, this legislation is going to make it possible for the community of Invermere to proceed with the installation of sewers and treatment facilities in that municipality. They have done some examination and feasibility studies on the projected cost in that community as to what it would cost to install sewers, and it was prohibitive and it was unrealistic.

It just wasn't possible for a community of that size of about 1,200 people to go ahead and install the kind of facilities that they required, which the health authorities demand be of a particular standard. This bill now makes it possible for such a community of 1,200 people like Invermere to proceed. The people are most grateful for this kind of a legislation.

However, maybe the Minister should also look at the question of changing the assessment structure, which in turn will eliminate the opportunity of larger municipalities from participating in this kind of legislation. It was intended to help all municipalities, I would think, but it is far more beneficial to the smaller municipalities. It's an extremely good piece of legislation.

MR. H. STEVES (Richmond): Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Minister for bringing this particular bill in. In my opinion there is no excuse now not to have a minimum of secondary treatment on Annacis Island, which is up river from my community. And there's no excuse not to be planning in the greater Vancouver area for secondary treatment next at the Gilbert Road plant in Richmond, and eventually the plant at Iona Island.

Under the previous legislation, only primary treatment was covered. Of course, the trunk lines and the pumping stations were not covered either. So we had legislation where 75 per cent of the cost over a two-mill levy really didn't go very far because it only dealt with primary sewage treatment.

Under this legislation you will be covering these other areas and there's no excuse not to be carrying out these programmes. It depends upon how the assessment thing goes, of course, but in my estimation right now under the present situation it amounts to the fact that the provincial government will be paying out about $5 million per year on the transportation and treatment programmes.

Under the previous legislation, as mentioned by the Hon. Member for Dewdney (Mr. Rolston), this was in the neighbourhood of $20,000 a year for the entire province. I think that some people may have thought it was for Dewdney, but for the entire province it was around $20,000 to $30,000 per year under the previous legislation.

In my own community when we built our primary sewage plant at Gilbert Road we had thought we would get a few thousand dollars out of it, but due to inflation and increasing costs, by the time we built the plant we found that we had absolutely nothing from the previous legislation. So I think, Mr. Speaker, that this will go a long way to encourage better sewage treatment throughout the province, particularly in the greater Vancouver area where we do have a very grave problem. I'd like to congratulate the Minister for bringing this legislation in.

MR. WALLACE: This is one of these delightful occasions when I'm able to prove to the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) that the Conservative Party is not opposed to everything that this government does. One of the problems that is very prevalent in the greater Victoria area, particularly in the riding of my colleague, the Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis), is the whole question of more adequate and efficient disposal of sewage. I feel that this kind of legislation recognizes the need for the provincial government to provide some financing beyond which the municipalities themselves really don't have the capacity to cope. Therefore I want it very clearly on the record that this party supports this legislation.

MR. SMITH: I just want to speak briefly on the legislation and to say to the Minister that when he closes the debate on this I think that he should direct his attention to the potential increase in assessments which will take place within the next year throughout the Province of British Columbia. If we go to a system of 100 per cent of value on property the impact and the benefit that this legislation will have as compared to the effect and impact it could have had prior to 1975 taxation year, for instance, will be quite different. It could very well mean as a result of that that instead of a product helping with repayment of anything over a product of three mills to the extent of 75 per cent of that total cost, you may have to revise that formula.

I would hope the Minister in closing the debate on second reading of this particular bill will comment, because it is a point that most municipalities right now are in the process of trying to determine their own individual situations. In some cases, as has been said this afternoon, it would be quite beneficial to the smaller municipalities. In others it's problematical if there is any benefit at all.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, this is a perennial subject. I remember six years ago when I was in my first campaign and I was at that time

[ Page 2760 ]

discussing the National Housing Act and its provisions and the opportunity there of using substantial amounts of federal money. I don't have the notes of that speech, fortunately for the House, but I do remember one figure and that was $260 million to be paid out by the federal government through CMHC, of which one province — the Province of Ontario — had taken $160 million, certainly the vast bulk of that $260 million. The reason was that their provincial government had put in legislation similar to the legislation that we have today which enabled the municipalities of that province to take advantage of the federal legislation. An enormous amount of assistance was provided and it went to one province because it was more on the ball than others. I'd like to congratulate the Minister for bringing in this particular legislation.

As I see it, the reduction would be approximately 40 to 50 per cent, in net effect, to the average community of from 4,000 to 10,000 and that's a very substantial improvement. That's an improvement, I would say, not only to the community of that size but also to the ordinary taxpayers of that community, and that type of assistance is certainly appreciated by this party. In particular, when you add in the effects of the National Housing Act, and I believe the section is 35, and the effect of that, the municipality can have a very substantial amount of its work picked up by the senior levels of government.

I congratulate the Minister on this approach, which is complementary to the federal legislation, because it certainly takes a burden off the shoulders of the municipality. Heaven knows, this government's put enough on.

I would like to mention one other point where I think he deserves some sort of congratulation, and that is that the previous legislation, which was so little used, was keyed to the two-mill provision. This one is keyed to a three-mill provision. But the basic difference, of course, is it is not just for the trunk line systems. Collection systems as well are included and I think that's a very worthwhile and positive step forward.

I think that if we recognize the fact that Part VIII of the NHA has also been amended, or announcement has been made of change there, to allow improvement of the scale of opportunity to take advantage of federal money for communities under the 5,000 person mark, we have indeed a very, very attractive package for communities that wish to assist in cleaning up their environment by introducing sewage treatment systems. This, Mr. Speaker, is critical in a province which has so many communities on relatively fragile fresh water systems and where there is increasing concern over the effects of pollution by mills and by communities on river systems such as the Fraser, the Thompson and many, many others. When you think of the increased loading on the Thompson system in particular, as a result of mills in the area, you realize that we are in a situation where the problem has been getting substantially worse because of the increase in population and increased industrial activity.

Certainly there is some level of treatment in many parts of the province, but because of increasing human activity this is less effective in protecting the water systems than was previously the case when fewer people were around and less industrial activity was damaging our systems. The indicator that we use is a good one. It's marine life, and certainly we have little indication in British Columbia that we've done anything in the last few years but suffer continuing damage to the overall fish populations of our province resulting from water pollution.

We certainly will be supporting this bill and we commend the Minister for bringing it in. I would just like to repeat the question of the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson): how much do you intend to spend under it? It's not a bad bill, but the bill will be totally pointless, and like so much good legislation will be irrelevant to the needs of people, unless you're willing to back your words with bucks. If you're not willing to put up bucks this legislation has misled us all. I haven't seen in it any indication of the amount of money you intend to spend. I would hope it's substantial. I would hope it's a multi-million dollar sum because it will be necessary to be a multi-million dollar sum for this Sewage Facilities Assistance Act to be of any real value to the province.

I trust that when you speak in closing the debate you will indicate that, because there is discretion and it's up to you and the inspector of municipalities to determine whether this bill is going to work. We can't really tell unless you give us some good ballpark figure on your intentions with respect to money.

I might add, Mr. Speaker, if I can depart from this bill for one second, I sure wish you would give us more indications — all the rest of your colleagues, Mr. Minister, as well as yourself — about how much money can be spent under bills. We don't know, and until we know so much legislation of this government may not work out as well as we hope. But I sure hope we can get more specific detail on this and, of course, perhaps you can give us an indication of when it will be proclaimed.

MRS. JORDAN: I don't want to be repetitious but the matter has been discussed in the constituency I represent and I would like to address myself to their concerns and one of my own — and of course my own is shared by many other Members. That's the fact that the bill itself does not relate in any way to the budget and the estimates of the Minister which are currently under debate in another committee.

I think this is a distressing situation because the bill, if it is as we believe it is, is a good bill and the

[ Page 2761 ]

Minister should be complimented for bringing it in and for meeting a much-known need in British Columbia. It's been pointed out that it will be helpful for smaller communities particularly. It should be helpful because those small communities such as my colleague mentioned, and one in my own constituency — the Village of Lumby — are under direct orders from the Pollution Control Board to involve themselves in a treatment system within a certain period of time.

Again, Mr. Minister — and this is the common practice of your government — so often a good piece of legislation is spoiled by an Act where we are voting for what we think is the principle, but there is no fact to back it up. And it is very disappointing not only to the Members of this House, but to the municipalities themselves, and to the general public, not to know in terms of dollars what priority the government puts on this bill.

The second, of course, relates to the assessment situation. If this is tied to the 1972 assessment, which would be best — or second best, 1973 assessment — then it is indeed going to be of considerable value. But if it is left in relationship to the current assessment year.... I'm thinking in terms of 1975 when the property owners of British Columbia are going to be hit with massive tax increases because their property has inflated in value; but in fact this does not indicate that they have the money to go with it. The value is only there when the house is sold. In many communities, including the city that I represent, Vernon, this is not going to be of any benefit at all, or certainly of very little benefit more than the last legislation.

I would ask the Minister whether he is intending to have it tied to the current assessment year in which we are debating this bill, and whether he would consider having it tied to that for, say, a period of five years so that the bill is effective, that it meets the need we believe it was designed to do and which the Minister has told us it was designed to do, and that it won't be just another flash in the pan or a wooden horse of Troy where people are seeing a glamorous outline but when it comes to its effectiveness, in fact, it is of no help to them at all.

This is an area where individual families, Mr. Minister, can get help through your bill if it is applied on that basis, and I'm sure that the Minister himself would like to see this.

I would like to ask him one or two questions as to how this bill will relate to Vernon's pilot project on effluent spray irrigation. If they go ahead in the Spillimacheen area, would the trunk line from Vernon to the area be included? Do you include also, because it is a pilot project, equipment to spray?

HON. MR. LORIMER: Automatically.

MRS. JORDAN: And all the irrigation pipes would be considered part of the equipment because it is a pilot project? That is very helpful.

Does it make any difference if the municipality chooses to pay its share, or whether it is put on a local improvement basis?

Well, I thank the Minister for that. We do have hopes that something will materialize of a practical nature in expanding this pilot project. If, as I say, it is tied to the current assessments even, it will be helpful but if it goes ahead to the 1975 assessments, then, as I mentioned, it may not be helpful except in the large distances they will have to travel between the city limits and the area of Spillimacheen.

I was going to ask the Minister also whether in the planning — and I must refer directly to the North Okanagan constituency where we have professional planners, including the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams), some on a consultant basis.... He was on a consultant basis. There were professional planners within the regional district of a very high calibre.

They came to an acceptable plan between the planners and the community themselves and the council, and the sewage system is designed on that plan, predicated on that plan. Then the Land Commission says that that plan is not acceptable and the whole system has to be redesigned, or the trunk lines have to be extended a good deal further in order to circumvent the objections of the Land Commission. Is the government willing to accept a greater share of the cost?

Would you like tea?

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member proceed with her speech?

MRS. JORDAN: Well, yes, Mr. Speaker. I'd be glad to talk, but I am addressing my questions to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. I would like an answer. I asked him a question and he's having tea with the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke).

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to the Hon. Member that it is necessary to talk on the principle of the bill but not on particular details or questions which would be appropriate in committee?

MRS. JORDAN: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. Whether you are incorporating a principle whereby a sewage system that has been designed by professional planners in co-operation with the elected officials and the community itself.... It has gone to public hearings; one of his own Ministers was a partner in that design, and then it is turned down by the Land Commission. The community must assume a great deal of extra cost to incorporate a new plan and new lands in order to meet the demands of the Land

[ Page 2762 ]

Commission, whether the bill will provide — if it in principle will provide — for extra funds for this duplication of services or work and costs.

HON. MR. LORIMER: I want to thank the Members for their remarks.

I think the payment provisions under this Act are identical with the previous Act. It comes out of consolidated revenue. It is very, very difficult to estimate what the costs are going to be.

Now I've got a figure here which isn't accurate, but I'll give it to you. It's not correct, but it's about $4 million. Now there may be increases in assessments this past year which haven't been taken into consideration here. There may be a number of new projects come into being that we haven't considered here. So on one side the amount will be less because of any increase in assessment, and every year there is usually an increase in assessment. But also to counteract that there will be a variety of new projects that will be made possible, and so we won't really know until next year. I would like to state that there are cities in the province, both large and small, that will benefit substantially. I think that the major benefit in the long haul may be — not in complete dollars — but the benefit to communities will be felt more in the smaller areas than the larger areas.

In my figures that I had prepared by the department, there are 69 communities which will, as of now, benefit. Now if a new community goes into a project they could very well benefit as well.

Any change in assessment, of course, will next year be looked at again. If we feel that there hasn't been sufficient action or activity this year, well, we will take another look at the bill and increase the benefits under it. So it is very hard for me to estimate at this stage what will happen this year on this particular bill.

I now move....

Interjection.

HON. MR. LORIMER: Yes, they will be able to come in under the NHA as well. It's basically the loan privilege of 25 per cent forgiveness now, and they will be able to obtain some help there as well. It should be a big help — the two bills together. It should help the communities, I think, substantially as far as sewage systems are concerned.

I now move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 88, Sewerage Facilities Assistance Act, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Second reading of Bill 95; Mr. Speaker.

PUBLIC SERVICE SUPERANNUATION
AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

[ Page 2763 ]

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, I again rise to introduce bills dealing with the pension Acts that the government has in its charge and in its trust. There is one missing, as the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) knows, and I hope to be able to introduce some amendments to that just as soon as possible.

Mr. Speaker, I think it would be useful for the House if they would allow me to presume that the speech I'm making on second reading of the very first bill is basically the principle of four bills. Then, when I'm called on subsequent numbers, I will just give you the isolated items that may occur in the legislation. That way I think you will get the picture, and then, of course, we can get into detailed discussion perhaps in committee stage.

Mr. Speaker, Bill 95, the Public Service Superannuation Amendment Act, 1974, is going forward in uniformity with the others. You will remember that our initial objective was to provide relief in the form of significant amendments to all of our plans as a first step towards maintaining the purchasing power of pensions in force, reducing the averaging period, and improving the other retirement provisions which were incorporated in the bills which were brought into effect last year. That's all been achieved.

Our second objective is incorporated in these current presentations, Mr. Speaker, namely that there should be some automatic increase based on changes in the consumer price index.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we are suggesting in this bill that the automatic increases will be implemented just as fast as the consumer price index changes are known.

The first such increase will become effective on July 1, 1974. Thereafter, when the pension payment records have been converted to complete computer adaptation, provision has been made for adjustments to be made at quarterly intervals.

I should point out, Mr. Speaker, as has been the case since I have had the responsibility of this portfolio, that the programme was developed with the complete co-operation of representatives of contributors from the three major funds, which has resulted in agreement on the same formula adjustment in all of the plans with which we are dealing today.

The programme will be financed by matching additional contributions by employer and employee at 0.5 per cent of salary at intervals when the amount expended for the supplementary payments exceeds 1 per cent of payroll. If I may elaborate, as soon as the cost of the automatic escalation in the pension plans reaches 1 per cent of payroll then we will require each of the two parties to put in 50 per cent — that is on a 50-50 basis, of 1 per cent.

The same increases have been applied for deferred pensions, disability pensions, and survivors' pensions. We have provided more uniformity in the conditions governing reinstatement and the calculation of benefits for spouses and the adjustment of pensions during the period of re-employment before attaining maximum retirement age.

In this particular bill, Mr. Speaker, there are three specific amendments peculiar to the Public Service Superannuation Act. The first one is the provision for an agreement with the British Columbia Railway Company. Their workers may, by decision, come under the umbrella of the Public Service Superannuation Act. We have gone through the Act in close detail, Mr. Speaker, and we have removed further, if not all — and I think it is all but you may find one left — the discriminatory words, offensive phrases, and what is commonly called sexist labeling. I think we have removed them all although it has been my unfortunate experience from time to time to find that one sometimes gets left in.

Secondly, we have cleaned up the Act in the sense of removing redundant provisions which are no longer applicable or no longer happening generally.

I think it is a good bill, Mr. Speaker. I think it is putting forward an escalation concept which is, I think, the best in Canada. I think it is justified and represents that we can, by negotiation, by consensus, and by adapting a series of principles, move forward with these bills all together in complete agreement with both employer and employee. I therefore move second reading of Bill 95.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, we see the need for the type of legislation of these four bills. We concur that they are necessary and we will support them. Unfortunately, part of the necessity for these bills is the admission of inflation which is obviously becoming worse each year.

It is more difficult for those people on pensions to live at the standard of living to which they would like to become accustomed. We see the need for them to be corrected.

It is unfortunate that those people who are on fixed income and fixed pensions from other sources do not have the ability to have their pensions increased.

Further, we would hope that the investment funds of these pensions are very carefully watched and placed in positions where they will be secure for an indefinite period as they are needed for people who will be drawing upon them.

This party will support all four bills as they are presented.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I would just like to add our support for these bills. The principle adopted is one that I have seen in other Legislatures for the civil service. I think the principle is an unfortunate but necessary one. The tremendous problem that arises, of course, is the self-employed citizen who has equally paid taxes and done his part to preserve the economy of B.C. and assist the provincial government in meeting such expenditures as these. But this man or woman is unable to take advantage of any provision to improve his pension because, of course, he purchased a fixed annuity or something of that nature.

That is the great problem that we face in dealing with our own civil service as we are doing in this case, or, indeed in the other bills with the other people involved. It is a regrettable thing and I must say, I don't know how to handle it. But I would suggest that one of the more imaginative ways might be some attempt to deal with the Mincome provisions along the lines I suggested during the discussions I had with the Minister of Human Resources.

We will be supporting these bills because we feel they are necessary.

MR. WALLACE: The Conservative party will support the four bills. I would like to make some specific comments on Bill 97 at the right time. We recognize the aim of the government in providing reasonable pensions for people who retired at a time when the value of money was somewhat higher and who otherwise are unable to cope with inflation.

I think that in general, certainly when we talk about one of the later bills, we have to take a position that it is not possible to maintain people who perhaps retired in 1954 instead of 1975 at the same kind of pension as a person retiring this year would be entitled to have. There are some very serious value judgments that have to be made in this whole matter of trying to maintain the purchasing power of a person's pension who retired as many as 20 or 25 years ago. But I will talk more about that on Bill 97.

MR. GIBSON: Just some brief questions of the Minister which he will hopefully answer in second reading. The automatic increase with the consumer price index is, I think, something that is certainly required these days.

I want to ask the Minister if this is foreshadowing thinking of the government going into other areas? I don't want to go into any detail because it extends a bit beyond this bill. But does this foreshadow similar thinking in wages and salaries and contracts?

I also want to ask him, because I find it a very puzzling phenomenon, why the Minister of Finance should have, as he does over the existing finances in the fund, exclusive control over these new funds in so far as their investment goes? Why should there not be

[ Page 2764 ]

brought into this field, as in many industrial fields, the, to me, more equitable principle that the employees that are being represented in these funds should have some say about the investment and therefore about the rate of return and the ability of these funds to bear greater interest and therefore pay more money out to those persons covered?

As we know, in the past the Ministers of Finance who have controlled these funds have not necessarily always invested them for the greatest return for the former public servants covered by the fund.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, I think there are two points I should answer on the principle of the bill. The others we can deal with in committee.

The first one is I table the reports on all the pension plans on almost the first day of every spring session. It occurs to me that what follows then is usually a question from the opposition as to the investment of the funds or the breakdown of the block figures that appear in my report to do with percentages. I think the Member for Victoria was really talking about this.

I think I should perhaps give you my commitment that I will study that report as quickly as I can. Perhaps I should do that report as quickly as I can. Perhaps I should do the thing all in one piece rather than waiting for the to-ing and fro-ing of the question on the order paper and tabling a report. So I will look at that point of view. I thank the Members for their support.

The second point raised by the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson). The reason is fairly simple. It goes back to 1921. At that time, when the funds were frequently in trouble, we guaranteed the pensions out of consolidated revenue. Under section 13 of the Act all contributions under the Act shall be placed in the fund in Treasury known as the Superannuation Fund and shall be carried forward as part of consolidated revenue.

There is, however, one of the funds which comes up later in which there is a committee and a trust obligation that is required. But at the moment the committees are working successfully and I think that while we have the guarantee on the level of pension emanating from the government that has been kept up by this new government, that the other government started, I think that is a happy situation. People know that the fund is not going to go away and that they have a guaranteed pension. That means that they have to give something up and that, to my view, is that if we are going to make sure that the pension is there then it is our responsibility to make sure that the funds are in good health.

I move second reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Bill 95, Public Service Superannuation Amendment Act, 1974, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Second reading of Bill 96.

COLLEGE PENSION
AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

HON. MR. HALL: This is the same basic objective, Mr. Speaker, in moving second reading of this bill. The peculiarities of the bill, as distinct from the others, are that the amendments extend the early retirement provision similar to those in the public service superannuation Act to the employees of the college pension. They permit an employee to retire between 60 and 65 with 10 years of service or more with no reduction in the formula. Those who elect to retire between 55 and 60 after more than 10 and less than 35 years of service will receive formula pension reduced by 5 per cent for each year that their age is less than 60.

I should point out, Mr. Speaker, that the third stage of these bills, which you may be discussing next year, or perhaps the year after, will be reflecting the thrust of the work of myself and my commissioner of pensions and the committees to deal with early retirement. I don't want perhaps the House to get terribly exercised about the last section, as it appears on the face of it to be something of a penalty towards early retirement. It's just that that's next on deck, so we are keeping uniformity going.

The amendment has increased the interest rates paid on refunds to the rates applicable in the other Acts. The new rate will be 4 per cent per annum on compulsory contributions and we've upped the one on voluntary contributions to 6 per cent. I see Members nodding because they know it's been low.

There are some minor adjustments in the provisions regarding re-employment under the maximum retirement age. I move second reading of Bill 96.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) and the Hon. First Member for Victoria (Mr. Morrison) approve and they will be on the record as approving. The Hon. Member for North Okanagan is next.

MRS. JORDAN: I didn't quite follow your speech, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I don't know how.... Hansard will find out what happened.

MRS. JORDAN: Actually I would request a little latitude. I ran out to get my notes because we hadn't

[ Page 2765 ]

known the order of the day. I couldn't find them all and brought the wrong ones, but I believe it applies here, Mr. Speaker, through you to the Provincial Secretary. I would recall that the Provincial Secretary mentioned that he hoped and believed he had removed all sexism from the Act and I would compliment him for this, but I don't believe he's removed the discrimination from the Act.

When you mentioned in the introduction of Bill 96, which we're discussing, that you would be bringing forth the thrust of your whole effort for two or three years in relation to early retirement, I think it is appropriate to bring up here the discrimination that I believe exists in relation to women within the pension plans. If the widow is a survivor and she's under the retirement age, in spite of the fact that her husband has contributed the same as anyone else and she has had to do without the various aspects that this money would buy and she is working, she is not entitled to the full pension entitlement. This doesn't seem right. I recognize that there is an actuarial problem here but I think it's something that should receive major priority in the Provincial Secretary's mind.

This works an extreme hardship. I would cite a specific case that was drawn to my attention within my constituency. This lady was widowed after many years of marriage. She had two children to raise, she was receiving half pension, and she was working for the federal government. Each year she signed a witness sheet and had it signed that she was in fact working, and it went back to the provincial government. In the meantime she was educating her children and planning to retire.

She had consolidated her debts that were left from her husband's death and taken a loan on the basis of her income, as it was now and as it would be when she retired. To her dismay, suddenly the provincial government came along and not only cut off her payments but demanded back payment, which was impossible for her to meet. Now she can't retire and she has to make back payment. I did advise her to pay back a dollar a month, as I felt that was sufficient to meet the needs of the Provincial Treasury.

There is a wrong principle here, Mr. Speaker, and that is the principle that a surviving spouse is not entitled to proper and full pension benefits without strings attached. It is my humble view, and I'm sure the actuarial people can put up all sorts of flaps, that this is rank discrimination. A surviving spouse, with particular reference to widows, should be entitled to full pension benefits when her husband dies, regardless of whether she works or has any other major form of income. I would hope that the Provincial Secretary would comment on this. Again I mention that I regret I haven't got my full notes; I couldn't lay my hands on them in light of not knowing the order of business. But I hope that he would clarify this and give the House a commitment and the women of British Columbia a commitment that not only has he removed sexism in the pension plan, but he's removed discrimination in this area, both to men and women.

The one other point that I would ask with caution is that it's my understanding that people cannot borrow against their pension fund and use it as collateral. We are in a position of extreme inflation at the moment, particularly in relation to housing. We have a housing crisis and there are many young people working for the civil service who just simply cannot get together the collateral they need to substantiate their loans. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if it would not be possible — and again I stress, with reservation and with due care — that responsible young people or any responsible member of the civil service be allowed to use their pension fund as collateral in the area of purchasing their homes. I wouldn't suggest this for cars or a trip to Hawaii but I think the ones that would want to use it would not be driving big cars and would not be going to Hawaii but are most intent on getting a home. This could, handled judicially, be a great deal of help to them.

HON. MR. HALL: I will answer the two questions raised. First of all, the provision that the Hon. Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) related may be a bad feature of the bill, or of the Act. That would be perhaps a decision we can come to after some debate and consideration. But it isn't discriminatory — it applies to men and women young and old. In other words, it may be a bad feature of the thing.

MRS. JORDAN: It discriminates you against your money.

HON. MR. HALL: But it's not applied when there are children involved. You may have left an impression that it did when children are involved. It doesn't apply when children are involved.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HALL: No, I don't think it applies if the women works either. But certainly the Member's touched on something which is on the ticket for the next go-around because it's part of retirement. It's part of the whole section of the Act to deal with retirement, which is the third stage thing, and I hope then that we will have the best anywhere.

The second point about borrowing. That is specifically prevented by the Income Tax Act. I can do nothing about that unless you care to support some federal aspirations or something like that. So I move second reading.

[ Page 2766 ]

Motion approved.

Bill 96, College Pension Amendment Act, 1974, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to proceed to resolution 29. I believe that this was discussed with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett), if you check with him, by the Premier earlier today and I assumed that you had been informed. I think you'll find your Leader was.

MR. SPEAKER: Resolution 29 is found on page 2 of today's orders of the day.

MR. SMITH: Point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: What is your point of order?

MR. SMITH: The point of order is that earlier this afternoon the Premier indicated that we would go through certain bills in the Department of Municipal Affairs and then we would go on to the bills of the Provincial Secretary, which included 95, 96, 97 and 98. Then we would go to a bill of the Hon. Attorney-General, Bill 18 and then to motion 29. Now, if we can't follow the outline as indicated to us and they are going to be called in any order other than that, there's just no point of communication between the government and the opposition to give us any indication of the direction that they'll go.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I appreciate the point you're making. That order was given, but I understand it was also discussed by the Premier with your leader that we would move into 29 at 5:30. That was what was passed on to him. So I would appreciate it if we could move into it now.

MR. SPEAKER: As you know, the arrangements that may be informally made behind the Chair on this matter is not really something the Speaker can deal with. I'd point out also to the Hon. Members, if I may, that we have been going through the orders of the day, we are now at the proper stage for motions and adjourned debates on motions at this time of the day.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: What is your point of order?

MRS. JORDAN: My point of order is that as a member of a party who believes very much in the parliamentary system.... We have a Whip; our party responds to our Whip; we support our Whip; we negotiate through our Whip. As a Member-at-large I find it not only disappointing but insulting to the parliamentary process and an embarrassment for the Deputy Premier (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) herself that this type of higgledy-piggledy procedure should be observed. I think it's an insult to the Members of the House for the Whips to agree on a programme and for the Premier to take it upon himself to interfere, to make it embarrassing for his Deputy Premier, and to disrupt the workings of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: I don't think it's a point of order.

AN HON. MEMBER: The former Premier (Hon. Mr. Bennett) used to tell the Speaker....

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, before we proceed into any argument on the question, I do point out that it is private Members' day. We have already gone past that stage of motions and adjourned motions. Leave would have to be granted by the House to go back to motions and adjourned debate on motions. Shall leave be granted? I received some noise over there, I presume we cannot proceed with that at this time.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Second reading of Bill 97.

TEACHERS' PENSIONS
AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, the peculiarities of Bill 97 are...

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

HON. MR. HALL: ...are to be found, Mr. Speaker, in that the Teachers' Pensions Act is one that has received a great deal of attention over the years for reasons that the particular group of people have had an active pension committee.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, they have delivered up to us over the years a great deal of information regarding their pension plan, and we have been able to coordinate their efforts with the efforts of the municipal workers and the efforts of the public service employees. They have now reached the stage when the basic provisions of all three plans are in uniformity. So therefore the same speech would apply to even the Teachers' Pensions Act that I made under Bill 95, the Public Service Superannuation Act.

However, there are just these amendments that are peculiar to Bill 97, and they are that the interest rate paid on refunds is again increased and they will be similar to those described as peculiarities of the College Pension Act, namely 4 per cent compulsory

[ Page 2767 ]

and 6 per cent voluntary interest payments.

There are minor adjustments in the provisions regarding the re-employment under maximum retirement age, and perhaps the last point is the most important of all in this particular regard, because the government contribution that's required to finance the improved benefits will be increased to a full matching basis, effective January 1, 1975.

Now, many of the Members who have been in more than one parliament of this province will know that one of the real grievances that the teachers have on that pension plan was that the government of the day was not matching, was not paying its full share, was not matching the contributions.

We had agreed a year ago to escalate to full matching over a period of time. However, once the provision came in for the automatic escalated benefits to be measured at 4 per cent of payroll, then of course by the time you get commitments, by the time you get benefits, and all that kind of negotiating procedures, the government had to compress its timetable to make sure that we paid up all the money that we owed the Teachers' Pension Fund, and that will be effective January 1, 1975. So I am pleased to announce that I am directed by something which was a legitimate item of complaint of the teachers toward the previous administration.

I move second reading of Bill 97.

MR. MORRISON: Again as we said in the other two bills, we concur with this and we will vote for it. Again we would stress the concern that the pension funds be carefully invested, and I underline that word "carefully".

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, this bill in principle is very similar to the others, and we will be supporting it in principle, but there is one principle implicit in this bill which, if you will forgive me, it will take a moment or two, I would like to go into.

I have here a communication from the B.C. Teachers' Federation dated April 19, a copy of a letter to the Hon. Provincial Secretary. In it, in the third paragraph, a very few lines, it says:

"We know the lack of recalculation is a disappointment to our retired colleagues and that recalculation is a part of our pension policy not yet achieved. However, the executive committee is very pleased with the other amendments and has had the opportunity to discuss the problem of no recalculation."

Because the Provincial Secretary did not indicate there had been any discussion of recalculation, I assume that none has taken place since that letter was sent on April 19, and I would like to wait and hear.

The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that in this particular bill we are indeed improving the pensions of teachers, and a very good thing too and we applaud the Provincial Secretary for so doing.

But he is not treating all teachers equally. Presently retired teachers are being treated somewhat differently from soon-to-be-retired teachers, and that is a problem. The fact is that the Retired Teachers' Association, or I shouldn't say this, I should say some members of the Retired Teachers' Federation believe that the BCTF has not been particularly energetic in prosecuting this particular point, namely recalculation for the presently retired teachers. The presently retired teachers are obviously not active members of the BCTF in the same way as working teachers are.

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, that's quite true. You certainly will be given an opportunity, Mr. Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) to get to your feet later in this debate to speak on the point that interests you, but it is not the point at this stage. Past history, which you are so good at, is not exactly the point that I am trying to make here and now.

I would like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that what is happening here is because of this lack of recalculation, a technical word, the disparity between the pensions of teachers who retired some years before and the teachers who retire now or who have retired in the very recent past will continue to increase. To illustrate my point I would like to quote from a letter to me from a Mr. Carl K. Knapp, the president of the central mainland branch of the B.C. Retired Teachers' Association. He addressed it to the Hon. Ernest Hall, and it is dated April 6. I'm surprised the Minister has not mentioned this. He says:

"In a recent letter to our mutual friend Vernor Jones, a letter bearing upon a continued injustice about which he and I share the same altruistic concern, you commented in part, 'I am proceeding by discussion consensus and the fullest advice of the representative group of employees and retired people!

"On the basis of that statement one would be justified in assuming that Bill 97, Teachers' Pensions Amendment Act, 1974, would embody that consensus and advice. Indeed, the bill does include an amendment that would give effect to the major request of the BCTF on behalf of the active," (presently employed, of course) "teachers, namely the calculation of all retirement allowances on the basis of 2 per cent salary averaged over the best five years for each year of service.

"Now, this amendment, in itself, is commendable in that its enactment would correct a major injustice to a minority of active

[ Page 2768 ]

teachers who, under the present Teacher's Pensions Act are penalized primarily because their combination of age and service and retirement does not measure up to the arbitrarily established minimum."

Now the next two paragraphs are underlined. I appreciate your attention, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. D.A. ANDERSON:

"The enactment of Bill 97, then, will give a basic equity pension to all active teachers, and a good thing too. But unfortunately," (this is also underlined) "the enactment of Bill 97 as it stands will have precisely the opposite effect on subsisting allowances, and existing inequalities would be substantially increased. So, specifically, the bill makes no provision for recalculation of subsisting allowances on the basis of 2 per cent salary average over that best five years for each year of service.

"Enactment of the bill without such provisions for recalculation would not merely retain, but increase, the existing inequities occasioned primarily by two non-retroactive changes in the basic formula for pension calculation, which are, first, the reduction in the number of best years for salary averaging from 10 to seven, as was done in 1971, and finally to five, which was done last year. And two, the graduated increase in per cent from 1 per cent to 2 per cent."

Now, Mr. Speaker, I will cease quoting from that letter because it is lengthy and detailed.

But the point I think has been made. The fact is that we are not treating the presently retired teachers in the same just way as we are going to be treating the currently-employed teachers and because of the recalculation question they will be penalized in comparison with the people who retire this year or retire next year. These people, the presently retired teachers, will be suffering increased inequity as a result of changing the formula for the existing teachers.

The Hon. Provincial Secretary has listened to this closely and I'm sure he understands the problems. But what beats me, Mr. Speaker, is why he didn't refer to it when he introduced the bill.

HON. MR. HALL: Do you tell everybody everything?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I can't hear his comments from his chair. I believe he's looking at the press gallery. Nevertheless, the fact is that this is not taken into account in this bill and I just cannot understand why.

If the pension level of people presently retired is not going to be increased on the same basis with the same equity, I wonder whether it's political pressure from the BCTF which has caused them to be treated in such a different manner from the presently retired teachers who lack such an active and politically sensitive group.

Why is it that teachers, be they retired or otherwise, are not treated in exactly the same way by the Minister in this legislation so that we can get rid of that inequity? After all, the changes have been made, changes which date from 1971 and 1973. Changes have been made and people who retired before that are penalized because of those changes. Surely it would be a simple matter to adjust the formula so that all teachers can be treated equally.

I trust that it will be possible for the Minister, or some other Minister to introduce an amendment to that effect. Perhaps the Minister of Education who should have some responsibility for retired teachers could introduce an amendment. We can't in the opposition introduce amendments which cost the government money and such an amendment would obviously cost it money.

But there's no difference in principle that I can see after examining Mr. Knapp's letter, after examining the BCTF letter, there is no difference in principle whatsoever between the two cases. Either we are trying to create an equitable system, in which case we must treat these two groups of people the same, or we are not, we're doing something else.

We may, as I said, be even responding to political pressure, but surely if the objective is as altruistic as the Provincial Secretary has indicated, I have simply come across an oversight in his calculations and he would be happy to recognize the flaw, rush out, prepare an amendment, and come back in here so we can discuss this bill which will be then, I think, much better in principle than it is at the present time.

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Would you like adjournment? Perhaps the Provincial Secretary....

HON. MR. HALL: Carry on. I'm taking notes.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Perhaps the Provincial Secretary would consider that, because an amendment would be simple.

I have one other point. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, if we are coming back this evening, I would draw your attention to the clock and continue later on.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member consider moving a motion to adjourn?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, I move for the

[ Page 2769 ]

debate to adjourn.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:03 p.m.