[ Page 4171 ]

CONTENTS

Afternoon sitting Routine proceedings Oral questions Staff shortage at Pearson Hospital. Hon. Mr. Cocke replies — 4171

Proposed hospital facilities for Cumberland. Mr. McClelland — 4171

Absence of Leader of the Opposition. Mr. McGeer — 4172

Teacher unemployment. Mr. Wallace — 4172

Racial discrimination at PNE. Mrs. Jordan — 4172

Conflict of interest in Department of Housing. Mr. D.A. Anderson Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4173

Statute Law Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 162). Committee stage.

On section 1.

Mr. Gardom — 4174

On section 3.

Mr. Chabot — 4175

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 4175

On section 4.

Mr. McClelland — 4175

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 4175

Mr. Morrison — 4175

Mr. Phillips — 4175

On section 6.

Mr. McGeer — 4175

Hon. MT. Barrett — 4179

Mr. McGeer — 4181

Mr. Lewis — 4182

Mr. Chabot — 4182

Mr. Gardom — 4184

Mr. Fraser — 4185

Hon. R.A. Williams — 4185

Mr. Wallace — 4187

Mr. McClelland — 4188

Mr. Morrison — 4189

Mr. L.A. Williams — 4189

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 4189

Mr. Phillips — 4190

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 4190

Mr. Morrison — 4192

Mr. McGeer — 4192

Mr. Phillips — 4193

Mr. Gardom — 4193

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 4194

Mr. Fraser — 4194

Mr. Gardom — 4195

Mr. Phillips — 4196

Amendment to section 6.

Mr. Smith — 4197

Amendment ruled out of order — 4199

Division on Mr. Chairman's ruling .— 4199

On section 6.

Mr. Gibson — 4199

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 4200

Mr. McGeer — 4200

Mr. Gibson — 4200

Mrs. Jordan — 4200

Mr. Smith — 4203

Division on section 6.

On section 7.

Mr. Fraser — 4205

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 4205

On section 8.

Mr. Chabot — 4205

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 4205

Mr. Phillips — 4205

On section 11.

Mr. Wallace — 4206

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 4206

Mr. Phillips — 4206

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 4207

Mr. Chabot — 4207

MT. Phillips — 4208

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 4208

Mr. Gibson — 4209

Mr. Phillips — 4209

Mr. Gibson — 4210

On section 14 '

Mr. McGeer — 4210

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 4211

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, it may interest you to know that the prayer you heard was first uttered in the House of Commons in 1661.

MR. C. LIDEN (Delta): Mr. Speaker, we have two groups in the House today from Delta. First are 10 students from the Ste. Angela Academy with Sister Fideles, and the second group is 50 students from the Delview High School, with their teacher, Mr. Richter. I would hope the House will make them welcome.

MRS. D. WEBSTER (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today we have a group of students from Corpus Christie school in Vancouver, with their teacher, Sister Rosemary. I believe this is their first visit to Victoria and I would like this House to give them a warm welcome.

Introduction of bills.

Oral questions.

NUMBER OF STAFF
AT PEARSON HOSPITAL

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I took as notice yesterday a question from the Hon. Member for Langley. And I must confess I get up today with quite a red face because yesterday I told the Hon. Member for Langley that we've added staff to Pearson Hospital. When I checked the facts this morning, we've added staff to every institution in mental health — to all of our institutions such as Woodlands, Riverview and so on — but we have not added staff to Pearson. The Member for Langley was correct. I, unfortunately, made a statement that was incorrect.

I can further answer the remainder of the question. The situation right now is that we're short 13 orderlies in Pearson. We have been experiencing difficulty in recruiting orderlies out there. Mainly it's because of the disparity at the present time in the salary ranges — the government institutions vis-à-vis the hospitals. This, of course, at the present time is a matter of negotiations.

However, we feel that there is not really a major lack of service at the present time in Pearson. We were not aware, until the Member for Langley raised the question, that there have been any complaints from patients. There has been some renovation going on and two wards are closed — one ward in Pearson, one ward in Willow, and it would seem that this would therefore reduce the number.

However, we go on to say that we are advertising and if applicants have been turned away, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the applicants are probably unqualified, because we are in need of staff. And when I'm talking about establishment, I'm not talking about the numbers of people we have. We have a larger establishment than what we have people, and we want to fill those places.

We have had, incidentally, during the month of May, a number of people off on sick leave, which has probably also tended to hurt the situation.

I would suggest if the Member for Langley has knowledge of any qualified applicant who wishes to work there, we would like to know about him. Further, I'd like to say, Mr. Speaker, that if he has any details of any complaints with specific information, I'd be delighted to hear about them.

PROPOSED HOSPITAL
FACILITIES FOR CUMBERLAND

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Speaker, I have another question to the Minister of Health, but before I ask it, I'd like to thank him very much. We appreciate that kind of candour. Any information I have I'll certainly send over to you.

The question that I have for the Minister of Health today will come as some sense of joy, I would think, to the Member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) because she was asking about the Concerned Citizens Committee of the Cumberland and District Hospital the other day — and I have a list of petitions with several hundred names on them asking for her resignation.

The question I have for the Minister of Health is that those people in Cumberland are vitally concerned that they may not get any kind of a hospital facility. They are not going to get an acute care; they know that now, I guess. But they want assurance from the Minister of Health that the department will go ahead with a facility of some kind with a mix of levels of care. They need that assurance because they are very upset in that community.

MR. SPEAKER: I take it that's a question?

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, it is. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, as the Member for Langley likely knows, and certainly as the Member for Comox knows, I've met with the people from that area on a number of occasions. I don't think I want to go through the history — the Member for Langley knows the history of the situation and what happened, that the extra beds were put in at Comox and we were set on a course that was very difficult to obviate.

However, we have given an undertaking to the

[ Page 4172 ]

people who were interested in listening to that undertaking in the area of Cumberland that we would provide a diagnostic and treatment centre. The diagnostic and treatment centre would have two or three holding beds, possibly more but certainly not very many more. Right next door we are planning at the present time, and will be building, an intermediate-care hospital. That will be a 40-bed hospital.

Our objective will be that there will be as many people or more employed in those two facilities. They will have basic facilities; they will have, too, a good ambulance service to provide that they get over to Comox which is only seven or eight miles away. I think the district will be beautifully served because we are able to concentrate on an acute-care facility just a few miles away in the Comox Hospital so it is proper and we'll be able to provide the other facilities where they are needed.

ABSENCE OF THE
LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Attorney-General whether under the Curators Act, he's received any notification of a missing person, namely, the Leader of the Opposition. Is he considering sending out a search party? (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: I don't think that's within your jurisdiction is it?

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, I did consider that there was a case of a missing person, and a little more than that. I did issue an all-points bulletin a couple of days ago, before this question came up. But I understand that Dan Campbell has been found. (Laughter.)

TEACHER UNEMPLOYMENT

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Minister of Education — we're having letters regarding unemployed teachers, and I think we have a sad situation of Mrs. Blanchett on the Legislature steps. At the same time we have a programme to create 275 new teachers. Now this question has been raised already, and I just want to ask the Minister if she has any meetings planned with the B.C. Teachers Federation or the trustees association to bring some kind of understanding throughout the province as to what is actually happening in this matter of unemployment among teachers.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): The latest figures I have been given — and I certainly would stand to be corrected after I doublecheck on them for you, Mr. Member — are that there are approximately 300 to 400 vacancies now for teachers in the Province of British Columbia. I'm unable to give you the up-to-date figure of how many teachers, after those are filled, will still be without positions. But when I have that information, even if the House is adjourned, I'd be pleased to see you get it.

Yes, I'll be meeting with the BCSTA and BCTF or discussing with their officials just where we stand. The figures have been coming in slowly. As you know, some boards are still employing at this moment.

You mention Mrs. Blanchett. I just make a point here that she is not an unemployed teacher. Mrs. Blanchett has a job with the school board in Prince Rupert and I understand could be under breach of contract at this particular moment. But Mrs. Blanchett does have a job.

MR. WALLACE: A quick supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Is the Minister planning to answer Mrs. Blanchett's letter: because she seems to be in some degree of confusion or misunderstanding? I understand she wrote to the Minister and has not yet had a reply. I think the kind of reply the Minister has given today might help to clarify the situation.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: My understanding is that there has been communication this morning between her and the school board which she has left. So at this time I do not think it's upon me to enter into this. The school board has communicated with her. She is an employee of that school board; she has left the school board, I understand now, without a proper leave of absence. So I think now it is up to Mrs. Blanchett to discuss this with her school board. The school board, Mr. Member, has contacted her this morning by telegram informing her of her situation.

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION IN PNE

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, I would just like to interject here a moment to say how pleased I am that the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) has been here this session in order to ask a question.

I would like to address my question to the Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources and ask the Minister if he countenances the present practice of the PNE in turning down space applications for political booths on reference to race. I would like to quote from a letter from May 29, 1974, under the hand of the space consultant. He says:

"I should add that in 1972," et cetera, "a number of booths were rented to political parties…."

[ Page 4173 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Excuse me, may I ask the question: is this a responsibility of some Minister of the government?

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources.

MR. SPEAKER: Is he in charge of the PNE?

MRS. JORDAN: Yes.

"The booth taken by the Vancouver East Social Credit constituency supporting the East Indian nominee was closed down the night of the elections," et cetera.

Does the Minister feel that such a comment should have been made that the nominee was East Indian? If he had been a Scotsman, would have he been referred to as a Scotsman or German? Is this the type of discrimination that is taking place of people at PNE board meetings at this time?

HON. MR. BARRETT: What's the date?

MRS. JORDAN: I'll repeat it, Mr. Speaker: May 24, 1974.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the Hon. Minister have any jurisdiction over this matter?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): Insofar as recommendations to cabinet with respect to the board, Mr. Speaker.

The matter of discrimination, of course, per se, is something that the government would not condone. The board of the PNE is an autonomous board with respect to the operations of the Pacific National Exhibition and includes a representative from the city parks board and five representatives from the city council.

AN HON. MEMBER: Your appointees.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Plus appointees by order-in-council. I would take the basic matter regarding the specific question as notice, Mr. Speaker. However, we certainly would not condone discrimination per se.

MRS. JORDAN: Then I hope the Minister will have an answer before the House prorogues or adjourns. But also, in speaking further to the PNE, he says the present situation is that there is no available space at present.

I would like to ask the Minister, while he is taking these matters as notice: were the applications referred to in the last paragraph solicited or in what way was the opportunity of space made known to anyone as far as the coming PNE is concerned for this September? Is the procedure different for different space classifications?

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to the Hon. Member…?

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Under the rules of the House, for example, you couldn't expect answers from Ministers dealing with a university simply because the university may have appointees by order-in-council, nor any other autonomous body set up by statute. Therefore, I can't quite see that there is the obligation upon the Minister of the Crown to deal with autonomous institutions. They're not creatures of the Crown.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, I beg to differ but the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources introduced an Act which took over the complete….

MR. SPEAKER: I would appreciate the advice of Members on any cases they have where….

MRS. JORDAN: And they're practising racial discrimination ….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I would ask the Members if they have any cases they can cite on this, I would appreciate their advice.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST
IN HOUSING DEPARTMENT

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): To the Minister of Housing, Mr. Speaker. In view of the four star edition of this morning's Province newspaper, may I ask the Minister, in the light of three-three split of the Port Moody council on the question of censuring the Minister with respect to conflict of interest in the Koehli case at Champlain Heights and also in light of the resignation of Alderman John Northey on another conflict of interest case between his position as housing expediter and alderman, whether on his part he plans to take any further steps to terminate these conflict-of-interest situations which exist within his department.

AN HON. MEMBER: Resign.

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): The Member is seeking the cure for which there is no disease. If such a thing comes up, I'll look after it.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the Port Moody council and Mayor Hall are going to refuse in the

[ Page 4174 ]

future to have the representative of the Minister's department present when discussing at future meetings where there's any question of conflict of interest, is the Minister considering appointing a person to this job who does not have conflicts of interest and in whom mayors and municipal councils can have enough faith to allow them to be present at meetings of their bodies?

MR. SPEAKER: I don't think there's any right to go beyond the bell in any case.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, if the House agrees. Shall leave be granted?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: I hear some dispute. On a point of order.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): On a point of order. The bell has rung many times when Members of the opposition want to ask the question and you haven't allowed it. I don't think it would be fair for us to take advantage of something they can't.

MR. SPEAKER: It can only be done with leave and I haven't had unanimous leave. So that ends the matter.

Leave not granted.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): A point of order. Mr. Speaker, on May 16, 1974, I forwarded to the Premier and the Provincial Secretary a copy of a letter which I had received from a constituent where I feel an injustice was done to this….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: This was over one month ago.

MR. SPEAKER: This is not a point of order. A point of order has to be raised in the matter of a current matter before the House. There's no matter at this moment before the House except orders of the day.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I've given ample time for a reply and I'd like this question answered before the House prorogues. The Provincial Secretary about one week ago accused me of being wrong in this letter and I'd like an answer.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Orders of the day.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Public bills and orders, Mr. Speaker. We were going to work on the mining bills but I would ask before we do the mining bills that we do 162 while all the Ministers are here and finish that in committee, then move on to the schedule right after this. I want to do 162 while the Ministers are here, then we'll go on to the mining bills as listed last night.

Committee on Statute Law Amendment Act, 1974.

Interjection.

STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

The House in Committee on Bill 162; Mr. Dent in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Once again, Mr. Chairman, I would like to register a formal complaint about the method of presentation of the business of the government in this statute as in many other statutes. We have here a very long statute encompassing several amendments dealing with an enormous body of statutory law. It has come before this Legislature in the dying days of the session. The government has not had the grace to furnish adequate material to the Members of the House of the provisions of the statutes that have been repealed and are being amended.

I made this point before and I must say I received very courteous consideration from the office of the Attorney-General, and the Legislature received bills with the proposed amendments printed upon them.

Now surely to goodness in a statute such as this, as encompassing as this is, it would not only have been a courtesy but is a necessity, I'd say, for the proper consideration of the amendments of the repealed provisions and the additions to these numbers of statutes to underline proposed amendments, That's the way to do the work effectively and efficiently. The way that we're having to once again go to the statute, refer from it back to the loose-leaf, and from the loose-leaf perhaps back to the hard-bound is just a silly way of doing it. So in the future could we please have them come in an underlined fashion, as you did in a couple of bills that you introduced towards the end of last week?

Section 1 approved.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

[ Page 4175 ]

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): This is the one where we are giving the power to the Attorney-General to enter into agreement with any person or body, and I was wondering if the Attorney-General would care to tell us why it would be necessary for him or his department to enter into any agreement with any person or body under this section under the revised statute.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Particularly, Mr. Chairman, in the Corrections Branch we contract out services wherever we can. Bed space for parolees and probationers is looked after sometimes by voluntary societies. They may provide the house, we may pay them rent. We might even buy the house and contract for their services. But wherever we can decentralize those services by having a community group undertake the work we want to do that, and we want that power to make it clear that we can enter into those contracts.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if this section means that from now on the ICBC will issue a policy to its policy holders.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): Actually, this section allows the insurance corporation to issue a type of insurance, which was not contemplated by the regulations, in order to cover unusual risk situations.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Well, 46(a) specifically says "policy". It specifically says that there will be a premium charge for the issuance of a policy. I find this unusual that an insurance company would require anyone asking for a policy to pay extra for it, and I would like some explanation on that section because it is most unusual.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I think the wording is very clear. The corporation considers that there is no provision, or not sufficient provision in the regulations for a policy of automobile insurance of the type applied for. I think you will appreciate that there is a great variety and multiplicity of vehicles with all sorts of different kinds of attachments, and this allows the kind of coverage that we hadn't originally anticipated. That's all that does. Just to be sure we have the authority to give any kind of coverage.

MR. MORRISON: Well, as you go on on page 2, the next item specifically says "who may ask for it". I don't find the Minister's answer at all satisfactory because obviously in section 2 it says that the applicant must be the owner of the motor vehicle or trailer, and you're going to charge him an extra premium if he asks for a policy. Now, certainly I don't interpret it the way you do.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I don't interpret it the way you do, either. There's no intention of…. That's not what this means at all.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): This section 46(a), in other words, gives the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia the right to make any policies with regard to the insurance corporation without going back to cabinet or without coming to this Legislature. Is that the way to interpret this Act?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well no, it just gives us the scope to write the kind of policies that are demanded in a variety of ways of special equipment, special attachments, and all the rest of it. That's all.

MR. PHILLIPS: Does this have anything to do with driver's insurance certificates?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No.

MR. PHILLIPS: Because in section 3 it says "No driver's certificates shall be issued under this section."

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's right.

MR. PHILLIPS: Would the Minister explain that? What do you mean by that?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I think it is very clear that this section doesn't relate to driver's certificates.

Section 4 approved.

Section 5 approved.

On section 6.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Chairman, section 6 is the section which deals with the B.C. Hydro. In subsection (c) there's one little change here in one section of the Statute Law Amendment Act that provides for the B.C. Hydro to increase its borrowing by $500 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: How much?

MR. McGEER: By $500 million — $0.5 billion in one tiny little subsection — 25 per cent of the annual budget of this Legislature, a matter which at other times and in other parliaments would have been the subject of a full-scale debate, as it should be. It

[ Page 4176 ]

always used to be a separate bill.

We are given no more information now than we were in previous years as to the manner in which our Crown corporations operate. We have discovered this: horrendous errors have been made because the operation of the Crown corporations has not been the subject of a frank debate in this Legislature.

I refer, of course, to the Columbia River Treaty.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You've seen Minty's report?

MR. McGEER: Yes, I've seen Minty's report.

Always, Mr. Chairman, items like this have appeared to provide funds for the B.C. Railway. We certainly learn that projects are not carefully thought out beforehand. I refer to the Columbia River Treaty. The public of British Columbia gets left holding the bag for literally hundreds of millions of dollars.

So long as I sit in this Legislature I will demand that our Crown corporations have appropriate accountability. They do not today. The structure of the Crown corporations, as far as directors are concerned, are weaker than they ever have been.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, nonsense!

MR. McGEER: The B.C. Hydro is a classic example. The Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) thinks he can run it out of his hip pocket.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Do you want Gunderson back on?

MR. McGEER: No, I think Gunderson was a poor choice as a director. A very poor choice. But there were some good engineers with the B.C. Hydro who sat as directors. There should be no less than a 15-man board of directors. If it's appropriate that there be 15 members of a board of governors for a university to see that it's appropriately run, surely it's appropriate that there should be 25 members of the board of directors for B.C. Hydro.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I would ask the Hon. Member to confine his remarks to the section before us.

MR. McGEER: We have been asked to vote $500 million for B.C. Hydro without having been given any indication of what that money is needed for.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's to be made as a policy announcement.

MR. McGEER: We do know this: the B.C. Hydro does prepare a detailed annual budget. It is something which this Legislature never sees, which the public of British Columbia never knows about. Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper, which is in two parts, and I don't know whether we want to consider these parts separately or at once.

The first part says that the comptroller-general shall at all times have access to all departments and branches of the corporations and shall direct the methods by which accounts shall be kept.

The purpose of this amendment is so that we have the same degree of scrutiny by those members of the civil service as we have to give scrutiny, the same degree of scrutiny to the Crown corporations as is given to the departments of government. I don't see what's wrong with that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Before the Hon. Member proceeds, we have examined the amendment to section 6 on the order paper and standing in his name. I must regretfully rule them out of order, both entire sections on two counts. First of all….

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. McGEER: I haven't even moved one.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, you're ruling something out of order that I haven't even moved.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member…?

MR. McGEER: Couldn't I at least have a chance to move something, Mr. Chairman, before you rule it out of order?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The section that the Hon. Member has moved, the first section, I will regretfully rule out of order on the grounds that it interferes with Crown prerogatives.

I previously ruled that an agency of the Crown is an extension of the Crown. Therefore, anything that was going to amend a section affecting an agency of the Crown must be done by a Minister of the Crown. It is out of order in the hands of a private Member.

Also, the second reason is that this imports a new principle into this particular section. The second section is, in effect, almost like it was a separate bill. Therefore, there is a principle involved. The amendment which the Hon. Member is moving is, in effect, a new principle.

Therefore, I would rule his amendment out of

[ Page 4177 ]

order on those two grounds.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, the second part of my amendment states:

"The authority may not, however, increase its borrowing without first having provided to the Legislature an annual budget detailing its proposed increase in capital expenditure."

Are you going to tell me that that interferes with the rights of the Crown?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Now that the Hon. Member has moved the second part of his amendment I would regretfully also rule that out of order on the same basis. It interferes with the prerogatives of the Crown and also imports a new principle into this section.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, I don't see how you can suggest that something introduces a new principle….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! You may not debate a ruling from the Chair. If you disagree with the ruling from the Chair you can appeal it.

MR. McGEER: I've never known of a Chairman before who didn't at least want to hear what the point of view was of the Member who moved something.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The Hon. Member has been in the House for some time. I'm sure he is familiar with our standing orders. When the ruling has been made, it's no longer a subject for debate.

MR. McGEER: I've never met a Chairman yet, Mr. Chairman, who wasn't very anxious to hear what Members had to say.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would ask the Hon. Member either to discuss section 6 as a whole or to take his seat.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I won't challenge your ruling. But I certainly think….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would ask the Hon. Member to think about section 6 only.

MR. McGEER: I'm thinking very hard about it. I'm thinking about subsection (c), which is increasing the borrowing from $1,750 million — million! — to $2,250 million. I'm thinking hard about that. I'm probably one of the few Members of the Legislature who is thinking hard about that. That's $500 million, just like that.

Mr. Chairman, the Crown, I think, may be pushing the people around if they think they can just take $500 million without any debate, without entertaining any ideas from the average people of this province as to how that money should be spent, just like that. It's pretty arbitrary action.

Let me say this, Mr. Chairman: if it is the idea of the Crown corporations in this province that they have the prerogatives of elected people who form a government, then those Crown corporations are in error. A government which suggests those Crown corporations should enjoy such arrogant powers is in error too. The Crown corporations, Mr. Chairman, are the servants of the people of British Columbia. Their accountability is when they come to this Legislature and ask for money for the purposes of serving the people.

We had darned soon better start asking in this Legislature some pointed questions about how that money is used. The day should end when the Ministers of the Crown consider it their obligation to run interference for these Crown corporations.

The Crown corporations in the past have wasted our money on poorly-thought-out projects. It has become obvious over the years that this is the case. It has also become obvious over the years that things these Crown corporations have done have been politically inspired. I think our Crown corporations today are more so. They need to be divorced entirely from political influence.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): Oh, nonsense!

MR. McGEER: They need to be divorced from political influence. Does the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources disagree with that?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Oh, what garbage!

MR. McGEER: Do you disagree with that?

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you disagree with that?

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: Do you disagree with the principle that they should be divorced from political influence?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The Hon. Member….

MR. McGEER: Who ran interference? Even Einar Gunderson couldn't have run the interference you ran.

[ Page 4178 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, if you can keep that Member in order, you can keep me in order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! If the Hon. Member will take his seat, the Chairman will make an appropriate ruling.

On the first point, I would ask the Hon. Member not to stray away from the principle of section 6. Secondly, I would ask the Hon. Members on the government side not to interrupt the Hon. Member while he is speaking.

Would the Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey continue?

MR. McGEER: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. That's the best support I've had in a long time. I can tell you that I appreciate it.

Mr. Chairman, what we are attempting to do here in debating this section is to draw attention to the fact that the Crown corporations are taking huge amounts of money. In this case they are helping themselves to another $500 million of the public's money, two borrowings.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nonsense!

MR. McGEER: "Nonsense," says the Member. Well, you tell me what your budget is for the coming year. Have you seen it?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. McGEER: Did they tell you that in caucus?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Each Member has the opportunity to speak. The Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey has the floor at this moment.

MR. McGEER: I think the Member seemed very exercised. I hope he will get up and tell us how accountable these Crown corporations are.

I see no reason why they shouldn't present a budget of their expenditures to the Legislature in the same way as the Premier does. I see no reason why they shouldn't keep their accounts in exactly the same fashion as the comptroller-general does.

I don't see why we shouldn't have the best people in British Columbia in the field of Hydro as directors of that Crown corporation. I don't see why we need the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) as a director. I don't think his background is such as to be helpful. I really don't. I think that we ought to have a frank discussion of this kind of money before it gets spent.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The Hon. Member is straying away from that point again of section 6.

MR. McGEER: With every respect, Mr. Chairman, I think I'm really hitting the nail on the head here.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: "Cheap politics," says the Premier. But I'm only asking that the Crown corporations work by the same standards as you do. You have to produce a budget in this House.

HON. MR. BARRETT: How about the universities? Do they submit their budget…?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member….

MR. McGEER: …they appear before a legislative committee. It's the best way to provide accountability. I don't see why the universities shouldn't be accountable.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR.- McGEER: The more you try to hide, the worse it gets. Let it out.

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

I would appeal to the Hon. Member to confine his remarks to the principle of section 6. Would the Hon. Member continue?

MR. McGEER: I would just like the Minister, if he would, to tell us in what way the general public can have confidence in this amount of money being voted blind. Do we have a directors' meeting? Can a member of the general public attend an annual meeting like a shareholder of MacMillan Bloedel? They can attend an annual meeting and have their say.

I have heard it said that MacMillan Bloedel is an arrogant, self-centred private corporation. But a person who has a share of that can go and ask questions of the president once every year. You can't do that for a Crown corporation, no sir! All you can do is elect somebody to pass this $500 million blind.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: Well, I would hope I have convinced you too, Mr. Member, because I think

[ Page 4179 ]

accountability is a pretty fair principle to follow, no matter what your political philosophy. I think, frankly, that when your political philosophy interferes with the principle of accountability, it's a pretty hollow political philosophy.

These amendments, though they seem to be out of order, perhaps…. If the Minister wishes to move them, I'll support them. But unless we have better accountability, I'll be forced to vote against this section, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I don't know whether to use the old cliché, "I rise more in sorrow than in anger." But such puffery from that Member….

AN HON. MEMBER: Give us a cliché speech.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You know, that is puffery when the facts are that he attempts to leave the former government's lack of responsibility as a legacy of responsibility on this government. Now that is absolutely not true, Mr. Member. I'm glad you're here, and I hope you'll sit here so that the record will have the facts if not the newspapers or the galleries. But the facts are — and you will have an opportunity to speak — the facts are, Mr. Member, that when we were in opposition and you sat there, we asked that the legislative committees be allowed to scrutinize these Crown agencies. Mr. Chairman, the Member….

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: All right, yak, yak, yak! I'll finish and let's look at the record.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, he just sat down saying that they should have representatives come in front of the legislative committee, leaving the impression, deliberate or otherwise, that since we've been elected no such course of action had been followed. What are the facts?

Upon being elected we said that this would be more of an open government, and we named a member of the opposition chairman of the public accounts committee.

Now let's get the record straight so that that Member won't be too embarrassed. In the first year of our administration the public accounts committee had in front of it, for the first time in the history of this province, under Social Credit administrations, under Liberal administrations, under Conservative administrations, under coalitions that they're trying to put back together again, for the first time in the history of this province, the chairman of a Crown corporation, B.C. Hydro, came to the legislative committee and was asked questions by anyone who wanted to show up if they took the time to come to those meetings.

Were you there, Mr. Member? Were you there? Did you come in with a sheet of questions that you so piously attempt to present today as if you didn't have the opportunity? Mr. Member, we gave you that opportunity.

AN HON. MEMBER: He had to leave town.

HON. MR. BARRETT: He didn't. Was Cass-Beggs not in front of that committee or was he? If he was there on a Monday, then of course he missed that Member — or a Friday. Now what is the record beyond that? This year that chairman of the public accounts committee, that Member of the opposition sitting over there, for the first time in the history of this province had in front of the committee Mr. Beard, the chief financial officer of that corporation. Is that not true, Mr. Chairman of that committee?

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Correct.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That is correct. Yet that Member stood in the House just a few minutes ago leaving the impression that the financial officers of B.C. Hydro were not responsible to this House, and had not been at the legislative committee.

For the first time in the history of public ownership of the B.C. Electric Company, now known as B.C. Hydro, for two years in a row, two years under this administration, we have had the chief officers in front of the legislative committee. For that Member to come in this House and try to leave a cheap political message that something was not going on in terms of access to those officers is totally incorrect.

You sit in this House, Mr. Member, right next to the chairman of the public accounts and he has verified again in front of the public that what you say is incorrect — that in fact Mr. Cass-Beggs was there last year and Mr. Beard was there this year. So please don't come to this House dusting off your old speeches and trying to leave the impression somehow that such indeed was not the case. When you were in opposition, did Social Credit name an opposition Member chairman of the public accounts? Just nod your head, Mr. Member; don't let it fall off. Just nod it.

When you were in opposition, do you recall anyone from B.C. Hydro coming before a legislative committee? Just nod your head. Yet you are in concert daily trying to form an association with Members of that same group whose history you've forgotten so quickly. You would go to bed politically with that group with the record showing that B.C.

[ Page 4180 ]

Hydro hadn't….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would ask the Hon. Premier….

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I don't want to embarrass the Member further because he didn't show up at those committee meetings. Maybe he did.

AN HON. MEMBER: You didn't.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, I want to tell you that I instructed the Comptroller-General as soon as we were elected to go into B.C. Hydro and prepare a public report to be tabled in this House. That public report was completed by Mr. Minty. It is a matter of record which that Member conveniently forgets that that's the first time in the history of any government under those Crown corporations. Social Credit was there, and Minty's report was tabled in this House. And Minty still goes in there. Mr. Member, I think it's very bad. I think it's very cheap. I think it's very irresponsible to leave the impression that somehow the comptroller-general hasn't been there.

Now further, during the debates in this House the Minister made an announcement, a policy decision of the government. I am sorry, Mr. Member, that it bothers you that we were elected to govern. Nonetheless, we were elected to govern, and we are responsible to make decisions. A policy decision was made to build a new hydroelectric source of hydroelectric power as site 1 in the Peace River. Where was that announcement made? It was made right here in the House. When was it made, Mr. Member? The expenditure of the $500 million that we are passing now was made after public hearings in the area — something that that outfit never did, Mr. Member.

Public hearings; statement in the House; public accounts committee chaired by an opposition Member who heard the chairman of B.C. Hydro, who heard the chief financial officer…. Mr. Member, I do not assume any responsibility for the former administration's way. But don't you ever leave the impression that there have not been dramatic changes. The record proves you're wrong, Mr. Member, and I think that was a cheap political shot you just had.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, that was a fine speech by the Premier. I enjoyed it thoroughly. The Premier makes a great speech whether or not he has the facts. His style is impeccable. But, Mr. Chairman, there is just one little thing that the Premier should understand. The public accounts committee looks into money that was spent, gone, 18 months ago. It looks for errors in the past.

AN HON. MEMBER: He just spoke about errors.

MR. McGEER: Oh, no, what this bill is about is to lend $500 million. That's the difference between doing an autopsy, Mr. Chairman, and looking into a disease as it's developing.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You're changing your tune, aren't you?

MR. McGEER: I'm not changing my tune at all. You tried to stand up here in the Legislature, Mr. Premier, and tell the Members of this House and the public that you were giving people access to what was going on in the B.C. Hydro, when all you're doing is having your Minister stop running interference — which he tried to do at the initial meetings of the public accounts committee — as to whether we could look into money that's already been spent.

This subsection here is for money that's to be spent next year. My amendment that was ruled out of order and which the Premier would not accept allows the public of British Columbia to see, through their elected representatives, how their money is going to be spent before it's wasted.

For the Premier to stand up and tell us that he's opening access to the B.C. Hydro and the Crown corporations when all they're doing is tossing a few little crumbs of data on the table after the money has been spent is absolute nonsense and hypocrisy. We're trying to see these Crown corporations held accountable to the public before they waste the public's money, not to take a look between the curtains after it's been wasted. That's the whole point of this amendment.

The Premier of this province has allowed no more view into the future of the Crown corporations than the former Premier. We're just as vulnerable to the errors of the future now as we have been in the past.

Yes, the Premier has instructed some of the minor officials and their financial officers to appear before the public accounts committee. We are severely restricted in the questions that we may ask; and the Minister of Transport (Hon. Mr. Strachan) was the one who kept interjecting every time I asked a question about the future. You can't even ask questions at the public accounts committee, Mr. Chairman, of what's going on during this year, much less on what's going to happen next year. No, sir, you have to stick to accounts that are out of date by 18 months.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Shame.

MR. McGEER: Try and ask the questions during estimates. Sure, you can ask questions, but can you get an answer?

[ Page 4181 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member confine his remarks to the…?

MR. McGEER: Now, Mr. Chairman, it was only last night that we debated a motion that won't even allow us to ask questions during the estimates.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Nonsense!

MR. McGEER: That's not nonsense at all.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Would the Hon. Member confine his remarks to the section before us?

MR. McGEER: The Premier is asking for S500 million. Let it be known, Mr. Chairman, that he's asking for that $500 million blind. He's not laid any budget before this House as to the proposed expenditures of the B.C. Hydro.

The public accounts committee examines public accounts by a motion put forward by the Premier, which restricts their activity to material that is 18 months out of date.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Shame!

MR. McGEER: The Premier puts that motion up every year. The motion the Premier puts forward does not permit us in public accounts to ask the questions as to what's going on during the current year and what's going to come up in the future year. That's his motion. That restricts what the public accounts committee can do. If he wants the public accounts committee to look into the budgets of the Crown corporations, then it's his motion to be put forward that permits that to take place.

The Premier's standing up say he opened things up. His motion, the motion that prevented it! I tell you, Mr. Chairman, it's hypocrisy. I'm not satisfied with the answers of the Premier and I intend to vote against this section.

HON. MR. BARRETT: If there is any hypocrisy, let people judge the facts rather than by the rhetoric of that Member. But I want it clearly understood that that Member labels hypocrisy dramatic changes in policy while daily he meets with Social Credit Members to try and form a new party.

Mr. Chairman, let me say it again for the record so that the Member….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

Mr. McGEER: What subsection is that under?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Premier…?

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's under subsection of politics behind closed doors of the Union Party, Mr. Member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Premier confine his remarks to section 6?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, the record stands. Mr. Minty, the comptroller, went in and filed a report in this House.

AN HON. MEMBER: When did he file it?

HON. MR. BARRETT: After he had completed…. Last year. Last year. Don't you know the date? You're not that interested in this…. Do you mean that you didn't prepare for this debate?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, now they're revealing that they didn't even bring their files into this debate.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, Mr. Chairman, they just don't like to deal with the facts. The facts are that Mr. Minty's report has been filed; and to my knowledge I have not to this very date received one letter from any Member of the official opposition commenting about any single detail in Mr. Minty's report. Not one letter.

Now, Mr. Chairman, if one thought that there was such deep concern about the method of accounting in B.C. Hydro, one would have thought that a Member of the opposition would have detailed those concerns to the Minister of Finance so that those questions could be answered. But I want it on the record that in all this time I have had not one single letter from any member of the opposition, including that Member for Point Grey, on any question dealing with Minty's report. That's number one.

Number two, it is a fact stated by that Member that Mr. Beard appeared in front of the committee. Was that ever done under Social Credit? No. Cass-Beggs appeared last year. Was that ever done under Social Credit?

Now in terms of policy: 1951; you made a mistake that year, did you? You certainly covered up every year after that.

Mr. Chairman, it is the policy of this government to hold public hearings before making a policy decision. Public hearings were held on site 1 of the Peace River. A policy decision was made that was announced in this House. All that has been public information and I'm disappointed — not surprised, but disappointed — in the cheap political actions of that Member today, when the record stands the way

[ Page 4182 ]

it is.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would appeal to the Hon. Members to keep their remarks relevant to section 6.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): I hadn't intended to take part in this debate until the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey made the statement that there'd been no changes in attitudes in Crown corporations in this province. I've been a citizen of this province during the total years of the Social Credit government, and I'll tell you that the attitudes in our rural ridings have changed significantly.

The First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey doesn't have problems with Hydro. His biggest problem is turning the light switch on at night. He wants to go into a riding like mine where Hydro made decisions in the past with rights-of-way and transmission lines and never asked the people what their thoughts were in regard to it — never once had a concern with what happened to the citizens living there.

You just want to take a look at what happened shortly after we were elected and the change of direction that took place. In the Enderby area the past government, through B.C. Hydro, had intended to put a Hydro line 660 feet wide almost directly through the community of Enderby, coming over the mountain top and through an area that has been a tourist attraction for years and years.

A protest was made to myself; I got in touch with Hydro; Hydro set up a meeting in the Enderby area which was one of the first of its type ever held in B.C., initiated by Hydro, telling the people that it was a public hearing and to come and voice their views to the Hydro officials. The people did this, the progress has been held up for over a year and I understand that at this time a satisfactory solution has been met.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member to confine his remarks to section 6.

MR. LEWIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think I've made my point and I think there has been a dramatic change in attitudes in this province regarding Hydro.

The Member for Vancouver–Point Grey had better get in touch with some of his membership up in Salmon Arm. There was one up there that took a shotgun to Hydro in the past. You go up there and see if that same type of thing is happening. It's not happening in this province any more.

MR. CHABOT: I think, the first point is that I should advise the Member for Shuswap that he's too late to get into the cabinet; "Nummies" is on his way in. He's too late.

Now we're debating a very important section of the Statute Law Amendment Act, 1974, section 6. We're dealing with $500 million, in which the Premier has failed to give us an accountability. Until such time that we can get some idea as to how that government is going to spend $500 million, we have no right to vote in favour of this until we get some answers — not only histrionics and political clichés like we've had from the Premier this afternoon. He constantly brings up the business of the chairman of the public accounts committee being a Member of the opposition.

Certainly I'm not going to deny that that's a fact, but there's a strong possibility that he was appointed to that position because of the fact that you have a variety of other fake chairmen of committees and you feel that it's necessary to have a political balance on those committees.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Are you questioning his motives?

MR. CHABOT: No, I'm not questioning his motives; I'm questioning yours. I'm questioning yours. You had better believe it. Cheap politics from the Premier of British Columbia! And we find that he talks about the committee as if the committee now is a free committee that can make decisions that are not governed by the tampering of that Minister over there or that government over there. I want to suggest to you that that committee is weighted in favour of the government. They have substantially more Members on that committee than the opposition does, and you know that.

Most committees in this province are nothing but charades that's what they are — a way or means by which Members can make extra money over and above their indemnities.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Order! I was going to congratulate the Hon. Member for being in order, but he varied from the principle. I would ask the Hon. Member to return to the Principle of section 6.

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: Really I am shocked that we see the attempt of that government to hide, to bury, to sneak in the expenditure of $500 million in an omnibus bill. Why didn't that Premier, that Minister of Finance, be honest with the people of this province? Why didn't you be honest with the people of the province? Where is it in your budget? Where is the indication in the budget? Where is your separate bill? Why haven't you introduced, as the former government used to do, an open bill, an individual bill, to detail the $500 million that must be spent?

[ Page 4183 ]

Instead of that we find that the Premier of this province wants to bury the expenditure of $500 million in an omnibus bill. I want to tell you that that's less than honest. It makes the budget of that Minister of Finance nothing but a sham. It's a budget that clearly fails to reflect the direction of that government and the Crown corporations over the next fiscal year. It clearly indicates to me that this $500 million which is being buried in a statute….

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: It's buried yes, certainly, in the Statute Law Amendment Act, 1974, certainly in a small section instead of…. Don't you think that the expenditure of $500 million is worthy of being in a separate bill? Or should it be buried in a little section in an omnibus bill? It clearly indicates the disdain of that government for the taxpayers' money by burying it in a small section in this omnibus bill.

It clearly indicates to me as well that that government feels that this Legislature could be a tool of B.C. Hydro. I want to tell you that that government uses this Legislature as a tool and not as a forum for Members to express opinion, apprehensions and ideas of the people of this province.

Now we find that we're being asked to vote $500 million; we are being asked as the representatives of the people in this assembly to become a tool of B.C. Hydro. I want to assure you that I will never be a tool of any Crown corporation in this province.

The Minister has a responsibility to stop using this Legislature, to stop having B.C. Hydro attempt to abuse the rights of the Members of this House, and stop using this Legislature as a tool. Use it as a forum. It is a dishonest approach for gaining $500 million, and you have a responsibility to….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member to withdraw the imputation that….

MR. CHABOT: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I'll withdraw that it is a dishonest approach. It is a sneaky approach, Mr. Chairman, of trying to get $500 million through this Legislature.

MR, CHAIRMAN: Order! I would ask the Hon. Member to withdraw the imputation of being sneaky or dishonest as applied to an Hon. Member. I would ask the Hon. Member for Columbia River to withdraw unconditionally.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Just withdraw unconditionally any….

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I never suggested that anyone here was sneaky. I suggested that the government snuck this legislation into this amendment in this omnibus bill — snuck it into the House. The government certainly did.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Before we proceed, I would just ask the Hon Member to say "I withdraw it unconditionally."

MR. CHABOT: I withdraw what?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Any imputation in his remarks that the Minister was either dishonest or sneaky.

MR. CHABOT: I didn't say that the Minister was either dishonest or sneaky.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The other remarks were….

MR. CHABOT: I never said that. I never said that, Mr. Chairman. I said that the government snuck this $500 million item…

MR. CHAIRMAN: I accept the Hon. Member's withdrawal. Would the Hon. Member continue?

MR. CHABOT: …into an omnibus bill. (Laughter.) That is a new word I have just coined. (Laughter.)

Really, I think we need more than histrionics and arm-waving and screaming from the Premier. I think we need some answers as to how this $500 million is going to be spent on behalf of B.C. Hydro in the next fiscal year.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, just one explanation. For the House's benefit, since there appears to be some impression that this was snuck into the House, I know of no other way to introduce a bill than to bring in the message. I know of no other way to know what is passing through this House other than to read a bill. I know of no other way to get bills other than to have them delivered to the MLAs or make them available from the Sergeant-at-Arms. I know of no other way to help the Member unless he is blind and we can put it in braille.

The fact is, this is a public document. I have no real reason to comment on that Member's criticisms because I do not recall him ever, when he was on the cabinet benches, demanding that representatives of Crown corporations go to committee; demanding that a committee chairman be a Member of the opposition.

Mr. Chairman, the $500 million involved in this section is printed in English; it is not hidden from him. I will take him by the hand and read it word for word for him if he needs that assistance. It is public knowledge and it always has been, Mr. Member. That

[ Page 4184 ]

was a fine speech. Too bad it didn't come while you were on the cabinet benches.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, the Premier is suffering today both from bad memory and from bad ears. I can recall when the former administration brought in a similar bill to amend the borrowing power of Hydro, did not advance a single solitary reason for its need, and when you sat in that back corner over there you supported it — you didn't even interrogate.

Now, what you did last year when you increased the borrowing power of Hydro is you brought it in in a separate bill and you did not advance any reasons for the need for the borrowing. That point was raised by this side of the House. You agreed and said, "Yes, that is very good logic." You said, "I apologize," or words to that effect, "there should have been reasons advanced for the needs for the borrowing." That is why you are suffering from a bad memory — you have not advanced those reasons today.

The next point is this: you criticized my colleague from Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) that he was attempting to leave the impression that the officers of B.C. Hydro were not called in front of a public accounts committee. He wasn't leaving that impression whatsoever. What he is talking about is the fact that this Legislature today is not being given information today by them or by you as for the need for the moneys.

Mr. Premier, $500 million — $0.5 billion — the increase will bring the contingent per capita debt in this province up to $1,000 for every man, woman and child in the Province of B.C.

The only explanation for the need for this borrowing is contained in three lines within the bill itself; that is $166,666,666 per line. The operative words are eight in number: $625,000 per word. And there are not any reasons advanced by you today as to why the money is needed.

If you can satisfy me as to the need for the money, what the programmes are, what its purpose is, what the estimated costs are, what the estimated revenues are, how Hydro has budgeted for this…. You're not going to suggest to the Members of this House and to the people of the Province of B.C. that when you are increasing their per capital debt up to about $1,000 a person, they are not entitled to know what the proposals of Hydro are. Furthermore, is Hydro going to be a good corporate citizen? Is it going to pay its taxes? Is it going to pay its business taxes in the Province of B.C.?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. GARDOM: Maybe the $500 million are not required, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member to confine his remarks to the section.

MR. GARDOM: Maybe the $500 million is not required. Maybe more is required if Hydro is going to pull its weight and be a good corporate citizen in the Province of B.C., as it is not doing. It is gypping the municipalities every day in tax revenues.

How could any shareholder or any director in any corporation go ahead and say, "Yes, we are going to blank cheque you for $500 million," without having some kind of an open, efficient and effective explanation? That's the only thing that is being requested.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's an entirely different speech than the venom he was giving.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Second Member has the floor. Would you continue?

MR. GARDOM: No, I don't think it was. With all respect, I would take issue with saying that his speech was venomous. I've known this Member for as long as you have and he has never given a venomous speech in this House in his life. (Laughter.) That's right. Milk-of-human-kindness speech — they always come out that way. Even if they start out differently, they end that way. Sure. No problem at all. No problem there at all.

HON. MR. HALL: Go, go Garde.

MR. GARDOM: The point that I have made is the point that every person in the Province is going to make and every person thoroughly concurs with it. If you are not going to inform us today and right now, and if we are not going to accept your explanations — if you're not going to tell us what the proposed programmes are, what the money is needed for, what are these costs projections, what are the revenue projections, what are the budgetary proposals — there is no way that we are going to vote for $500 million in the dark.

I would say over and above that you should….

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't vote for it.

MR. GARDOM: Woo, woo, what you say now! (Laughter.) No, by golly. What we used to hear from you! Talk about cobra speeches! When we started to deal with accountability, Mr. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources over there with the nice tan….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. Would the Hon. Member address the Chair, please?

[ Page 4185 ]

MR. GARDOM: Yes, I certainly shall. I'm delighted to do that.

I would say that there is a responsibility, and a very solemn responsibility, for you to answer these questions.

Secondly, I would not assume for one minute that Hydro has not got a budgeted programme for this $500 million. The Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources nods. I would not assume for one minute that he's not fully aware of its contents, and that it should be in that brown paper whatever-it-is that he has on the top of his desk. If he is prepared to file that and we can take a look at it — fine. He should do that as a Minister of the Crown. You're not spending socialistic dollars here, my friend. You're spending the dollars raised by the taxpayers in the Province of B.C. They want to have the information and they are entitled to proper accountability. You've not provided it.

MR. FRASER: I would like to get a few shots in on this. This is a lot of money we are talking about here — $500 million — raising the debt from $1,750 million to $2,250 million.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Did you say "debt"?

MR. FRASER: Yes, I think I said debt.

There are some questions I would like answered by the Minister. What interest rate are you going to attach to this borrowing? Is it 9 per cent, 10 per cent, 20 per cent, what is it? I think this House is entitled to know these things.

I've heard shouts from across the hall that it's going to finance site 1. I would like to know what else it is going to finance besides the construction of site 1.

During this Minister's estimates, as representing B.C. Hydro, I asked about rural power extension policy changes. Is that provided for in this $500 million? These are the things the people of the province would like to know, because that policy should be changed in view of the cost of inflation.

I think we have a lot of questions that we can rightfully ask here. If you can't answer these, then I will have to vote against these too.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: It's been fascinating listening to the boys on the other side talking out of both sides of their mouth, doing the old double-step. It's just incredible. How long did we have with respect to the estimates of Lands, Forests and Water Resources during this session of the Legislature? What was it? Eight days. You had eight days with the staff of B.C. Hydro here on the floor and in the galleries available to answer your questions. What kind of priorities did you have then? The $500 million didn't interest you very much then.

AN HON. MEMBER: Eight days with no answers.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: The Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) says we're being asked to operate blind. What else did he say? "You're trying to hide, you're trying to bury, you're trying to sneak in this material" — in a public bill!

In his short time as a Minister of the cabinet the important issue was the nicety of how you handled the memo, the form on the piece of paper — not the substance, not the method, not open to the public, none of that kind of question. He got hung up in the dying days of the Social Credit era with the narrow nonsense that they all got caught in.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Would the Hon. Minister confine his remarks…?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, $500 million is what the Legislature is being asked to approve. Site 1 alone, we indicated before this House during my estimates, was $410 million plus.

MR. CHABOT: Over what period of time?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: That's into the 1980s — well, 1979. There's a process of review. There will be a public hearing shortly with respect to the Seven Mile site on the Pend-d'Oreille. That will be held this summer — public hearings, ladies and gentlemen regarding major public projects in which the people in the region can be involved. There was a report this thick on environmental questions at Site 1 on the Peace given to the people of the Peace River region. There was a report this thick on the environmental impact on the Pend-d'Oreille given to the people of the Columbia region, and now there was a further report on social and economic impact on the Columbia River region with respect to the Seven Mile project, and that was given to the people of the region. It's an availability of information that we've never seen the like of in this province, available to the people right where the impact will be the greatest.

AN HON. MEMBER: Doubletalk!

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: You vote against this section of the bill, and you're voting against the further development of the Peace, a river already committed to hydro-electric development.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: You are voting against some of the cheapest power opportunities in the province with some of the least environmental damage in the province. If you vote against this you

[ Page 4186 ]

are voting against moving on the Pend-d'Oreille and holding public hearings and opening up a dialogue with the people of the province in the regions. If you vote against this you are voting against transmission systems which will serve the northwest of the province, where we want to give them the power of the Peace and not tie them only to Alcan and to avoid the need to confine ourselves to Alcan power forever in the future in the northwest part of the province.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Where's McGeer — the man who wanted all the information? He took off.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: If you vote against this you are voting against the probability of independent power production on Vancouver Island, not a continuation of the cable system, hooked into the lower mainland. You are voting against the beginnings of thermal generation on Vancouver Island and the dialogue that is beginning with the regional districts of all of southern Vancouver Island as well.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Where's McGeer? How serious was he?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: It's very clear how serious the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) was. He's probably on Scare West heading home.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Would the Hon. Minister confine his remarks…?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: As the Hon. Premier has indicated, you've had more documentation, you've had the reports of the comptroller-general. The comptroller-general is in constant review of Hydro. There's constant communication and review with the Deputy Minister of Finance. Every project, every system that's proposed by Hydro is reviewed by the Treasury Board of this province. There is continuous review of these programmes.

What are you in favour of, ladies and gentlemen? Are you in favour of current taxes to finance projects that will last for 70 years? Do you favour that kind of system? If you vote against borrowing power for B.C. Hydro, that's what you're asking for. You're asking for a system that will ask the people of the province today to pay for systems that will redound to the benefit of three generations to come. It's just amazing.

When we announced Site 1 here in the Legislature you were given a chart that showed the kind of probable system that could be plugged in till 1980. The Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) raised numerous questions in relation to the graph and material which was provided. That kind of material was never provided before by the former government.

So there's been more material, there's been more documentation, The social and economic impact studies are available. They are already circulating in the regions. As soon as the material was on my desk, the social and economic impact reports were available in the Member for Rossland-Trail's (Mr. D'Arcy) riding and in the Nelson-Creston (Hon. Mr. Nicolson) riding, so that they would know what the impact would be, what the demands would be on the municipalities, and housing and so on, in a way that has never even been attempted before in this province.

These people on the other side — remember the speeches they used to give, supporting this kind of borrowing power for B.C. Hydro? Remember the old speeches: "The greatest jewel in the crown of Social Credit, my friends." Remember that one?

AN HON. MEMBER: Tuck your thumbs in.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Oh, I'm sorry. I just don't have it down. But it's so dated that I really don't want to try and develop the method — because it's so dated and written off.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Where's the kid?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: If anything, the debate on the opposition side has been quite a condemnation of the Hon. Member of the Cariboo (Mr. Fraser), the man who chairs the public accounts committee, the man who can call these people from the Crown corporations. What you said is that he isn't capable of doing the job. Well, that's for the people in the Cariboo to decide.

The Hon. Member for Vancouver–Point Grey who always dusts off the same speeches reminds me of my old friend, Halford Wilson. Remember Halford?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Halford Wilson in Vancouver, He would always dust off his old speeches, even though the times had changed, decades later. And he'd complain when he was free to ask questions and couldn't really keep enough questions going to keep the committee busy for more than an hour or two.

I think what it really indicates, Mr. Chairman, is that the small band from urban waterfront ridings are captives of their own ideology. They are so bitter that B.C. Hydro is a publicly owned corporation they've never got over it. That's why they are going to vote against the $500 million. They want a private power system in British Columbia.

MR. GARDOM: You get worse as you get older.

[ Page 4187 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: Where's McGeer?

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, I've listened with interest to both sides of the House, and I've no wish to be vindictive or to look back, but I really do feel we are at a point in time where we can look at this situation fairly objectively. The fact of the matter is that for all the extravaganza that we've just seen by the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) he is, with respect, Mr. Chairman, putting himself completely in the same trap that the former Premier used to do. He used to smokescreen by saying: "If you vote against this section or if you vote against this bill you are against the people of British Columbia," or "you are against motherhood," or "you're against everything that is virtuous."

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: You see, there's a typical example. When you try to be objective in this House somebody completely clobbers you with an irrational statement which isn't really what you said at all.

Anyway, the fact is, Mr. Chairman, that I accept some of the points the Minister just made. More information has been available. We've debated the Site 1 material which was released, and I think that was good.

I agree with the Minister that there has been a measure — but I say that word carefully — of public debate with Hydro. They've got a long way to go before they really could truthfully be said to be debating with the public before the event. There's a great deal of evidence still around that decisions are made and by the time they are made, whether it's transmission lines, or buying back waterfront, or expropriation, or what-have-you, it's often too late for the people most concerned in the regions to influence the government decision.

Nevertheless, I think, with respect, that this very large sum of money which is included in the Statute Law Amendment Act, Bill 162, surely is of sufficient import, as the Minister himself has made plain by the recital he gave this afternoon, that surely the very least we should have had is a separate bill instead of putting this in as just section 12, or whatever section 1t is, out of a fairly lengthy bill.

In fact, Mr. Chairman, in passing, I would say that this whole bill is filled with some of the most fantastic and dramatic uses of the taxpayers' money, all couched in little paragraphs through one bill which, I think, really is not a fair way of presenting this particular section, or several others which we'll have to comment about, to the people of British Columbia about.

I haven't stopped to add up the many…. In fact, there must be almost $1 billion of spending power that we're giving the government in this total bill, and the section we're now talking about is $0.5 billion. If you were to add up the similar sections, and some of them are so vague you can't add them up, such as section 11 where the Minister of Housing is going to borrow just such sums as he considers advisable….

So one thing I would say in criticizing this section of the bill is that it should not be presented to the people of British Columbia and to this House as a section of this kind of bill. It should be a separate bill. Half a billion dollars is too large a sum of money to spend in this blank-cheque way.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WALLACE: The second point I would like to make is that again the Minister has in fact justified the criticism we've had from this side of the House because he stood up and reeled off some of the kind of breakdown which this side of the House is looking for.

We're not against borrowing $500 million for Hydro. He must have a reason. But just to give us off the top of his head that Site 1 of $400 million, when we've got five or six years to go…. We want to know some kind of pattern of spending of $500 million. If you and I as private individuals go to our bank manager…. Did you ever meet a bank manager who if you went in and you said, "I need $5,000," the bank manager said, "Sure, here's the $5,000"? He says, "What for and over what period of time and can you afford the interest rate, and what collateral have you got?" — if you're a private individual.

So let me make our position very plain, Mr. Minister: we're not against borrowing money for Hydro, but we are exerting what we believe to be our responsibility in this House to have some basic format, some programme as to how the $500 million will be spent. We acknowledge that you've already given information on site 1 and that there are various other bits and pieces, such as you've outlined in your speech.

All that we feel in our party is that certainly your studies on environment are an excellent idea, your communication with the public is excellent, but these positive features do not remove the responsibility we have as opposition Members to try and determine how a sum the size of $0.5 billion is to be spent, even in an approximate way. I don't think we're being unreasonable in making this kind of request because this comes up time and time and time again in this House, the spending of public money and the projected spending of funds to be borrowed.

As I say, there are sections in this same bill where there's the same lack of definition, the same vagueness, the same discretion given to Ministers and the Minister of Finance. We just feel that we have to speak out every occasion this happens. While we have

[ Page 4188 ]

the feeling that while it's being done quite frequently now, the general pattern of performance of this government is for it to go on happening to an ever-increasing degree. We see very much the same kind of spending of enormous sums of money at the federal level and it seems as though the opposition in Ottawa has the same difficulty finding out, first of all, why such sums have to be borrowed and how they're going to be spent.

So let's not bring down smoke screens on the debate by saying "If you're against this section, you're against site 1, you're against Pend-d'Oreille, you're against transmission lines, you're against a new line to Vancouver Island." We are not against that at all. We are looking ahead five, six, seven years, and we're looking ahead with large sums of money which we think it is the responsibility of opposition Members to be able to account for in an approximate way; we well realize that you can't give us down to the last hundred or thousand dollars how it's going to be done. But we just do not accept this very vague approval without some reasonable definition of how the money would be spent and preferably what interest rate will be payable so that we can tell the people of British Columbia what the borrowing costs will be.

On that basis, I feel it is not at all unreasonable for us to oppose this section of the bill.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I think the Minister himself gave the best reason for criticism of this bill because he stood up and did give us a lot of reasons for the need for the extra money for B.C. Hydro. Those reasons should have been given to this House a long, long time ago. They should have been included in the budget.

AN HON. MEMBER: They were given to you.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, they weren't given to us a long time ago. We never heard any of this before. We were told about Site 1 and that's all.

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, this kind of budgeting makes a mockery of the true budgetary premises of this province. We should have been able to have been looking at this $500 million in a separate bill months and months ago so that we could have known exactly where we stood in relation to the kind of accountability that's necessary.

This bill, Bill 162, the Statute Law Amendment Act, as I understand it, is traditionally a sort of a clean-up Act in which many of the technical needs of the government are looked after, generally very vague and generally very minor alterations; it's asking the people of British Columbia to approve a further borrowing of $0.5 billion.

It's as though, since it's put into this kind of a bill, the government just woke up the other morning and discovered that they needed another $500 million. But that's not true, and we know it because in an inter-office memo given to Cass-Beggs back in December all of the needs of Hydro from April 1, 1974, to March 31, 1984, were documented very clearly.

It was pointed out there that we can expect a growth rate through to 1983-84 of 9.5 per cent per year. The proposed capital programme for the next 10 years will require $6,300 million over the next 10 years. It showed that many of these programmes have been scheduled, although we've never been officially apprised of it. We believe that Kemano is on stream, for instance, but the government won't admit it.

This report points out very clearly that the power supply to Vancouver Island continues to be critical and yet this report has been kept secret from the people of British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: How did you get it?

MR. McCLELLAND: The point is, Mr. Chairman, we can't vote against it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

'MR. McCLELLAND: We're not against borrowing $500 million if it's necessary. But it's time that this government started to become accountable for its actions.

Mr. Chairman, this government refuses to even take the kind of courtesy to allow this House to participate in the financial expenditures of the Crown corporations and of the government, as was pointed out in other sections of this bill which should only be a technical amendment bill in the first place.

This government should tell us why they couldn't have brought this in a separate bill months and months ago — not in the dying days of the session — so that it could have been debated in full and with the Minister accountable at all times for it.

Interjections.

MR. McCLELLAND: The Minister stands and gives answers at the last minute.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Vote against it. If you believe what you're saying, vote against it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, come on.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. McCLELLAND: Why are you so afraid of

[ Page 4189 ]

being accountable to the people?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. MORRISON: Mr. Chairman, before we leave this section there's one item that I would like to have on the record. We have discussed at length in this section about the public accounts committee, and frankly we're very happy that we do have our chairman as a Member of the opposition. But I would like to make it clear that the public accounts committee so far has only been able to look at accounts up to March 31, 1973. We are not able to look at accounts beyond that point.

The point I'm trying to get at is that I think the Premier tried to indicate that we were looking at accounts beyond that point, and we are at least 14 months behind at this point. I would like to further add that it's almost impossible to sort out and reconstruct some of the accounts due to the present accounting system. Now we've discussed it in full and we're going to mention it again, but it is very difficult.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: A couple of questions to either the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) or the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) as director of Hydro. We've had a discussion about what the $500 million may be used for. I think it is unfortunate that the Minister, as a director of Hydro, couldn't have stood up and given us, in approximate figures, how much money would be spent in various areas. But he chose not to do that and I don't want to make an issue of it.

What I am concerned about, Mr. Chairman, is the source of the $500 million that B.C. Hydro is being authorized to borrow. I would like to know whether the Minister of Finance, as the chief fiscal agent for Hydro, can tell us whether those moneys will be found in the public market, whether there will be further parity bonds created, or whether, if they are created, the government will be using its own funds under the control of the Minister of Finance as the investment vehicle.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, I am pleased that you asked those questions. I will be very candid with you, unlike the former administration.

The planning we have so far is to authorize B.C. Hydro to borrow $500 million. The Government of British Columbia has not been in the public market for over seven years. As a consequence of not going to the public market we have had to have a couple of freezes on school construction and also curtailment of hospital construction. The demand on funds, through what I consider to be a good fiscal policy — that is, the Canada Pension Plan, which is not only a social benefit but is also a great fiscal benefit…. For anyone who calls that socialism and wants less government interference, let them understand that many of these social measures have great financial consequences. The Canada Pension Plan has allowed governments to do internal borrowing at rates they control.

Two things suffer if there is not a balance in borrowing. One thing that suffers is a low-interest-rate return to those funds. We've increased the return to those funds, as you'll notice, since we've come to power.

The second thing is if there is single-mindedness toward single capital projects then a ruthless decision must be made as to what is to suffer. In the past, school capital construction in this province has suffered. It has cost the citizens of British Columbia much more in the long run because inflation has cut into any savings — as a matter of fact, it has doubled and tripled costs — had there been proper planning in the past.

We intend to finance internally as much of those capital projects for Hydro and BCR as is reasonably possible, but not at the risk of cutting back on hospitals or schools. We are in an excellent financial position; we can finance totally. However, we have decided that rather than risk the programmes in terms of schools and hospitals, we will go to the market this fall. We will go to the market for only $100 million. We will not use the parity bond system because parity bonds are, in effect, printing cash. In their own way, parity bonds are instant death that are dangerous to a stable economic growth of the province.

We have been fortunate in this province when we came to power to have been able to reduce the parity bond debt from $200-odd million down to $180 million. We are able, fortunately, to balance that on with cash in hand in the bank. It is good, conservative, socialist financing. We have that stability.

We have made a conscious choice. The conscious choice will be to go to the market for $100 million of the $500 million. This will be our first entry back into the market.

I have had the Deputy Minister of Finance (Mr. Bryson) prepare for me a detailed description of the former syndicates we went through. We have made some changes. Without making any detailed comment on the changes, if you will examine the past association through some of those members of the consortium we dealt through, there was reason for us to suggest that we put together a new syndicate to deal through.

One of the principal members of the new syndicate will be the First National Bank of Boston which has been the prime financier of the Province of British Columbia since the province's history began. There will be no change in terms of that traditional link with the U.S. market.

[ Page 4190 ]

Mr. Member, we are going to borrow $100 million of the $500 million. The decision is made to do this so that no school or hospital will suffer. We could do all the financing, as has been done in the past, but it would have meant another curtailment on capital funds for schools and hospitals. We won't make that move. I'm glad you asked those questions.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Let's go over the debate that took place today. I'm sorry the Member who started it on what I call a cheap, political move hasn't stayed in the House. You ask me the questions such as you have asked and I give you the answers.

Another Member asked the question for an outline of the $500 million. He gave the answer. But the rhetoric we heard at the very beginning was an attack, leaving the impression that we had not brought people to committee, that we have not had the comptroller-general. Mr. Member, I listened very carefully; those were the words I heard.

To sit here and be subject to irrational attack and then say, "Oh, my goodness, we never had the opportunity to volunteer anything"…. The Member got up one hour ago and launched an attack that he hasn't even been here to defend. You've asked questions; that Member has asked questions. I've given him the answer. The other Member asked questions; he has the answer. Now the question comes down to a vote.

We intend to rationally, responsibly detail what the fiscal obligations of this province are and how we will handle the $500 million. There has been no previous openness like there is under this government. The decision of whether or not to vote on it is certainly yours.

I must make one comment. Certainly I can understand the valid criticisms and questions of both the Conservatives and the Liberals. But can anybody — anybody — on the evidence of the record show me any similar action taken by the previous administration that would warrant the kind of statements from the official opposition in this House?

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I was very disappointed to hear the Premier say that British Columbia is now going back into hock again. Once again we will be captured by the finance of the United States.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, oh!

MR. PHILLIPS: Not owned by the people of the Province of British Columbia.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Who financed the Columbia?

MR. PHILLIPS: Internal financing is now down the drain in British Columbia. You know who financed the Columbia. Over the past 12 years British Columbia has had the finances of this province in such good shape that we have not had to go into the international market. Now the Premier has told us today that he is going to borrow $100 million this fall. He says he is not going to sacrifice schools and hospitals. The increase in the social service of the bureaucracy of this province is going to cost the taxpayers $70 million — $30 million less than what he is going to go on the market and borrow.

The Premier has let the cat out of the bag. The province is in financial difficulties due to the waste and extravagance of that socialist government. I'm glad the Premier has candour enough to stand up and tell us today what direction we are headed in again.

Mr. Chairman, I also want to point out that this type of financing and borrowing on behalf of Crown agencies is just a start. We have B.C. Hydro and, from time to time, the taxpayers of this province have had to back borrowings for their expansion.

But what is going to happen in the future? Are we going to be asked to pass bills to borrow money or to put the taxpayers' money into the forest industry that this province is going to take over, into the transportation industry that this province is going to take over, and, Mr. Chairman, into the mining industry that this province is going to take over?

Where is the return to the people of this province from the resources of this province that the Premier has been giving us such talk about recently? Where is the increased revenue from the natural resources of this province? Where is it going if we have to go into the international market at this time?

Last year, the resources of this province on the world market demanded the highest prices ever, with the greatest amount of taxes rolling in — not by any effort of that government but because of the world situation and the world demand for our natural resources. Now the Premier has the audacity to stand in this Legislature today and tell us that the province is going broke and that we have got to go into the international market to borrow money, borrowing at the highest interest rates possible, borrowing at a time when the international money market is the tightest it has ever been in several years borrowing at a time when the interest rate has never been higher. Is this the type of good business that we can be subjected to by this socialist government?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, let's deal with a number of things about borrowing.

First of all, the last matter first. When there's internal borrowing, the internal borrowing is totally controlled by the administration in power. The funds loaned to capital projects are funds the government decides by policy, whether they're schools, hospitals,

[ Page 4191 ]

hydro projects or the B.C. Rail. Public trust funds.

The public has a right to expect at least an adequate return for those funds in terms of interest rates. No one, in my opinion, has the right to take people's pension funds and peg them at lower than normal interest rates and have those pensions funds subsidize a government's political desire to do in-house financing. Any responsible finance person, non-socialist and socialist, will tell you that when you peg those interest rates at a low level and force the pensioners of this province to have a less than adequate return they've made a cruel social decision against the ordinary people of this province who depend on those funds. I will not defend that policy.

The aged have suffered in this province enough. The retired civil servants' and retired teachers' funds were manipulated with low interest rates by the former administration. We have had teachers retired in this province who were forced to eat dog food as a substitute for adequate diet because the previous administration wanted to acquire $500 million, such as we want in this section. We have forced those people to subsidize total political gamesmanship.

Now, I have said — and I take complete responsibility for this as Minister of Finance — we are asking to borrow $500 million. Since coming into office, we have paid average interest rates on those pension funds that those people have put in us for trust. Every teacher, every municipal worker, every civil servant, every British Columbian has the right to have an adequate return for the use of those funds. We've done that since we've been in power. That's one.

Secondly, talk about fiscal irresponsibility. Let me tell you that we will not print scads of parity bonds to make up this $500 million. We have now a total of $180 million. When we come into office we had $255 million of cash printed on parity bonds. Parity bonds were cash. Any financier, any economist will tell you that it is risky to have that amount of money out, especially when you have irresponsible Members of the opposition running around saying "doom and gloom," hoping for a run on those bonds — which there has not been and which shows great confidence in this province.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): How many are going to retire this year?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, I would like, Mr. Member, to be able to be close, in terms of cash on hand, with what we've got out in cash. We have $155 million cash on hand in existing banks, short-term notes drawing good interest rates, using the system for the benefit of the people but protecting those parity bonds. It's good financing. That Member over there for Victoria (Mr. Morrison), the businessman, will admit that this is a good approach to financing.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: How many do I own myself? I bought one….

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, we've retired about $70 million back into our pension funds.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That is not included in the $155 million. The $155 million is cash deposited in banks from outside. We have used other cash in the $180 million. No, we brought back $70 million in. We're holding….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Look, I have to do some detail in this section, Mr. Chairman, because it's appropriate to this.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the Hon. Premier to repeat the question when he answers each one.

HON. MR. BARRETT: All right, Mr. Chairman.

It will be the political move of some irresponsible Members of this House in which I do not include the Member for Victoria to run around saying that it is a terrible thing to borrow outside. I know you won't do it, Mr. Member, but your colleague has already done it.

I want to give you one specific example that is the consequence of game playing by financing the way former administration did. Remember, all along the former Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Bennett) attempted to leave the impression with the people of this province that he was a genius at finance. This is what the genius at finance cost us in terms of his method of financing. One little case.

In 1968, a referendum was held in Cowichan school district to build a gymnasium to borrow money. The bids came in and the referendum asked for $80,000. It was frozen: we were elected, we unfroze the gym. The cost today, because of that Social Credit fiscal policy to the taxpayers, is $198,000. Servicing the interest alone by those taxpayers is scandalous, considering the deliberate policy of Social Credit to hold those funds back, pay low interest rates to the pension funds, cheat the pensioners — and I say cheat the pensioners — and hold back those schools from the people of this province, somehow giving the appearance of fiscal responsibility. I tell you that's wrong. I appreciate the Liberal Members nodding their heads because they argued against it too when they were in opposition.

[ Page 4192 ]

Social Credit flim-flammery also led to the impression that all internal financing should be done. When the people in the province cried about hospitals and schools, they said, "It will come later. Right now we have to build monuments." One is called Williston Lake and it is appropriately named. Look at the mess behind it. The other is called Bennett Dam, the eighth wonder of the world, as we were told at the time.

There is no way this government will move from essentially conservative financing in North America. We are a democratic, socialist administration, but I make it very clear that our approach to financing is essentially small "c" conservative within the framework of the policies and the economy within which we must work. There it is.

I'm not attempting to tell you anything other than the conscious decision made by this government. We will, after we have legislative approval, use these funds to construct site 1; to examine the Pend-d'Oreille; to plan, as the Minister stated in his release to this House, the bringing of power throughout the province of British Columbia. If you do not wish to vote for a government policy to provide hydro on this basis, then, of course, do not vote for this amendment.

But I cannot, even after these two years, be comforted by the hypocritical speeches of Social Credit Members made in this House, to be repeated publicly, I am sure, throughout the whole province. They will go out of this House. I hope the First Member for Victoria (Mr. Morrison) doesn't do it. He won't, I hope, because he's a businessman. But others will go from this House, attempting to say, as that Member for Peace River did, that this financing method was wrong. It is socially responsible, it is small "c" conservative, and it is a good model for any administration in Canada to follow.

We will indeed borrow $100 million. We will get a good interest rate, Mr. Member, because they're lining up to sell our bonds. British Columbia has a good name, has had a good name and continues to have a good name. I say to you, Mr. Member, that after a complete explanation….

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Not yet, Mr. Member. I've instructed my department to prepare the material. There are two ways we can go. We can go through the Securities Commission or we can go to private borrowing. We have not made a policy decision on either way. We will go where we can get the cheapest money. I want to tell you that we are in a position to do that. The little Province of Manitoba borrowed $300 million in New York. Ontario borrows in one year what we're asking to borrow over a number of years. We'll certainly prepare the material and prepare the information that is necessary.

But I want to tell you, Mr. Member, that I expect the Liberal Party to disassociate itself from any inflammatory comments or statements on our finances as made by that Member. If you contribute to the statements made by him, it is a deliberate attempt to blacken all of British Columbia — not this government but all of the province.

We will not have schools go short; we will not have hospitals go short. We can finance a great deal of this internally, but we will not cut off any human service to go that last mile.

MR. MORRISON: I appreciate what the Minister has said. But it seems to me that on a budget of $2.7 billion we could have saved $100 million in some other areas. We seem to have a pretty loose spending policy in some areas.

In the area he has chosen I couldn't agree more. We shouldn't see our hospitals or our schools suffer. But I do feel that there are areas that should be looked at, that should be watched more carefully, where our expenditures are running above estimates and above budgets. I think that those areas should be looked at very carefully, because it does concern me to see us at a time like this, when interest rates are high, when inflation is running very high, to have to go into the market if it could be possibly avoided.

If there is no other way, I agree with him. It is my intention to vote in favour of this particular section.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, the Premier has given quite a bit of information about the immediate plans of B.C. Hydro. When he was….

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: You weren't listening.

MR. McGEER: I heard it. There's a loudspeaker system, you know.

Mr. Chairman, the Premier also at one point tabled a super confidential document of B.C. Hydro — that was shortly after he took over — which gave in great detail the budget of the B.C. Hydro for the coming year. What we've asked for consistently in this House is the annual budget: that is, the forecast of capital expenditures of the Crown corporations.

That information has not appeared in our annual budgets, though we're well aware that the reason why the budgeted revenues for the province are always far short of the real revenues is so that surplus funds can be created for the purposes of the Crown corporations. So this particular section here is tied very directly to the budgeted revenues that were given in this House, which are monumentally false each year.

Now I would be prepared to support this section if we could get this commitment from the Premier: that is, to present each year to the House a prospectus, if you like, or a budget giving the anticipated capital

[ Page 4193 ]

expenditure of the B.C. Hydro and the other major Crown corporations.

That's what is critical, Mr. Chairman. You see, if a public corporation — let's say MacMillan Bloedel — wishes to borrow money, in order to do so they must prepare a prospectus giving details of their plan. If the B.C. Hydro wishes to borrow money on the open market…. The Premier says they are preparing material. Well, he knows perfectly well that if they go to New York or if they go to the bond market here in British Columbia, they will have to produce a detailed prospectus.

But, Mr. Chairman, if you take from the pension funds of the province, or if you take from the Canada Pension Plan fund, or if you take money that's stripped off by budget surpluses, there's no need. Until we get a prospectus filed annually with the Legislature, we've not achieved anything positive — whether we vote for this section or not.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: Oh, yes, I heard your speech.

What I haven't seen, Mr. Chairman, is the Premier agreeing to lay before this House and before the people of British Columbia a prospectus for this Crown corporation and for the other Crown corporations. We've had hours and hours of debate in this Legislative Assembly about the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, which is doing the very same thing that B.C. Hydro is doing, which the B.C. Railway is doing and which the other Crown corporations are doing.

This is why I have to stand up every year and say that the budgeting in this province is phony.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Chairman that was quite a speech by the Premier trying again to twist the facts. You had better believe that I'll go out and tell people how the finances of this province have deteriorated under your administration. You can twist the facts all you want to. You had better believe I'll tell them.

I want to tell you that in one of the highest revenue years — two years — since you came to power, as you term it, with more revenue from natural resources of this province than ever before, you're wasting the money. Had you not squandered the money, had you….

HON. MR. BARRETT: On what?

MR. PHILLIPS: One instance alone is $70 million for increased civil servants, and you know it. I've mentioned it in this House before — $70 million. I can go through every department.

HON. MR. BARRETT: How about Mincome?

MR. PHILLIPS: Boards and commissions; buying land. Oh, you can't cover up, Mr. Premier. You know that the taxpayers' money in this province is being squandered. If it wasn't, $100 million would be nothing because you could have saved it.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Woe betide….

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, woe betide — you had better believe it. Talking about elderly people eating dog food — when you are increasing their taxes because you're wasting their money! You are deteriorating the future of every young person in this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. PHILLIPS: You are taking the province that was in excellent financial condition and you're running it into debt. That's exactly what you're doing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member relate his remarks to section 6?

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, now why don't you be fair? The Premier just finished speaking and we were talking about borrowing money. For the Premier to stand in this Legislature and threaten me that if I go out and tell the people that he's borrowing money outside of the province it will cast a black shadow over the finances of this province, what a sham! What a cheap political trick! That's what it is. It's a cheap political trick to threaten the Member for South Peace.

You had better believe I'll go out on the boondocks; you had better believe I'll go tell them how you are running this province into debt. And any amount of flim-flammery on your part won't frighten me, Mr. Premier. I've seen through your flim-flammery a long time ago. You had better believe I'll go tell them how the tax money, the money coming into the tax coffers from the resources of this province, are being squandered.

You take money and you're buying up land which is not necessary. You wouldn't have had to go and borrow this $100 million. You are putting money into mortgage money, which mortgage money is already available from the federal government. If you didn't do that, you wouldn't have to go out and borrow $100 million. Oh, you had better believe that I'll go out and tell them.

MR. GARDOM: The Premier very clearly indicated to the House this afternoon that there will be a need for him to file a prospectus with the Boston bank.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It depends on how we

[ Page 4194 ]

vote.

MR. GARDOM: Well, fine and dandy. But you were contemplating doing it because you told the House this afternoon that you are having a prospectus prepared. Well, you're certainly not doing that for nothing, are you?

The point is that you are having a prospectus prepared. You are having a prospectus prepared obviously with the view that you're going to have to use it in order to borrow the funds. You know that it's necessary. The thing that we have asked you over here this afternoon is that the people of the province should be entitled to the information in that prospectus themselves. That's the whole point.

This afternoon I'd like to commend you for some of the answers that you gave. But I don't really know why it took until 4:20 p.m. for you to do it. You should have done it when this bill was brought in this afternoon. You should have stood up and you should have said: "These are the reasons for the amendment." What are we supposed to do — look at the explanatory note? There is nothing in there about the need for Hydro getting $500 million. If you had done that, I can assure you, Mr. Premier, you wouldn't have wasted the time of this House as you have certainly done this afternoon.

I'd like to ask you this: you have told us that you were preparing a prospectus; are you prepared to give your undertaking to this House this afternoon that you will file that Prospectus with this Legislature?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I really don't know whether sometimes, in his obstinacy and in his primitive approach to politics, the former Premier might not have been right.

When you ask questions and I give answers….

MR. WALLACE: It can't be that bad.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, Mr. Member, I hope that it's not that bad. But you know, I find, aside from that corner, and I know that his own Member isn't going to support him…. I'll let you go ahead and yell all that cheap rhetoric all you want.

Mr. Member, when I was asked specific questions by the Member for Vancouver–Howe Sound, I gave the information.

MR. GARDOM: I asked you the same questions in a different way.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, Mr. Member, let's not go over that. It was obvious that some people wanted to go on a straight political tirade. There wasn't a calm request. Okay, I absolve you. But the Member in front of you came in here breathing political hack-fire because he found one of his old speeches as he tripped down the hallway. Rather than check the dates on his old speech he came in raving about it, and was so impressed with his own words that he repeated it twice. (Laughter.)

Then, finally, the Member for West Vancouver asked some specific questions. I've given those specific answers. We can finance all this internally. If we finance it internally, it means going back to the freeze. We do not intend to go back to the freeze. No. 1.

Therefore, come the estimates next year, I won't expect any one of you to stand up here demanding more highways, more schools or more hospitals in your riding. If you want those services, they must be paid for. If you say, "Cut back to the bone," then say so. But don't speak out of both sides of your mouth saying, you want site 1….

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Okay, let's make it clear: $90 million spent on Mincome for the elderly of this province. Is that waste? There was $20 million spent on Pharmacare. Is that waste? There was $122 million on a housing programme. Is that waste? What they're saying is they'll cut back all the people services if they're ever back in power again. God help the people of British Columbia if that ever happens.

Now, Mr. Member, if we go public, we will comply with every regulation. If we go private, we will comply with every regulation. The decision will be made by the government. You've been given all the information. Really, you can tear the vote any way you want. But no government in the history of this province has been more open than that Minister has been today.

MR. FRASER: Well, that was quite an announcement the Premier and Minister of Finance has made here today. There is a whole new fiscal policy here. The people of the province have been expecting this for some time but they didn't expect it as soon as this.

We have no business at all going out on the open money market with the high interest rates that exist today. Believe me, you're talking about senior citizens paying for things and suffering. You make everybody in this province suffer by paying these high interest rates. You don't knock just a section of the community: the whole community of British Columbia will pay for it.

If you had looked after the funds this province has been taking in in record amounts since 1972…. You were left with a big surplus. Where has it all gone? Also, you built on that, you've told the people. Now you come in here today and tell us that you're broke and you have to go out on the open money market.

[ Page 4195 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: I ask you to withdraw that statement. That's an absolute lie. This province has never been in better shape. Absolute falsehood. I ask you to withdraw.

MR. FRASER: I withdraw that, but why do you have to go out on the money market?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

HON. MR. BARRETT: You withdraw. You bet your life you withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) be seated? I'd ask the Hon. Premier to make his request again and state the point he wants him to withdraw.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The Member has withdrawn the statement that the province is broke. I will not tolerate those false statements.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Would the Hon. Member for Cariboo wait for a moment until I dispose of the previous point of order?

On the point of order raised by the Premier, I think what should be requested is simply time to stand and make a correction of the statement rather than accusations back and forth across the hall. We will accept that the record is now corrected.

I'll recognize the Hon. Member for Columbia River on a point of order.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I wish you would ask the Premier to withdraw the statement that the Member for Cariboo has lied and told a falsehood.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the Hon. Premier to withdraw the intemperate words.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, the Member already withdrew his statement which I claimed was false. I claimed he made a false statement which he withdrew.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon….

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my statement.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Before we proceed with the debate, the Chair has allowed a certain amount of latitude, and, I think, wisely. But I think the time has come when we must confine our remarks more strictly to the section before us. I would ask the Hon. Member to do this.

MR. FRASER: I'm almost finished but for one other observation on financing. They put a question in my mind about the Municipal Finance Authority that goes to public market to get their funds. What is this going to do to them? Is this going to increase them? You're going to compete with them in the money market of the world and somebody is going to suffer on that end.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, the former administration would not loan money to municipalities, forcing them into the money market. The first change of policy in that was made by this government. We loaned the municipalities $14 million. Go do your homework.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, the bulk of the discussion this afternoon could quite readily have been eliminated if the Premier had done which he has slowly….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would ask the Hon. Member to try to keep his remarks relevant to the section. I think the matters which have been raised previously….

MR. GARDOM: I'll be a little more relevant than the last two speakers, I can assure you. But if the Premier had levelled with the Legislature…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR.GARDOM: …and had furnished us with the requirements for the $500 million, we would have gone along quite satisfactorily. But, Mr. Chairman, this is what he has told us.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would point out to the Hon. Member that the matter that has been made has been repeated a number of times. I would ask him to keep his remarks….

MR. GARDOM: This is what the Premier of the province, who is its chief executive officer, has told us. He has indicated to this House that his modus operandi concerning legislation such as this is going to be this: you're not going to get any information unless you ask for it. You'll get some if you ask for it, depending on how you feel.

Now he has told the House a few moments ago that if he goes public or if he goes private, he's going to follow the law. Of course you have to do that. What a simplistic statement! There's nothing mirabile dictu about that.

But what I've asked you this afternoon is this: you were saying that you're having a prospectus prepared. It's evident to everyone in this room that that prospectus should have been in front of the House

[ Page 4196 ]

this afternoon. It's absolutely evident. You've not got it here. That's a dereliction of duty on your part.

But I'm asking you this: will you at least give your undertaking to the House that you'll file that prospectus in the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Order. I would ask the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey to withdraw the imputation that there is a dereliction of duty on the part of the Premier.

MR. GARDOM: I'd like to speak to that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Order! There is no debate on a request by the Chair.

Interjections.

MR. GARDOM: But, Mr. Chairman, with every respect, if the material is not filed, I do consider it derelict in his duty. I do.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I'm sure the Hon. Member appreciates the distinction between commenting on some action rather than making a direct attack. I am sure I would accept the Hon. Member's withdrawal.

MR. GARDOM: I'm not making a personal attack; I'm making an attack upon his modus operandi. I intend to do it.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I just want to be sure the Hon. Member understands what the Chair was requesting. You accused a Member of this House of dereliction of duty. I think that was a direct attack on a Member, rather than saying that an action could constitute in some way…. I think there's a distinction that has to be appreciated by the Hon. Member.

MR. GARDOM: I think his actions constitute a dereliction of duty. If you prefer that, it's fine. The Premier and I know exactly what we're talking about, Mr. Chairman. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The Chair would appreciate it, and I'm sure the House would, if the Hon. Member would return to a debate of this section.

MR. GARDOM: Yes, I'm delighted to do that. I will ask the Premier a very simple question.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes.

MR. GARDOM: We're talking about $500 million.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes.

MR. GARDOM: A half a billion dollars.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes.

MR. GARDOM: As people said in this House this afternoon a few times, it's a lot of money. Okay.

Will the Hon. Premier give his undertaking to this House that he will file this prospectus that he's having prepared?

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I just want to set the record straight on a couple of things. We're talking about borrowing $500 million, $100 million of which the Premier stated is going to be borrowed outside the province. I said that I didn't agree with this. If the finances of this province had been running in a business-like manner and if money hadn't been wasted, we wouldn't have to go outside of the province to borrow this money.

The Premier, in a cheap, political twist, Mr. Chairman, twisting my remarks around….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would ask the Hon. Member if he wishes to correct the remark made by the Premier to simply make the correction. Could the Hon. Member continue, please?

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I'm not going to leave it on the record that the Premier of this province stood in this Legislature and, in a cheap, political twist, accused me that our policy would be to cut back on Mincome and Pharmacare. It was a cheap political twist.

I think you should give me that opportunity to say that what I was talking about was not cutting back on services to people, not one bit. What I was talking about was that if he hadn't invested money, for instance, in British Columbia Telephone shares, and for what purpose…? If he hadn't invested money in Westcoast Transmission, which, by the way, has recently gone down in value and we didn't hear the Premier of this province coming into this Legislature saying how much money he lost, but when they went up $2, he came in and told us how much money he had gained…. I wonder if they go down $2 more….

What I'm saying is that if the finances of this province had been kept for the things necessary in

[ Page 4197 ]

this province, how much money was put into Plateau Mills, how much money was put into Ocean Falls, how much money was put into Can-Cel, how much money was put into purchasing buildings around the province at inflated prices? This is what I'm trying to say, Mr. Chairman, and the Premier is trying to twist my facts around. If the business of this province had been run in a business-like manner….

AN HON. MEMBER: Bailing out Icky Bicky too.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, bailing out the insurance corporation — how many dollars went into that?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Order! The Hon. Member is tending to be repetitious. I would ask him to keep his remarks relevant to the sections before us.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, you talk about me being repetitious, you ought to listen to the Premier once in a while, but I suppose, as usual, you have two sets of rules, one for the government and one for the opposition. You let them get away with murder, they can talk about anything under the sun.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member withdraw the imputation that the Chair is being unfair?

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, if the Chair will stop being unfair, I'll stop calling the Chair unfair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'd just asked the Hon. Member to withdraw the imputation that the Chair has a double standard.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'll withdraw the imputation, but the record will speak for itself.

This is what I'm talking about, Mr. Chairman. This is why this province for the first time in over 12 years has to go outside of the boundaries of the province to borrow money, because they've squandered the resources. The resource tax money of this province has been squandered.

MR. CHABOT: Buying hotels.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, buying hotels.

MR. CHABOT: Bowling alleys.

MR. PHILLIPS: This is the problem with socialism. This is where we're headed and you better believe, Mr. Chairman, that I'll be going out in the boondocks and telling the people. You better believe it. And when I do tell the people how this province is being run, how inefficient this province is being run, how the taxpayers' money is being wasted, how the resource money is being wasted, I don't want the Premier to twist it around and saying that I'm casting a dark shadow over the credit of the province. This province, when the socialists came to power two years ago, had one of the greatest credit ratings of any jurisdiction in the world, and it has only taken the socialist regime two years to ruin that credit rating, to have to go outside of the province to borrow money.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, it's clearly evident that the policy announced this afternoon by the Premier, when he was speaking in debate on section 6 of this Statute Law Amendment Act, indicates a new direction in financing in the Province of British Columbia. It indicates that the Minister of Finance has now placed this province in the position where we must go outside of our internal finances available to us to finance projects of substantial capital requirements. And that's a sorry day for the Province of British Columbia inasmuch as for many years we have been able to finance the increased requirement for capital in the Province of British Columbia without going to the money markets.

There was never a time when it was more expensive than it is now to go to the financiers on the basis of long-term finance which must be repaid by the taxpayers of the Province of British Columbia, which must therefore reduce the amount of money that is available for other benefits to the people of this province, including all these social benefits we desire. It's a matter of proven record that fiscal irresponsibility on the part of this government has squandered millions of dollars in the last 20 months, money that will never be returned to the people of the province in benefits of any kind at all. It's been thrown out the window on every whim and fancy dreamed up by either the Minister of Finance or other Members of his cabinet. If that's not fiscal irresponsibility, I don't know what is.

Certainly the people of the province are entitled, at a time like this, to either have the benefits of increased services through the increased revenue that has been available to us, or the assurance that that revenue will be used and rolled over to finance the requirement for capital for projects such as B.C. Hydro and many other projects that will require capital in the Province of British Columbia.

I therefore, Mr. Chairman, move an amendment to section 6(c): that "notwithstanding section 6(c), this House is of the opinion that the amount of $2.5 billion is clearly within the resource potential of this province to be internally financed without external borrowing."

If the Minister of Finance is doing the job that he is supposed to do as a chief fiscal officer in this province, it is within his competence and in his ability

[ Page 4198 ]

to finance that internally and not go to the money market for $100 million and reverse a policy that has stood the citizens of this province in good stead for the last number of years.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. On examining the amendment introduced by the Hon. Member for North Peace River, I would rule that the amendment is out of order in that it affects Crown prerogatives, namely, the allocating of public funds, also a Crown agency, the borrowing power of the Crown agency, therefore I would rule it out of order in the hands of a private Member.

MR. SMITH: Would you quote the section of the standing Orders please? What standing order, please?

MR. CHAIRMAN: If the Hon. Member would like a ruling, would he wait for a moment for the supporting section? Would the Hon. Member continue with the discussion of the section? I will provide him with the authorities in a moment.

MR. SMITH: Pardon me? May I resume?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I asked the Hon. Member for North Peace River to resume his discussion on the section if he wishes, then I will provide him with authorities that he wishes. However, the ruling, of course, still stands.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, do I understand that you're ruling it out of order, or that you are going to give me a ruling as to why you think it is out of order?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I've ruled the amendment out of order. I think the Hon. Member knows that any amendment or motion or bill which affects the expenditure of money in any way, or the borrowing power of the Crown, must be introduced by a Member of the Crown or with the consent of the Crown.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, may I submit that in moving the amendment I in no way tried to restrict the right of the Crown to finance Hydro in a means they wish to do, and that is to raise $2.5 billion in cash?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member may not debate the ruling; I'm being generous in providing him with an authority. But would the Hon. Member continue with the section as a whole?

MR. SMITH: I submit, Mr. Chairman, that it's not a matter of generosity on the part of the Chair, it's a matter of the right of an individual Member to question a ruling, and it's your responsibility….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. The procedure, Hon. Member, is not to question the ruling, but to challenge the ruling to the House. If the Hon. Member wishes to challenge the ruling, he may do so. However, you do not debate a ruling of the House. If you wish to challenge it do so, otherwise continue with the section.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, until I have the opportunity to listen to the reasons for your ruling, I'm on no grounds to either sustain it or challenge it, really, because a ruling once made by the Chair must be backed up by some valid…either standing order of this House, or rules that this House looks to beyond our own standing orders. You know that as well as I do, Mr. Chairman. But if I may, I'll continue debate on section 6 while you are looking at the rules and see if there isn't one there that will cover the ruling that you just made.

I've said that the reason we feel so strongly about this is not that we wish to restrain or restrict investment by B.C. Hydro, which is certainly a large Crown corporation in the Province of British Columbia, and does require substantial additional capital. I don't think we disagree with that as Members of the opposition, but we do disagree with the manner of finance which is suggested by the Minister. He outlined when speaking to this section that it was his intention to go into the money markets for at least $100 million of the proposed increase in capital that is required. Our whole argument in the opposition has been based on the fact that this is a radical departure from the financing that has been established and has proven to be very beneficial to the people in the Province of British Columbia and saved them in the last few years millions of dollars of tax money that would have been paid out in interest to finance corporations in New York or around the world. We are in a position of extremely high revenues from resource industries at the present time. The tax on the forest industry and the logging tax — the stumpage — rises as prices rise.

We've seen a number of bills come before this House and they're designed for one thing, and that is to substantially increase the amount of money that will be available to the Crown from resource industries in this province. I'm not going to debate those bills, but there is a substantial increase to the Crown and it is our submission that the departure of the government, as indicated by the Premier of this province, from sound fiscal management and sound fiscal policy would not be required at this time had the Minister of Finance been prudent in exercising his responsibilities and the amount of money that is

[ Page 4199 ]

available to him as Minister of Finance through tax revenues in this province at this time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! On the point of order on the ruling that I made, I would just provide a number of comments since the Hon. Member requested them.

Standing orders 66 and 67, while they are similar, vary in certain respects. I'll just read standing order 67:

"It shall not be lawful for the House to adopt or pass any vote, resolution, address or bill for the appropriation of any part of the public revenue, or of any tax or impost, or to any purpose that has not been first recommended to the House by message of the Lieutenant-Governor in the session in which such vote, resolution, address or bill is proposed."

Standing order 66:

"This House will not receive any resolution stating an express or abstract opinion of the House on recommending the expenditure of public money unless recommended by the Crown."

Standing order 67 clearly refers to an actual motion that would commit the Crown to the expenditure of money or to something which would affect the revenue or expenditures of the Crown. Standing order 66 explicitly says that even a motion, resolution or whatever that expresses an opinion of the House about such a matter is out of order in the hands of a private Member.

The second area in which the amendment is out of order is shown on page 555 of the 16th edition of May, section 7:

"If an amendment would make the clause which it is proposed to amend unintelligible or ungrammatical, or if it is incoherent or inconsistent with the context of the bill, it is out of order."

This amendment clearly is inconsistent with the principle of section 6, and therefore is out of order on those grounds.

MR. SMITH: What does it offend?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll read the amendment, as the Hon. Member wishes further explanation:

"That notwithstanding section 6(c), this House is of the opinion that the amount of $2.5 billion is clearly within the resource potential of the province to be internally financed without external borrowing."

Upon examining the amendment I ruled it out of order on two grounds: first of all that it violated standing order 66, expressing an opinion about financing, which is the prerogative of the Crown; secondly, on the grounds under May, page 555, 16th edition, section 7, that:

"If an amendment would make the clause which it is proposed to amend unintelligible or ungrammatical, or if it is incoherent or inconsistent with the context of the bill, it is out of order."

I ruled it out of order and my ruling was challenged.

Mr. Chairman's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS — 39

NAYS — 9

The House in committee on Bill 162; Mr. Dent in the chair.

On section 6.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): I just want to follow along a little bit on this story of the prospectus, Mr. Chairman. The Premier finally told the committee this afternoon, after a good deal of questioning, that a prospectus was being prepared for a bond issue this fall by B.C. Hydro. He made it clear that the prospectus is being prepared whether or not he goes the public or private route of financing. Presumably, if he goes the private route of financing, he would still need the information in that prospectus to satisfy the private bond holders.

Mr. Chairman, I would submit that the Legislature and the people of British Columbia have a right to the same information as the Boston bankers. Whether he goes the private or public route, the Premier should undertake to table in this House, or to make public at the time of the loan, the prospectus that he is having prepared with the public's money right now. I hope

[ Page 4200 ]

that the Premier will stand up and say that he will do that.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I recognized the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey, and no one else.

MR. GARDOM: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I recognize the Hon. Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, with all due respect, I can't guarantee that I'll give it to the House. The House might not be sitting. Of course it will be public. Why don't you listen? But he was asking for a guarantee that it come into the House. The House may not be sitting, Mr. Member.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, the answer is yes! Okay.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, oh.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, if there is a public bond issue — for B.C. Hydro or any other corporation — of course there has to be a public prospectus. Whether it is tabled in the House or whether it is released to the newspapers or whether you go down to B.C. Hydro and get a copy, there still has to be one. Whenever you go public, this is simply a requirement. The last time there was a prospectus was the last time B.C. Hydro went public. That was in June, 1967 — the series AK.

What is required, Mr. Chairman, is not that there be a release of something which is public anyway. What is required is a standard procedure for B.C. Hydro and all Crown corporations that an annual budget be laid before the House as a prospectus every year for every Crown corporation. I personally am not a bit satisfied where something that is going to be made public be made public. What we have got to do is to have a procedure here for the Crown corporations.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I just want to be sure I understand something. Did the Premier tell the House that even if he goes the private financing route he will still make public the prospectus?

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's right.

MR. GIBSON: Okay.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I am not to be responsible for resolving the internal problems of your party. The back bench wants something and I say, "Yes." The front bench says that is nothing and they want something different. Now, boys, for the first time you've been together as a group in weeks. Now that you are together, get it together.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, that Premier and Minister of Finance who just spoke may not be able to assume the responsibilities for the internal problems in the Liberal Party if there are any, but he most certainly is responsible for the internal and external financing of the Province of British Columbia.

As you are aware, Mr. Chairman, I have been out of the House this afternoon. I was appalled when I came back to this House….

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would just ask the Hon. Member to….

MRS. JORDAN: ….to find that the Minister of Finance and the Premier of this province….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. I would ask the Hon. Member to confine her remarks to section 6, please.

MRS. JORDAN: I am, Mr. Chairman. He is taking the people of British Columbia and turning them into a bunch of Boston beans with B.C. Hydro bonds baked and beholden to the Boston market. That is a complete reversal of the fiscal policy of this province. It is the first edge of the wedge of what this party has been predicting about the fiscal management — or mismanagement — of this government and this Minister of Finance.

Mr. Chairman, the whole philosophy in British Columbia through the last many years has been to establish a large degree of fiscal independence for the Province of British Columbia, to move in the direction of sound and well-thought-out business management and people services so that the people of British Columbia could, to a very large degree, take care of their own internal financing. This, Mr. Chairman, has been accomplished. It was almost at the point where it would be completed.

The whole reason for this, Mr. Chairman, is because international money markets and commerce are unstable. History traditionally has a rise, a peak and a fall. The objective in British Columbia, knowing our geographic problems, knowing our small

[ Page 4201 ]

population, knowing the fact that we are dependent to a large degree on offshore markets and external trade, was to first build British Columbia and then keep it in a position where it could maintain a degree of stability and independence that few other sectors of the international community have.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would point out to the Hon. Member that there has been quite a lengthy discussion of this whole matter already. Also, I would request that she try to relate her remarks more directly to section 6 rather than to get into a debate on fiscal policy.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, this is the whole point. This is a major change in the direction of fiscal policy in British Columbia that wasn't brought in, as is tradition, in a major bill to stand on its own and to be debated by the Members of this Legislature in full view of public knowledge and in full knowledge of the operation of Hydro. It was slipped in — snuck in under the carpet — in the Statute Law Amendment Act. No wonder, Mr. Chairman…. If I was the Minister of Finance I would be ashamed, embarrassed and afraid, in light of world economic conditions, to bring in the suggestion that he has brought into this House today in a separate bill.

I would like to bring to your attention, Mr. Chairman, that it is relevant in a major change such as this to examine what the position of British Columbia is in relation to its fiscal stability. We know from as late as this weekend, Mr. Chairman, that capital is leaving British Columbia. Returns to business are generally down, disproportionate to other parts of Canada.

We want to know why the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) has chosen to extend his borrowing authority to $500 million and why he wants to go to the open market for the first shot in an unprecedented move in the past seven years.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! This question has been put on a number of occasions already this afternoon and the answers have been given in some detail.

MRS. JORDAN: My understanding is that the answers haven't been given satisfactorily, Mr. Chairman. I haven't been in the debate before and I would very much like the privilege of expressing the views of the majority of the people whom I represent in this House. I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, when the people of the North Okanagan find out….

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: You know, it's a wonder the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Would the Hon. Member….

MRS. JORDAN: …who has so much to say, wouldn't reveal some of his policies so that public would know what they are about.

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

The Chair has allowed a considerable amount of latitude in the debate this afternoon. However, the Chair cannot entertain a rehash of all the arguments that have already been gone over and digressions to comment on what other Ministers are doing. The remarks must be kept strictly relevant to this section. I would request the Member to bring up any new information.

MRS. JORDAN: I appreciate your comment about the other Ministers. If the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources would keep as quiet in the House as he is about the business of his department, then perhaps we could get on with the debate.

Mr. Chairman, as I was saying — and it is relevant. If the people of the North Okanagan hear about this, the first thing they are going to want to know is why this departure. Is the government in financial difficulty?

In previous debates I pointed out myself — and I don't consider myself an economist or a fiscal authority — that if the government was going to dabble in enterprises it was going to face a major decision of either financing internally through increased taxation or going to the open money market. They seem to be unable to recognize that there is not an inexhaustible supply of dollars in the Province of British Columbia. They pooh-poohed and they laughed.

I suggested that when they do go to the open markets they would face the same problem as any other major corporation going to the open market today. One is a shortage of short-term capital; the other is a shortage of long-term capital, both combined with precedented high interest rates. That was pooh-poohed, Mr. Chairman. Yet here, slipped in on a piece of paper, is the exact situation I described.

Interjections.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, the quacking over there doesn't have any understanding of the problems of finance. That's why this government is in the trouble it's in today and the more serious trouble it's going to be in tomorrow. If this government persists in its haphazard and irresponsible fiscal policies and its utilizing of tax dollars which are paid by the people of this province to provide services within this province and to maintain economic stability so that

[ Page 4202 ]

we can have jobs and we can have a stable climate in a time of extreme jitters everywhere else in the world, then the government must manage its affairs.

It has wasted money on Ocean Falls; it has got us involved in Gottesman Central….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, order! Order! Be seated, please!

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I refer to standing order 43:

"Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman, after having called the attention of the House, or of the committee, to the conduct of a Member, who persists in irrelevance, or tedious repetition, either of his own arguments (or her own arguments) or of the arguments used by other Members in debate, may direct him to discontinue his speech…."

I would merely point out, Hon. Member, that everything you've said so far has already been said. I would ask, also, to refer to standing order 61(2):

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

So I would ask the Hon. Member to abide by the standing orders.

MRS. JORDAN: I appreciate your comments, Mr. Chairman, and I will do my best. But I suggest that's the very reason your patience is being taxed in this debate. The reason why this debate must carry on is because the Minister of Finance brought this vital question in under one single subsection of this Act rather than bringing it in where he would see the debate confined and where he would see that the people of British Columbia couldn't have their questions answered. Rather than…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Order!

MRS. JORDAN: …bringing in section 6(c)…. Mr. Chairman, really, it is relevant. I just mentioned the name of the section.

MR. CHAIRMAN: First of all, I would just point out to the Hon. Member that it's common in a lawful society to obey the laws of the country. I would request that the Hon. Member obey the laws of this House. When the Chairman stands or the Speaker stands, the Member must be seated, according to standing orders.

Secondly, the point she was making last has already been made at least three times this afternoon. I am just pointing out to her that these points have already been made a number of times. I would ask her to raise some new matter, please.

MRS. JORDAN: I appreciate your comments, Mr. Chairman. But I'm sure you can realize, as you say — and you didn't give me reference as to who made these comments before, and perhaps you will do so before ruling me out of order again — the gravity of this situation.

If section 6(c) — which is in order, Mr. Chairman — had been brought in as an independent Act or an amendment to the Act, as it should have been….

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! If the Hon. Member wishes….

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, are you taking orders from the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea). Why don't you get him to go out and build some highways and repair the roads of this province?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair does not take orders from anyone.

However, I would point out the last point that she was making again — that this should have been brought in by a separate bill — was made, I believe, by the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) and by at least two other Members of your own party. Therefore, I would just point out that it has been made a number of times. I would ask her to raise some new point.

MRS. JORDAN: I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. As you realize, that's not 68 times. I think that's the record in this House for repetitious and tedious debate.

I, as a citizen, whether a Member of this House or not, resent this type of ramrod legislation which has a fundamental bearing on every single family in this province and their future, Mr. Chairman.

The people of this province worked hard to build the province to what it is today. People look forward to a future in this province and they don't look forward to an enslavement by debt through fiscal mismanagement of this Minister of Finance.

I have never seen any more honour in being owned by Bay Street than I have in being owned by Wall Street. I believe British Columbia has the ability and the potential to keep itself free from being under the thumb of any moneylenders anywhere. This subsection of section 6 of Bill 162, Statute Law Amendment Act, violates that belief, Mr. Chairman.

At this time in our history and at this time in an international market of world jitters, to see that violation take place for no specific reason other than the fact that there is apparently something within the internal financing of this province that needs more scrutiny that it's getting, it can only be attributed to the foolhardiness and the dabbling in business ventures on a philosophical basis by this Minister of

[ Page 4203 ]

Finance rather than assuming his responsibilities as a stable, responsible and informed fiscal agent for this province.

What is the Minister of Finance trying to do to our future, Mr. Chairman, and your future? You're getting married, Mr. Chairman, in a few days and you may have children. What future are they going to have if we turn around now and reverse this whole fundamental philosophy in the Province of British Columbia? Who are we going to be beholden to?

We have a Premier of this province who went to Quebec to talk to Réné Levesque, a left-wing separatist.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MRS. JORDAN: Is he any influence on this? What tie-up is this government taking? Where is this government leading us, Mr. Chairman?

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: Oh, Reverend, would you go and look after your collection plate?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would point out to the Hon. Member that I have cautioned her a number of times about irrelevance or, rather, about tedious repetition. I don't like to keep doing it. However, the Hon. Member is raising matters constantly which have already been canvassed thoroughly in this committee already this afternoon. I would caution her, if she cannot raise a new matter, I will simply have to ask her to discontinue her speech. Would the Hon. Member continue, please?

MRS. JORDAN: Well, Mr. Chairman, have you some suggestions in view of the fact that you're ruling so rigidly in this matter?

Interjections.

MRS. JORDAN: The comments from the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources are the reason we have to debate all afternoon. He's the secret king of this province and he has people deeply worried.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Order, please!

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, it's "Be kind to reverends week." I'll defer to your ruling.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Interjection.

MR. SMITH: No, I'm not going to take my time.

I'm going to wrap it up. I'll say what I have to say in my own way and in my own good time, Mr. Attorney-General.

In speaking to this section, I want to make a few points which I think are fundamentally important with respect to the position that we take in the matter of financing a Crown corporation, namely the capital requirements of B.C. Hydro.

I think it should be abundantly clear and on the record that we do not oppose the idea that B.C. Hydro requires substantial additional capital if it is to provide the electrical services that this province requires at the time they are needed.

We do not in any way disagree with that fundamental principle. We do disagree very much with the statements and the suggestion by the Minister of Finance that he is going to change the fiscal policy of the Province of British Columbia with respect to B.C. Hydro and other Crown corporations.

This afternoon he admitted on the floor of this House that he will require external financing of $100 million. But this particular section of the bill provides for additional financing and additional capital to B.C. Hydro of $500 million. How are we to know that the figure S100 million will not be inflated several times over in the next six months after this House has prorogued, and in fact, the Government of the Province of British Columbia will go to the money markets for the total $500 million additional capital that will be allowed by this particular section of this particular Act?

Interjection.

MR. SMITH: We're against mismanagement of the finances of the province; we're against the giveaways of this province.

Interjections.

MR. SMITH: We're against the very sloppy, shoddy ways you have handled the finance of the province considering the amount of money that has been available to this province in terms of tax dollars.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. SMITH: Yes, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: When the Chair calls order it is expected that the Member will wait to see what the Chairman has to say.

I would point out to the Hon. Member that the point he has made has been made a number of times already. The debate is starting to become tediously repetitious. Therefore, I would ask the Hon. Member to continue to make new points.

[ Page 4204 ]

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I have no intention of being tedious or repetitious in the debate. I do think there is a fundamental difference between the position of the opposition and the position of the Premier and Minister of Finance, as expounded by the Minister of Finance this afternoon, that we have to make abundantly clear.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! This time I would like to direct my comments to the other Members of the Legislature. The constant heckling of the speaker only urges him to continue. I would ask the Hon. Members to…. (Laughter.)

MR. SMITH: I'm glad you recognize the fact, Mr. Chairman, that you are here to protect the Members of the opposition as well as the other Members on the other side of the House, and rule fairly and impartially on behalf of all Members of this Legislature.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member for North Peace River continue?

MR. SMITH: If you would just ask the Hon. Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) to shut his mouth and desist from interrupting….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would ask the Hon. Member to withdraw that phrase and use perhaps a more appropriate one, such as asking the Chairman to ask him to be quiet.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the Hon. Minister of Highways not to interrupt the Member for North Peace River, as he has done frequently.

Interjection.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The Minister Of Highways on a point of order.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would ask the Hon. Minister of Highways to take his seat and to…. Order! I would ask the Minister of Highways to take his seat and refrain from interjecting constantly when the Member is speaking.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, that was a frivolous point of order, and we both recognize that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! There was nothing frivolous about that point of order. I'm asking the Hon. Minister of Highways not to interject constantly and interrupt the Hon. Member's speech.

MR. SMITH: Not your point of order; the Minister's point of order.

Interjections.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think we've made our position very clear on this matter and I certainly do not intend to prolong the debate any further on that particular point. But we do have a fundamental difference, as I have explained.

That fundamental difference is not that we wish to refuse finance to B.C. Hydro to increase the power facilities of the Province of British Columbia. The difference of opinion and the fundamental difference is the manner in which we do this. When we see the Minister of Finance taking his prerogative as Minister of Finance and bringing in a bill in the dying hours of this session to provide funds that should have been provided by the estimates and the budget, we take great exception to that. We take great exception to the fact that he wishes to go to the money market for a minimum of $100 million, and perhaps $500 million, which must be repaid with interest at very high rates by the people of the Province of British Columbia.

That is the point we wish to make, and the one point that we will not agree with in regard to the financing methods of the Premier of this province and the Minister of Finance.

Section 6 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 37

[ Page 4205 ]

NAYS — 10

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I would ask leave of the House at the time you report to the Speaker that a division took place on this section and ask to have it recorded at that time.

Leave granted.

On section 7.

MR. FRASER: ….explain all the gobbledegook that's in this bill. There's no explanation how the public will get any advantage from it. I've had a lot of problems with the Coloured Gasoline Tax Act.

HON. MR. BARRETT: …to update the tax wording to accommodate the changes that we made recently, Mr. Member. (Laughter.)

Section 7 approved.

On section 8.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, these deals of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act is one in which we see now that they're going to appoint a veterinarian under the Public Service Act to be a provincial veterinarian for the purpose of the administration of the Act and the fulfilling of the role under the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act.

I'm wondering just what has prompted this appointment. I want to know what necessity there is in having a veterinarian appointed under this section of the Act. I'm wondering what kind of outbreak of disease we have in the province. Do we have Bang's disease? Is it expanding? Just what are the diseases that are so prevalent apparently that it's necessary for the government to appoint a veterinarian under the Public Service Act?

MR. WALLACE: Hoof and mouth disease.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Mr. Chairman, there is a big problem with hoof and mouth disease that has been easily discernible this afternoon.

Seriously, there is a need in this province, if agriculture is to be a real, implicit part of our economy, to see to it that we keep track of any communicable diseases that begin running through herds, flocks and whatever. So, therefore, it's necessary to have a veterinarian in that department.

MR. CHABOT: Just one supplementary question. The Minister appears concerned that there's a danger of an outbreak of a contagious disease in the province and he wants to keep track of this under this Act. I'm surprised we haven't got the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) to answer these questions.

I want to know whether there is an epidemic of some form with the livestock of British Columbia that would trigger the government appointing a veterinarian under this section of the Act. Is there a problem? Is it necessary to appoint one of these professionals?

There are vets throughout British Columbia, I'm sure. They're in close contact with the livestock of the province. I'm sure they'd have no hesitation in reporting any possible outbreak that might be of concern to the provincial government. Why is it necessary to appoint a veterinarian to administer the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act?

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, it's quite simple. Just as in the human area where we have public health doctors who are doing preventive work, we want preventive work done in the agricultural area. This is a very progressive step taken by a very progressive Minister of Agriculture. Thank you.

MR. CHABOT: Sorry, if he's progressive, he would be here. I'm sure he would. He's absent today. He's absent; he's absent today.

MR. PHILLIPS: Maybe the Minister of Health would tell me where this veterinarian is going to be stationed. I was always under the impression that Dr. Kidd was the chief veterinarian in the Department of Agriculture. If he's going to be the chief veterinarian, are there going to be other veterinarians established under the Department of Agriculture throughout the province?

Are you going to take the veterinary service away from the private veterinarians? What is going to happen here? I mean, we already have at Abbotsford a chief veterinarian. At least I was always under the….

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Come on. I want an answer.

MR. CHABOT: Both Ministers should be here to answer those questions.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm serious. We're going to establish a new position here. Where is the man going to be stationed? What is going to happen to the man who I thought was the chief veterinarian in the province? Are you going to have other veterinarians

[ Page 4206 ]

throughout the province? I want to know what's going on.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: What's that? I didn't hear the Minister's answer.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Are we going to establish other veterinarians throughout the province? Are you going to take over all the veterinary service? How are you going to…? Well, come on. Who's going to report to this man? Are the private veterinarians throughout the province….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Would the Hon. Member keep his remarks strictly relevant to section 8 and not speculate?

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I have to speculate if I don't get any answers.

HON. MR. COCKE: I think his duties are absolutely patently clear here. His duties are to include the administration. Now, that's precisely what it says and that's precisely what the Minister of Agriculture required.

MR. PHILLIPS: Is he going to hire other veterinarians?

HON. MR. COCKE: No.

MR. PHILLIPS: He's just going to be one veterinarian. What is going to happen to the present man, Dr. Kidd, who is…?

HON. MR. COCKE: I can't tell you about him.

MR. PHILLIPS: Is this man going to be over here or is Dr. Kidd going to be appointed to the position?

HON. MR. COCKE: This is for the Veterinary Medical Act, Mr. Chairman. As a matter of fact, it was thought maybe possibly to put him under the Pharmacy Act but it was decided not to. This is a specific area.

MR. PHILLIPS: Do you want to answer the question, too, Mr. Premier? Do you want to answer the question? You're doing a lot of talking over there in the background. Do you want to answer the question?

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Why don't you go outside and stay outside? We get along better when you're not here anyway.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Would the Hon. Member confine his remarks to the section and address the Chair?

Sections 8 and 9 approved.

On section 10.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, just a brief comment, somewhat along the same lines as the section that's taken all afternoon to debate. But in section…. Oh, I'm sorry, 10 or 11?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Ten.

MR. WALLACE: I'm sorry.

Section 10 approved.

On section 11.

MR. WALLACE: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, it was section 11 I meant to comment upon in the same sense that we criticized the earlier section. Here in this Act, the Minister of Finance, on the recommendation of the Minister, subject to the Revenue Act, may borrow from the Government of Canada "such amounts" — and that's really the phrase that concerns me.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Central Mortgage and Housing.

MR. WALLACE: "Such amounts as may be required from time to time for purposes relating to housing." I just wanted to have an assurance from the Minister of Finance that this is not some "open sesame" to spending any kinds of amounts of money and the conditions which would cover the spending of that money.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I want to assure the Member that I'm not like the former Minister of Finance. It means exactly what it says; we'll be dealing with the CMHC.

MR. PHILLIPS: I would like to ask the Minister of Housing if some of this money is going to be borrowed…? I assume it's going to be borrowed from CMHC. Correct me if I'm wrong.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Right.

MR. PHILLIPS: Is some of this money going to be

[ Page 4207 ]

used to construct apartment buildings which will be rented by the provincial government?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: It will be used for senior citizens' housing, family housing, rental housing; utilizing section 43 mostly, which requires this type of borrowing.

MR. PHILLIPS: Will the money you will be borrowing be used to go into competition with the private apartment owners in the Province of British Columbia?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would point out to the Hon. Member for South Peace River that there has been already a debate on this in the estimates of the House. This matter has already been voted on by the House. I would ask him to confine his remarks to the strict point made in this section rather than getting into a debate on housing which has already….

MR. PHILLIPS: You know, Mr. Chairman, you brought up a very good point. We spent quite some time in this Legislature debating the Department of Housing. Then the Premier comes along at the last minute in a bill that contains everything, giving the Minister of Housing….

Why wasn't this included in a bill when his estimates were going through this Legislature, Mr. Chairman? That's a very good point you brought up, because we did debate the Minister of Housing's estimates. We got very few answers. We got no answers at all about Dunhill. Now you want to rush through this section which gives the Minister of Housing a blank cheque to go and borrow money.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: You're jumpy this afternoon. Mr. Chairman, you're jumpy.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The point I made, which the Hon. Member didn't seem to understand, is the fact that the area which this particular section covers is a very specific point on the matter of borrowing, and so on, for the Minister of Finance from the federal government. But to open up a subject which was debated under the estimates and disposed of by voting on those sections under the Minister's estimates cannot be allowed by the Chair.

You must confine your remarks strictly to the point in this section.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, in subsection (5) it says:

"The Minister of Finance, on the recommendation of the minister, may, subject to the Revenue Act borrow from the Government of Canada or an agency thereof, such amounts as may be required from time to time for any purposes relating to housing."

And we're dealing with the Provincial government getting into an arrangement with the national government and borrowing funds for the purpose of housing. I think that is what the Member is discussing, Mr. Chairman, and in all fairness I think you should allow him to pursue his point, providing he sticks with it. I think he has been sticking with it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On the point of order, I think the Hon. Members knows, having been in the House for some time, that once the matter has been voted on by the House he cannot revive debate on that matter.

MR. CHABOT: This has never been voted on in the House; we are debating it now. If it has already been voted, what's it doing in section 11?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'm pointing out that the main point of this section may be debated. However, to revive matters which have already been dealt with by the House is what I'm asking the Hon. Member not to do.

Will the Hon. Member continue?

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, the Member would have been all finished by now. If you want to proceed in the way it appears you are jumping, if you want to proceed as quickly as possible….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Is the Hon. Member suggesting that we not follow the standing orders of this House?

MR. CHABOT: The way you are….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Is the Hon. Member suggesting that the Chair not abide by the rules of this House?

Would the Hon. Member for South Peace River continue?

AN HON. MEMBER: He's just a big jaw to cut the mikes off, that's all.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ah, that's a smart remark.

MR. PHILLIPS: I think he should be asked to withdraw that remark. Mr. Chairman, I think that Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) should be made to withdraw that remark against the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot).

Interjection.

[ Page 4208 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: He said that you were taking…. I heard it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! If the Hon. Member for South Peace River continues….

MR. PHILLIPS: I want the Minister of Transport and Communications to withdraw that remark he made against the Member for Columbia River.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On the strength of standing order 42, the Hon. Member for South Peace River considered offensive a remark by the Minister of Transport and Communications, therefore I would ask the Hon. Minister to withdraw the remark.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I made absolutely no remark about the Member for South Peace River.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, withdraw the remark.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Columbia River on a point….

HON. MR. STRACHAN: If the Member for South Peace River wants me to include him in, I will.

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: No wonder you are testy, Mr. Chairman, with those kind of facetious, irresponsible remarks from a Minister of the Crown.

Mr. Chairman, I wish you would have that Minister withdraw the statement he made.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Members are convinced that the Hon. Minister of Transport and Communications made the remark that certain Members in this House were taking orders from mining companies. Members consider this remark offensive. I'd ask the Hon. Minister to withdraw the remark if he made it.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Oh, if they consider the remark offensive, I'll withdraw it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Unqualified.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Would you just withdraw it?

MR. CHABOT: Did you deliberately mislead the House?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No. I didn't say the remark was untrue. I said if the remark was offensive I'll withdraw it. I didn't say the remark was untrue.

MR. PHILLIPS: You were deliberately misleading the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I asked the Hon. Minister simply to withdraw the statement unconditionally.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I withdrew it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We accept the withdrawal.

Would the Hon. Member for South Peace River continue?

MR. PHILLIPS: After some arrogant antics he withdrew.

Mr. Chairman, I want the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson) to tell me what the projects are that this planned borrowing is going into. Here you are asking this Legislature to give a blank cheque to the Minister of Housing to go out and borrow money for various projects of which we know nothing, on the day before the House is supposedly to prorogue.

We spent a lot of time in this Legislature discussing the estimates of the Minister of Housing. He didn't give any answers then. I want to know why, now, less than a month and a half later, after his estimates went through the Legislature, estimates which we tried in vain to get proper answers from on what he is doing…. I want the Minister to outline to this Legislature how much money he intends to borrow and where that money he is going to borrow is going to be used on what projects.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would rule again, before the Hon. Minister answers, that opening up a general discussion on Housing again would be out of order under this particular section. The Hon. Minister, please.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I would refer the Hon. Member to Hansard, the debates on the estimates, where I explained the amounts that we intended to expend under section 43 of the National Housing Act. That is where he will find how many housing projects we intend to build under this and what type and for how much.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, then, if the Minister outlined all this information in his estimates, why did he not pass this legislative matter at the time his estimates were going through the House? Because we get more sloppy legislation.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Certainly it is. More sloppy

[ Page 4209 ]

legislation. He knew he required the money — why didn't he bring the bill in before this time?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Premier on a point of order.

HON. MR. BARRETT: If the bill had been on the order paper the Member would not have been permitted to discuss it. That's the rule of the House.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, may I just ask the Minister how much money he anticipates will be borrowed under this authority during this current fiscal year?

AN HON. MEMBER: Well, are you going to answer?

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I think it is a reasonable question. I hope the Minister will answer it.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: It was a question that was asked during estimates and I gave an answer at that time.

MR. GIBSON: Then what's the answer now? Under section 43, how much money?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Just refer to Hansard.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't think a question may be pursued when the information is already a matter of record.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, that's an absolutely arrogant reply. He just has to stand up and give one number, that's all he has to say. It was a fair question and he stood up and gave an arrogant answer. I don't think that's good enough. I just ask that Minister to stand up now and give one number: how much does he think is going to be borrowed? If he won't do that, it's very possible that that number might have changed during the time he gave that answer in estimates.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It's on public record — look it up.

MR. GIBSON: It may have changed.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: No.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Members may ask questions, but Ministers are under no obligation to respond to the questions, especially if the answers are already a matter of record.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I want to make the point that that number may very well have changed since that Minister gave it in the estimates. I don't think he knows the figure, and I don't think it is good enough that he gives arrogant responses to this House.

MR. PHILLIPS: You know, this section giving a blank cheque to the Minister of Housing and the Minister of Finance to borrow money for housing bothers me because the whole principle of financing is involved.

I'd like to remind the Hon. Members of this House that when the throne speech was tabled in this House, there was a large section in that throne speech devoted to how this government was going to provide public money for housing in British Columbia. Then, Mr. Chairman, when we received the budget there was a large section in the budget devoted to providing money for housing.

We were given the impression during your estimates, after the throne speech, and after the budget, that housing was going to be financed internally, that this province was in good enough financial condition and financial shape that the public housing which the Minister of Housing was going to build could be financed internally.

Now what do we do? We have a complete reversal of the policy. I remember the Premier going on television, and I remember the Minister of Housing going on television telling how much of the great surplus of money that was available within the Province of British Columbia to finance the housing needs of the people of British Columbia.

There was a lot in the paper about it; there was a lot of flim-flam about it. Now what do we have here today? Right back to the same old deal. Where's the money going to come from? They are going to have to borrow it from the federal government.

HON. MR. COCKE: CMHC.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, there's the Minister of Health. But the impression…oh, go back. I would remind you, Mr. Chairman, to remind the Minister of Health to go back and read the budget — go back and read the budget speech.

I remember the Premier of this province standing on the floor of this Legislature all smiles the day that he was presenting this great budget. When he came to the section on housing, he said… Oh, the big smile! Oh, he was such a proud Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance was going to provide money for public housing in the Province of British Columbia.

What happened to that budget speech tonight when at the last minute, in the dying days of this session, we are asked to give the Minister of Housing and the Minister of Finance an open cheque to go and

[ Page 4210 ]

borrow money. After all of that great political flim-flam that the province…. "Oh, we are going to take it out of surplus funds," the Premier said. Yes sir, we are going to take $40 million out of surplus funds and we are going to provide another $50 million out of general revenue. What for?

It doesn't really add up to me, Mr. Chairman. The government on the one hand is providing money for mortgages for individuals within the province, while on the other hand they are trotting off down to Ottawa to borrow money. Why doesn't the government use a little fiscal responsibility and take the money they have and, instead of putting it into mortgage money, let the individuals borrow the money. As I've said before, the province is taking money out of general revenue — money that should go into Hydro — and providing mortgage money for housing in British Columbia, while at the same time going off to Ottawa to borrow mortgage money. If that is fiscal responsibility, Mr. Chairman, I don't know much about business.

I'll tell you, Mr. Chairman, if I ran my business the way this government runs the business of this province, I would have gone broke years ago. What I fear is that maybe that's where the province is going.

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: I want to say something about that Minister.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. GIBSON: There is one other thing about that Minister and this power he wants here to borrow money for the purposes of building housing in this province. That is: that Minister has no idea how much money he is going to have to borrow this year. That Minister has been saying in this House that he doesn't need to get statistics. I've got a report here done for the Greater Vancouver Real Estate Board. It was done by a Coquitlam firm, so maybe it is a good one, Mr. Premier.

It says that there is a remarkable lack of statistical information on which to base this study. It says: "This lack of information is one of the reasons for our problems today." It is, Mr. Chairman, and it is one of the reasons that that Minister doesn't have any idea how much money he is going to have to borrow under that power he is asking us to give him. He won't admit it. The only thing he is sure of….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Minister on a point of order.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: This Member is saying that I didn't give answers, and in doing so he is misleading this House. I gave answers. Refer to Hansard; don't refer to the Vancouver real estate report that we all have copies of.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I'm saying that that Minister won't give us an answer today. Whatever he may have said during estimates has been completely outdated by what has been happening in the meantime. What has been happening in the meantime is that this government has passed legislation which has effectively destroyed most of the private rental housing construction in this province. That Minister knows it and he knows that he is going to need a pile of money. He refuses to give us an estimate as to how much he is going to borrow under this power. I think it is a disgrace and I think it is arrogant.

Sections 11 to 13 inclusive approved.

On section 14.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, one of these sections deals with the question of the setting up of the competitors to the government liquor store. I would like to ask the Attorney-General a question or two about this. I would like to see some genuine competition. I am very disturbed about some of the things that are going on in the liquor administration branch. I would like to explain to the Attorney-General what disturbs me.

We've got five B.C. vintners in British Columbia. Those five B.C. vintners, that employ about 200 people, have an astonishing total of 345 listings. One firm that was recently taken over by another firm that belongs to a South African firm — I refer to Jordan wines — had 15 full-time employees and 66 listings by the liquor administration branch for sale in the stores. All other Canadian wine producers combined, Mr. Chairman, only had 28. Some great wine producers like Paul Masson Company in California had to struggle to get two. Yet the….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member please indicate which part of this section he is referring to?

MR. McGEER: What I am referring to, Mr. Chairman, is that if you look closely it is section 8(b) — wine by the glass.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member indicate which part of the section he is discussing?

MR. McGEER: Section 8(b), Mr. Chairman.

You see, it is the policy of the liquor administration branch, Mr. Chairman, to set the price

[ Page 4211 ]

of wines and also to say whether a wine can be sold. I have objected on the one hand to the fact that all Canadian wine producers just can't get into the market. Yet a firm that has 15 employees, and now has zero, still has 66 listings.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member please relate his remarks to this section 8(b)? I fail to see the relationship.

MR. McGEER: Included in this is not only selection, but it is a matter of price. Mr. Chairman, the liquor administration branch has a policy of marking up imported wines by 103 per cent and domestic wines by only 60 per cent. But some strange things happen when it comes to the price the public has to pay by the glass.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Attorney-General on a point of order.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, on the point of order, the amendments made here do not include the general question of listing markups. They are not included. The only reference to wine is the advisability of having existing wine sold in a beer parlour by the glass. That is the sole thing before the House in relation to wine.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the Hon. Member to observe standing order 60(2) that matters in committee must be strictly relevant to the section. Keep your remarks strictly relevant to the section.

MR. GIBSON: I am. I'm talking now, Mr. Chairman….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Which section was that again that you were referring to?

MR. McGEER: I'm on section 4, if you look at the bottom of page 4, which has to deal with the vending of wines. Beaune wine costs $11 in the B.C. Liquor Control Board stores, but it costs $2.50 in England. Pommard is $14.20 here but it sells for $2.20 in England.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I don't believe there is any reference to the price.

MR. McGEER: What I would like to know is this, Mr. Chairman; for these vendors…?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Come on, let him put his question; I'll answer it. Are you just putting a question?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I've been attempting to determine the relevance of your remarks to the section that we are considering. I fail to see it as yet. I would ask the Hon. Member if he could…. There is no reference to price, as the Attorney-General has pointed out. I would ask the Hon. Member to….

MR. McGEER: No, but there is a question as to the vending. If you look, Mr. Chairman, you will see that there is a question as to the vending of wines and other liquors. It is under subsection 4.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I believe that section has to do with establishing some vendors where there are no liquor stores. I don't see where that has anything to do with prices.

MR. WALLACE: Point of order. I draw your attention to the clock.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports progress and asks leave to sit again. It further reports that a division took place in committee and asks that this division be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Leave granted.

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. Lauk files the annual report for 1973 for the Department of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce.

Mr. G.H. Anderson from the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture presented the committee's final report, which was taken as read and received. (See appendix,)

Mr. Fraser from the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts and Economic Affairs presented the committee's final report, which was taken as read and received. (See appendix.)

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:02 p.m.

[ Page 4212 ]

APPENDIX

The following report is referred to on page 4211:

MR. SPEAKER:

Your Select Standing Committee on Agriculture begs leave to report as follows:

That this is the final report of the Committee and deals with Item 2 of the first report, namely Vegetable Production and Marketing.

Vegetable marketing in British Columbia is controlled in the Interior by the Interior Vegetable Marketing Board and on the Coast by the Coast Vegetable Marketing Board.

Briefs were heard from both Boards and more than 60 produce growers. As in the Committee's hearings with other farmers, in their terms of reference, the main complaint was that the price received for their product was not adequately covering their costs of production.

This fact has led to the reduction of farm acreage in the Interior of 1,750 acres in 1966 and to a further reduction of 478 acres in 1972. In the last four years the acreage in the Lower Fraser Valley and Vancouver Island has remained approximately the same, but, nevertheless, with some reduction, and this could be due to the fact that the Coast producers are close to an ever-expanding market in the larger cities of the Province.

There is a serious lack of processing and packing facilities in the Interior and a growing problem in the transportation of products to market.

The British Columbia vegetable producing industry has suffered economically for years because of low-priced imports from the United States and Mexico. In many cases, Californian and Mexican growers produce two crops per year due mainly to climatic conditions. When the bulk of their first crop is marketed, they are in a hurry to market the balance so that they can prepare their land for the second crop. Some of this balance is marketed at low prices in British Columbia, but because the price is the same as that charged in the United States, Federal anti-dumping laws cannot be invoked.

In many ways, the Canadian producer subsidizes food to the consumers of British Columbia. Vegetable prices fall considerably when local produce becomes available and rise again when the local season is over. The reason given for the rise in prices is usually that it is necessary to import produce, while the reason given by producers is that wholesalers and retailers keep the price to the producer low through the threat of imports.

The British Columbia vegetable producer in many areas has a serious problem securing sufficient labour for thinning, weeding, and harvesting of vegetables that cannot be handled mechanically. The producer cannot afford the wages required to attract this kind of labour, which is most tedious and requires much stooping and bending, including at times crawling on hands and knees for some of the work.

Many people with farms secured employment off the land in years gone by to offset low prices and resultant insufficient income. In some cases, prices for such products as asparagus has risen to the place where it would now be economic to grow, but the terms and interest on operating capital are such that farmers have been reluctant to borrow and return their land to that production.

In the early spring of 1968 some 20 lettuce growers in the Cloverdale area formed a lettuce cooperative to upgrade their product to meet competition from imports. Agreement was entered into with the West Coast Cooling Company to provide vacuum cooling and related equipment required to handle lettuce in a modern and efficient manner. This has turned out to be a success story in agriculture, as local production of lettuce went from 12,000,000 pounds in 1969 to slightly more than 20,000,000 pounds in 1973. A total of 45 per cent of production is shipped to the prairie provinces. The cooperative also ships limited quantities of

[ Page 4213 ]

APPENDIX

other mixed vegetables to the prairies to accommodate prairie buyers or for the purpose of pooling loads.

The growers feel that with proper facilities for cooling, grading, and packaging, similar opportunities exist for the upgrading and expansion of celery and cauliflower production, plus other vegetables.

There is a need for better drainage facilities for much of the prime vegetable growing areas in the Fraser Valley, and, paradoxically, there is a need to improve the irrigation systems during some summer months. Losses to growers can be quite high in some areas due to flooding. This could result in growers becoming discouraged and leaving the industry, which would in turn increase our dependency on imports.

With the advent of rapid refrigerated transportation and modern packaging, the former consumer excitement for "in season" and "fresh local" vegetables is diminishing. High-quality fresh vegetables are available to consumers in most areas of the Province for 12 months of the year. The advent lately of "hydroponically" grown tomatoes and cucumbers is receiving increasing acceptance from consumers in the "off season," when field crops are not available.

It is the feeling of the Committee that vegetable growing, which is such an important segment of our agricultural industry, must not be allowed to wither and die. We have areas of good soil, suitable climate, and expert growers who could compete with our southern neighbours provided they can receive the assistance necessary to upgrade and modernize their individual operations, upgrade their transportation methods in some areas, and expand and improve their processing, packaging and grading facilities.

Some of the recommendations made to the Legislature by the Committee during the Fall Session of 1973 are equally applicable to the vegetable growers as to other producers. To those recommendations, the Committee wishes to add the following with regard to vegetable producers:

Recommendations

(1) The Agriculture Department should increase advice and cooperation to vegetable farmers to improve their operation:

(2) The Agriculture Department should investigate areas of need for packaging, grading, and storage plants and advise farm groups of requirements:

(3) The Department should encourage farm groups to make use of funds from Farm Products Industry Improvement Act to carry out recommendations made under (2):

(4) The Farm Products Industry Improvement Act should be used to assist Interior growers with their problems in transportation of vegetables, such as the purchase of their own refrigerated trucks if found to be practical:

(5) Studies should be made to determine if the "B.C. Home Grown" programme should be enlarged or improved.

All of which is respectfully submitted.

G. H. ANDERSON, Chairman

[ Page 4214 ]

APPENDIX

The following report is referred to on page 4211:

MR. SPEAKER:

Your Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts and Economic Affairs begs leave to report as follows:

Your Committee, chaired by A. V. Fraser, had five meetings. Officials of the British Columbia Liquor Administration Board appeared before the Committee for the first time. Officials of the British Columbia Railway appeared as well as British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority. There were opportunities to examine vouchers supplied by Comptroller-General Jack W. Minty.

Your Committee summoned Dr. Willard E. Ireland, Chairman of the Public Documents Committee, established tinder the Public Documents Disposal Act, Revised Statutes of British Columbia, 1960, chapter 134, and, having heard the submission on behalf of the Public Documents Committee, recommends that, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Documents Disposal Act, approval be given for the destruction of various public documents as listed in the submission to the Public Accounts Committee for 1974 in so far as the following departments of Government are concerned: Attorney-General — General Administration, Land Registry Office, Prince George; Education — Curriculum Resources Branch, Registrar's Branch, Correspondence Branch, Examinations; Finance; Health Services and Hospital Insurance  — Woodlands School, Division of V.D. Control, Division of Laboratories, Division of TB. Control, Division of In-Patient Care, Local Health Services (Central Office), Environmental Engineering, Division of Vital Statistics; Mines and Petroleum Resources; Transport and Communications — Administration Branch.

All of which is respectfully submitted.

A. V. FRASER, Chairman