CONTENTS

Privilege

Release of public service unions' settlement details.

Mr. Gibson — 227

Mr. Speaker — 228

Routine proceedings

Oral Questions

Purchase of Casa Loma property. Mr. Bennett — 228

Hydro cost reallocation committee. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 228

Profits of Daon Developments. Mr. Wallace — 228

Housing infractions in Meadowbrook project. Mr. Phillips — 228

Building infractions in Meadowbrook project. Mr. McClelland — 230

Guarantee of Meadowbrook warranty. Mr. McClelland — 230

Financial records and dispersion of drugs. Mr. McGeer — 230

Housing of delinquents in Empress. Hon. Mr. Levi — 230

Investigation into Casa Loma lands. Mr. L.A. Williams — 230

Complaints re film; complaints re Mahal West Resorts Ltd.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald answers — 231

Throne speech debate Ms. Sanford — 231

Mrs. Jordan — 234

Mr. L.A. Williams — 239

Mr. Fraser — 244

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 249

Division on address to the Lieutenant-Governor — 256

Petitions

Petition of the Institute of Accredited Public Accountants of B.C.

Mr. Cummings — 257

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 1975

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): I rise on a question of privilege affecting all Members of this House.

On February 19, Mr. Speaker, I asked a question of the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) as follows: "I wonder if the Provincial Secretary could forecast to the House when negotiations might be completed with the public service unions and when the figures for the settlements already arrived at might be made public." The Provincial Secretary said that the negotiations were going along well.

On a supplementary, I asked if he could "release some of those figures before the budget, or in connection with the budget, because it will help us in assessing the projections." The Provincial Secretary replied that he would take that under advisement.

On February 25, speaking in the throne debate, the Provincial Secretary commented further on my question, saying in part: "I intend to adhere to the agreement I have with the union involved not to release the details of settlements until all negotiations are complete."

Later on that day, speaking to an amendment in the debate, I rejected the Provincial Secretary's arguments that secrecy had to be maintained, because all of the other bargaining components, in fact, did know what was going on in these negotiations, and the only people who didn't know what was going on were the public. I repeated this concern the following day with no response from the government.

In the Vancouver Province this morning, there appeared a report from Mr. William Hamilton, president of the Employers Council of B.C., giving details of the settlements to date, some of them rising in excess of 50 per cent with a COLA clause stacked on top. This was information, Mr. Speaker, which had been specifically denied to the House. On inquiring, I find that it has been made available to numerous people and agencies around British Columbia and, indeed, that this House seems to be the last to know.

As specific evidence, I'm advised first of all that the Employers Council of British Columbia received the settlement details, with no indication of confidentiality, sometime last week, in an apparently routine release of figures by the government. Moreover, exact figures and magnitudes on the settlement so far made are well known in the various components in the public service around British Columbia, certainly to an extent to make a sham of the government's pretence that secrecy has to be maintained in order that the components not yet settled should not know the results of the settlement to date.

Thus, Mr. Speaker, it seems that this House is the last to know. We are in a position of reading in a newspaper this morning important information that's been asked for on February 19 and explicitly denied to this House by the government as recently as two days ago. Much of the information was already in the hands of the public around British Columbia weeks and even months before; yet it was denied to this Legislature.

I submit that that constitutes a breach of the privileges of this House. I've not had an opportunity to do as much research as I would have liked in regard to precedents, but I would refer Your Honour to page 342 of May, 18th edition, which suggests that in cases analogous to this, proceedings have been interrupted to allow the matter to be taken into account at the earliest opportunity, and that this matter falls within the general definition of privilege as stated by May on page 132 of that edition:

"It may be stated generally that any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any Member or officer of such House in the discharge of his duty, or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such results may be treated as a contempt even though there is no precedent of the offence."

The denial of information to this House, in fact made available to members of the public around this province, clearly falls within that citation.

I would further suggest that this question is covered under the provisions of freedom of access to Her Majesty whenever occasion shall require, claimed by Your Honour at the opening of this session. Access to the Crown is through Ministers, who clearly have a duty to provide such access unless the occasion shall otherwise require. In fact the reason given for denial of access in this case is one which is spurious and incorrect, namely the need for maintenance of secrecy of settlements already arrived at in collective bargaining negotiations when in fact that secrecy had been breached extensively outside this House.

Accordingly it is proper for this House to establish a committee on privilege to inquire into the above matters, including the existence of any agreement with the B.C. Government Employees' Union as to secrecy, the propriety of such agreement in terms of the privileges of this House, and any other matters arriving from that circumstance.

Our standing orders are silent on the question of notice of motion required on his subject related to privilege, but I would refer Your Honour to a motion moved by the Hon. Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) on November 5 relating to privilege, and also to page 359 of May, where he states that motions arising out of the matter of privilege are also moved

[ Page 228 ]

without notice.

I have a motion ready if Your Honour would declare it in order.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, first of all, since it is a rather complicated matter and takes considerable review, I would like to reserve my opinions on the question until I have had an ample opportunity to examine into all the facets of it. I will report back to the House on that question, and that means everything to this moment is without prejudice to the Hon. Member with regard to what steps, if any, he would want to take at that time, after I have looked at the question.

MR. GIBSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Oral questions.

PURCHASE OF CASA LOMA PROPERTY

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): To the Minister of Housing: can the Minister inform the House if the Department of Urban Affairs in Ottawa had indicated to him that it will withhold federal funds which will form the bulk of the financing of the purchase of the Casa Loma project until certain questions with respect to the purchase agreement and the zoning of this property have been answered?

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): I'll take that as notice.

HYDRO COST REALLOCATION
COMMITTEE

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources: has the Minister inquired into the source of the memorandum concerning the B.C. Hydro cost reallocation studies committee which he tabled in this House recently?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): I didn't quite appreciate the question. Could the Member repeat it?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Could the Minister, then, Mr. Speaker, authenticate that it is indeed a genuine document from the files of B.C. Hydro?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: The material that was given this House is the material that I received, and I have requested further information from the people who provided the material to me.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: A further supplementary, Mr. Speaker: as the Minister is a director of B.C. Hydro, and as it has been stated by Dr. Keenleyside that this, indeed, was not a secret document, may I ask the Minister whether as a director he has requested to see the original document, a copy of which only was tabled in this House?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I think that's a matter that I can report on more fully at a later date, Mr. Speaker.

PROFITS OF DAON DEVELOPMENTS

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Minister of Housing what profit was made by Daon Developments Ltd. with respect to their involvement in the acquisition of the Minnekhada estate on behalf of Dunhill?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I'll take that question as notice.

MR. WALLACE: Could I ask a supplementary? Is Daon Developments Ltd. Involved at the present time in other land acquisition on behalf of Dunhill?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Again I'll take that as notice.

HOUSING INFRACTIONS
IN MEADOWBROOK PROJECT

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Housing. In the Meadowbrook housing project in the district of Coquitlam, 15 per cent of the homes were incorrectly sited and many were in violation of the fire safety standards. What action was taken to ensure the safety of those families, women and children, living in those particular homes?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, those would be matters for North Road Housing and the authorities in the municipality of Coquitlam.

MR. PHILLIPS: It is the Minister's Dunhill Development that did purchase this. I'd like to ask a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is it true that windows were boarded up and carports moved in order to attempt to meet safety and building standards?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I believe that question is out of order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Why?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: In saying "is it true?" you

[ Page 229 ]

are asking a hypothetical question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, a further, final supplementary question. Will the Minister of Housing advise the House that site changes were not made in order to cut down on costs of the amount of excavating and backfilling on that Meadowbrook project?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, that question has as much relevance as if I were to ask him whether he has stopped Dan Campbell from preparing his speeches. It's the old....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. NICOLSON: ..."have you stopped beating your wife?" If we look at that question in its logical terms and replace the statements with a, b and c, we will see that he is trying to get me into a semantic cleft stick.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I'm talking about a very serious matter here that involves the livelihood of the women and children living in those houses. There were changes made in the original deal, and the Minister who is responsible for housing certainly has a duty and a responsibility to advise this House that the safety of those women and children living in that Meadowbrook project is being looked after and that fire standards are not being subjected....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think the Hon. Member must remember in asking a question that he has to take a position of a fact that he himself has accepted and that he is stating a fact. I presume that his purpose was not merely to do a sort of fishing expedition all over British Columbia.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I have the facts and I want the Minister to assure this House — and it is his duty and responsibility to assure this House and the Members of this Legislature — that the livelihood and the safety of the women and children living in that Meadowbrook project are being looked after and that fire safety standards have been adhered to.

I don't appreciate the smart-alecky comments from the Minister of Housing. He had a responsibility and a duty to this Legislature. If he can't fulfil those duties and those responsibilities, he should resign forthwith.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Order!

The Hon. Member has a point of order?

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, this is a question period. The disgraceful kind of display of ignorance of a proper question period in this House is making a mockery out of it. That group over there wouldn't permit a question period in the House when they were government, and now, suddenly, they disgrace this House by their disgraceful performance.

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I ask that Minister to withdraw that remark "disgraceful performance." I'm trying to look after the safety of women and children in this province and you're saying that's a disgrace.

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

MR. PHILLIPS: What kind of an attack is that on a Member who is trying to do his duty and look after women and children?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to the Hon. Members that it is not exactly a salubrious performance to start making speeches during question period?

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, I certainly will.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: I'll be glad to do that.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: But the trouble with insults on both sides is that it continues....

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: I would gladly ask those hon. gentlemen to apologize for any inference that was unparliamentary towards the Hon. Member.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: I hear apologies from Hon. Members who are not on their feet.

Interjection.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

[ Page 230 ]

MR. SPEAKER: On the same subject?

BUILDING INFRACTIONS IN
MEADOWBROOK PROJECT

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Housing. On the date that the Minister and myself and some other people visited the Meadowbrook subdivision, could the Minister advise the House whether or not it's true that either then or now there have been in the neighbourhood of 1,800 written orders, or an average of 10 per unit, issued to Dunhill by Coquitlam municipality detailing bylaw infractions for building and plumbing and are infractions which must be corrected under the terms of the land-use contract — 1,800 or 10 per unit, in that development in Coquitlam?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Premier, I'll take the....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! (Laughter.)

Interjections.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I would point out that the responsibilities are matters between North Road Housing and....

AN HON. MEMBER: Dunhill.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: ...Coquitlam. However, I will take the question as notice and try and get the information.

GUARANTEE OF
MEADOWBROOK WARRANTY

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, just one quick supplementary, then, in the light of that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, it's an important question. I'm glad that he referred to the Premier (Hon. Mr. Barrett) because it's his constituency and he should be the person who's asking these questions. It's in your constituency, Mr. Premier.

This is a problem for Dunhill Development, not for North Road or for anyone else but a problem for the Government of British Columbia. Because there is a one-year warranty on those homes in Meadowbrook, and we've seen that there are many building infractions already, what guarantee is the government prepared to give to the people who are living in that subdivision right now that will ensure that major construction defects which may be discovered at the end of that one-year warranty will be corrected by Dunhill Development or the Government of British Columbia?

MR. SPEAKER: I think you have to proceed on the first question and have that answered. Whenever that's answered, then that one would be applicable.

FINANCIAL RECORDS AND
DISPERSION OF DRUGS

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Minister of Human Resources whether or not, in the drug distribution programmes — the Methadone programmes sponsored by the provincial government — strict financial records are kept and whether strict records are kept as to the dispersion of these drugs.

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Human Resources): Mr. Speaker, could I take that question as notice? It's something that I'm not familiar with on a day-to-day basis.

HOUSING OF DELINQUENTS
IN EMPRESS HOTEL

HON. MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, while I'm on my feet, can I answer a question that was asked yesterday by the Hon. Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland), who asked one of the more penetrating questions yesterday? I presumed it was based on some fact which he didn't put before the House.

I checked the vouchers in relation to the $52,000 paid out by the government — not by my department but by the government — to the Empress. The total amount of money paid by my department to the Empress Hotel was $1,323 on eight vouchers. We have found no information on those vouchers relating to the alleged delinquent or delinquents whom you suggested were staying there.

I would also point out to you that the proper way of dealing with this is to raise it at the public accounts committee.

Interjections.

MR. McCLELLAND: ...bring up any subject. ...that is what question period is for. What we need in this House is an answer period.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

INVESTIGATION INTO
CASA LOMA LANDS

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker, a question to the Hon. Attorney-General: has the Attorney-General or his

[ Page 231 ]

department undertaken any investigation into the acquisition by Casa Loma Ltd. of the lands recently acquired by Dunhill or the provincial government?

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): The answer is no, I'd say generally that if anybody in respect to any transaction brings any kind of fair evidence of commercial fraud or anything of that kind — I'm not talking about this thing: I'm talking about anything — to my department, then I think the proper course for me would be to order an investigation by the commercial fraud section of RCMP. But I would want some evidence brought to the department that it was a criminal matter.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Would the Attorney-General undertake the same investigation if there was indication that the declared values given to the registrar of titles might be inaccurate and undervalued, therefore resulting in the underpayment of fees?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The answer is yes. I wouldn't jump to a conclusion in this or any other case. But if it smacks of something that is illegal in terms of depriving the Crown of proper revenues, it should be investigated.

MR. SPEAKER: I must say, with respect, that the question is out of order and the answer is out of order because it's asking for a legal interpretation. It's also hypothetical.

COMPLAINTS RE FILM;
COMPLAINTS RE MAHAL WEST
RESORTS LTD.

MR. WALLACE: Could the Attorney-General answer the question on the same subject that he took his notice from me the other day, relating to a similar subject?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Oak Bay asked me two questions: one related to a film that I don't intend to sell any more tickets for. (Laughter.) There were no complaints either to the director of film classifications or to my department with respect to that. The other related to Mahal West Resorts Ltd. Again, I have no complaints. I also checked — although you could ask the question directly of the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Ms. Young) — with her department informally, and I don't believe the Consumer Services branch has received complaints either.

Orders of the day.

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued debate)

MS. K. SANFORD (Comox): It's a pleasure to take my place in this debate on the throne speech. A very fine speech it was, Mr. Speaker. It highlighted the plans of the government for this coming session and it also outlined many of the accomplishments of this government during the last 2½ years. Even though it was one of the longest throne speeches on record, it didn't begin to cover the accomplishments of this government in the last 2½ years.

I would like to start today by speaking on behalf of 75 miners who have lost their jobs at Western Mines, near Campbell River, through the disturbing actions taken by that company. In December, the company — which, incidentally, is controlled by Grace of New York — sent a letter to its 300 employees stating that because of escalating costs, royalty payments and the new federal government tax laws, they would have to cut back on production and perhaps even close down because they anticipated an operating loss in 1975 of $775,000. The company then laid off 75 employees in January and announced that in March it would consider the mine's future, including the possibility of closing it down.

Now because Western Mines has a good ore body, the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) wrote to the company requesting that the company provide figures to the department which would show that they would lose $775,000 in 1975. Now, because Western Mines is not solely a producer of copper, the Minister was concerned about this prediction by the company. Certainly, the mines that are relying on their copper ore bodies are facing some problems, because the Japanese have requested that production be cut back by 15 per cent, and now, I understand, are considering the possibility of cutting back by 30 per cent. So they're faced with problems.

But at Western the situation is different. Western provided the figures requested by the Minister of Mines, and the Department of Mines went through those figures in great detail. It turns out that Western Mines is not going to lose $775,000 in 1975; but, according to their own figures, they would make a profit, operating at full production, of $1.2 million in 1975. There's nearly a $2 million difference in the two figures. The Minister then asked the company....

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: Class A park, he says. Look who permitted that company to operate within a class A park.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Why don't

[ Page 232 ]

you get them out?

MS. SANFORD: You know, that's interesting — he says, "why don't you get them out?" One minute he's yelling about employment in this province and jobs; the next minute he says to throw them out of the park where you people put them in the first place.

The Minister then asked the company, after they'd studied all these figures, to reconsider its decision to lay off those 75 men, but the company refused.

Following the department's release of those $1.2 million estimated profits for 1975, Western Mines' president indicated in the news media that he wanted to meet with the Minister in order to discuss the figures which the Department of Mines had come up with. But, Mr. Speaker, no request for a meeting has been made.

I have a clipping from one of the Campbell River papers, dated February 2, 1975, and it reads as follows:

"Directors of Western Mines Ltd. will meet March 3 in Vancouver to review the Myra Creek operation in Strathcona Park, it was reported today. According to a press report, Western Mines is reviewing calculations that led to a projected operating deficit in 1975, resulting in a layoff of 75 men.

" R.O. Hampton, secretary of the company, was quoted as saying that Western's calculations are being reviewed and the provincial government's suggestion is being considered. An appeal was made by Mines Minister Leo Nimsick to the company to reconsider the layoffs."

Now what kind of responsibility has that company shown? They made a big splash in the press about anticipated losses and they let off 75 men. That company has made healthy profits over the years. They received public funds to help them build the road into the mine, and they received public funds to help them get started. They are dumping tailings into beautiful Buttle Lake, which happens to be the source of the water supply for the municipality of Campbell River, and you are quite right: they are operating in a class A public park, thanks to the former Socred government.

Mr. Speaker, the actions of that company indicate to me that they are playing games. They are playing political games in an attempt to discredit this government and its mineral royalty legislation. They are hoping to get the public to put pressure on the government to repeal or amend that legislation, but they are showing a callousness to the employees, to the people of Campbell River and to the public of this province.

It is my hope that the company will re-evaluate its position, stop playing politics, and rehire the 75 men who have lost their jobs. If they don't, then I am hoping that perhaps those 75 unemployed miners may be able to obtain work in the new zinc mine that is opening up at the north end of the island in March of this year.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Is there a new mine opening in British Columbia?

MS. SANFORD: They apparently haven't heard of Bill 31.

AN HON. MEMBER: I didn't think they'd have a mine opening under this government.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That would ruin the opposition.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, the companies don't want to pay a royalty. They would much prefer to have a government in power that says: "Help yourself; it's free." Just like that group did over there all the time they were in office.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ripoff artists.

MS. SANFORD: A royalty: what is a royalty? It is simply a payment for the material the company uses; it's a normal business expense. Every company must pay for the material it uses. Do you know that the mining companies in B.C. earned a profit of $231 million in 1973? And presumably, in spite of the drop in the price of copper, they will earn healthy profits again in 1974. For the privilege of earning those profits, in 1974 they will pay to the people of the province only $13 million in royalties for that kind of privilege to earn profits in this province. Now a legitimate business expense, which is what a royalty is — payment for the material they are using — should be tax deductible. But once this government started talking about putting in a royalty, the feds decided that that royalty should not be tax deductible. Now that is very interesting — coming from the Liberals.

The mining companies of this country have paid virtually no income tax over the years. They have enjoyed a long series of tax write-offs, tax holidays and tax exemptions.

The leader of the Liberals in his speech the other day called on this government to repeat Bill 31 and replace it with a profits tax. What have the federal Liberals been doing all these years? Western Mines in 1973 made $5,533,926 in profits and paid not one cent in income taxes that year — and they're talking about a profit tax.

The total mining profits in Canada during the fourth quarter of 1974 declined by 13.6 per cent. Do you know that during the fourth quarter of 1974 they made in this country only $431 million in

[ Page 233 ]

profits? That's all. Do you also know that that's up 219 per cent over the period of two years earlier? And they're talking about a profits tax.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Let's hear it for the poor little mining companies.

MS. SANFORD: Now, Mr. Speaker, having heard this from the Liberals over there, I find an article in the Vancouver Sun, dated February 19, 1975, which reports on the new income tax bill which is being debated in the House of Commons.

I'd like to quote from this. I'm starting here in the middle of a sentence, so I would like that to go on record as well, but this is the quote. If I want to read the whole thing, then I would have to leave you hanging in the air as' far as this particular sentence is concerned. The point that I want to make, based on this article, is that the federal Liberals are again playing games as far as taxes are concerned.

"...the commons approved a controversial section restoring the former 100 per cent tax write-off for exploration expenses incurred by mining and oil companies." That's what they're saying back in Ottawa.

"It was cut to 30 per cent last year under pressure from the New Democratic Party, then holding the effective balance of power in a minority parliament. Turner announced in November, after a majority Liberal win in the July 8 election, that the write-off would be restored."

AN HON. MEMBER: A payoff, a political payoff.

MS. SANFORD: And they're talking here about a profits tax — remove our Bill 31, they say, and put on a profits tax. That's a joke, Mr. Speaker.

A royalty, which is a payment to the people of this province for the ore, is little enough to ask of the mining companies.

The Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) is quite right when he says that the days of resource giveaways in this province are over.

Mr. Speaker, the throne speech also makes reference to the new Sewerage Facilities Assistance Act which was introduced by this government.

The government's attempt to assist municipalities to upgrade their sewage disposal system is commendable, and it shows it's aware and concerned of the sewage disposal problem. Under the new sewerage facilities assistance legislation, municipalities have been — paid $5.5 million whereas, under the old Socred sewerage facilities assistance, only $205,000 was paid out to the municipalities of the province in the last year. In my riding, this has meant for the Town of Comox a grant of $7,429; to the Village of Sayward, $5,461; to the City of Courtenay, $7,727; and to the Village of Cumberland, $28,120.

Domestic sewage disposal, with the advent of the flush toilet, has mostly taken the form of emissions into watercourses. I am somewhat concerned about this, Mr. Speaker, because not only have we missed the boat on re-use; we've also contaminated waterways with inadequately treated waste. It's false economy, compounded by intergovernmental buck-passing on this issue, that has too long delayed rational solutions to this problem. Many communities are now in various stages of upgrading sewage treatment to a secondary level, but many are still dumping raw sewage into the waterways — Comox for one.

Where extensive work has already been undertaken towards secondary treatment systems, municipalities should continue to be encouraged in that direction, in my view. But where no work has been undertaken to put in any kind of sewage-treatment system, it's incumbent on this government; in my view, to encourage alternate approaches to this problem.

Just north of Courtenay, near Bates Beach, a developer has made application to the Pollution Control Board to dump a maximum of 80,000 gallons of effluent a day into the Strait, which is the effluent from a subdivision of about 200 homes. The treatment applied for is secondary, but the public in the Courtenay area at this time do not accept that, even with this kind of treatment, no harm will occur to Georgia Strait as a result.

Now it is apparent that Georgia Strait is a body of water that requires tender, loving care. Professor George Picard, UBC's director of the Institute of Oceanography, has made the point that 70 per cent of our population lives on the periphery of the strait, and that that population will double in 25 years, at present rates. In addition to the importance of this waterway as the source of the movement of extracted materials, natural products, trace commodities, and that kind of thing, it is a vital habitat for numerous fish species. The rapidly increasing recreational use of the strait must also be noted. The concern of the fishing camps in the Bates Beach area is certainly indicative of this, Now adding urgency to the problem is another matter mentioned by Professor Picard, The sea has a much faster rate of environmental change than the land, and there is also the fact that the strait's waters are similar to an inland sea or a lake, in that the interchange of water, or the flushing out action, is low. This means that in our relative ignorance, new developments in the area could tip the ecological balance the wrong way. While Professor Picard zeroes in on bigger projects like dams and superports and airports, I would suggest that the total effect of a multitude of residential discharges could be at least as dangerous to the strait.

The cost of correcting mistakes is usually greater

[ Page 234 ]

than starting out in the proper way, and provincial funding should be used to encourage innovations in treatment and disposal, rather than the course that we have followed where we simply dump into waterways, even when the sewage has been treated.

But until there are better and more economical ways of dealing with domestic sewage so that it can be utilized for fertilizer, or even for a protein food, as developed by Dr. Coulthardt, as reported in the press just last week, we should insist, I think, on continuing, along the east coast of Vancouver Island from these small subdivisions and their applications, the utilization of septic tanks, which have been used all along and have worked with success in that area, rather than permit at this time a discharge of even treated sewage into Georgia Strait.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: Very expensive for these developers.

I learned when I was in Ceylon last year that among the many problems facing that little country was a serious shortage of fertilizer. We in B.C. can, through research, develop inexpensive ways in which waste can be used to make the land more fertile, ways which could then be copied by countries such as Ceylon, now call Sri Lanka. A concentrated effort in this direction would also enable us in B.C. to bring more land into production.

Mr. Speaker, this government has undertaken an excellent programme of planning in all sorts of fields, and has attempted to reverse much of the damage to the environment that has been allowed to take place over the years.

I would like to cite, from within my own riding, the Tsitika-Schoen study which is now complete, and on which public hearings are going to be held next week: the expanded tree planting programme which will ensure that that resource is renewed; also the cleanup that is taking place finally at the Port Alice pulp mills where Rayonier is now spending over $40 million to prevent further damage to Neroutsos Inlet.

I would also like to point to the studies that are underway right now which will result in the restoration of the Campbell River estuary at Campbell River. One of the papers in the Campbell River area carried a large, front-page article just last week concerning itself with the work that is being undertaken to ensure that the damage to the Campbell River estuary is reversed.

I'm asking that we do not allow new subdivisions to dump into the strait, but that we concentrate our efforts at this time on giving developers an economically viable alternative.

There are numerous alternatives that are available. I have a copy of a draft report which has been done by the pollution control branch in which the alternate methods for sewage disposal are discussed. I understand that the final draft on that will be completed in the not-too-distant future.

But many of the alternatives that are outlined in this particular book present problems to those of us who live along the coast, because of the wet climate. But it seems to me that these are problems which can be overcome with research. I would like to call upon this government — in particular the Department of Municipal Affairs, as the department which is in charge of the sewerage facilities legislation, Recreation and Conservation, because of its interest in fish and wildlife, and on Lands, Forests and Water Resources as the department responsible for pollution control — to get together and come up with suggestions to change the present approach to the domestic sewage problem.

Better still, create a separate department of the environment, which could direct its attention to finding solutions to these problems.

Mr. Speaker, there are many, many other issues that I would like to deal with in this throne speech debate, but because there are a lot of people who are waiting to speak I will take my seat at this time and take up further issues at a later time.

Thank you very much.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): I enjoyed very much the Hon. Member for Comox's presentation, sort of today's socialist septic programme, but I did wonder at times, when she was busy praising the programmes of the government, if it wasn't a little bit like a new road show — Charlie McCarthy or Charlotte McCarthy, the dancing dolly of Davie's — a bit of a rollicking road show that could be titled "The Miner's Delight, " because I'm sure many of the working and mining people in this province — and I speak of the workers — would not be overly heartened by that Member's comments which, by now, are not any secret. But still it is very disturbing to those who cannot find jobs, whose small businesses are declining, if not going out of operation, because of such comments that there is certainly no change in attitude on the part of government.

I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, that it is a pleasure to take my place in this throne speech debate, representing the people of the North Okanagan as a member of a living, breathing, growing and vital party and movement in British Columbia, one of a massive group of people who are uniting in their common thought through Social Credit, and in their dedication to this Province of British Columbia, to our lives, to our children's lives, to the people of British Columbia, and to its future.

I'd also just like to join the other sentiments offered in regard to our lost and dear friend, Ned DeBeck. Each of us has our own memories; each of us has our respect for him in his provincial capacity. But

[ Page 235 ]

I would like to say I for one miss his beautiful white head, his quill and the many happy hours that we had over tea. I shall cherish through my lifetime the apricot wood gavel that he made for our family. I know that the council of women in Vernon will cherish long beyond our lifetimes the applewood gavel that he made and presented to them.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that throughout this debate and our Social Credit amendment to the throne speech, this party has spoken systematically, Member by Member, on the major subjects that are of serious concern to the people of British Columbia today.

Unemployment — the highest in Canada and still growing. We have spoken about the concern for the frivolous attitude of this government towards the use of taxpayers' hard-earned dollars and the mismanagement of the overall economy of the province. We have expressed the concern about the effect that this is having on people and the effect that is resulting from the government's ideological blindness, to their erratic actions and instant legislation, and the effect that this is having on people in this province, whether they are pensioners, workers, students. People are hurting in this province, Mr. Speaker; people are hurting in this province.

We have tried to express the concern of the government's preoccupation with glorifying itself, as we just heard in the former Member's speech, and leading the people, the local administrations and the businesses of this province, into a decisionless jungle of centralized control, red tape and high cost of living, with its frustrations and insecurities. And we have backed these with points, facts and examples.

We have from time to time congratulated the government on any programmes they have brought in that we feel are in the people's interests and are working well. We have presented positive alternatives to the government's floundering programmes and to respond to the people's needs.

I would bring to your attention our programme for immediate, direct government action to reduce unemployment by creating jobs, particularly in the interior, where the unemployment rate is in excess of 10 per cent; a plan to have revenue sharing for all levels of government, which will take the. burden of property tax once and for all in financial local governments; legislation to increase Mincome benefits to at least $260 per month, with changes to ensure that Mincome is inflation-proof by building in a cost-of-living escalator clause, something that all organized labour is campaigning for and getting and has had for the last two years; a new programme for urban transit to improve service in the province, lighten the cost burden on local governments and permit provincial government assistance for capital expenditures to develop mass transit.

We propose a British Columbia housing corporation, a commitment from this party to provide housing and mortgage subsidies so that every British Columbian will be able to afford a home and have the opportunity to buy that home and own that home if they so wish.

For my part in this particular debate, I would like to stress a very serious problem in the area of housing. It was not in the throne speech debate and thus it implies that the government chooses to ignore this problem. At the end, Mr. Speaker, I will call for the adoption of a home buyer's warranty Act, which will help protect both the home buyer in British Columbia and the reputable and responsible home builders.

In British Columbia today we have to face the fact that we have land prices which are sky high; there is an acute housing shortage, inflation is running rampant — and this, within itself, is a problem which also puts an extra cost-price squeeze on houses. To these facts is also the pressure of time. These are all factors which can affect workmanship in house construction if not carefully supervised and most certainly can affect the quality of a home that a person buys. These factors can affect the value of the home over a long period of time and they can affect the security and enjoyment of the individual or family that purchases that home, whether it's an individual house bought on a pre-constructed basis, whether it is a home a person wishes to build himself, whether it is a condominium or whether it is an apartment.

We can all agree that a reputable independent builder, large or small, or a reputable construction company, isn't likely to yield to these pressures, although we must admit that even unintentionally they may from time to time be caught up in the maze, resulting in faulty workmanship or incomplete finishing, perhaps bad planning, Mr. Speaker, faulty concrete mixtures — any number of things that can go wrong in house construction and from which the home buyer needs some protection.

A home buyer needs a responsible and reasonable guarantee that his major purchase, a home, not only looks good, but tastes good — in other words, that the quality that he pays for and is led to believe is in the house in in fact there, that any commitment by any builder, whether it's from any aspect of landscaping, finishing, light plugs or baseboards is completed and completed within a specified period of time, that water systems function and that there's enough water to serve those systems, that septic tanks work for more than just a few months and that drainage systems work, that advertising of homes for sale is factual, and that the commitments that the home buyer is told in the ad are there, are in fact met in the home and its landscaping.

I regret to say, Mr. Speaker, that to my knowledge, after considerable research, there are no

[ Page 236 ]

figures available to indicate just how many home buyers have legitimate complaints in British Columbia today, or how many people have had to seek legal help to back their complaints, or how many times CMHC (Central Mortgage and Housing) has been called on for help by a home buyer to get those commitments that were made to them and that they paid for.

But off the record, Mr. Speaker, these people will tell you that these problems are increasing in the current housing climate. Many lawyers have told me that their workload in this area is increasing and I'm sure most MLAs will join with me, regardless of party, in saying and recognizing that the complaints from their constituencies and from around the province in this area are increasing. Many home builders and construction companies will tell you that this is a growing problem in British Columbia and they are very concerned. Certainly, Mr. Speaker, from the evidence that is coming out in this House in relation to the government's own corporations such as Dunhill, Meadowbrook or Casa Loma, there is a need.

All these facts add up to the point that with the current climate in British Columbia, we in this province are in danger of becoming a happy hunting ground for fly-by-night house builders. If the builder faults intentionally or unintentionally, Mr. Speaker, other than through the honour of the builder, the home buyer really has no recourse. If it's faulty wiring, a leaky carport, or whatever it may be, his option is to call the builder, who may respond immediately, or, as I mentioned, may not respond at all, or not for months. There is frequently difficulty in coming to an agreement as to which trade is responsible for the fault, or he can go to the courts, which is a position that most people don't wish to take. It's costly, time consuming, and sometimes the cost involved, including time off from work, frequently exceeds the cost of the repairs.

Then there's the other point, Mr. Speaker, through the courts — how can you get blood from a stone if the company has declared bankruptcy? I don't wish to be unduly hard on CMHC, but they do little better, and we have incidents in British Columbia where a builder has not met his commitments to the house buyer, and yet is building other houses with CMHC financing. Frequently in the end the buyer ends up, if not with a nervous breakdown, certainly disgusted and in the position that they either must do the work themselves or pay again to have it done.

I do want to make clear that I feel that there are many reputable, honest and responsible contractors and builders in this province — probably the vast majority — but the happy hunting climate is here and the complaints appear to be growing. The fact that these figures are not available, to my knowledge, after a good deal of research — and I'd appreciate it if anyone can find them — is in itself an indication that we need a system whereby this type of transaction and problem can be followed in detail.

Mr. Speaker, you can get a warranty for pretty well everything today, from an iron to a chuck wagon. Why should you not be able to have a home warranty? The home is the biggest investment that probably any family will ever make.

Our party, Mr. Speaker, is committed to such a programme. It would be on a cooperative basis. It would be started with an initial fund and then be self-sustaining. There would be representation on the governing board from consumers, from the trade and from government.

We feel it should be optional as to whether the buyer or the homebuilder wishes to take part in this programme, but also it should be made quite obvious to the homebuyer what would be the advantages and the disadvantages of buying or building a home with a contractor or builder who is a member of this programme, or who is not a member.

Mr. Speaker, our programme will be designed to see that the rights of the homebuyer and the reputation of the responsible builder are maintained.

Mr. Speaker, after being constantly treated throughout this debate to a barrage of "love us, trust us" messages from this government and the fact that the government Members' contribution to this debate has been 99 per cent self-praise — one wonders if the new theme song of the NDP isn't "I love me because of sentimental reasons" — another matter I would like to speak about is the point that anyone who dares criticize this government is considered by the Premier as not to be concerned, only, to quote his words, used over and over again, to be "playing cheap political politics." He applies this whether he's referring to the press, the opposition, Mr. Bremer, Mr. Knight — the well-known list is endless.

But what of the not-so-well known? It became evident in the debate, initially, from one of the Members of the opposition, the Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) and from the response to that debate from the Hon. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall), that many things were being done on the QT in this government. I refer specifically to the negotiations between the public services union and the civil service.

We were told, and I won't repeat the details because they came up today, that it was absolutely essential that secrecy be maintained. Not only were we told this, those who are affected by these negotiations have been told this. Then it's become evident that this secrecy has not been maintained, that other people, far less interested, have this information. Yet the government says and brags during this session that they are a fair government, that they set an excellent example and that they bring benefit to people.

[ Page 237 ]

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to tell you about an incident in the area that I represent, involved in this situation, where the people were told to keep quiet. It's in the Highways department of the North Okanagan. I am advised that there are at least six permanent employees who have anywhere from six to 23 years service with good work records, who have been reclassified by this government from various positions of motor-operating, which they won through merit, and they have the papers to prove it, down to labour positions. They were told at that time that this was only a numerical action, and certainly wouldn't affect them in any way, that they shouldn't be concerned and they shouldn't mention it. They trusted, Mr. Speaker. In November they found out the numbers game that was being played, and they found out that they were the losers because these men each lost up to $50 a month from their pay cheques in November, December and January.

This reclassification, and its lower pay rate, not only affects their direct take-home pay but their position plan, which will now be lower. UIC, should they have to use it, will now be lower. Holiday pay will now be lower, and workers' compensation will now be lower. What makes them even more angry is that in the majority of the time they are still doing the jobs they were doing before — operating motor vehicles. To add insult to injury, while they do indeed get the hourly rate for doing the motor operators' job, when they do it, they have been advised that if they are injured while doing the motor operators' job and while getting the hourly rate for it, they will, if they have to collect compensation, not be paid on that base. They will be paid on the basis of their classification as labourers.

Mr. Speaker, these people not only have this problem; we must remember they haven't even had a pay raise for two years. They were told to keep quiet. What kind of justice is this from the NDP? What kind of fair play is this that these Members talk about? What kind of respect for the individual is this that's being peddled in this House?

I wonder how many more civil servants there are in the Province of British Columbia who find themselves in the same situation and have been told to keep quiet — don't rock the boat. If there are, and they hear of this, I urge others in the same position to write to this House and let them know.

I was asked not to use the names of these people, and it's an honour that I respect. But for debate they know it was necessary for me to identify the department. They've asked me not to use the names, Mr. Speaker, because they, among some others in the civil service, are fearful for their jobs. In revealing this department and this problem, I would warn this government that if any pressure is put on these men, if they receive any, needling or suffer further unfair treatment, the public will hear about this, this Legislature will hear about this, and this government will answer.

In the meantime, I would insist that Ministers of this Crown see that these men are reinstated to their proper positions, that they receive their lost pay to date with interest as well as benefits, and that they have the same opportunity in government service as any other.

The subject of education has been discussed at considerable length, and our policy has been spoken on quite fully by two of our Members. I was quite surprised that education had more or less been swept under the carpet in the throne speech debate or had received short shrift from the government side of the House, and that this could happen especially at a time when the teachers and the parents of British Columbia are deeply concerned about the aura of frustration and disorganization in provincial education.

On a number of occasions, in travelling around the province in the last few months, I have had certain teachers say to me that they felt their efforts in school were getting to be almost an interruption in the students' day and that many students are acting as if responsibility on their part is a rare disease to be avoided at all cost in the classrooms. Such attitudes are certainly helping to render many classroom learning situations down to the lowest common denominator and, I believe, frustrating serious students and teachers alike.

You can set up all the commissions, boards and inquiries that you wish, but until there are decisions based on sound reason and thinking, and until we return dignity and responsibility and authority to the classrooms, much of the other effort will be just educational flag-waving in the dark.

It's in relation to decisions that are needed that I want to speak on a local matter of the constituency in the valley in which I have the honour to represent an area and live, and that is Okanagan college, with particular reference to the Vernon campus.

Briefly, this college was to be an avenue of educational vehicles, responsible to the largest degree to the interests of the various communities in our area. Upon taking office, the Minister made clear that while she felt there should be a core facility in Kelowna, she would recognize the need for decentralized college facilities for the college in the Okanagan, and that she would honour a request from the Okanagan college council for facilities for the Vernon unit.

However, the department wished to investigate the workability of a special community-integrated concept, utilizing existing facilities in the community of Vernon, such as the recreation complex, the Powerhouse Theatre, local schools, church halls and the library.

I, as MLA, the Vernon college faculty, the

[ Page 238 ]

students, the schoolboard and all others interested agreed to turn all energies to looking into the feasibility of such a model concept — and all did. But it was soon found that such a community-integrated programme in this area was impossible because all facilities were being used to near capacity at the time, This is fair enough. Everybody was willing to look into it. It was a new idea, it had been considered, and it had been found unworkable. The Minister's wishes had been respected. But we were, in fact, back where we had started two years before.

So attention was turned to the original concept, and the establishment of a home for the Vernon campus. The council then requested the use of the Harvey property, owned by the government and bought by the former administration for educational purposes for the future. This was last fall, Mr. Speaker, and I would advise you that the title to that land is housed in the Public Works department; there are letters on record. The Department of Education knows why the land was bought, what its capabilities are, and that its services enter right to its property line. All we needed was the Minister's approval and the transfer of that title to the regional college council.

Where do we stand today? Did the Minister get on with the job and make a decision? I'd advise you that the Vernon campus is not envisioned as a monument to architects or an edifice to education.

They want a workable, functional unit, but today, Mr. Speaker, two and a half years later, council members have been given to understand that the main campus in Kelowna is to have four-part core building programme, the first stage to be a gymnasium and a resource centre, then classrooms and workshops at a rumoured price which may well reach between $15 million and $20 million, while still no word of the Vernon campus.

The council generally feels, Mr. Speaker, and, I think, so do the citizens, that the core-concept building in Kelowna is important and should proceed. But how, they ask, can the Minister justify the inclusion of a recreational gymnasium at this time when there isn't even a physical educational programme in the college, when other areas are doing without their basic facilities? The council feels that this decision has not been in keeping with what they felt the government's attitude of decentralized college facilities for the Okanagan should be.

Of course, Mr. Speaker, if there is not a limit on the amount of money that the government is willing to spend on the Okanagan College, then, of course, there is no problem, and I'd be pleased to sit down. However, reason suggests that there is. The Education Minister's own statement suggests that there is, and the Minister of Finance's (Hon. Mr. Barrett's) statement suggests that there is a limit. I suggest myself that there is indeed a limit to the amount of money at this time that can be spent on the Okanagan Regional College, as in other colleges of the province — it has to be spread fairly and equally.

If this is the case, then it is the responsibility of the Minister of Education and the council to set priorities in the best interests of the students and faculty. Not many people would suggest that gymnasiums are not a valuable part of college life. But surely the first priority in a situation such as this is to see that each area has its basic educational needs met first — in this instance, new buildings for the Vernon campus.

I just advise you, Mr. Speaker, that the students of the Vernon campus and the faculty have been giants in education, if not saints, for in spite of the most primitive of housing, minimal equipment, barest comfort for students, hardly little more than chairs, books, roofs and spirit, they have performed wonders. And what spirit, Mr. Speaker! Talk about the spirit of education and the spirit of teaching and student enthusiasm and responsibility, for in spite of this unique physical plant, under the able guidance of Dean Hall and his faculty, the students have constantly led in academic honours and overall scholastic achievement throughout the Okanagan.

Mr. Speaker, the new orders of limited debate don't permit me to point out the innovative programmes that have emanated from the dedicated faculty of this college and the citizens who have utilized the opportunities there. However, I would repeat that the accomplishments of the people in skeleton physical plants — the faculty and the students — make them giants in the educational world. They've been willing to put up with the barest facilities in the beginning, during the community-integration study, believing that the decentralized concept would prevail. But the time has come when the Minister must account for her decisions, and must tell us whether or not she is going to put a gymnasium in a regional college where there is no gymnasium or recreational programme over the basic needs of an area campus.

I urge the government and the Minister of Education today, and certainly to reflect in the budget tomorrow, to make the Hardy property available now — it could be transferred, I am advised, within one week by a good lawyer — to either make all the necessary funds available or to set priorities that would ensure that participating areas, be it Salmon Arm, Vernon or anywhere else, have their basic educational needs and facilities before embarking on desirable but less necessary additions and renovations.

One of the first priorities is, and has been, the Vernon campus. These students and faculty not only deserve but must have this unit on the basis of performance — the site, the necessary buildings and the equipment. The Okanagan college needs these

[ Page 239 ]

facilities now so that they can start the September semester and can operate from their own home then, instead of their present summer camp position.

Mr. Speaker, these are but a few of the urgent matters that I wish to discuss in the House, but the time limit has been imposed. I would like to conclude by saying with regret that this government has proved in its past performance and during this debate that it's sinking into bits and pieces, being built up through a growing record of financial fiascos, fumbles and firings that will become a legend in this province. The tragedy is not only that they are pulling themselves down, but they are in danger of pulling down the people of British Columbia.

The throne speech shows no evidence of people's concerns, no evidence of a change in attitude on the part of the government, no evidence that they are aware of the real world of British Columbia out there — the real world in which people live and work and must meet their commitments. As such, Mr. Speaker, we must accept it as a policy statement found wanting and not worthy of support.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): I rise to take my place in this debate on the opening speech which was delivered in this House 10 days or so ago. It's called the opening speech, as you know, Mr. Speaker, rather than the throne speech, and I never have understood the reason for departing from the traditional practice until this year when the Hon. Premier of the province took his place in this debate during an amendment with which we were dealing. He chose to indicate, I think, what he believed were the important aspects of the opening remarks read by the Lieutenant-Governor. So I suppose it has come to the stage where we have an opening speech by the Lieutenant-Governor and that sometime during the debate we hear from the throne, which unfortunately is empty at the moment.

It is significant that when the Premier took his place in the debate it was on an amendment dealing with the tragic state of unemployment in this province. He took the time of the House in his usual way to chastise Members of the opposition, but he never once dealt with the issue which was before the House at the time; not once did he talk about the problems of unemployment in this province. Still he found it necessary, as I say, in his usual manner to attack the official opposition and some of the positions that they had taken, and to attack Members of the Liberal Party.

In doing so, he pointed with pride — pride for him — to losses which had been suffered by governments in other jurisdictions. He talked about the $11 million loss the federal government suffered as a result of an unfortunate purchase of a submarine which, the Premier said, leaked. He talked about a $55 million loss in respect of a hydrofoil programme which the federal government had embarked upon.

Then he talked about the federal government's $100 million loss with regard to the heavy-water plant at Glace Bay, Nova Scotia. However, the Premier neglected to tell the House that the heavy-water plant at Glace Bay, Nova Scotia, started in 1963 as a joint venture between a private company in Canada and the Government of Nova Scotia, in 1966 was taken over 100 per cent by the Government of Nova Scotia, and from there on suffered catastrophe after catastrophe until finally it was rescued by the federal government and by the taxpayers of Canada.

It is also noteworthy that the Premier, in criticizing losses and financial errors on the part of other governments, didn't see fit to refer to some of the problems which are really closer to home. That figure of $ 100 million with regard to the heavy-water plant sort of brings to mind that there's another $ 100 million figure floating around this province.

MR. R.T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver–Little Mountain): Where's the loss? People got it!

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: That's right. I'm talking to you about the $100 million which the B.C. government has overspent on welfare programmes. That's a loss — a loss by the Department of Finance. He lost $100 million and he tried to explain it away as being a "clerical error." Some loss! And then he eventually, after he finally got talking to the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) as to what the situation was, found that really the clerical error only amounted to $11 million, and the balance somehow or other was just overspending on the part of this government.

At the same time, when the Premier was questioned by the press on this particular subject, he indicated that all of the government departments were overspending. Overspending is a loss to the people of British Columbia, Mr. Speaker.

I think what this clearly indicates is that there is serious danger on the part of governments when they criticize the financial misfortunes of other governments, particular governments such as this one which are involved in so many ventures outside the proper role of government.

We haven't heard from the government with respect to what's happening at Ocean Falls. What's the loss at Ocean Falls?

We haven't heard from the government — but we are waiting in anticipation — as to what is the loss with the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia. There was speculation last year that the deficit would be in the neighbourhood of $150 million, and that's been denied.

But we also know that the number of accidents in this province is increasing. We also know that the cost

[ Page 240 ]

of each accident is increasing to such an extent that the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia and the government are involved in a monster campaign to improve safety on our highways. That's what the problem is — that the cost of all that is being borne by ICBC. It all comes home to roost with that insurance company which the people of British Columbia now own. Yet we are being treated this month (and I hope that by tomorrow everyone has their decals and new insurance certificates) to indications by the government that the rates for insurance are going down. It is as clear as the nose on your face that as the number of accidents rises and as the cost of each accident rises the cost must be met somehow. If you decrease the income to ICBC, then the shortfall is a deficit and will be made up in some other way. We were told last year that somehow or other, out of gasoline revenues, the deficit would be met. But we don't know how much.

We also are involved now in chicken-plucking plants, with Panco Poultry, or whatever they are called; sawmills; ranches; farms — every kind of venture is being embarked upon by this government. When we find that other governments get themselves into financial difficulty in the operations of ventures which are outside the normal role of government to such an extent that hundreds of millions of dollars have to be paid by the taxpayers to make up the losses, we wonder where we are going in the Province of British Columbia and when the Members of this assembly and the people of this province will have any accurate accounting of what is going on in the corporations and agencies which are being established by this government.

It is of particular concern to me, Mr. Speaker, in this matter that the government should take a very careful look at the extent to which it is involving itself in these ventures and make an accurate assessment of the potential for loss that we face by going into businesses which incorporate a risk which is beyond the ability of government to control. They should not be in these businesses in the first place, but if they are going to be in those businesses, then the people of this province, through the Members of this assembly, are entitled to have some proper control over the activities of those businesses.

We don't have that control at the moment. It is suggested by some that because Members of this Legislature, all of them in the cabinet at the moment, are holding positions on the boards of directors of some of these corporations of B.C., that is a sufficient measure of control. Mr. Speaker, it makes it worse, because we are placing on the boards of directors people who do not necessarily have the experience and the skill required in order to discharge the very large obligation that directors have in the functioning of these enterprises. We take people who are very successful politicians and put them on the board. That's the only criterion by which they are chosen — the fact that they happen to be good politicians. I will hasten to suggest that that may be the worst qualification that a person should have for running enterprises of the nature in which this government is involved.

There is another problem. That is whether or not, being politicians, they exercise influences over their fellow members on the boards of directors, and therefore on the management of these corporations, which are politically motivated rather than motivated in the best interests of the corporation or the agency and in a manner which will ensure that the venture will be carried out successfully. How are we sure that there is not that political interference?

ICBC, for example. Last year when we all got our notices in regard to the cost of our licences and insurance, we all got a full statement as to how our insurance rates were determined. We could sit down and calculate the class of our motor vehicle and what the cost would be, depending upon the class it fit. Not this year, though. This year we only got a notice telling us what our insurance charge was going to be — with one exception. They did point out how much of a reduction we would get by reason of the area of the province in which we happened to reside.

I happen to believe that the inclusion of that item in our insurance notices was a politically motivated decision. They weren't prepared to tell you why you were paying as much as you were for the insurance coverage you were getting, but they were quite pleased to tell you how much ICBC, the people's insurance company, was going to reduce your insurance costs by reason of the location in which you might reside — except in Victoria. In Victoria you got, by way of an area rebate, zip, zero.

Now, Mr. Speaker, why is that? Is that an actuarial calculation? Is that one based upon the experience of the insurance industry? No explanation at all. The question will always remain in m y mind and in the minds of others as to why such a decision wag made. As I said a few moments ago: rising accident rates, rising costs from each accident, lowering of premiums, and still reductions, depending on the area of the province in which you reside. Is that a political decision?

Let's take another corporation in which the government is involved, British Columbia Rail. We were told by the Premier in 1973 and again in 1974 that the pronouncements of the former government as to what profit was being earned by B.C. Rail was not true, that B.C. Rail was not operating at a profit. That's what he told us.

I can only assume, Mr. Speaker, that we're still not operating at a profit. I assume that because, apparently as a result of an unfortunate labour dispute carried on much too long, the Government of British Columbia has had to make a grant....

[ Page 241 ]

Pardon me — a loan-grant. That's right. I always thought that a grant was something you got and didn't have to give back, and a loan was something you got and had to give back. But this one apparently they got and somehow they have to give it back. But we're not sure if they do or not, so it's a loan-grant. This government had to place $15 million into the hands of B.C. Rail because of a strike in a government enterprise which the Premier had told us had never made a profit.

We have three Members of the cabinet sitting on the board of directors of B.C. Rail. We have the Premier, we have the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) and we have the Minister Without Portfolio (Hon. Mr. Nunweiler). Where is the Hon. Member for Fort George?

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): He's building his igloo.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: We haven't seen him, and I just trust that he's not ill.

At any rate, Mr. Speaker, that is the problem we have with B.C. Rail. It's a problem that we may have with ICBC. I would wonder in election year, Mr. Speaker, whether or not some further adjustments may not be made in insurance rates as a result of a political decision.

The point I wish to make in this respect is that government should not be in ventures of this nature.

But if government is going to involve itself in business enterprise then there are certain basic criteria which must be followed in the management and ' operation of those ventures. I suggest to you that these criteria are the following:

(1) The board of directors must not include any Member of this Legislative Assembly.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: In no other way can you remove a Crown agency from political influence unless you first meet that test.

(2) The boards of directors should be chosen from people who by reason of skill and experience can operate the particular enterprise in which the Crown agency is involved.

(3) In order to ensure that the Crown agencies function in accordance with the best interest of British Columbia and with proper fiscal control, there should be a special select committee established in this Legislature to sit continually and to make periodic inquiries into the policy decisions made by the boards of directors of the Crown corporations and agencies.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: To assist that committee in discharging a most difficult function, a department or a section of the Department of Finance should be made available to assist that committee in making the in-depth inquiries into the financial dealings of the Crown corporations.

To prove that this is essential, Mr. Speaker, I need only refer to the action which was taken by the Premier of this province when he first became Premier — namely to appoint a member of the Department of Finance to make an investigation into the financial operations of British Columbia. The Members of this assembly have had the opportunity of reading the report filed by Mr. Minty and tabled by the Premier in this House as to the problems that he discovered in the financial dealings and operations of B.C. Rail prior to August of 1972.

Mr. Speaker, we must be assured that those same problems are not today being encountered in B.C. Rail, in the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, in Panco Poultry, in Plateau Mills, in Ocean Falls, and in all of the Crown corporations and agencies in which this government has involved the people of British Columbia. Not only are the people entitled to have this accounting because they are their corporation, but also, Mr. Speaker, they are entitled to be satisfied that what they are being told has been subjected to proper test and that the information which is made available to them is not in any way politically motivated.

I think that we need only consider at this juncture very briefly a matter which is before this House and has been before this House for several days, concerning British Columbia Hydro, to exemplify the point I make. As a result of questions asked in this House, the Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) tabled certain documents. A question has been raised with respect to those documents, dealing not with the subject matter but with their authenticity. It has been suggested outside of this House and reported in the press that perhaps at least one page of the document has been manufactured. That places the Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources in a most difficult position: either the Minister has placed before this House documents which are not true and therefore has misled the House, or the Minister himself has been misled by people who are advisers to him in his department or in the Crown corporation. The Minister of the Crown has an obligation to clear the questions which have been raised in this respect, aside altogether from the other matters which are involved in the documents which have been tabled.

The Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) has called for an inquiry into the substance of the documents. I support that call for an inquiry, not only because we need to get to the bottom of the subject matter which those documents

[ Page 242 ]

raise but also the more serious problem of the suggestion of manufactured documents being presented to this House. No Minister of the Crown should be put in that position, and no Minister of the Crown should be under the double jeopardy that the Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources finds himself in at this time, by reason of the fact that he is a director of British Columbia Hydro.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier in his remarks dealt with another matter in which he was critical of the federal government. That was the federal government's involvement in the Syncrude project — the federal government's involvement along with the provinces of Alberta and Ontario.

In one respect I agree with the Hon. Premier. I believe that the federal Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) was too quick to answer the request, indeed the demand, of the private companies that some action be taken to provide some financial relief for them by January 31, 1975. I do not believe that the Government of Canada or of any of the provinces should have moved as rapidly as they did at that time to invest substantial sums of money in that enterprise. We do know that the Great Canadian Oil Sands operation has been functioning profitably without a lot of fuss and furor, but we also know that one of the private companies involved in the Syncrude project withdrew, causing the problem. We also know that another private petroleum company looked at the project and decided it didn't want in. And in those circumstances I think it was hasty, to say the least, on the part of the federal government and of Alberta and Ontario to move into that project.

It is one that may have lasting benefits, but also it may have lasting and serious disadvantages for the people of Canada and for those provinces which are currently involved in that project.

However, having said that, Mr. Speaker, let me say that I criticize the Premier of British Columbia for not taking a positive position with respect to Syncrude. Canada is facing a situation where the petroleum resource within our boundaries is finite. We're going to run out of petroleum, and British Columbia in particular is going to suffer as a consequence. Today we have within our own borders only 40 or 50 per cent of our crude oil requirements, and we, as a province, must look to our future. If we do not, we can scarcely depend on Canada and the other provinces of Canada to rescue us when the circumstances arise.

Rather than criticizing the Syncrude decision as the Premier of this province did, he should have joined with the federal government and with the other provinces in making certain that the people of Canada have the greatest possible share in the future of the Syncrude development.

We are talking about building a refinery and petrochemical industry some place in this lower mainland area or on this island. Where are we going to get the petroleum resource to feed that refinery and chemical complex, unless we make certain that we participate with our neighbours in the development of what must be the most significant petroleum resource available to us in Canada? We should have at least gone as far as Alberta in demanding an option to acquire an interest in the Syncrude project. Alberta put up its money for a share right now, and also received an option to increase its share of participation in that venture. Why weren't we there?

Interjection.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Oh, I'm glad you asked that question, Mr. Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot), because earlier in my remarks the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr. Cummings) said to me, "Where was the loss?", when we overspent $100 million on welfare. That's where the loss was — we ain't got the money to go into Syncrude. One hundred million dollars in Syncrude would have bought us at least 5 per cent of that development. That's where the loss is, Mr. Member, and that's what your government will never understand: you can't blow the money and then take advantage of other opportunities which are available to this province and we have to miss while other sections of Canada enjoy the advantages thereof. What a fiscal manager!

Mr. Speaker, if we don't take advantage of opportunities such as this, then the problems we will have to look after the senior citizens, the pensioners and the citizens of this province in the future will be multiplied a hundredfold over what they are today. And this is the problem of this government. You don't look ahead. You think you live for today.

AN HON. MEMBER: Saturday night rich, Monday morning poor.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: That's right. Saturday night rich, Monday morning poor.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I have a few more moments I believe, of my time, and I wish to deal with another but similar subject. It deals with the credibility of politicians and with our own natural resources.

We were treated, a few weeks ago, to the delightful opportunity of watching the Premier perform with our federal government on a matter of very critical importance to this province, to western Canada, and to Canada as a whole. I would even go so far as to suggest that it was a matter which is of significant importance to Confederation.

The Premier announced that he had a new plan with regard to natural gas. He was going to increase the price of natural gas to our American friends, and with the moneys that he was going to gain he was

[ Page 243 ]

going to ensure that exploration and development in this province started up again — it had stopped because of his action and that of others.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who were the others?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: The federal government. Oh, they'll get their share, Mr. Member. As a result of all these machinations of the Premier, Ottawa was going to get $60 million, the municipalities in British Columbia were going to benefit to the extent of $60 million, the Province of British Columbia was going to benefit $60 million.

So he had a press conference and he let everybody in British Columbia into this big scheme. Then he took off in his airplane and flew over the mountains to the east. Then the press reports were full of things that went on. Then he came back across the mountains again from the east and he claimed victory. Victory!

His office put out the Premier's news release: "Natural Gas Tax Agreement Major Step Forward for B.C." This is in the British Columbia government news release, issued by the Premier's office, dated, January 22, and paid for by all the taxpayers in this province. It says: " 'This is a major victory for British Columbia,' Premier Barrett said, announcing the agreement Monday, January 20."

Well, we were all delighted; our Premier was victorious.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Some victory.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Then, after January 20, we began to get the reports from the other side of the mountains. What did we find? Well, we found that our American friends to the south were increasingly unhappy with British Columbia and with Canada. Therefore, the Premier struck another blow for disunity within North America. Well, I guess that was victorious if you want to look at it that way. Damaged our lumber market. Damaged our relationship with our nearest neighbour...

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Poppycock!

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: ...a country which is probably the largest purchaser of our produce, a country with which we have the closest economic and social ties.

Interjection.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: That's right. In fact, they were demanding that they send Henry Kissinger here. So we could have had Henry Kissinger going from Israel, to Saudi Arabia, to Egypt, to British Columbia. B.C. really rates, that's right. That was one thing that he accomplished.

The second thing — he came back and we found that he did not get any increase in the price of gas from the federal government. No increase; the price is still the same. Mind you, we had a situation where the agreements were all ready. He just had to dot a few i's and cross a few t's — that's what the Premier said. But anyway, he didn't come back with any increased price for natural gas. Some victory! We also found when he came back that the $180 million which was going to be divided $60 million to Ottawa, $60 million to the municipalities and $60 million to British Columbia had suddenly evaporated. That was all gone.

The one thing that we did find though was that the Government of Canada, as a result of representations by the Hon. Premier, wasn't going to tax the oil companies as they had threatened to do. However, it was going to tax British Columbia Petroleum Corp., a Crown agency created by this government. We found for the first time in Canada this unique situation: the Government of British Columbia was going to pay the Government of Canada in order to exploit and sell our own natural gas. Some victory. That is the only positive thing that came out of the meetings.

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): Rubbish!

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: The Government of British Columbia was going to pay money to Ottawa, willingly.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that the Premier's visit to Ottawa and return was a victory which compares only with Napoleon's visit to Moscow. (Laughter.) I think Napoleon got off better; he only lost his artillery and his cavalry and the imperial guard. But I think that as a result of what the Hon. Premier did in his visit to Ottawa, we've lost all that plus the Crown jewels too. (Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that if the Premier of this province was really, sincerely interested in the welfare of this province and of western Canada, he would have gone to Ottawa with the following position:

(1)We will provide to our American customers, within the ability that we have, so much gas as we are able under the contracts that exist today. At the same time, we will advise our American customers that we now recognize that the volume of gas is finite and, therefore they will need to seek other sources of energy.

(2) He should have said to the federal government: "We propose to increase the price of gas to its proper market value to our American customers and to the

[ Page 244 ]

people of British Columbia as well."

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Let the oil companies rip them off as they have done before.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: If that Hon. Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley) would listen and keep his mouth shut, he might be able to learn what is going on in this province. He might learn.

The price of gas must be increased not only to our American customers but to British Columbia as well. We must terminate the situation in British Columbia where we believe that we can use a finite energy resource without paying the price. We must start to practise conservation and we must pay for what we use in this province. It has a value, an increasing value, and we in this province must face up to it, along with everybody else in this nation and in this hemisphere.

The third thing the Premier should have done was to have gone to the producing companies whose money and whose experience developed the natural gas fields in British Columbia and said to them: "We are currently paying you 22 cents for old gas and 32 cents for new gas. I am prepared, as the Premier of this province, to sit down with you and negotiate any fair and proper increase there should be in that price."

MR. C. LIDEN (Delta): Giveaway Liberal policies.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Not one more cent. That's not a giveaway policy. That's only treating fairly the people who do the work in this province. This government has that responsibility.

AN HON. MEMBER: They never treat their workers fairly.

Interjections.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, it is so obvious to the people of this province that this government has got itself so fouled up with its philosophical approach — that it can only speak and think in slogans.

The fact of the matter is that the last and most important thing the Premier should have said to Ottawa was: "Having negotiated a fair price with the companies who are producing the gas, Ottawa, you must not establish any arbitrary fair value for the purposes of taxation. The price we're paying to the producing companies has been negotiated at arm's length, and that must be the price you use in dealing with taxing matters."

And the very final thing for him to say to Ottawa was: "We're not going to give you one cent of tax money from British Columbia's own natural resources."

The federal government has the right to raise its revenues through income tax, British Columbia as a government or through its Crown corporations is not obliged to make any payments to the national government, It is a provincial resource, and the benefits of the provincial resource must accrue to the Treasury of this province. We must be able to meet our responsibilities as a province, and we can only do so within the limited opportunity we have to raise our revenue. The Premier should have said, "Ottawa, keep your hands off."

Now, of course, the Premier wasn't able to say that. He had already destroyed his credibility as Premier of British Columbia and as a western Canadian in the attitudes which were evident when the Province of Alberta was involved in this same battle with this same federal government late last year.

The Province of British Columbia, the Province of Saskatchewan and the Province of Manitoba, through their respective Premiers, left the Premier of Alberta standing alone as a western Canadian. As a result, it was suggested in the press that Premier Lougheed had lost. Mr. Speaker, he didn't lose. Western Canada lost; British Columbia lost. And the Premier contributed to that matter.

Mr. Speaker, I see my time is up. I thank you for your kind attention and for your courtesy.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): I'm happy to take my place in the throne speech debate as the representative for. Cariboo.

I might say that I'm very sorry that the late Ned DeBeck has left us. He was respected by all of us and will be greatly missed. As far as I was concerned, he had forgotten more about this House than most of us will ever know.

I've listened to the throne speech debate with much interest over the last five, six or seven days and I've paid particular note to the speeches of the back-bench NDP Members. They have really applauded the government and its achievements. All I have to say about that is that I'm glad it's them who have to support the government and also defend it, because they have quite a job ahead of them.

I'd like to review a few things that have happened under socialism in the last 2½ years and how I see that it has affected the people of British Columbia. We have the famous land bill, Bill 42. I'll have something to say about it later, but it really tries to get effective control by the state of all the land that exists in the state.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. FRASER: I'll explain to you, Mr. Attorney-General, in a few minutes, if you'll be quiet, just how that actually works in practice.

[ Page 245 ]

MRS. JORDAN: Just like in Hawaii.

MR. FRASER: As the prior speaker mentions, they have gone into no end of businesses with no mandate from the public of British Columbia to do so, in my opinion: chicken factories, plywood plants, pulp mills, sawmills, real estate, housing, and so on. Of course, the Members of this House cannot find out what is going on and neither can the citizens of the province. Of course, they are certainly excited about that.

Due to the legislation passed last fall, I feel they have pretty well taken over effective control of the forest industry, certainly to the point where the private sector of that industry has no faith in investment to expand that operation under the terms of the legislation of the timber bill that we passed last fall.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.] The other thing about which not too much has been said and about which I want to go into a little bit of detail is the financial management of this province by the Minister of Finance and, more specifically, the borrowing of money. At the present time, the Minister of Finance has borrowed $375 million. I would like to relate where these funds were borrowed and at what interest rates.

The first $100 million was borrowed in New York at 10.25 per cent. The second $75 million was borrowed in eastern Canada at 9.25 per cent. The third borrowing of $100 million came from an unnamed Arab country and the rate of interest of the borrowing was 9.25 per cent. The fourth $100 million borrowed was at the rate of 8.75 per cent, again from an unnamed Arab country. This total borrowing is $375 million since this Legislature authorized the government on behalf of Hydro to borrow up to $500 million last June.

I would like to relate what the Minister of Finance said at that time during the debate on the $500 million authorization of loans for B.C. Hydro. The Minister of Finance stated on June 18 that they would only go to the market for $ 100 million, even when the authority was being asked in the borrowing of $500 million.

We were, of course, suspicious at the time and our suspicions certainly have been borne out in the fact that since then, in a period of nine months, $375 million has been borrowed up to now.

The other questions I would like to put in and that the people are asking are: Why borrow $375 million? I might say that the people of this province now have to pay $30 million-odd per annum in interest to out-of-the-country recipients, whether they be Arab countries or eastern Canada — but certainly British Columbia money to the tune of at least $35 million a year for the next 20-odd years will go out of the province to service this debt.

The other thing I would like to point out to this House is that at no time was any British Columbian ever given the opportunity to purchase any of these securities. I'd like to know why that has taken place when that huge sum of money has been put on the market and B.C. citizens have no opportunity to purchase any of it.

I would like to know where that money is now. What is it doing at a 10.5 per cent interest rate? Is it now invested at interest rates higher than that? Has it been spent? What has really happened to it? The people of this province would certainly like to know because there isn't any construction going on in Hydro that I or the people of British Columbia know of that this money would be required for. I have to assume that it is probably invested. I certainly hope so. But I would like to know at what interest rate it is being invested. I feel that it should never have been borrowed in the first place.

The backbenchers and the cabinet Ministers said, "Look at all the good things that have happened in the last 2½ years." I believe even some of the Ministers said that there has been very little mention made of the monopoly car insurance programme which was instituted. That is, of course, what it is. I think the reason that nothing has been said about it is that the Minister who brought it in at the time said that it would never be subsidized; it would stand on its own feet.

Of course, here we are in the year 1974. Again, according to my calculations, this plan will be subsidized to the tune of roughly $100 million, these funds coming from the gas tax in the Province of British Columbia. I think the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) said yesterday that now when you pull into the gas tanks, you order so many gallons of collision insurance.

The point is that it is being heavily subsidized, starting this year. The last I saw, the different taxes on fuel would probably take in $150 million. Therefore it's now been deferred to the insurance programme, so I have to assume that $100 million is short from general revenue where this money has always gone. I would be anxious to see tomorrow how the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) accounts for this detouring of this $100 million, and whether it will reduce services to the people such as health, welfare and education, because when you take money out of general revenue, that's where most of these funds were going, and now they won't be there. So maybe we'll by looking at an increase in taxes in the budget tomorrow in some shape or form to make it up.

Another avenue in the budget for the year that we're in now will miss by another $ 100 million, and I refer to the lack of revenue in the forest industry being

[ Page 246 ]

caused by the overestimating of the revenues from that industry, and world markets and so on causing a drop from $250 million from that source to approximately $150 million. So all in all we might be looking at an increase in taxation tomorrow in the Province of British Columbia.

Another thing that has been done that the backbenchers and the cabinet Ministers really didn't refer to, but which has been referred to before, is that the mining industry in this province, through Bill 31, has almost been killed — certainly the exploration has been. There are no new mines coming on stream, although I heard the Member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) say there was one — I imagine it's for five or 10 employees or something. But she seemed to be quite concerned about the mine in her riding that exists and is right now laying off 75 and threatening to lay off more. So it appears that Bill 31 is also getting to the Member for Comox as well.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): You didn't listen to her. You only heard what you wanted to hear.

MR. FRASER: I certainly did listen to her, and I got it that she was a little upset about the fact that she never heard about Bill 31, like so many other people in British Columbia.

I might say that the land policies of this government have increased the price of land to the point where now an ordinary citizen really can't afford to have land for his own housing. I refer back to Bill 42, which has caused no end of turmoil in that sector and gone on to create.... Every other step they have taken on land policies has had this effect.

I now want to go on to a few things in the riding dealing with land and the effects that this legislation really had. I refer to Bill 42 and the effect it's had in the riding of Cariboo. First of all, I might say that I don't think anybody in the Cariboo is opposed to the preservation of farmland but they certainly are opposed to what has transpired through Bill 42. I would like to let you know where it stands right now in the Cariboo riding.

Finally the agricultural land reserves have been established. There might be a few left of the 28 regional districts, but only this last fall as far as the Cariboo was concerned the agricultural land reserve was established. I might say this was established after a land freeze.

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: I'm just stating facts. The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) here is sure jumpy this week. He's the Minister of defence and roaring around. But I'm just telling the facts, Mr. Speaker.

The land reserve was established last fall after at least a year of public discussion with the municipalities, the regional districts, the citizens and everything. We started off with a land freeze, first of all, in December, 1972, and then, after two years of public debate, down come the maps designating the areas of the land freeze. And lo and behold, Mr. Speaker, every — not every — three municipalities in my riding which had made submissions to leave lands adjoining their town boundaries out found out that after all this public participation the bureaucrats in the Land Commission had seen different than all the elected local citizens at the regional level and the municipal level, and they have put land into the agricultural land reserve that the local people had asked to withhold.

I might say, Mr. Speaker, that this land is certainly marginal farmland — I think classified as 5 — so it isn't in class 2 or anything like that.

Now, of course, the facts are that because of this arbitrary decision by the Land Commission, these three expanding communities have no place to expand. And now, lo and behold, the elected people in this area, whether they be regional directors or municipal councils, have got to come now under the bureaucracy that exists and appeal to the persons who originally put it in there after they were told by the elected people not to. The landowner has to appeal through the regional district, which in the first instance said, "Don't put it in," and then take it on to the B.C. Land Commission. So here we have parties of elected people frustrated by bureaucrats in the B.C. Land Commission — and they aren't elected, they're appointed. Getting back to the local municipal and regional governments I'm referring to, I think that this is a despicable state of affairs that now they have to go on their bended knees to try and get out of the agricultural land reserve that they worked a year on to be sure they would have areas for their communities to expand in, and they wake up and find this happening.

Another thing that hasn't been mentioned before is that I think the Cariboo is the largest beef-production area in the province, and we have a lot of successful beef ranches. But lo and behold, Mr. Speaker, this government has decided to go apparently into the beef-production business and they have purchased beef ranches north of Prince George, 20 miles, and south of Prince George, 20 miles. In one instance it cost them $400,000-odd, and another one cost them $300,000-odd.

I would just like to say, Mr. Speaker, that that's their decision to go into the beef business, but I'd like to know who makes these decisions where these things happen. Prince George has never been known for beef production. As a matter of fact, it isn't an economic area of the province to go into beef production because they have 11 months of winter in that area and one month of bad sleighing, and therefore it is very uneconomic to go into beef

[ Page 247 ]

production because of the high price of feed and the length of time it takes to feed. These are things that the people are asking and rightly so. Who makes these selections? I understand that the B.C. Land Commission makes these selections, but I wonder.

While I am discussing the Lands department, I might say that I have spoken in this House before about the lease fees on residential/recreational lots, and I refer to Crown-owned and -leased lots. Since this government took over they have increased the leases, They were always open to review every five years, but since this government took over we have seen residential lease fees payable by the citizens to the Crown increase as much as seven and eight times.

I want to acknowledge the fact that the government has seen the folly of its ways, and right at this time the Lands department is making refunds to, I understand, around 15,000 residential leaseholders, rolling back lease fees to double, and I think that's fine on their part. I just would like to reiterate that everything was always bad in the 20 years, according to this government, from '52 to '72, but all they've done on this lease policy is revert it back to the policy that had existed on recreational lease, and has declared that no lease fee, whether the market value shows it or not, could advance beyond double in the five-year review period. There are some happier people now in the province than there were last fall when they were faced with, as I say, seven or eight times increased lease fees.

While on the subject of lease fees and the government owning 95 per cent of the land, last fall the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) announced that this year 5,000 residential lots would be made available to our citizens from Crown land during this year, 1975. I wish the Minister was in the House, although I didn't expect he would be because he doesn't spend much time here — he's out, I guess, looking for a new typewriter someplace.

The fact is that 5,000 lots were announced to be created now. Again we get back to local government, and I understand the Lands department from Victoria has issued instructions to regional and local levels of land inspection to show the Victoria Lands department where these lots are and recommend to them where these different Crown land subdivisions should be located.

I further understand that in the Cariboo, of the 5,000 lots, roughly 1,000 are supposed to be created in the Cariboo, but I would like to ask a question, Mr. Speaker. There's indication that it's not going to happen but I'd like to get it on the record here: are they going to refer — I'm talking about the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) — the tentative areas for Crown subdivisions to the local authorities again? It's my information that the local authorities — and I'm referring again to the regional districts and the municipal councils — are going to be told where the subdivisions are going to take place, and I don't think that this is fair or right, I think that full consultation should take place with the local elected people.

These Crown subdivisions are going to be created throughout the province with, I understand, as many as 200 lots. The provincial Lands department is going to put in complete water systems. They're going to pave the subdivisions, and I don't think they should be imposed in the immediate area of any municipality, or certainly within a regional district, without full consultation. Obviously, the Crown is not going to supply the schools, the hospitals or the recreational services. What I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is that they must go along and consult with the local people because they're the ones that'll have to pick up the effects from these decisions that are being made in Victoria. I am very alarmed that the decisions will just be made here, and cause all these problems for the local areas throughout the whole province.

Citizens are asking what the policy is of the government in relation to the disposal of these subdivided lots after they're created. In other words, are they going to lease them, lease-purchase, or straight purchase? The citizens, I am sure, want to know, and are entitled to know. I am going to pursue it until I find out, because I asked last fall in the Legislature of the Minister, and his answer at that time was that it was under discussion and under review. Well, no answer's been given and they're now going ahead, though I doubt that we'll see any lots created by the Crown of the 5,000 they say. I think it's about time that policy was spelled out by this government as to how they will be disposed of.

The throne speech refers to the forest tenure, and I think that we certainly do have to look at forest tenure. I believe that when Chief Justice Sloan made the last inquiry, he recommended that another one be made in 20 years and, no doubt, we're past that time so I think it's about time that that did take place, While we're on forestry, again, the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources has reduced the stumpage down to its statutory minimum of $1.10 per 100 cubic feet, but he has also advised that it expires on March 31, and that's not very far away. I think, in all fairness, the lumber industry, which has been struggling now for a long time, would Like to know what is going to happen come April to the stumpage rate of $1.10 per 100 cubic. Is it going to be increased, or what is going to happen to it? They've had no end of trouble of operation. I think the government should give them some advance idea of what they have in mind. Are they going to double it, or triple it, or leave it where it is?

Education has been mentioned a lot, and mentioned in the throne speech. My concern is the

[ Page 248 ]

cost of education and how it's going to affect the local ratepayer. We'll certainly know more about that this time tomorrow but they're talking in British Columbia about mill rate increases for education alone, as of today, anywhere from 10 to 25 mills, just for education alone. This is an alarming situation. While the municipalities do not set the school mill rate, it sure affects them, setting their rates for taxation. The homeowners just can't stand that, so I hope that when the budget comes down tomorrow it will bring the necessary relief.

Another thing I mentioned the other day, on the amendment, but it's again in the throne speech, and that is northern development. All that's gone on so far is lots of meetings. I realize the Minister of northern affairs (Hon. Mr. Nunweiler). is not here, unfortunately, and won't take part in the debate, but everybody would like to know just what is going to take place — I think even you spoke about it — rather than just discussing. What about some action?

On the northern development, I think it was you, Mr. Speaker, who said that the Cariboo and so on was a long way from it. But I would remind you that in the northern development package there was something in there affecting the Cariboo and, I think, the whole of British Columbia. In that northern development package was the connector link of the BCR with the main lines from a point in the approximate area of Clinton down to the area of Ashcroft.

For better service all around, it's about time this government decided whether they are going to sign this agreement and let this work go on. Certainly the local people think it's about ready to happen, and I can assure them that it isn't, as near as I can find out.

The throne speech also refers to new expropriation laws. I've had quite a bit of problem over expropriation laws. When the throne speech announced it, it said they were going to amend the expropriation law. But I don't believe we have one, so no doubt it'll be a brand new law.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): That was a clerical error.

MR. FRASER: Thank you, Mr. Attorney-General. But, in any case, I think it's about time we had it spelled out; the Crown authorities have it in different Acts. It's about time. I look forward to the new expropriation law and hope that it'll be fairer than things have been in the past to the citizens.

The other thing that is referred to in some cases here and some not, and something I'm really concerned about, is the state of the financing of municipalities. Again, this could be alleviated somewhat tomorrow in the budget. I only hope it is.

I would like to relate to you the situation they're in. We passed legislation here last year that froze their assessments and put a freeze on any increased revenue they could have. The demands on them continue to increase and they have their inflationary problems. I don't think I've ever seen when our municipalities have been in more serious straits than they are in the year 1975.

This government has tried to tamper with the assessments and, at the last minute, they were frightened off. So we have the situation with the municipalities in dire straits or more revenue and no place to turn but to this government. If there's no relief in sight for the municipalities in the budget, they can certainly look forward to real serious times: an increase in taxes as well as a decrease in services.

Another avenue that hasn't been brought up in this debate that I know of is the confusion that exists with prior governments — and this government continues it right on — with the different boundaries of jurisdiction that exist in British Columbia. I'd like to know who makes these decisions. I'm sure it's the senior bureaucrats. But when they do, they never consider what another department of government is doing.

I refer to assessment districts; I refer to the recent one I saw, the Workers Compensation Board. They were drawing new jurisdictional boundaries. Yes, they were bringing more services to the people but, again, they use a different boundary than the assessment authority. They don't have to use the same, but there isn't one section of government that uses the same boundary of jurisdiction, whether it's the Attorney-General, whether it's the administration of justice, whether it's Agriculture or what. It's confusing enough. Highways is another one; they have different boundaries of jurisdiction than anybody else. Mines has different boundaries; Recreation and Conservation has another one; Human Resources, and so on.

Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, while I think it's confusing to government administration — and I'm not too worried about that — what do you think about the average citizen of this province? They don't know where they're at. Why, they might deal in Kamloops on one subject and then find they've got to go to Prince George on another subject, simply because some bureaucrat in Victoria or Vancouver decided those would be the boundaries of those different jurisdictions.

I think it's about time somebody brought some uniformity to all these things, or certainly took it into consideration. The latest one that I saw cutting the province up was Workers' Compensation while they were opening offices. They drew boundaries completely different than any other government jurisdiction that we've had up to the present time. They even drew boundaries for the jurisdiction of that. Where does the person go who has to have a claim in this case? He doesn't know whether he goes

[ Page 249 ]

to Kamloops, Williams Lake, Prince George or what. Again, they cut the boundaries in this case right through the middle of rural route mails and everything else. Nobody has ever heard of such boundaries.

Interjections.

MR. FRASER: In all these departments I wish that they would think of whether they are going along. I realize they can't all be the same, but let's have some rhyme or reason. It doesn't exist today.

I realize, Mr. Speaker, that my time is just about up, but I will say that this government has alarmed the citizens of this province in their speed to socialize and own everything and to intervene in every sector of activity that goes on in our province. The citizens that I talk to don't feel that they had that mandate and feel that they have already gone too far. For that reason and many others, I cannot support the throne speech.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. Attorney-General.

MR. LEWIS: Don't be too hard on them, Alex.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, I am the designated speaker, but I hope not to be unduly long in what few remarks I have to say.

I miss very much, because he was in a sense a neighbour of mine on Thormanby Island, when I could get up there, Mr. Ned DeBeck. And I miss Mr. Art Laing, who, though from a different party, was a personal friend of mine, I always felt. My comfort is that through their children and their grandchildren in both cases — in the DeBeck family many, many of them — and their children after that, they will continue to live in the rich future of the Province of British Columbia.

I want to thank the mover and the seconder who came out in support of this excellent throne speech, perhaps the best that has been brought down in the last 50 years in the Province of British Columbia.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): You're so modest, Alex.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Before I begin, I have something important to say. I'm going to vote for the motion! A majority is always the best repartee.

I appreciated so many of the speeches during the debate, sometimes in my office, sometimes listening to them there, sometimes here. I know that this is International Women's Year and we had some very good speeches from the lady Member for Vancouver South (Mrs. Webster), the lady Member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown), and the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Lauk). I think that certainly in the case of the Scotsmen, with International Women's Year coming on, they will do their best to celebrate that by wearing the kilt as often as they can. I think all the Scots will be saying "Up the kilt!" in this International Women's Year, and the lassies will be right behind them — or right beside them, not right behind them. After all, one of the greatest originators of the women's liberation movement was none other than Robbie Burns, who wrote almost 200 years ago in his poem "The Rights of Man" the famous words:

Amid the mighty fuss
Just let me mention
The rights of women
Merit some attention.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Can I throw that line out?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Am I joking about a subject about which nobody is allowed to joke? It's a serious subject, because really we do intend in this year in the statutes of the Province of B.C. to wipe out those archaic provisions that deny social and economic equality to women.

MR. WALLACE: Will that be the Burns amendment?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: At the same time, I would like to say, though, that we should protect the precious variety of life. I would remind the Members of this assembly that in the French Chamber of Deputies once, when one Deputy got up and said, "There is, after all, very little difference between men and women," all of the other Deputies rose to their feet — men and women alike — and with one voice, they said: "Vive la difference!"

HON. MR. BARRETT: Your French is improving.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: We should protect the diversity of life while making sure there is full opportunity, social and economic. This is the year in which we should seize that challenge.

I'm glad to see the leader of the Conservative Party (Mr. Wallace) in his place. I don't see the other leader. He has solved the factional problems within his own caucus. (Laughter.) He has lost everything except his political principles. I think you are going to find, Mr. Leader, that in this province those who stand by political principles in the days that are coming are going to be rewarded by the people. I think it is going to be recognized by the people of this province, You and the Progressive Conservatives of British Columbia may be a little bit like the trumpeter swans, an endangered species, but I think there is a place for the

[ Page 250 ]

old blue party in this province, and I think it is well led. We have had constructive criticism — criticism, but constructive criticism. He has earned his heather.

I would say to the leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. D.A. Anderson) — who is not there, though — that I think he should have perhaps not the heather but a sprig of rue, the bitter-scented plant or shrub, because he always has such a long face. He's trying a little bit to climb in his political career by pulling down someone else. He's being joined in that by the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland), and it doesn't work. It doesn't work.

MR. LEWIS: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The Liberal leader should cheer up. None of the Liberals are here now, but when they're gathered in assembly, which isn't very often, when they're all there together, the Liberal leader now has on either side of him the two returning political renegades. So he should cheer up (laughter), smile a little bit, and not look so rueful.

I enjoyed the speech of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) in this debate. There are things in that speech that were true (laughter), and there were things in that speech that were new. (Laughter.) The only trouble was that what was in that speech that was true was not new and what was in that speech that was new was not true. (Laughter.)

If I'm handing out flowers, I think we should give him a spray of forget-me-nots. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. BARRETT: And send a package to Davie Brown.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Your party is growing every day, you know, and it makes us.... You now have three people in that party bucking for my particular job as Attorney-General, let alone within my own party. (Laughter.) It's enough to make a man nervous. (Laughter.) You've got Robert Bonner, Leslie Peterson and Peter Hyndman. With wealth like that, it makes me a little nervous.

I see that Robert Bonner has gone to the Oak Bay Social Credit Association.

MR. WALLACE: But I'm not nervous. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That's right. He's gone to the Oak Bay Social Credit Association and, amid the tennis shoes there, he has attacked. He has used some pretty powerful words. He says that this government is comparable to a pack of robber barons. Because we have dared to share power with the common people in British Columbia, because we have dared to stop the giveaways to his rich friends, he calls us the robber barons. He's a little bit like Marie Antoinette; he thinks that the money of the people and the resources of the people are much too good to be wasted on the common people.

He has entered politics again and he is on the political warpath. He has even been joined by J.V. Clyne. No wonder we're trembling in our political boots.

And J.V. Clyne has allowed publicly that he's not a supporter of this government, and he's even offered to change the voting system to see that we're not elected by the people. (Laughter.)

There's a political shoot-out coming up. Bonner and Clyne are ready to shoot their way back into the corridors of power. (Laughter.) Bonner and Clyne! (Laughter.)

And guess who's riding stirrup? Why, it's son of daddy! (Laughter.)

Interjections.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The Leader of the Opposition has had three little words. There are three little Social Credit words. Do you know what they are? "Money, money, money." (Laughter.)

I'm serious about this because we have a party over there which is represented here in the Legislature by able speakers and so forth, but they are sitting on $1 million in campaign funds.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Five.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: They will be supported in this election that is to come this year, next year — whenever it comes — by all of those who feel that they should not cut the people of British Columbia into a share of the natural resources of this province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. MACDONALD: And the New Democratic Party is determined that the people of British Columbia will never again be bought and sold by Social Credit slush funds.

You accuse us of waste, fiscal mismanagement and overruns for the money that has gone back to the people of this province in people's services. To the old gang, that's a simple case of fiscal mismanagement, isn't it? If the resources of this province should with a generous hand be returned to the people of the Province of British Columbia — to the poor and the sick, the neglected, youth and young people, and the handicapped — in millions of dollars, even hundreds of millions of dollars, why, that's our platform. It may be an open-and-shut case to the opposition of fiscal mismanagement, but to us it is good husbandry, and economics with heart.

I want to say one or two things about the Columbia River because it's been debated in the

[ Page 251 ]

House and it's a matter of great magnitude, in terms not only of the power it can potentially produce but of the tremendous hundreds of millions of dollars that have gone into the Columbia River. In a true perspective, we have to think of what are the real, insistent, momentous questions that should be asked, and it seems to me that what the people of British Columbia have a right to know is what the true cost was to the people of British Columbia of the Columbia River treaty project. That's the first question.

The second question is: did the government of the day, and in particular, did the Premier, Premier Bennett and also Minister of Finance, render a true account of those costs to the people of the Province of British Columbia? Were the people of British Columbia told the truth about the costs of the Columbia River projects? It certainly appears that Premier Bennett was less than candid about those costs.

We have been told that ex-Premier W.A.C. Bennett was a financial genius. I remember sitting in this House, and hearing in the debates how the American money was going to pay for the whole of the treaty project and half the generating capacity at Mica Creek, and I remember the famous statement being made: "Nothing is cheaper than free, my friends."

AN HON. MEMBER: Freer than free.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: "Nothing is freer than free, my friends." That's a good memory. And I'll have to ask myself whether this was a financial genius speaking or was it a Baron Munchausen? (Laughter.) And without belittling the subject, those are two questions that have to be asked. Those are the real questions that the people have a right to know about.

MR. WALLACE: Are you going to have an inquiry?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I want to say something about one or two of the other speeches in this debate.

Interjections.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) — and I'm afraid he does it in the country as well as he does it in here — has the capacity to infer dark dealings going on, and insider dealings. He never has any proof, any evidence — insider trading in land. He claims we're going to take over all the land in the province, and never mentions that no government has ever opened up appeal procedures in this province as we have. Look at the workmen's compensation appeals; look at the liquor board appeals; look what we've done with human rights, to give people a chance to have their day and have a decision made in their favour. Look what we've done with the Land Act, and these people in the official opposition now say the Land Act was changed. The Land Act was improved but when you filibustered it, fought it tooth and nail, you were fighting the bill that is now on the statute books which is beginning to save the green space of this province for future generations.

I say to the Hon. Member for Langley that I was in China recently and we learned one of the expressions of Confucius there. Confucius says: "He who throws mud loses ground." (Laughter.)

I won't say anything about the Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) at the moment because he's not in his chair — well, perhaps I should. He was talking about the price of gas in the north and how good the thing with Westcoast Transmission had been in the old days. And the Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith), too — when I hear him speaking, I'm sometimes put in mind of the good old Duke of Cant. (Laughter.) But he's my shadow, and I shouldn't speak unkindly.

When we came to power in this province we inherited a situation where Westcoast Transmission was controlled by its two big American brothers, the El Paso Co. and Phillips Petroleum. They were interested in the Province of B.C. — those big American corporations — but they were interested in the Province of B.C. the way a farmer is interested in his chickens. He's not interested in the chickens for themselves but he's interested in them for what he can get out of them. That's the kind of situation we faced.

The Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) — and I missed one or two sentences of his speech, but he spoke about gas — said we got nothing when we went back to Ottawa. You know, step by step, we've won a two-price system in this province.

We're out of our natural resource of natural gas. We've established we can be fair to the residential owners of the Province of B.C. and our industries in the Province of British Columbia. Because they are the owners we've recognized them. Not the government, not the companies, but the people are the true beneficiaries of the natural resources of this province. We give them a price break because they are the beneficiaries, and on the export market we charge the fair value of that gas.

Now you say that we got nothing in Ottawa. I say we did. We have an assurance that along with the policy of the New Democratic Party of the Province of British Columbia there will be an increase in the price of our natural gas on the international market. We didn't get it immediately, but we've got a good assurance in that regard. We got an assurance — and you say we didn't need this; I say we did — that

[ Page 252 ]

Thumper Macdonald would not, having finished his act, have John Turner or the other way around impose an export tax on our natural gas, as happened in the case of Peter Lougheed's petroleum, and that would have cost this province. We got that assurance, and while the thing hasn't happened, the assurance that it won't happen was a victory for Premier Barrett when he went to Ottawa. We also got the assurance that if we do have to pay John Turner's tax it won't be funnelled through the oil companies, and don't make light of that. It would be shrunk and laundered in the course of its passage through the companies, because we all know that. So it will be direct payments.

MR. WALLACE: How long in the foreseeable future, Alex?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Oh, you mean in terms of an increase?

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, we do the best we can. We have the assurance given in a public statement. We think that the price increase should follow shortly after the energy conference in April and that will be one of the additional things that we'll be bringing back at that time to the people of the Province of British Columbia.

I'm just going to say a few more words about energy. I thought that February 4, 1975, was a black day in the history of Canada. It was the day of the oil play of the great multinational corporations — having been made they stooped down and picked up their winnings. They gave an ultimatum to Canada. They said to the Hon. Donald Macdonald and the Government of Canada: "We must have your money in the pot by January 31 or we're going to pick up our winnings to date and our tax losses," which they can write off, "and leave the game." And the Government of Canada succumbed to that kind of an ultimatum, and on the fourth day of February, 1975, Canada genuflected and rolled over like a little dog and put its paws in the air and touched its forelock. (Laughter.)

You know what they should have done? You know what the Government of Canada should have done with the millions they're going to pour in? Their millions for this is only the first of 10 plans; it's only going to produce, this first one, 125,000 barrels per day. It's just the beginning of the oil sands, not a solution of the thing, and the terms will never be worse for the international oil companies for the additional plants down the line. What the Government of Canada should have done was to put their money in buying a major company such as Imperial Oil, with its ground leases, and with its expertise and with its refineries and with its skilled research organization, so that we would have a national instrument in Canada for the development of our oil resources.

Instead of that, we have been, as a country, reeling under the assault of the multinational oil corporations, and we've had in rapid succession the federal government even reducing the price restraint that they have had on the price of gasoline at the pump, leaving it to this government not to flinch its responsibility to protect the people of this province to the utmost of its constitutional power. And then they have in rapid succession told us that they are going to increase the price of our natural gas to our consumers in the Province of British Columbia — that's a provincial matter. And they've told us that they're going to increase the $6.50 price for a barrel of petroleum to $8.50 — something of that kind — at a time when corporation profits of the oil companies have never been higher. So we've been reeling.

We say that we in the Province of British Columbia are not going to be drilled and bored and punched and blown and flared and capped by the international oil companies.

In the case of our wellhead prices up in the Peace River country, we have today authorized the B.C. Energy Commission, which I would like to say boastfully, on behalf of the people who are working in that commission, has an inventory and understood and brought together the resource potential of this province in a way that was never done before, and protected the consumers of this province in a way that was never done before .... We have authorized them to look at the wellhead prices.

We don't want cut-and-get-out artists in the petroleum and natural gas industry any more than we want them in our forests. When they take a natural gas lease, along with that lease goes an obligation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. MACDONALD: An obligation. And if they are making a lot of money on old gas, as some of them are because we increased the price from 10 cents to 20 cents, roughly speaking, and there aren't too many new pumps put in — not much plumbing had to be done; the capital cost was all in the ground — if they are not prepared, when we as the purchaser award a fair price, to go on with exploration and development, and develop their ground in a way that meets conservation standards, in a way that is fair to the market, in a way that is fair to our American customers, then we have to remind them of that kind of an obligation. We intend to remind them of that.

We intend to have an inquiry in which they will have the opportunity to bring in their arithmetic before the Energy Commission. If the prices are wrong or unfair, they will be adjusted. If the good

[ Page 253 ]

conservation and good marketing potential is not being developed, that will be looked at as well. In the B.C. Energy Commission we have the expertise to make that inquiry. This is not the B.C. Petroleum Corp.; it's the Energy Commission.

The Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland), I think, brought up the subject of a refinery in Surrey. The Government of the Province of British Columbia has made no proposal with respect to a refinery, but we have investigated possibilities. There are reasons why this province might very well need a refinery. If we are not going to be exposed to the international oil companies, we may need that refinery. We may have under-refining capacity in this Province of British Columbia. But no proposal has been made and no proposal should be made by a responsible government until the studies are completed.

I'm not only talking about marketing and supply problems; I'm talking also about environmental protection. I want to say that there will be no refinery anywhere in the Province of British Columbia unless there is full environmental safety and full protection in terms of air pollution, water pollution — if I can stop there, by that I mean water betterment — noise pollution, visual pollution and social pollution.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Why are you buying the land?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: We in the Government of the Province of B.C. Intend, therefore, not to be rushed and not to put out a proposal unless it is a good proposal, either in this department or any other department.

So far as the land bought by the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Lauk) is concerned, it is a good investment for the Province of British Columbia whatever happens. It is a very good investment for the Province of B.C. and the people of B.C. whatever happens. You mark my words.

MR. McCLELLAND: Now you are a land speculator, eh? The government is the worst speculator in the country.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It is a terrible thing, Hon. Member for Langley, that the people should make any profit out of their own land. Oh, that's terrible! You don't mind the real estate sharks speculating, do you? You don't mind the foreign companies coming in here and speculating. What do you say about that? What do you say about, as the Member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) said today, giving the people of this province a little bit of equity in their own land? Oh, you are for every speculator and against the people.

HON. MR. BARRETT: And we won't tell the people that.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Let me move along here. I just want to have a few reflections about the kind of economy and the social democracy in which we live at the present time.

We do have the danger that selfish interest groups will go off on their own and are not talking together or talking with each other. Prices escalate. Nobody has much respect, really, for the other fellow in terms of the kind of economy that we are living in today. There should be that kind of understanding and respect.

Let me say one or two things about legal aid here. I see in the newspaper, the Province of February 24, that it says this in an article:

"The provincial government should keep its hands off legal-aid programmes except to pay private lawyers' bills, says the B.C. branch of the Canadian Bar Association."

Yes, I belong to it. And there are some lawyers who believe that the taxpayers should pay but the client should have no say and the community should not be involved, that law is too important a thing to be left to anybody but the lawyers.

But a great many of the lawyers don't agree with that at all. I don't agree with that. I believe that there should be public representation if we are going to have a legal-aid programme. I believe the client is entitled to have some say. I believe that there are lots of people in the Province of British Columbia who have gone to the bar society in British Columbia with a complaint about legal practice, and they have been terribly disappointed when their complaint has been rejected, and I'm not going to give examples now.

They have said that I have had to go to the same group, without any kind of an ombudsman to speak for me, that are engaged in the practice of law, and I haven't had justice.

MR. WALLACE: Well, let's have an ombudsman, then.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I think that there should be a kind of ombudsman representation on the benches of the Law Society of British Columbia, and I make no bones about saying that. I believe that their meetings should be open, except in some personnel matters and things of that kind, but even discipline hearings, in my opinion, should be open.

When I say that, I'm not always popular with all of the lawyers in the Province of British Columbia, but I'm saying it because I think that's what democracy means. I'm saying it because I think that medicine is too important a matter to be left only to the doctors; and I think that dentistry is too important a matter to be left to the dentists; and war is too important a

[ Page 254 ]

matter to be left to the generals, and so we go, because we've got to start talking to ourselves as a society.

Interjections.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: We have here — I'm talking a little bit about prices now. I want to put these words in the record because they're the words of an old friend of mine, Joe Morris, who is now the president of the Canadian Labour Congress. He's talking about what is perhaps the greatest challenge that we face, and that's the challenge of inflation, He says this:

"The challenge to the labour movement in the year ahead is to drive hard to protect men and women workers against the blight of inflation, to stop the merciless attack on the purchasing power of their hard-earned wages and salaries. Apart from the hardship inflation poses to wage and salary earners, pensioners and so forth, it could destroy our social fabric."

I am summarizing.

"The working people, through their organizations, must guard against becoming just another selfish interest. While continuing the struggle for a fair return for their labour, they must also continue to be concerned with social and economic justice for all of those who are defenceless and have no organization to speak for them."

I welcome the fact that labour takes up that kind of a challenge; that labour, in the pursuit of its goals, recognizes that those goals may affect other people. While I think that the main cause of the inflation we suffer from today is sort of the planning system of the great corporations, which control supplies....

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, no. In the economy, the great corporations control supplies, they control the innovations, they can control and manipulate the demand, and through that they can control in a managed way the prices we pay for the essential goods of life. We really live in a price-fixed economy in terms of most of the basic articles on which we depend for life. You turn here and there, but none of your people ever recognize where that inflation is really being fuelled from.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right there.

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): There's no fuel like an old fuel.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: But we have to get away from a society that is a bit like the law of the jungle, where he takes who has the power, and he keeps who can, because there are so many people who don't have the ability. There are the bottom ranks in the ranks of labour, for example, who don't share in the percentage awards that too often are made, and the gap between high and low widens.

So there's a challenge for us, and I don't think it can ever be settled, Mr. Speaker, by any law. I don't think we could pass a law fixing prices and incomes, interest rate returns and the other things just like that in this country. But I do think that we should begin to talk about those things, and I think Joe Morris agrees we should begin to talk about fair income distribution in this country....

MR. BENNETT: Send the Premier back to Ottawa — he'll fix it.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I think that we can develop in time, as we begin to talk to ourselves as a nation, some kind of a consensus and understanding and respect for the other fellow's rights, which has been so lacking, especially in the last year or two. I think it's got worse.

Before I sit down, let me say very quickly a couple of other things. I'm kind of proud of this Legislature because of a little amendment they made to the Summary Convictions Act last year, and that was to make sure that nobody went to jail in default of paying a fine — in other words, the situation where the judge did not sentence somebody to jail. That power is still with the judges, and it has to be exercised on occasion, but not to give something which results in the poor man going to jail and the rich man reaching in his pocket and walking away from that jail.

I'm beginning to have the figures in terms of the effect of that. The law was effective on June 24, 1974, and just to give a very initial report: out of 470 sentences served in the past year in default of fine payments for offences under provincial statutes, less than 100 were admitted after the Act was changed, and only because their offences had been committed prior to the change coming into effect.

Now there's the whole area of the federal Criminal Code, of course, where people are still going to jail because they can't pay a fine where the judge has not awarded imprisonment, but he has awarded a fine that results in 10 days in default of that kind of thing. Do you know what is the cost, do you know what the strain on our prison institutions is of that kind of a load? In the case of the federal Criminal Code it's 1,191 people in the last year who went to jail for their poverty. Had they been able to reach in their pocket, they wouldn't have gone to jail at all.

What did it cost the taxpayer? Oh, maybe $30 a day, $35 a day. What did it to to the person concerned? It left him embittered, I would think, and

[ Page 255 ]

certainly no better for the kind of experience that he had to undergo. So it's a kind of example of one of the little things we're trying to do — and there are so many — that I think is working and has to be continued to be monitored. I think we should take up with the federal government some of the proposals we've made within this province.

I want to touch one other subject before sitting down, and that is.... .

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Tell us about the prosecutors.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: ...the prosecutors. I don't personally prosecute every case in the Province of British Columbia. I'm sorry about that. I think you would have more mistakes being made than are being made at the present time if I started prosecuting personally. But we have good people.

MR. PHILLIPS: Then you admit there are mistakes made.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I think there are mistakes made in every trade. Of course there are. Sometimes a legal defence technicality gets somebody off. Sometimes the prosecutor is sleeping. But we have assembled in the Province of British Columbia some of the best. I think it is about — oh, I'd better not give the figure. I'm not too sure of it at the moment.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: We have assembled a very good, dedicated group of public prosecutors and we're instilling some heart. They have heart, as well as being good lawyers, and they have social understanding, and I think over a period of time we're beginning to develop a new day in terms of the justice services of the Province of British Columbia. It doesn't happen all that quickly.

Now I want to mention something that, Mr. Speaker, you may find too technical, but it is important.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, okay. On March 11 there opens in the City of Ottawa in the Province of Ontario, County of Carleton, a federal-provincial conference with the Minister of Justice (Hon. Mr. Lang), and I think I should report to the House one of the things on that agenda. That is the mindless bureaucratic growth of the federal court system in Canada.

We've always had an exchequer court, dealing with income tax and a few matters, but in the last three or four years we have created — and it is growing every day — a new court system in this country, a court called the Federal Court. It says it right in the statute: "a superior court of criminal and civil record."

Many of the things that used to go to the ordinary courts, federally appointed judges, axe now forced by this statute into that federal court. For example, Mr. Oag, who was escaping, felt his civil rights had been damaged. Why should we have to establish a separate court system to see whether or not his civil rights had been damaged in jail? Why should we be denied the right to attack a federal tribunal, as we used to be able to do, in the regular courts of the land and have a statute passed saying that if you want a certiorari of the CRTC or something of that kind you must go to the federal court?

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Let me tell the legalistic Member for Vancouver–Point Grey that you've never seen such legal reform. My colleagues reel back in dismay at some of the things we have done. We've opened up government. We've opened ourselves up to question period. We've allowed rhetorical questions to be asked in the House by the opposition — planted questions, and they won't wait for the planted answer. (Laughter.) Time after time. We've given people the right to sue the Crown. We've got appeal procedures that are better than ever existed before. You don't buy that, but statute by statute I could go through the books and show you that we've done that.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I think they are political opponents.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I sometimes have the terrible feeling that they are going to vote against this motion.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, you know that.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: But just to finish off on the federal court — because it is important — we now have a situation where lawyers are confused. They've always been confused.

MR. PHILLIPS: They're just like the government cabinet, all confused.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: They've always been confused, but they are confused even more now because they don't know which court to go into. There are some cases, you know, where they have to do part of the case in the federal court and part of the case in the ordinary courts of the land. The thing just keeps growing like Topsy. We now have two

[ Page 256 ]

federal courts in the City of Vancouver with a big prosecutorial staff, and the cost of all of that is passed on to the taxpayers — doing the same work that has been done for years by our regular courts.

I say this is a justice boondoggle at the expense of the taxpayer, and I say that we should not go the American route of having a dual court system in this country. And nobody steps up to defend it. It grows as though down in the reaches of the bureaucracy of the Justice department in Ottawa this mindless growth is taking place and appointments were being made and money being spent and the budget going up year after year.

This may not be a people's issue, because it is rather technical, but it is in the sense that it is costing money. It is giving less redress. It is creating confusion out there, and we intend, and certainly the Province of British Columbia does, on this issue to make very strong representations, and we will not make them behind closed doors as perhaps we were requested to do once before at Quebec City, because I don't like closed doors. We will try to explain what's a difficult issue to the people of this province, because it affects their justice and their pocket.

But I want to turn back to politics...

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. MACDONALD: ...and not bore the House any more. I don't want to embarrass the Premier or the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett). But I have to tell you, Mr. Premier, quite frankly — through the Speaker — that I watched a television programme the other night, and there was the Leader of the Opposition, and in terms of the new image of revealing everything, the openness, the candidness to the people, he said the Social Credit membership was approaching 40,000. Well, I'm approaching 70. (Laughter.)

But of course the Social Credit Party is signing up new members: political hangers-on are flocking into the Social Credit Party; political tergiversates who have forsaken their political principles for the smell of office and the spoils of office are knocking at the door of Social Credit, and some of them have already entered the room.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Who?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: There are sharp-eyed speculators with their eyes on the resources of the Province of British Columbia. There are political opportunists with their eye on the main chance. The old gang is back, hungry for the offices that the people have stripped away from them. The great corporations, many of them centred outside of this country, to whom British Columbia used to be their land of milk and honey, are opening up their coffers for the political advantage of the Social Credit Party. Now make no mistake about that — the old gang is back in the saddle and the new Social Credit leader has neither the will nor the strength to get rid of the old gang. He's a little bit like the Australian aboriginal whose daddy gave him a new boomerang, and he spent the rest of his life pretending to be throwing it away. (Laughter.)

The same old gang want to deal one more hand from the same old marked deck. That is what the coming battle of British Columbia is all about, and the NDP will fight for this province....

MR. PHILLIPS: Coming battle? Bring it on!

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The NDP will fight for this province, its people, and their birthright — and the NDP will win! Our programmes are working. They're transforming life for the people of British Columbia for the better in 100 ways, bringing our people at long last the beginning of some equity in their own province.

We have seen how a huge granite rock, so hard that it could turn away the sharpest chisel, can be split by the roots of a bush. The rock was dead, but the bush was a living thing, germinating, expanding, entering, reaching for the light. That is the mainspring and philosophy of the New Democratic Party. That is our strength, and that philosophy, the social democratic philosophy, will prevail, led by a government that cares, led by a government that listens, led by a government that moves.

Mr. Speaker, I started by mentioning Robbie Burns, one of the first NDPers. (Laughter.) I close with the challenge that he left to we the living:

Then let us pray that come it may,
As come it will for a' that,
That sense and worth o'er a' the earth
Shall win the price for a' that.
For a' that and for a' that,
It's coming yet, for a' that,
That man to man the world o'er
Shall brothers be for a' that.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is: We, Her Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia in session assembled, beg leave to thank Your Honour for the gracious speech which Your Honour has addressed to us at the opening of the present session.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 30

[ Page 257 ]

NAYS — 17

HON. MR. BARRETT: I move that this House will at the next sitting resolve itself into a committee to consider the supply to be granted to Her Majesty, and that this order have precedence over all other business, except introduction of bills, until disposed of.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I move that this House will, at its next sitting, resolve itself into a committee to consider the ways and means for raising the supply to be granted to Her Majesty.

Motion approved.

Presenting petitions.

MR. R.T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver–Little Mountain): I beg leave to present a petition. This is a petition of the Institute of Accredited Public Accountants of British Columbia, praying for the passing of an Act intituled An Act to Incorporate the Institute of Accredited Public Accountants of British Columbia.

I move that the rules be suspended, and the petition of the Institute of Accredited Public Accountants of British Columbia be received.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:40 p.m.