[ Page 3319 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of the Provincial Secretary estimates.

On vote 152.

Mr. Nicolson –– 3319

Mr. Gibson –– 3320

Mr. Skelly –– 3322

Mrs. Dailly –– 3324

Mr. Wallace –– 3324

Mr. Barber –– 3327

Mr. Lloyd –– 3328

Mrs. Wallace –– 3329

Ms. Brown –– 3330

Mr. Hewitt –– 3330

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 3331

Mr. Skelly –– 3335

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 3336

Department of Recreation and Travel Industry estimates.

On vote 184.

Mr. Chabot –– 3337

On vote 194.

Mr. Skelly –– 3338

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 3338

Legislation estimates.

On vote 1.

Mr. Gibson –– 3338

Mr. Wallace –– 3338

Committee of Ways and Means –– 3339

Supply Act No. 2,1976 (Bill 85). Hon. Mrs. McCarthy.

Introduction, first reading, second reading, committee, report and third reading –– 3339

British Columbia Ferry Corporation Act (Bill 24) Committee stage.

On section 1.

Mr. Wallace –– 3340

Hon. Mr. Davis –– 3340

On section 3.

Mr. Lockstead –– 3340

Hon. Mr. Davis –– 3340

Mr. Gibson –– 3340

Hon. Mr. Davis –– 3340

Amendment to section 3.

Mr. Gibson –– 3340

On section 4.

Mr. Lockstead –– 3341

On section 6.

Mr. Wallace –– 3341

Mr. Stupich –– 3341

Mr. Gibson –– 3345

Mr. Lockstead –– 3345

Hon. Mr. Davis –– 3345

Amendment to section 8.

Mr. Gibson –– 3345

On section 11.

Mr. Gibson –– 3345

>On section 19.

Mr. Gibson –– 3345

Hon. Mr. Davis –– 3346

Mr. Gibson –– 3346

On section 20.

Mr. Gibson –– 3346

Hon. Mr. Davis –– 3346

Mr. Gibson –– 3346

Report and third reading –– 3346

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm presented the annual report of the Department of Human Resources entitled Services for People.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy files answers to questions standing on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Orders of the day.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF
THE PROVINCIAL SECRETARY
(continued)

On vote 152: minister's office, $75,258 — continued.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Mr. Chairman, last evening we expedited things by bringing up various responsibilities other than minister's office. I would ask if I could bring up a couple of very short matters relating to recreation and conservation in this vote.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Chairman, as we agreed in the beginning of the Provincial Secretary's estimates, I would prefer if you would confine your remarks to Provincial Secretary, superannuation and public service questions. Then when I can get my staff here and change the staff for recreation and travel industry, we could go into those two departments.

AN HON. MEMBER: Can you get that staff here now?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The member for Nelson-Creston has the floor.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to bring a couple of items to the minister's attention; I'm not going to ask for an answer at this point. I will have to get away a little early today. I'd just like to make two very brief suggestions — one under recreation and conservation in which there has been an increase in campers' fees.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): The question's more important than the answer, you know that.

MR. NICOLSON: I have an excellent suggestion made by a person in my riding. For senior citizens it might be an excellent programme to allow senior citizens to get by without the extra surcharge camper fee in those designated park sites. By presentation of a Pharmacare card, resident senior citizens of British Columbia could easily identify themselves and not have to pay the surplus $2 charge. I'd like the minister to consider that.

The other does relate to the Creston Valley waterfowl management area. I'd like to bring to the minister's attention a question asked in the federal House by Mr. Brisco, MP for Kootenay West: what percentage of the capital cost of operation the Creston Valley wildlife management area is paid for by the federal government and by the government of British Columbia, and are the salaries of employees paid by the provincial government or the federal government?

The answer from the minister in the federal House was that the Creston Valley wildlife management area operates using funds derived from grants to a trust fund by the governments of Canada and British Columbia, and appropriations by the B.C. Legislature. A summary of the funds provided in 1974-75 — grants to the trust fund for 1974-75 were: Canada, $55,000; British Columbia, $55,000. But appropriation by the B.C. Legislature for 1974-75 was $72,130; therefore the percentage contributed by Canada was 30 per cent and by British Columbia 70 per cent. In addition, the B.C. Department of Labour supplied $44,000 for summer help in 1974-75. All building maintenance is done by the B.C. Department of Public Works. The CVWMA also derives a limited revenue from granting of permits, campground fees, et cetera. Employees are paid by the British Columbia government out of funds appropriated for the Creston Valley wildlife management area. Therefore British Columbia is paying more than 50 per cent of its fees.

Now there has recently been a resolution agreed upon by the convention of the B.C. Wildlife Federation. On the back of the newsletter, which I'm sure the minister has a copy of — June, 1976, volume 6, No. 3 — it points out: "The Creston Valley wildlife management area is a tight, defensive principality given to autocratic decision-making behind bureaucratic barriers thrown up to ward off outside interference, Graham Kenyon told the convention."

To the minister I'd like to point out that I wholly agree with these remarks. There are such practices, such rather unheard of practices in terms of hiring and such, that two of the resident managers also have their wives on staff. Of the four residents there…Mr. Dwight Moore, his wife is on staff; and his assistant, his wife is on staff. These are the types of practices which are not allowed within the regular civil service. We're paying 70 per cent of the actual

[ Page 3320 ]

costs of operation, as I've outlined, so I think British Columbia should take a firmer hand and should bring it more in line with practices which are commensurate with the practice of the Public Service Commission. In fact, I would submit that it should be disbanded and it should be brought under the Department of Recreation, wildlife branch.

It points out that on the board of management, Dr. Hatter has represented British Columbia ever since it's been founded — I believe in 1968. There have been three different federal representatives, but there's a third position on the board which has never been filled, and that third position is for a citizen. They have recommended in here that that position be filled and they have recommended Frank Shannon, who was awarded the Julian Crandell award as Canada's outstanding conservationist for his work in the Creston campaign which began 35 years ago. They are petitioning the Minister of Recreation and Conservation to appoint Frank Shannon as the third and citizen member of the authority as provided under section 17(c) of the CVWMA Act, 1968. I would urge the minister to give it urgent consideration.

While I was a government minister I was not fully aware, although I worked on this throughout those years, of the extent to which British Columbia was carrying the load financially. I would say that it will be a continuing source of embarrassment and will work against the best interests of conservation in the area if this autocratic type of organization…. These people are the untouchables, really, within the control of the minister. This organization has run autocratically roughshod over the local citizenry. They continue to grasp at every area within the flats. I am sure they would flood all the existing agricultural area in their zeal. I think that some type of curb has to be brought in to this in order that it can be done.

I regret that your deputies are not here. I thank you for the opportunity of allowing me to express this at this time and I am just asking the minister that she take this under very serious advisement because this is a situation which is a problem, and it has come to the attention of the B.C. Wildlife Federation. I am sure that if she were to confer with some of her local regional people in the Department of Recreation, particularly in the fish and wildlife branch, she would find that things are a little bit less than perfect in terms of the management.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Chairman, if I see correctly, the minister's officials from both of her branches are here now. I would like to start out by talking on the Provincial Secretary side of things and draw to the minister's attention what I believe to be an injustice and ask her to take it under personal review. It relates to the case of Mason Gaffney and his payment, or lack of payment, under the Public Inquiries Act and, in particular, on the commission for property assessment and taxation.

Just to run through the history of this case, Mr. Chairman, the commission was appointed on July 24, 1975, order-in-council 2468. Dr. Gaffney and two other academics from the University of British Columbia were appointed. For connoisseurs of such questions, the presiding member of the executive council on that occasion was Leo Nimsick. The commission commenced its work. It was stipulated that all of the commissioners, and this was very carefully stipulated, were to be paid $175 a day. This was mentioned in the order-in-council. The commissioners commenced their work and, in due course, the election of December 11 was held and a new government elected which apparently disapproved of Dr. Gaffney, because one of the first things they did was to abolish the Economic Policy Analysis Institute of British Columbia, which I thought a very sad thing. In any event, we have passed that bill and nothing can be done about it.

Now time went on, and on May 5 Dr. Gaffney received a letter from the secretary of the Treasury Board, Mr. Bryson, which stated in part:

"We have received certain vouchers presented on your behalf for an honorarium in connection with your work on the property assessment and taxation inquiry. We would refer you to the enclosed memorandum from the former planning adviser to cabinet in which it is pointed out that, as policy, full-time employees or members of government boards should not receive any additional remuneration unless it is approved in advance by Treasury Board. This is to advise that we are still operating under this policy directive and, as there was no approval in advance by Treasury Board in your case, we are unable to honour payment of the honorarium."

Well, now, Mr. Chairman, I think it is very curious that the secretary of the Treasury Board said there was no advance approval because in fact there was a specific order-in-council, which certainly supersedes anything the Treasury Board might do and is superior in authority, which stipulated that…. Oh, I'm sorry, I mentioned $175 — that was to be paid to the chairman. The honorarium which was to be paid to the other commissioners was $150. Now Mr. Bryson referred to a directive from the former planning adviser to cabinet, and that apparently was a document of October 7, 1974, signed by Marc Eliesen, saying in part:

"It is suggested that in the future all full-time employees or members of government boards should not receive any additional remuneration unless there is explicit approval in

[ Page 3321 ]

advance by Treasury Board."

As I say, Mr. Chairman, there was in this case approval in advance by order-in-council But even beyond that, I would argue that Dr. Gaffney in his status as the head of the Economic Policy Analysis Institute of British Columbia did not fall in the category of a full-time employee or member of a government board. I would suggest that this was an autonomous institution, much as is the University of British Columbia, for example. Two employees of the University of British Columbia remain on that commission and remain under full pay.

Now there was some activity following Mr. Bryson's letter of May 5. On May 6 a further order-in-council was passed deleting Dr. Gaffney's name from order-in-council 2468 of 1975. On May 7 a letter was sent to Dr. Gaffney by the Deputy Provincial Secretary saying, in effect, that the matter had been further considered by Treasury Board. I quote briefly here:

"As your claims to date have been submitted in good faith, payment will be authorized for services claimed up to and including May 6, the approval date of the amending order-in-council."

Well, that was a good letter for Mr. Wallace to send. I would suggest that under the terms of the initial order-in-council the government really had no choice but to pay that money, because it was in debt under the terms of the original order-in-council.

But, Mr. Chairman, what's bothering me is what's happening from there on. Dr. Gaffney remains a member of this taxation inquiry committee; he remains a person of very high credentials in the field of property taxation on this continent. I can send the Deputy Provincial Secretary a list, which runs to some eight pages, of specific publications in the property taxation field by Dr. Gaffney. It can give a little bit of his history.

From 1958 to 1962 he was professor and associate professor of agricultural economics, University of Missouri; consultant to the Lincoln Foundation; 1962 to 1971, professor of economics, University of Wisconsin and visiting professor of economics, UCLA; 1963 to 1965, he was chairman of that department; 1971 to 1973, he was senior research associate, Resources for the Future, Inc. In Washington. Mr. Chairman, I can tell you that that is no Mickey Mouse outfit; that is a very prestigious resource land-use-oriented institution, one of the most prestigious in the United States. This is a man with good credentials. He is a man whose philosophy may not be entirely congenial to that of the government but I suspect that may be a bit of a misunderstanding too, because he has a fairly conservative philosophy.

I believe myself, Mr. Chairman, that this is a case of harassment because Dr. Gaffney's name became associated with that of Bob Williams, and the name of Bob Williams isn't popular with members of the government today. That's their business but I would ask that innocent third parties not get caught in that kind of a trap. Dr. Gaffney has advised me that some of the positions he brings to this commission are a favouring of uniformity, critical of most claims for exemption or preferential low assessment, a favouring of the immediate introduction of 100 per cent assessment, a favouring of the neutrality of taxation and reliance on the marketplace — these are all things that can be read out of his works, Mr. Chairman — regarding property taxation generally more favourably relative to most other taxes than many economists do.

Mr. Chairman, it is my opinion that this man brings to this commission a valuable viewpoint. It is my opinion that he should continue on the commission until it has completed its work. I would ask in that case why his payment is being stopped. I would suggest that he stands in no different position than the other two professors, Professor Clark and Professor Hamilton, I think it is, who are serving as members of this commission.

I would suggest that the only reason that payment could be stopped to Dr. Gaffney and not to the other two professors is because of a deliberate attempt to harass him. If the government doesn't like his views, I don't think that they should discharge him on that account. I should think they should receive the report which will be the balanced and mixed views of all the commissioners and then reject the report if they like. But to try and condition the report in advance by firing one of the members is wrong.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: I appreciate he hasn't been fired, but telling a man to work without pay is tantamount to doing that. I would reject any argument that his position as head of the Economic Policy Analysis Institute is equivalent to being a full-time government employee or member of a full-time government board. This is a distinct, independent academic institution which has now been abolished. I think the government, if they really proceed with this view, are just trying to pour some more ashes over Dr. Gaffney's head after having yanked his institute out from underneath him.

So my plea, Mr. Chairman, is to ask the Provincial Secretary to make a personal review of this case in a charitable manner, realizing that we're only talking about a few months, not a great cost to the Crown. But we're talking about equity, about British Columbia's reputation in how it treats public servants and how it treats people that are brought in from other parts of the world by any government, even if one disagrees with the views of the former

[ Page 3322 ]

government. That's my representation in that regard. I hope the Provincial Secretary will take it seriously.

My second comment is on the other side of her department. It will be very brief. It has to do with trapping methods and specifically the minister's announcement regarding the leg-hold trap. The minister, under date of May 21, issued a press release on which I have several questions.

First of all, the press release required that registered trapline owners have to check their traps every 72 hours. I would ask the minister how she possibly intends to enforce this. There are extended traplines all over British Columbia — particularly northern British Columbia — and I can't believe that her department begins to have the manpower to enforce this rule. To me it's just a nice thing to say but largely unenforceable. It can give no real comfort to those persons who are concerned about the effect of leg-hold traps and animals suffering for extended periods of time.

Secondly, I would ask if she has received a letter — which I'll just try and find it here now — from a gentleman named Watmough in Terrace, British Columbia, asking for a meeting on the question of the 5 per cent royalty which this press release introduced. The minister may have already agreed to a meeting, I don't know. But if she hasn't, I would ask her if she would agree to such a meeting.

The discrepancy which Mr. Watmough points out in the government's philosophy is this: the government has decided to abolish a royalty in the case of minerals — quite properly, in my view. Yet here they are introducing a royalty — again, 5 per cent, just what they are abolishing in the mineral field — in the animal-skin field. I would ask the minister if she would make a comment on that or if she would agree, if she has not already done so, to meet with a group of trappers to discuss it.

Next I would ask her if she has any current report on the work of the committee on humane trapping. We received a report in late April, which was very welcome, from that federal-provincial committee, which noted that field testing will begin in the 1976-77 trapping season, which I assume is this coming winter. What worries me, Mr. Chairman, is that we have had these kinds of promises for many years now. We've always been told that work is going forward, but always next year we're told that we're sorry, there is no humane trap yet and therefore we can't get rid of the leg-hold trap yet.

The minister's press release which I referred to earlier was useful in the sense that it dispensed with leg-hold traps with teeth, but on the other hand, those traps aren't a large percentage of the leg-hold traps in use today. This unfortunate practice is still continuing. We know that there are people whose livelihood depends on it, but we know at the same time that unless real pressure is put on by the government and by this Legislature the easiest thing to do is just to continue on with the old methods.

I would ask the minister again — I can't discuss in any specific terms the bill I have on the order paper — if she will not put some kind of deadline on it when she will say that from this time on the leg-hold trap will be banned. We can talk about whether it should be one year or five years. But would the minister, in principle, say she is prepared to put a time limit on for the final banning of the leg-hold trap? That, as nothing else, will guarantee that a substitute will become available within that time period. The research will be done because it will have to be. Mr. Chairman, that's all I have to say to the minister at this point. I thank you for the time.

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the Provincial Secretary could answer one question. Is she considering Travel Industry under this estimate as well?

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: Thank you. I met yesterday in Qualicum Beach with a group representing 27 motels, hotels, marinas and three chambers of commerce. They're very concerned about the situation with regard to the tourist industry on Vancouver Island, especially as the ferry rates have created an impact on them that is almost unbelievable.

The returns in that industry, in that central area of Vancouver Island, have dropped well over 50 per cent. Many people are having difficulty making mortgage payments. Most people who I talked to are falling short of making mortgage and utility payments. One person I spoke to put an investment of $250,000 in a hotel and is now losing something in the neighbourhood of $150 a day — in the month of June.

I'm wondering if the minister, as the minister responsible for tourism, is concerned about the area of central Vancouver Island, is concerned about the tourist industry in that area of Vancouver Island, and if she plans to approach the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) and ask him for an immediate rollback of the ferry increases until some type of impact study is done on the tourist industry on Vancouver Island to determine exactly what the impact of that ferry rate increase has been. Thirty-one people representing 27 businesses and three chambers of commerce in the area are very concerned about the fate of the tourist industry in central Vancouver Island as a result of that ferry rate increase.

Another thing — and this goes back to Recreation and Conservation — is that the minister, during the Provincial Secretary section of her estimates, said in relation to Gene Errington that Gene Errington

[ Page 3323 ]

wasn't relieved of her position as a result of her political beliefs. To quote the minister: "Everyone is entitled to their own political beliefs." But a memo has gone around her department that says — and I am just paraphrasing the memo — "This confirms my request to exercise sound judgment in releasing information to the public or the press, particularly information of an internal confidential or possibly controversial nature. Please inform your staff to exercise the greatest care in this matter. It has been brought to our attention that leaks of embarrassing information will be dealt with severely."

I'm wondering just what implications….

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Can you tell me what was the date on the memo?

MR. SKELLY: I'm sorry, I can't give you the date or the signature on the memo — just the contents. But it is posted on the wall of most of the offices in the Department of Recreation, ostensibly to inform the staff but….

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: No, it's been sent out. Okay, I'll ask a question: was it sent out under the minister's instructions?

I'd just like to carry that on a little further, relating to Mike Jessen, who was a clerk, I believe, in the Nelson office, and also president of SPEC in the Nelson area. His position — clerk 2, fish and wildlife branch — involves ledger work, bookkeeping invoicing, et cetera. They've had that position in the Nelson office — I believe it's the Nelson office — for four years. Two other persons have held the job before Mr. Jessen, and that same position is in existence in every other regional fish and wildlife office in the province.

On May 18 Mr. Jessen was told that his position would be renewed until September — he was called by the Victoria office. Coincidentally, May 29, at an annual meeting of SPEC, of which he is president, he criticized the government's energy policy and called for the resignation of Robert Bonner as an advocate of that party. Coincidentally, on June 8 he was informed that his position was not being renewed.

I'm wondering if the reason Mr. Jessen's position is not being renewed is that he criticized a member of the Social Credit Party who was appointed to a high office in B.C. Hydro and advocated a power policy for the province with which Mr. Jessen did not agree. That's the second question.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

My question also relates to the minister's announcements with regard to humane trapping. I think she should be congratulated for some of the things she has done — particularly with regard to servicing traplines on private lands every 24 hours, and I believe on public lands to service traplines every 72 hours. I understand that daily inspections have been part of the Canadian trappers' code of conduct for some time now and that the B.C. Trappers Association is a member of the Canadian Trappers Association, and I expect that they do subscribe to that code of conduct.

But there is also a question of enforcement. I'm wondering how the minister is going to enforce the requirement that trappers service their traplines every 24 hours on private land and every 72 hours on public land. There's been a dearth of conservation officers in this province over the past many years. We increased the number of conservation officers, under the NDP government, by almost 250 per cent or more. I'm wondering just how the minister intends to enforce the requirement that trappers service their traplines every 24 hours on private land and every 72 hours on public land.

Also in relation to the federal-provincial committee on humane trapping, I understand that the province is contributing somewhere in the neighbourhood of $3,000 a year — an average of, say, $3,000 a year — to that organization for the development and testing and improvement of humane trapping throughout the country, yet there is only one full-time staff member on that committee. B.C. has a representative on the committee but he's a full-time civil servant within the province, and there really is no capability on the part of the federal-provincial committee for humane trapping to test traps.

I understand that 80 traps have been submitted, but field work or testing has only been possible on three of the 80 traps that have been submitted. There simply isn't enough money; there simply isn't enough of a contribution from this government and from other provincial governments to test humane traps.

The member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) mentioned that the minister has done away by regulation with leg-hold traps with teeth or protuberances on them. But, again, my understanding is that most trappers have done away with the teeth on traps years ago — back around the turn of the century. They did too much damage to the pelts and destroyed the value of the pelts, so most trappers have done away with the use of that trap in any case and the regulation passed by the minister is virtually worthless because most trappers have done away with that type of trap. In fact, none are being manufactured or sold in the province.

One thing I'm particularly concerned about — again going back to the regulations brought down by the minister — is that she has increased the royalties on furs tremendously. I understand that the royalties

[ Page 3324 ]

brought in over the years past have been in the neighbourhood of $30,000 to $35,000 to $37,000. I'm wondering if the minister plans to raise the contribution by British Columbia to the federal-provincial committee on humane trapping in order to accelerate their process of testing and developing new trapping procedures.

Another concern of mine is the question of wolves. The minister has opened the season on wolves in many areas of the province. She has also permitted, under the regulations, the trapping and snaring of wolves. I don't think there's been enough information or research done into wolf populations throughout the province. A few years ago it was said that the population of wolves in the province was 20,000. Information we've received more recently is that there is something like 7,000 wolves in the province. Yet the minister in her press release of May 21 said that because of their increasing population over the past several years, there has been created a harvestable surplus, and while nature will take care of this surplus through starvation, disease or parasites, the trapping of wolves is a legitimate way to harvest part of the surplus. This is the basis of all wildlife management.

I'm wondering what studies are available to show that the wolf population has increased over the past several years. The information that we get is that there were 20,000 wolves, roughly, in the province; that more recently there are 7,000 wolves, and the minister has opened season on wolves and made it possible to trap wolves throughout the province. So I'm wondering on what information she has allowed wolves to be trapped in the province.

Many people are concerned about the trapping of wolves; we've received hundreds of letters from concerned people throughout the province. I'm wondering if the minister has received any pressure. We all recall the speeches made by the present Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) demanding that wolves be trapped in the northern part of the province, saying that wolves threatened the cattle herds and the sheep herds and any number of herds. I'm wondering if the minister has succumbed to pressure from people like the present Minister of Economic Development in opening the season to trapping. I wonder if she could answer some of those questions for me.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): Mr. Chairman, there are two areas I want to just bring up very briefly. I just want to reiterate the comments, first of all, made by the member for Alberni. I have great personal concern over the new regulations on the snaring and trapping of wolves, and I am just asking the Provincial Secretary if she would seriously reconsider this edict which has gone out and, following up what the member for Alberni said, if she would have a study done on the actual reasons for this. Is it necessary? Is the wolf population really the hazard that it is supposed to be?

In reading other arguments against this policy, it is suggested that the wolves are not the hazard which has been suggested by certain pressure groups, and the population is decreasing. So I feel very concerned personally that this move has been taken by this government, perhaps without proper study. I hope the minister will be able to tell us what the basis was for this new regulation for the trapping of wolves.

There is another point I wish to bring up — and it's moving from wolves to the Library Commission — but I'm very concerned about what's happening in the Fraser Valley Regional Library area. I'm surprised that some of the members from the Fraser Valley are not up on their feet, some of the government backbenchers, speaking on behalf of their constituents with reference to the cutbacks in the library services in that area. I know the minister is well aware of the problem. She has had a number of occasions, I think, to meet with people who are concerned.

Basically what I wanted to ask her is just a quick background again. The Fraser Valley library system, as you know, did get the approval of 16 participating municipalities to bring together the structure of the library system in the valley. It serves approximately 480,000 library users.

Now they have in previous years received a capital grant of $150,000 from the Library Development Commission and they have been told, I understand, by the Provincial Secretary that this grant has now ceased. The concern is, of course, that the participating municipalities went in on this bringing together of the services on a regional basis on the proviso that the capital grant would be provided from the government.

I realize that was perhaps a commitment made by the former government, but what I'm really asking the minister is if she will reconsider the discontinuance of that grant. After all, it serves over 450,000 people in the Fraser Valley. If the grant is not forthcoming this year their whole project to gather together a complete library system for the Fraser Valley could be dead for a number of years. I know there's great disenchantment with the people who have dedicated themselves for many years in the Fraser Valley to developing a proper library system.

So my questions to the minister are: will she reconsider the discontinuance of that $150,000 capital grant and will she reconsider, in the abeyance of a proper study, the matter of trapping of wolves?

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I wish to speak on just one or two areas of the minister's responsibility. Usually we stand up here and criticize and find fault, but I would like to start off by saying

[ Page 3325 ]

how much I appreciate the tremendous work that's done by the minister's deputy, Mr. Laurie Wallace. The minister's deputy is involved in a vast variety of responsibilities and seems to be buttonholed by many of the MLAs and citizens from all the various groups in society. I just want to place on record the fact that I never met anyone who is more approachable and more patient and more diligent in exploring matters brought to his attention by the MLAs.

In particular I want to pay tribute to Mr. Wallace for the tremendous effort he puts into the processing of requests for various grants. There must hardly be a more difficult job in the civil service than having literally thousands of people coming to this particular official with their hand out. That is a term that's not used politely nowadays, but in point of fact the deputy is often approached for assistance. I particularly want to express appreciation for the very conscientious consideration he gave in screening a grant to the handicapped recreation centre in Victoria.

Knowing as I do that the government is trying to run a tight ship and keep control and restraint on budgeting, this particular grant that was finally made available is just of enormous value, not only to the handicapped persons concerned but to the parents and relatives of many of these seriously handicapped children and young adults who otherwise would have very little exposure to recreational pursuits, or even outdoor trips beyond the confines of their own home.

It's in areas like this that the deputy minister does an outstanding job.

One of the subjects I want to touch upon is the question of electoral reform. I am sorry that the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) isn't in his place at this moment because he made a statement in March of this year, while he was speaking in the House seconding the motion of acceptance of the throne speech, that he thought that the Norris Commission was a waste of taxpayers' money. I think that was a very intemperate criticism of the work done by a highly esteemed and greatly respected citizen of British Columbia who has a lengthy record of outstanding service to British Columbia.

Judge Norris will long be remembered and long praised in this province for a great deal of the service that he's given to the province and to the country. I think that was a very unfair and intemperate criticism by the member for Omineca, when in point of fact Judge Norris was appointed in a thoroughly correct manner with terms of reference to study the electoral boundaries in British Columbia. I might say he was assisted in that job by the gentleman I've just mentioned, Laurie Wallace — another person of an outstanding record of service to this province.

I don't think it builds anything at all in the respect for our democratic system or for the functioning of government, regardless of its political label, when people of that status and calibre spend hours late into the night doing work for this province and then an MLA stands up in this House and says it was all just a waste of taxpayers' money. I think that was an insulting comment.

The fact is that in good faith the former government felt that electoral boundaries should be withdrawn. They went the route of a neutral commission, which is quite the way that it has been done many times before. I just feel that this kind of comment castigating the efforts of people appointed to do a responsible public job was quite unfair.

Since the election, Mr. Chairman, we have had a statement from the Premier of the province (Hon. Mr. Bennett) back in February of this year. The Premier had been interviewed by the Vancouver Province. He stated that the Social Credit government will establish a commission on electoral reform. Included in its review will be campaign spending, party funding and alternative voting methods.

I won't go into all the details of his statement but it's quite obvious that the Premier believes — I agree with him — that there is a great need to review the Elections Act and in particular to investigate many of the requirements for keeping the province up to date in relation to its electoral methods. In particular, research is needed to examine the methods of compiling and maintaining voters lists.

Certainly the Provincial Secretary has been very frank in acknowledging in recent months the tremendous difficulty that there was in preparing adequately for the by-election in Vancouver East. So while I am asking for information and making suggestions, I am not at the same time overlooking the complexity and the amount of detailed work that is involved in keeping our electoral methods up to date.

But I am particularly interested in whether the Provincial Secretary can tell us if any decision has been made either by her department or by cabinet as to when this commission might be set up and what the range in terms of reference will be.

It is very interesting that the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) is taking his morning stroll through the chamber, because he was one of the particular proponents when he was in the Liberal Party and considering a change of location politically. He strongly suggested that the preferential ballot or some form of preferential balloting as practised in a variety of differing ways in many different countries would be very appropriate for British Columbia. In fact, at one point I know the former Liberal leader, who is now in the cabinet as Minister of Education, made that a condition of joining the Social Credit Party — that he would have a commitment from the leader at that time that a return to preferential balloting would be in the best interests of the voter

[ Page 3326 ]

and the best interests of British Columbia.

MR. LEA: Was it a secret meeting? Tell us about those meetings. What else did he demand?

MR. WALLACE: The member for Prince Rupert is asking questions that relate to certain meetings that took place.

AN HON. MEMBER: They were alleged to have taken place.

MR. WALLACE: No, one can be more specific than saying they were alleged to have taken place. They did take place.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, we are on the Department of the Provincial Secretary.

MR. WALLACE: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I just don't like to evade any questions. When people ask for answers I like to provide open opposition.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Have you stopped beating your wife?

MR. WALLACE: I never did beat my wife, not even once.

Interjections.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did she beat you?

MR. WALLACE: You mean, "try it, you might like it"? (Laughter.)

If anything, Mr. Chairman — with some difficulty I am getting back to the point — the former Liberal leader was very strong on the need in this province for preferential balloting. He made it a condition of his joining the Social Credit Party. We've heard very little since then either from the former Liberal leader or from any of his colleagues who made the same conversion — went the same conversion route — some time ago. I believe regardless of their feelings that there is a strong sentiment within the province among many voters that some form of preferential balloting should certainly be researched and examined by such a commission as the Premier mentioned in February. I wonder if the Premier can give us any up-to-date commitment not only that such a commission will be set up but when it will be set up and how it will function.

Earlier in the session, Mr. Chairman, I asked the minister about the situation of our lottery in British Columbia under the Lotteries Act. The record in Hansard on June 7 records the minister's answer that she would be tabling a report under section 8 of the Lotteries Act as soon as it becomes available. I presume that it is not yet available.

Therefore in light of the minister's statement on May 8 in response to federal planning to extend the Olympic Lottery, I wonder if the minister could give us some information prior to the tabling of a report as to the financial status of the B.C. lottery.

I'm quoting from The Vancouver Sun of May 8: "B.C. Provincial Secretary, Grace McCarthy, warned that the new lottery" — that's the federal lottery called Loto Canada — "will virtually kill off the Western Canada Lottery and cost B.C. a substantial amount in revenue."

I wonder, since it seems likely that we won't be getting the full report tabled before the session ends, whether the minister can give us….

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: It was tabled.

MR. WALLACE: When was it tabled?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Two weeks ago.

MR. WALLACE: I asked the question on June 7. If the minister has since tabled the report I regret that I was unaware of this.

I wonder in terms of her strong response to the federal proposal if she can give us some idea how crucial this would appear to be in siphoning off money that would otherwise come into the western lottery. Another comment the minister made was quoted in the Vancouver Province on May 11: "But no doubt we'll have to live with it — I can't see Ottawa changing their mind." Was there any consultation at all with the federal government before they announced this proposal, which I gather is going ahead regardless, and is there any attempt being made at this state in the situation to discuss the proposed extension of the Olympic Lottery in the light of what I think is a very legitimate concern by the minister and by two or three of the other western provinces who are participants in the western lottery?

There's a third quick point I'd like to ask. I don't expect the minister to have all the details, but I appreciate the letter she wrote to me some months ago about the problem of oil spills and the inadequate definition of jurisdiction as to which government should pay what for oil spills. I received in April of this year a typical example of the problem as outlined by Mr. Clements on behalf of the Cowichan Valley regional district. He pointed out that an oil spill occurred along the west coast of the Island, actually in the Alberni electoral riding. Environment Canada was contacted and estimated that the cost of cleanup would be $60,000 and suggested that the beaches be left for nature to clean up the mess.

At any rate, there was a considerable amount of what briefly can be called passing of the buck. Again, I'm not criticizing specifically this jurisdiction,

[ Page 3327 ]

because as I pointed out in the House a year or two ago we had the same incredible bureaucratic buck passing when we had a small oil spill in Oak Bay. Although the money involved in that oil spill was relatively small there seems to be a great need for a better defining, of jurisdiction against the day when undoubtedly we will have a larger oil spill where the sum of money involved in cleaning up the spill will have to be agreed upon and how it will be financed will have to be agreed upon among three levels of government. I wonder if the minister could give us any up-to-date encouragement that our discussions with the federal government are leading somewhere.

A last point I would mention on this occasion is just to amplify the feelings of other speakers in regard to the leghold trap issue. There's no doubt that there must be cooperation between all governments and the trappers and the public, but there's no doubt, Mr. Chairman, that the functioning of the federal-provincial committee is a little bit like the humane trapping itself — painfully slow. The committee was set up in September of 1973 and we're just a month or two away from September, 1976. In three years the progress, if it can be called that, has just been incredibly slow. I don't know whether it's related to budgeting or not, but I understand that B.C.'s contribution in 1973-74 was $560, which would just about pay for one person's expenses to go from here to Toronto and back for a meeting.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: As the member for Burrard interjects, that's probably all it did do — pay for that one person to go on to that one meeting.

In 1974-75, British Columbia's contribution was $2,116, and when the committee submitted its first financial statement it had underspent its budget. By January, 1976, not one trap has been fully tested, and that's two and a half years after the committee was set up.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I'm not overlooking the difficulties of national committees where people have to all try and get together and come from all directions, but even beyond that, communication apparently between the federal-provincial committee and interested parties, including members of the public, has been almost non-existent. The whole image that emanates from this committee is that it's really not too enthused. It doesn't seem to be aware of the fact that this is a problem that concerns many, many Canadians all across the country — the concept of respect for pain and suffering to animals, in this case fur-bearing animals.

I know the minister can only do so much as one-tenth of the provinces participating, but I wonder if she could give us any encouraging news that this feeling of impatience by the public is becoming more clearly stated and that the British Columbia government will try and do something to expedite the protesting of traps. I gather that the two or three traps that have been tested are really just some variations of the Conibear trap that has been in existence for some considerable time.

I notice one of the statements made in some of the material that has been sent to MLAs quotes a line that has been mentioned in this House before — that when we have the technology to put a man on the moon, it seems that we are being either incredibly slow or just not serious in our attempt to come up with a more humane form of trap to use for fur-bearing animals. The statement made by the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly), and perhaps others in this debate, is that several days can go by — and I think it was five days that was mentioned — before traps have to be checked when apparently, in Ontario at least, the attempt is made to check traplines every 24 hours.

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt, from the amount of correspondence that MLAs receive, that this is an issue of great concern to a lot of people, and it does signify human respect for the prevention of pain and suffering in animals at a time when human life itself seems rather cheap. When we have all the problems, for example, of public controversy over abortion and human suffering in all corners of the globe, it seems that here is another area where we are not really moving nearly as rapidly or as conscientiously as we should in trying to eliminate pain and suffering.

I wonder whether the minister has any information on just exactly how up to date the federal-provincial committee is in coming close to finding a proper trap which is more humane, and whether, in fact, as the Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) suggested, we could not set a specific date. I think in one of the communications we have received it has been suggested that it would not be too unreasonable to suggest that a date be set in 1977 and just state that after that date there shall be no further use of leghold traps, with or without teeth. It would seem that that proposal bears a lot of merit in one respect.

Human beings very often feel that as long as a date can be put off and put off, you don't really have to work too hard towards that goal, but if you know that as of January 1, 1977, that's it, then this might be the kind of stimulus to getting some more rapid and more productive research done in finding a trap.

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): I'll be brief. My concern is about development of the public lands at the Inner Harbour in Victoria for which the Provincial Secretary now shares responsibility. Through the agency of the Capital Improvement District Commission, the Provincial Secretary has

[ Page 3328 ]

indicated to the people of greater Victoria that that particular instrument is at the moment the government's choice for the development of these lands.

I should like to ask the Provincial Secretary, given the fact that the CIDC has received no increase whatever in its $400,000 budget this year, if she contemplates at some period later in this fiscal year, through order-in-council or some other device, an increase in funds available to the commission so that it might begin work which apparently has been assigned to it. Now as the Provincial Secretary knows, I myself was a member of the commission until a recent change in government…

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR.BARBER: …and I'm well aware of the legal terms of reference under which the commission operates. I am also well aware that the commission, indeed, is in a proper and appropriate position to co-ordinate, in a directing and leading manner, the various interests and agencies that are presently involved at the various sites at the Inner Harbour.

I should further like to know from the Provincial Secretary, apart from whether or not the commission might be given additional funds, whether or not she can be understood, on behalf of the government, to be personally responsible for the co-ordinating, as a member of cabinet, of the agencies and departments of government which own properties and have an historic interest at the Inner Harbour, and further, whether or not Mr. John Webster — no relation, by the way, to a former MLA in this House, no relation at all — previously assigned by the then Minister of Lands to conduct a study of the opportunities, financial and developmental, at the Inner Harbour, is still responsible for that, or whether or not Mr. Webster might, say, be going back to his original practice which was for development on behalf of the CPR through Marathon Realty in Vancouver, and whether or not this man, highly competent and, again, not a political appointee, and hardly a supporter of the NDP, will be kept in some position in order to continue the work he has been doing — surveying the interests, surveying the assets and surveying the possibilities for development of the Inner Harbour.

I wonder, thirdly, if the Provincial Secretary will indicate whether or not, through the capital improvement district commission or through her own offices, there will be a commitment made for public participation in the design and the analysis in the debate around what might occur in development at the Inner Harbour. As she is well aware, the Inner Harbour is the site of great historic and affectionate interest on the parts of the people of Victoria, and many of them have repeatedly expressed, over many years, a personal interest in becoming involved in plans and planning at the Inner Harbour.

My fourth and final question to the Provincial Secretary again is centred on the question of leadership and the instrument, presumably the CIDC, which will be used for the development of the public lands now at the Inner Harbour. My question is this: does the Provincial Secretary anticipate that there will be a direct liaison established between her office and that of, shall we say, the mayor of the city of Victoria, or other corporate representatives of the city of Victoria, in the development at the Inner Harbour?

Again, during our period in government, regrettably — and during the previous term in government, equally regrettably — when there was no real progress at the Inner Harbour, save for the assembly of lands, particularly the Reid Centre site, there was considerable conflict between provincial planning authorities and municipal planning authorities. My final question therefore, more succinctly, is this: will the Provincial Secretary personally undertake to assure or reassure the city of Victoria that they will be consulted in every step along the way, that whatever agency shall be chosen to represent the provincial government will, in a sense, represent them as well, and that the public will have an opportunity, in a very practical and immediate sense, to share in the design and the debate of what should be invested at the Inner Harbour?

It really is a miraculous, toy-town Inner Harbour. It's an astonishing little gem that is possessed by no other city on the west coast. It's something that we should cherish very, very carefully — plan very, very carefully. It deserves the attention and the scrutiny of every member of this House and the opportunity for every member of the public to participate in the design and the development of it.

I wonder if the secretary might care to answer those four questions and perhaps make those three commitments today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. H.J. LLOYD (Fort George): There are a couple of matters I'd like to comment on briefly. I think the member for North Vancouver–Capilano brought up the matter of the leg-hold traps. I think it is one of the things that trappers themselves have been advocating — a better trap. But it's like a lot of the old inventions, they still haven't found a better system, and just to go to outright restrictions and more enforcement, to try to check the trappers to see if they can't get on every 24 hours…just to go to that system without finding a better method, I think, would only add to the unemployment we already have.

Trapping has been a way of life and a way of

[ Page 3329 ]

supplementing an income for a lot of people in the outer reaches of our province. Trapping has also been one of the things that opened up our province originally, so I think before we get too carried away with it we should find a better alternate system. It's a lot easier to criticize than it is to come up with something constructive, many times. I think he mentioned the possibility of hiring more game wardens and more inspectors, but I think probably that is a pretty poor way to increase employment. It's certainly better to find a better system.

One of the other matters that is of great concern to some of the members in my constituency is the problem of giving proper directional signing on the highways in the province. I'd like to call the Provincial Secretary's attention to the problem the Vancouver game farm is experiencing in trying to get proper directional signing off the freeway. For the House's information, the Vancouver game farm was opened in August of 1970, and the basic purpose of it is that as a private operation it receives no grants or subsidies from any public funding, nor any zoological association. Their two major purposes are to propagate those animals in danger of becoming extinct, and to provide research on the care and breeding of wild animals. The second purpose is to provide an educational and entertainment centre for the public interested in viewing wildlife from throughout the world.

I might say that after visiting the farm I was quite impressed with the programme and the layout they have. They've already established themselves as a well-recognized and reputable wild animal park. They've been quite successful in their programme of raising and breeding animals. They are quite a good supplement to Stanley Park, and over the years since they've been established they've been a real asset to thousands of school children, retarded and handicapped, underprivileged groups and senior citizens.

They do offer special rates for these particular groups and I believe they're providing a very worthwhile service in our province.

One of the major difficulties they have experienced is the problem of the public trying to locate their turn-off. They are at the exit at 264th Street on the freeway. It's also the exit for Aldergrove and Bellingham. They've attempted over the years to resolve this problem with the Department of Highways but, as I'm sure everyone knows, there has been a policy of trying to get away from excessive billboards and advertising along the highways. Still it's a pretty difficult thing to try to do just by the means of small brochures and by advertising campaigns. I think possibly rather than helping to keep the billboards down we're probably creating more traffic jams by not having proper directional signing.

Again, I don't think they're asking for anything exorbitant, just that they could have a sign in plenty of time to indicate where the turn-off to their farm is. They were encouraged to use the title of "Vancouver Game Farm" because Vancouver as one of the major cities of British Columbia is recognized throughout the world and everyone knows where it is. Possibly if they had used Aldergrove or something, the Aldergrove turn-off would have been an indication. So I think these people have cooperated and set up a very creditable institution there.

Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the Provincial Secretary, through the Department of Recreation and Travel Industry, couldn't maybe have the travel department itself erect signs, particularly in this instance, and, I would think, in other areas of major tourist attractions, whether beaches, ski hills or whatever they are, showing where the turn-offs for these are and how to locate them. I'm not saying we should get in the business of advertising for private interests, but certainly highways are made to serve the tourist and the motoring public. I would like, Mr. Chairman, if the Provincial Secretary has any idea along this line…. I think it's something that we should encourage. It's a major industry in the province and it's a major tourist attraction. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): Just a couple of brief comments, Mr. Chairman, I wanted to raise under the Provincial Secretary's estimates the question or the responsibility for the Library Development Commission. I don't think this has been raised, to my knowledge, and certainly I would like to commend to the Provincial Secretary the work of the development commission.

I'm particularly concerned, of course, about the situation here on the Island where we have two rather active groups in libraries — one in the greater Victoria area and one in the central northern area of the Island. I understand that there has been some meeting scheduled between these two groups to try to work out the differences that have existed between them in the establishment of boundaries. I understand too that this is the major detriment to their getting the full benefits of the funding and the facilities that have been established under the Library Development Commission. I would certainly like to recommend to the Provincial Secretary that she use her good influences to do whatever can be done to create the opportunity for a more full participation on the Island in some of the items that are undertaken by the Library Development Commission in other areas of the province.

The other item that I wish to speak about, Mr. Chairman, is not relative to that same category or

[ Page 3330 ]

same section of her duties, but rather with the Recreation. It has to do with the White Crown ski development between Ladysmith and Chemainus. This seems to range from being a dead issue to being a very active issue. There seem to have been a great variety of studies, a lot of time spent in reviewing the suitability of this property for ski development. I think the people who are very anxious that this development be carried out and completed are the family type of skiers who recognize the need of a training slope where young people can participate and learn to ski, an accessible sort of a slope. It's been dubbed as a "bunny hill" but I think it is a little more than that. I am not a skier but the people who do ski tell me that it has quite a potential.

I know that there has been some hang-up with the exchange of property and the availability of this property for a ski slope, in view of the logging activities there with Crown Zellerbach and a bit, I believe, with MacMillan as well. I would suggest that it is something that is very much needed in this southern central Island area. It's a good family sport.

We're having more and more spare time to use and we must use it in a wise manner. This is, of course, what recreation is all about. I would like to suggest to the Provincial Secretary that this is a very valuable project and urge her consideration of development of that White Crown ski development as soon as possible.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Chairman, I couldn't let the Provincial Secretary's estimates go through without asking her to say a few words about culture because, as you know, she is the cultural czar of the province, the person responsible for the enrichment of the lives of all of us as we live and breathe and exist here. I hope that when she stands up to terminate her comments on her department, she will give us a report on what is happening to the development of culture in this province.

As you know, Mr. Chairman, when we were government, we tried to decentralize the distribution of funds so as not to have them concentrated in the lower mainland. We believed it was important that the rural areas and some of the more remote areas should have an opportunity, too, for funding to develop their facilities. We also believed that it was important that not only the great big professional organizations like the Vancouver symphony or the McPherson theatre or the Victoria symphony should get money, but that some of the smaller groups — the ones that were struggling to get started and to survive — should have some funding too.

We also believed that the craft industry was very important — that, in fact, there are a lot of people in the province who contribute a lot to the economy of the province through their crafts. We wanted to see them involved in the funding as well. We also felt it was important that anyone who wanted to participate in decisions should be able to do so. For that reason, people serving on some of the regional committees were paid a very small honorarium which made it possible for those with small children, for example, to pay their babysitters so they could go to meetings and have their transportation and very minor expenses paid.

I am kind of interested to know what the Provincial Secretary is going to do in terms of extending those services, expanding them, carrying them through, or whether this area, too, is going to be contracted and attempts are going to be made, once again, to centralize the funding in the lower mainland and specifically discriminate on behalf of the larger arts communities, such as the big symphonies and opera, rather than some of the smaller groups which are trying to get started.

The only other comment I have to make, Mr. Chairman, has to do with a group called ISIS which is a film and media group which is very dependent on the Provincial Secretary for funding. They're asking for a very small sum of money so they can continue their work of showing films to schools, through the churches, various art groups, to the mental health society. They're doing a very worthwhile job and they're asking for a very small sum of money — I think it's about $21,000 or something — none of which will be going into salaries. At this point, they still have not heard whether their funding is going to be granted or not. I think they would appreciate the Provincial Secretary making a comment on this.

I also hope the Provincial Secretary will encourage the Department of Public Works not to back down on their decision to continue buying works of art from B.C. artists for hanging in our government buildings. I think this is an important concept. Aside from creating employment for our artists, it's part of building a tradition in this province. I think the Provincial Secretary should stand beside the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Fraser) against the forces of the member for Esquimalt (Mr. Kahl) and others and help him so that he doesn't have to back down on this very important programme.

MR. J.J. HEWITT (Boundary-Similkameen): Mr. Chairman, I was going to raise my questions under vote 157; however, the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) did touch on the Library Development Commission and therefore I thought I'd stand at this time.

Mr. Chairman, I want to speak about the library grants programme and how it affects the Penticton Public Library. As I read the definition of the programme, it's to provide libraries and library association grants to library systems, to public libraries, to regional libraries and to public library

[ Page 3331 ]

associations. Mr. Chairman, the grant to the Penticton Public Library was denied as of 1972 due to the fact that a decision was made by the Library Development Commission that the Penticton Public Library was no longer a member of the regional district concept and therefore would not qualify for the library grant.

Mr. Chairman, the grant is not that large — I think it's only several thousand dollars — but as I understand it we are the only municipal library which is not receiving that grant. When I read the definition of the library grant programme, it does mention specifically public libraries.

Mr. Chairman, as a former member of the Penticton library board I can assure this assembly that Penticton and the people who live in the Penticton area are very proud of the library. We have a programme of large-print books which are for those people who have seeing difficulties. We have two or three language sections in the library. We have what are known now as "talking books," which are for those people who either cannot see or are paralyzed and cannot turn pages. These are done on cassettes. Entire volumes of some best-sellers are produced by that service and are available through our library. We deliver to our local retirement centre books on a weekly basis to make sure that the retired people in the area have the availability of the library, and we also have a volunteer home-delivery service.

Mr. Chairman, Penticton's public library was selected as the demonstration library this year for the UBC school of librarianship.

This library does give service to the surrounding area. It is not strictly for Penticton alone. It serves all the communities around it.

The board and myself have met with Mr. Davidson of the Library Development Commission, but we do not seem to get anywhere. We've been dealing with this since 1972. I strongly feel it's discrimination against the Penticton Library. Really, the reasoning for this grant system is to provide service. It is the taxpayers' money and there are people in Penticton, of course, who contribute to the general revenues of the province. I think money would be well spent to help promote the library service in Penticton.

The use of the funding by the board would help them go into a six-days-a-week operation. Mr. Chairman, I think that is important in regard to the operation. As I mentioned before, the key to the library is service to the community, and I think the Penticton library meets that challenge.

Mr. Chairman, in looking at the Library Development Commission, under the Act in section 5 it does state that: "apportionment, subject to the approval of the minister, the moneys annually apportioned by the Legislature for the aid of public libraries under this Act, and of public bodies that are engaged in promoting library services and improving library standards and the standards approved by the commission and regulations by the commission…." Mr. Chairman, I think the minister does have charge of the commission, and I would ask her if she would review the policy in order that the people of Penticton can benefit from the library grant programme.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, in reply to the last comment on libraries, may I just cover the three areas that were mentioned in regard to libraries.

First of all, Boundary-Similkameen, if you will recall, Penticton opted out of the larger regional Okanagan library district and since that time has struggled to go it alone. I think perhaps now the whole concept of regional libraries has been established well in the province by the former government and carried on by this government. I recall being at a conference, as a matter of fact, that really came up with the policy back in 1971-72 that established regional libraries. At that time the Penticton group decided to go it alone, and now I think it has second thoughts. All I can say is that the door is open. We will be pleased to renegotiate. The door is open to the Penticton area, and I will be very pleased to sit down with them and discuss it.

The member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly), raised a question on libraries as well. With regard to the mention that she made of the Fraser Valley library, there is a problem on the $150,000 grant in that the grant. They have asked to have granting from two areas of government, one from the Community Recreational Facilities Fund and one from the library commission, and that is where that one is hung up at the present moment. As you know, it is not government policy to have double funding. So we are just at a problem there, but not one that cannot be overcome. I think it will be.

I believe the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) also brought up her concern regarding the library system. I can reiterate that we are in full agreement with the concept of the library development system which has been established. This is one of the very few votes in my department, and in fact in all departments, that has been increased in government this year. It has been increased by $100,000, which does not by any means cover the need or the concern expressed by all members of the House and the public, but it shows the intent of the government and certainly shows the concern of our government to continue.

The member for Cowichan-Malahat brought up the point of the White Crown development. I think you put it very well, Madam Member: it is presently in limbo. There is an access problem. It involves the purchase of Crown Zellerbach lands. It has a problem regarding the cost, because we have been directing a lot of our money to the completing of the Cypress Bowl development.

[ Page 3332 ]

However, there is a study by Al Raine, that is apparently available or is going to be available regarding the place of government versus private enterprise in ski development, which could lead to new policies for government. We're going to be taking a look at that when time allows. That may have some reference to your particular area of White Crown.

I would like to also just suggest to the member for Fort George (Mr. Lloyd) in the problem of directional signing for Travel Industry and places of interest…. As you know, some years ago the province of British Columbia — many, many year ago — made the decision that they would not have on every highway commercial signing. That has been policy established, kept up over many years through several governments. I suggest to you that it is a good one. I don't think we want to have a lot of commercial signs throughout.

There is a place for directional signs which will assist people and our travel industry. It is one that we have to encourage. I will have something to say about that in a while. It is a Highways department programme; it is a Highways department policy Perhaps some sort of combination regarding directional signs for tourist attractions could be worked out, but I would suggest to you that commercial signing would probably not be within the policy of this government.

I would like to mention to the first speaker for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson), who doesn't seem to be in the House now…. I would just like to say that in regard to his reference to the senior citizens' park surcharge, as you know, the camping fees surcharge was put on camps this year in 23 provincial parks. I would like to say that of the 325 provincial parks which we have, only 23 of the 120 camping facilities have been increased. So this increase, which was the first since 1971, if it does bear a hardship on senior citizens, it is during just these peak times of use during the summertime — the summer months — when we have in the parks help.

We have problems with vandalism, et cetera. The surcharge was put on to overcome that — for the extra charges for cleaning, et cetera. So I would suggest that it isn't really a hardship, but I will take under consideration his suggestion.

Regarding the Creston Valley wildlife, I think the management areas was set up originally under the former minister, Mr. Ken Kiernan. It was hailed at the time as being one of the most progressive and unique management area situations that could have been established. I think it was lauded throughout the country and still is unique and progressive in terms of other areas in the country.

It was set up so the funding was possible from federal, provincial and private funding. Ducks Unlimited, for instance, has an investment in the area. It's generally split 50-50. I am surprised at the figures; I am going to look into that a little further. I am surprised at the figures offered by the member for Nelson-Creston. The budget was set up in the way that federal, provincial and private funds…. If you took into account other contributing services which might change this balance, I think you will believe that this was a fairly good deal.

I do want to stress that there is input from an advisory board of citizens. Now this is relatively new. The member probably wasn't aware of it. There is allowance made for an advisory board. There are outside people who advise us on the situation. The suggestion that we have Mr. Frank Shannon on the a board is certainly a good one. He has done much to help the work of the authority and should be commended for that work. I think perhaps we could consider a citizen for the board, but we should really wait to see how the workings of the advisory committee turn out before we launch into anything like that.

I am taking under advisement the question of the four resident managers with wives on staff on that particular area. It is not governed by the Public Service Commission. However, I am going to take that under advisement because that is news to me and I was not aware of it. I am pleased to have the information.

I would like to now address an answer if I may to the hon. Liberal leader and member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) regarding Mr. Mason Gaffney's appointment by order-in-council, regarding the commission of inquiry, to be paid $175 daily.

It is government policy and it has been under the previous governments — it is under this government, certainly — an established policy that when a member is on staff, on the public service in any capacity, deputy minister, whatever, if they serve on a committee or are asked to serve on a committee, they do not get duplicate funding — i.e. they do not get paid in their capacity of deputy minister, as in the case of my own deputy minister, Mr. Wallace, who so well served along with Mr. Ken Morton of my electoral office on the electoral reform commission.

We have two deputy ministers who served unpaid on the Purchasing Commission and there are many, many examples throughout government where that takes place.

Now Mr. Gaffney was on staff at a salary of approximately $40,000 annually. He is paid until September 30 of this year 1976. The inference that perhaps he was taken out of the $175 per diem because of political affiliation — I'm not aware of that. I do not take that criticism, because I honestly do not feel that he was taken from it because of that — nothing to do with his philosophy, nothing at all.

The policy is that no one in receipt of public money, on the public payroll, gets additional sums

[ Page 3333 ]

while serving. So apparently he received money in error and that means that in spite of the fact that other people who have been serving on other boards do not get paid, Mr. Gaffney did receive some funds up to the point that it was discovered that he was getting double funding. So although we didn't ask him for a refund of the money, the funds were cut off at that point in time when the discovery was made.

AN HON. MEMBER: What's the difference with the two other professors?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The two other professors are not on the government payroll. Very often university professors get leave from the university for their time and sometimes pay back some of the funds into the university. That's between the university and the professor, and I don't have knowledge of Dr. Clark and Dr. Hamilton in that regard.

May I just address my remarks then to two or three members, among them the hon. Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson), who mentioned the problems of the leg-hold trap and the whole problem of the humane treatment of animals in British Columbia and, of course, all over? There is no easy way to kill an animal. We have, as you made mention, abolished the toothed leg-hold trap by order-in-council. I want to say in response to some of the remarks regarding that, that in no way did I, when I was making that announcement — and you'll notice I made it with several other announcements or regulations — I made nothing of the fact that we were abolishing that particular trap.

It is still in use, or had been up to that order-in-council, in use in British Columbia, but admittedly very little. It was just to ensure that it would not be used, because it is even more inhumane than the regular leg-hold trap which we wish to address ourselves to now. So please don't think that in making that announcement we were setting ourselves up as it being any answer to the problem which everyone has expressed so well today. I think that the fact that we made to little of it at the time is certainly evidence of that.

On the May 21 press release which suggested the 72-hour check and made it mandatory, may I just say that…? You mentioned, could I meet with the trappers' association in regard to the enforcement of it and in regard to all of the other problems that are concerned with the trappers' association. I have told them that I will meet with them. I have met with their executive director some two months ago, and because of the pressure of the session and so on, I haven't had an opportunity…. I was sorry I had to miss their annual meeting and also the B.C. wildlife annual meeting because of the session being on and duties here in the House. But I will certainly make it a point to meet with those organizations.

As I understand it and as some of you have pointed out, the point of enforcement on the 72-hour check…. As you know, we have some conservation officers who would be enforcing it, and I think the question was raised as to whether they would be sufficient and could they do it. Let me say that during the winter season and during the whole year, this particular 72-hour check only influences approximately, in the areas that you're speaking of, about 10 per cent of the total trapping situation. It was pointed out to me by the hon. member for Skeena at the time the trapping regulations were set that during the winter months, when the northern part of British Columbia is so cold and inaccessible, the animals die so quickly in the cold that even the 72-hour check isn't necessary.

So I just draw that to your attention. The 72-hour spread, which is difficult to enforce, and difficult for even the trappers to enforce during the winter months, is overcome by the natural winter conditions.

I would also like to mention the fur royalty which was mentioned by the hon. Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson). There was a fixed figure heretofore in British Columbia, and we were one of the last provinces — either one or two of the last provinces in Canada — that did not introduce a system which is now used across Canada. We changed, then, from the fixed figure to a percentage. Now this percentage is a more realistic way of reflecting and benefiting from the greatly increased cost of furs, or the greatly increased price of furs, so it has a return to the province.

The subject of the federal-provincial committee regarding the leg-hold trap and humane methods of trapping: I met with Mr. Alec Caron, the executive director of the committee, just within the last two weeks — he was here in British Columbia. As you know, he is based in Ontario. He was telling us at that meeting that the humane testing that you are concerned with…. And all members seem to be concerned with the speed in which that organization is moving ahead.

All I can say, in reading about it, is that I share your concern that it has been slow heretofore. I think they have, through Mr. Caron and through members of my staff who are on that committee, very good reason for the slowness at the start. They seem to have fairly good explanations. But I can say that he does tell me that they are now undergoing actual testing of, I think it was, four devices which they had great hopes for at Guelph, Ontario, at the testing laboratory. I suggest to you that they are coming fairly close; at least, I feel they are. I don't want to set up any false hopes, but I think that now the organization is in a fairly viable situation.

[ Page 3334 ]

May I say this, though: it's new to me; I am going to be meeting with them again, and I want to meet in the fall with that organization to have an accounting of the work that is being done. I will assure this House that my concern, my personal commitment to the House and to the electorate, is that we will find a solution to this problem within the next 24 months.

I am cognizant, as are you, of the 10,000 families, most of whom are native Indians, who rely on trapping for a living. So it is no easy task to make a commitment that will influence the lives of that many families, and therefore we have to be cognizant of that. I assure you that I will be; I assure you that we will work towards it and in the fall hope to have some news regarding that particular organization.

Our commitment to that humane trapping seems very little — $3,200 annually. But the commitment of the total federal-provincial committee is $2 million over five years. Our commitment will increase as the return to British Columbia is greater. It can be called on, and obviously will be called on, as the costs get greater on the testing, which is the most expensive part of it. We are entering into that phase now. We will be contributing more to it. I think the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) was raising that question.

The question of wolf population, again raised by the member for Alberni: I think that the figures are low. I believe you mentioned 7,000. I am advised by my department that this is closer to 30,000 in the province of British Columbia, and it has increased quite considerably.

The member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) asked whether or not that study had been well done. It was done by our fish and wildlife branch — all the surveys are done through our fish and wildlife department, with information from ranchers, trappers and others living in remote areas. They tell us now that the buildup is somewhere near 30,000 and justifies the regulations that were put in.

I would like to mention the CIDC which the hon. second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) brought forward. I would like to say that the CIDC, a commission with its $400,000 budget, is still in place. I have been able to have just one full meeting with them. As you know, it's a planning concept. We hope to have complete public participation. You were concerned about the city of Victoria participation. The mayor of the city of Victoria sits on the board, as does Alderman Hood, so they have a very great input, and we will certainly be establishing a public participation in the whole development, because not only the people in Victoria are concerned; all of B.C. is concerned about their capital region.

I am not aware of the gentleman you mentioned by the name of Webster. You and I should talk about that after, I think. I am sorry, I am unaware of that and I cannot get information. As I can't get information, I assume he is not on staff.

We have had great cooperation expressed by all of the member municipalities, and I'm very optimistic about the work we can do through CIDC to truly make the Inner Harbour the jewel that it should be for our capital region.

I'd like again to return to the question from the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) regarding political influence and political appointments. You mentioned a memo — you could not give me a date or a signature — and you made mention of one Gene Errington, who, as you know, was discontinued in her position in January of this year. I want to inform the House that when I mentioned the name of Ms. Errington last week in my questioning in the estimates under the Status of Women, I want to mention to you that the information that I gave the House last week was unknown to me till about two weeks ago, and I had no idea until that point in time what Ms. Errington's policies or politics were.

To get back to the memo that the member for Alberni mentioned, I am advised by my staff that they were unaware of any memo. Certainly it was not issued from Victoria. I am unaware of it, and all I can say is that if you do have specifics I'd like a date and I'd like a place. If they are posted everywhere surely there must be a signature on them. If you will make that available to me I'd be pleased to have it. It did not emanate from my office.

I am also advised by staff that the Mr. Mike Jesson, who you mentioned in the Nelson area as clerk 2 in Fish and Wildlife, was a limited appointment. The limited appointments of the Public Service Commission are not necessarily kept on staff, and that is to do with the judgment of the department itself.

I am sorry, but I was completely unaware of the criticism that you mentioned. I don't know of Mr. Jesson, his politics or his public statements about B.C. Hydro. All I can say is that certainly no political judgment was made in terms of not re-hiring him. He was a limited appointment.

I've just covered all the questions, I think, but I think the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) mentioned the handicapped recreation centre in Victoria where 300 handicapped youngsters are being served. I'm really pleased he mentioned it because I know all members of the House have their own particular concerns and I know they have wished to have programmes. We can talk about libraries, and they're all very good. We can talk about programme after programme in every single portfolio in this House and every single department, but I don't think that any of us would dispute the fact that if there's going to be funds given up from one area to another, every member in this House will give it to those less fortunate than ourselves, the disadvantaged and the handicapped in this province.

I also wish to address my remarks to the electoral

[ Page 3335 ]

reform which you mentioned. I can tell you that we have a commitment, which was a commitment made by the party which was fortunate enough to become elected in December, to bring electoral reform before the next election as soon as the House rises. Somewhere in the month of August I hope to get together a study and make sure that I have something to report to the House in the next session. I do have that timetable which is a personal one and a personal commitment to that.

You mentioned also the question of lotteries. Loto Canada will be competitive. You asked if there was a commitment from the federal government prior to that statement being made by the federal government. Yes, there was a commitment by the federal government to meet with the provincial ministers and make a statement, make a policy programme. Unfortunately the federal announcement was made before that meeting was put together. I think that's where we felt a little concerned, that it wasn't done.

Regarding oil spills, we're still trying to negotiate with the federal government an agreement on jurisdictions. We're still awaiting answers from the federal government. That's under active study and consideration, and I hope that before we meet again we're going to have jurisdiction settled on that question so we know where we all stand in that regard.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate the minister's answers concerning some of the topics that we did bring up. I understand the member for Burrard has one that wasn't answered, but I'll be very brief.

The member did not respond to my question concerning the effect on tourism in central Vancouver Island and the meeting I had yesterday with those 27 businesses and the three chambers of commerce. I hope that she will answer that question. What I was requesting was a rollback in ferry fares and a study of the impact of ferry fare increases on those people. I believe they will be in contact with the minister shortly to provide in detail the impact that the ferry rate increases have had on their business.

On the question of wolves, I wasn't aware of the study that was done. However, it bothers me that the input to that study was from trappers, farmers and others. I think we should have more research on wolves in the province of British Columbia before a step is taken to provide for the killing of wolves on traplines.

It mentions in the regulations that killing-traps only will be used. The major type of killing-trap that's used for wolves is the snare. I'd just like to give a description by a Mr. Lung, former director of the Humane Trap Development Committee, Toronto, Ontario, of the snare:

"At best, the animal is choked progressively to death, and since this situation is at the dictates of fear and struggling by the animal itself, the period involved may be very prolonged."

I can see that the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) is very concerned about this, because he has presented a bill on this subject.

"If the noose is set too large, or carelessly, so that the creature also puts a leg through the loop, the snare can cut into the animal's body. A little thought suffices to bring out clearly the suffering involved, particularly if the trapper does not return for a long time. In some cases, the animal's torso can be virtually cut in half if the noose closes around, say, the abdomen. In other cases, extremities such as snout or legs can be caught, resulting in intense misery."

I would like to see, before permitting the use of killing-traps for wolves, some detailed study of the wolf population in British Columbia — not one that simply involves input from farmers and trappers, but one that is done by professional biologist staff, possibly from the fish and wildlife branch.

We get the same thing on cougars on central Vancouver Island. When we get input from the cougar hunters and farmers, there appears to be a heck of a lot more cougars than there actually are. When we get some professional studies, the number of cougars that actually exist on central Vancouver Island is very, very small in comparison.

I understand that budget vote 032 that provides for special studies in regional offices has now been cut back. In fact, that budget has now been allocated to the student summer-employment programme, so that some of these studies that would have been done on wolves by professional people within the fish and wildlife branch are now being allocated to the student summer-employment program. Those studies will not be done by competent biological staff. I think that's unfortunate.

One final question relates to the issue of mining and forest development in parks. This was brought up by several Social Credit backbenchers, advocating mining and logging development in parks. The Premier has assured the House that mining and logging development will not take place in provincial parks — I think we're grateful for that assurance. The Provincial Secretary also advised the House, I believe on April 14, that there would be no more claim-staking in parks. I believe that's already part of legislation passed as far back as 1974. I would also like the assurance of the Provincial Secretary and the Minister of Recreation that parks won't be eliminated to allow the development of claims such as the big interior mountain claims like Cream Silver Mines in Strathcona Park.

[ Page 3336 ]

We accept the assurance and we're grateful for the assurance that mining and logging development will not be permitted in parks, but we would like some assurance that parks won't be moved in order to delete those claims from parkland in order to allow exploration and development to go ahead in those parks. Could the minister provide that assurance?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, there'll be no mining in parks under this administration. There will be no new claims. You've made mention of Strathcona — there was a redefinition of the boundaries, as you know, and there was a net gain parkwise. We have a commitment to trying to solve the age-old contracts which both governments have had a great deal of soul-searching over. We're hoping to have a resolution between both mines and parks departments that can overcome that. Again, I can just give you that commitment that we have that conservation-minded policy in the government.

You mentioned your concern regarding the study done on the wolves. It was done by professional biologists, assisted by outside help. Please don't think it was all amateurs in the field. They had very good input from outside people, but it was not done entirely by amateurs. Our own professional biologists did that. I haven't had an opportunity to check with the deputy, but I don't believe that the student studies are discontinued. I gave some approval in the last few weeks for some studies to be undertaken by students within the Fish and Wildlife. I can't be quite sure of that; I just haven't had a second to do that.

One of the things I do want to answer is in regard to the cultural programme question from the first member from Burrard. We are committed to a decentralized programme through the Community Arts Council, and we're very concerned that this continue.

I've been quite impressed with the kinds of things that are going on in the province. We are going into the hinterlands, as you say, and we are certainly committed to that programme — the continuation of it — and I think that one of the things that perhaps brought our province ahead through many years, certainly to the fore in Canada in the arts, was the establishment of the cultural fund which has been of great benefit to people in all parts of the province.

You made mention of ISIS and the request for $21,000. That's still under study. I don't have a definite commitment to make to you today, but I certainly will look into it and report further.

Finally, because it escaped my comments, I would like to end my comments by saying to the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly), regarding the travel industry, that it is and will be one of the most important industries in this province. I suggest to you that it could be, with the cooperation of the private sector working with government, the top revenue portfolio in the province.

In your concern for the ferry rates, I'm going to say this: the concern of Vancouver Island travel people is not entirely negative in regard to the ferry rates. The good operators — and I have seen some press on this and I've had some feedback from the industry itself — are, of course, concerned with the increase in ferry rates. This government is concerned about the increase in ferry rates. We didn't do it for a popularity contest; we did it because it was an economic measure that had to be taken. But I'm going to say this to you: the travel industry on Vancouver Island will be enhanced by a $100,000 advertising programme undertaken jointly by Travel Industry and B.C. Ferries. It begins on Monday of this coming week and it will cover the lower mainland and the Seattle area to entice people.

I would just like to make this statement: the travel industry can be very healthy in the province of British Columbia. It is being influenced greatly this year by the people in the United States of America who are staying home to celebrate their bicentennial. It is still being influenced by the decrease of motor traffic outside of the U.S.A. because of the cost and so on. That decrease started last year and we're living with it this year, and it is influenced somewhat by the pull of the Olympics in Montreal. But I would say that any good operator who gives service to people is really not suffering on Vancouver Island, or anywhere else in this province, and a lot of it has to do with the fact that those private industries must go the extra mile to make people feel at home. They are suffering greatly over a very high-cost labour area and they have to make up for that with very great service.

I am very confident that we can assist in our joint meetings with industry. I've had many meetings. I've just come back from a meeting where we saw the top, I guess, hospitality people in the world in action in Honolulu. I can say that my desire is that we make that industry very healthy in the province of British Columbia, and with the cooperation of the industry, we're going to. We're committed to that fact.

Vote 152 approved.

Vote 153: general administration, $319,330 — approved.

Vote 154: central microfilm bureau, $802,822 — approved.

Vote 155: postal branch, $3,495,996 — approved.

Vote 156: Legislative Library, $604,988 — approved.

Vote 157: library services, $3,780,944 — approved.

[ Page 3337 ]

Vote 158: Provincial Archives, $676,130 — approved.

Vote 159: Queen's Printer, $10 — approved.

Vote 160: Government House, $119,786 — approved.

Vote 161: Agent-General's office and British Columbia House, $400,843 — approved.

Vote 162: Indian Advisory Act, $66,700 — approved.

Vote 163: Public Inquiries Act, $1,000,000 — approved.

Vote 164: grants and special services and events, $3,210,000 — approved.

Vote 165: Provincial Elections Act, $580,792 — approved.

Vote 166: provincial emergency programme, $1,289,434 — approved.

Vote 167: British Columbia lottery branch, $10 — approved.

Vote 168: leisure services branch, $2,030,406 — approved.

Vote 169: unemployment insurance (public service) and Workers' Compensation Act, $11,400,000 — approved.

Vote 170: British Columbia provincial museum, $3,483,458 — approved.

Vote 171: distribution of government publications, $250,000 — approved.

Vote 172: public information, $150,000 — approved.

Vote 173: Public Service Commission, administration, $3,441,877 — approved.

Vote 174: Public Service Commission, employee benefits, $24,150,000 — approved.

Vote 175: superannuation branch, administration, $1,009,546 — approved.

Vote 176: superannuation branch, public service superannuation and retirement benefits, $40,060,000 — approved.

Vote 177: superannuation branch, Members of the Legislative Assembly Superannuation Act, $150,000 — approved.

Vote 178: superannuation branch, Municipal Superannuation Act, $61,000 — approved.

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF
RECREATION AND TRAVEL INDUSTRY

Vote 179: minister's office, $34,400 — approved.

Vote 180: general administration — recreation, $912,904 — approved.

Vote 181: information and education branch, $390,785 — approved.

Vote 182: marine resources branch, $565,856 — approved.

Vote 183: fisheries enhancement programme, $300,000 — approved.

On vote 184: fish and wildlife branch, $10,079,600.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I just want to lend support to the press release of the fish and wildlife branch dated April 30 regarding gun control, because gun control as suggested by the national government will not contain violent crime in our country. I think that the legislation which has been introduced by the national government is only harassment of the law-abiding people who own guns in this country. It's vague, it's unspecific. I am standing to support the fish and wildlife branch in their press release of April 30.

Vote 184 approved.

Vote 185: Creston Valley management authority, $129,750 — approved.

Vote 186: parks branch — operations, $13,565,187 — approved.

Vote 187: parks branch — capital programme, $5,000,000 — approved.

Vote 188: grants-in-aid of regional parks development, $1,320,000 — approved.

Vote 189: Pacific Rim National Park, $2,858,000 — approved.

Vote 190: youth crew programme, $1,000,000 —

[ Page 3338 ]

approved.

Vote 191: outdoor recreation branch, $405,254 — approved.

Vote 192: Archaeological and Historic Sites Protection Act, $1,879, 811 — approved.

Vote 193: general administration — travel, $62,240 — approved.

On vote 194: travel division, $4,182,699.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to come to the defence of the travel industry and the hospitality industry people on central Vancouver Island. The Provincial Secretary said that they have to go that extra mile to attract tourists to the Island. I think that over the years they have gone that extra mile. They have provided a very good industry on central Vancouver Island; they have attracted a tremendous number of people to that area. They are a very good industry, a very capable industry, a very efficient industry.

It hasn't been until this year that three chambers of commerce have written to the government protesting the type of treatment that that industry has received from the provincial government, specifically relating to ferry rates. I would like to come to the defence of those people, because they do provide a good service to tourists and they do go that extra mile.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Member, I would just like to say that you don't have to come to their defence. I wasn't attacking them.

Vote 194 approved.

Vote 195: Beautiful British Columbia Magazine, $1,173,587 — approved.

Vote 196: California and London offices, $169,933 — approved.

Vote 197: film and photographic branch, $567,472 — approved.

ESTIMATES: LEGISLATION

On vote 1: legislation, $3,264,110.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I want to make three very brief points and representations to the minister under vote 1.

First of all, I appreciate that this first session of the new government was a very busy one and an unusual one. I would hope, however, that in future sessions committees of the House could be used a great deal more and in particular that in some cases they could be used to travel around the province and sound out public opinion and learn things from the people of this province, because I think that can be a very helpful use of this Legislature.

The second point: I would hope that the government might consider setting aside some money for the production of what I might call a British Columbia Beauchesne. I think that it might assist the debate and the procedure and the order in this Legislature if members had available to them a compendium of Speakers' decisions over the years and the law of this Legislature as it has evolved in some kind of coherent form.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: No, not in any annotated and collected form, Mr. Member.

Finally, I would suggest that the government give suggestion to establishing or referring to the existing committee the whole question of our standing orders and the procedures of this House, which would be a study that would take a long time. But I would ask the government to think about it, because I do think it could use some overhaul and modernization.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I think on this vote it would just be very appropriate to express appreciation for the people who work under the chamber. I'm thinking of the staff of Hansard. This was a progressive move that was made by the former government. I think all of us as individual members in the House depend enormously on the work done by Hansard. I personally admire their efforts and I think that it is never a better time than the last day of the session to let all the staff of Hansard know that we not only appreciate the standard of their work but we certainly appreciate the pleasant and cooperative way in which they do their job.

Vote 1 approved.

Schedule A: $199,703,557 — approved.

MRS. McCARTHY: I move the committee rise and report resolutions.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports resolutions.

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I move that by leave of the House the rules

[ Page 3339 ]

be suspended and the reports of resolutions from the Committee of Supply on April 28, 29; May 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 18, 19, 26; June 4, 8, 22, 23, 24, 29, 30, 1976, be now received and taken as read.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I move that the rules be suspended and the resolutions from the Committee of Supply be now read a second time, taken as read and agreed to.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I move that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of Ways and Means.

Motion approved.

The House in Committee of Ways and Means; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I move that towards making good the supply granted to Her Majesty for the public service of the province there be granted from and out of the consolidated revenue fund the following: (1) $199,705,557 to make good certain sums expended for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1975; (2) $3,667,202,382 towards defraying the several charges and expenses for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1977, such sum to include that authorized to be paid under section (1) of the Supply Act, No. 1, 1976.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports resolution.

MR. SPEAKER: The resolution is: that towards the making good the supply granted to Her Majesty for the public service of the province there be granted from and out of the consolidated revenue fund the following: (1) $199,705,557 to make good certain sums expended for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1975; (2) $3,667,202,382 towards defraying the several charges and expenses for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1977, such sum to include that authorized to be paid under section 1 of the Supply Act, No. 1, 1976.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I move that the resolution be now read a second time, taken as read and agreed to.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present Bill 85, intituled Supply Act, No. 2, 1976.

Leave granted.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I declare a short recess so that the attendants may distribute to all of the hon. members a copy of Supply, Act No. 2, 1976. So just stay in your places, if you don't mind, and we will see that the bill is distributed.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I move that the said bill be referred to Committee of the Whole House forthwith.

Motion approved.

SUPPLY ACT NO. 2, 1976

The House in Committee on Bill 85; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I move that the committee rise and report to the House recommending introduction of Bill 85.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports recommending the introduction of Bill 85.

MR. SPEAKER: The committee reports recommending introduction of the bill.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I move that the report be adopted.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I move that by leave of the House, the rules be suspended and the bill be read a second time now.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

[ Page 3340 ]

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I move that by leave of the House, the rules be suspended and the bill be referred to Committee of the Whole House to be considered forthwith.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

The House in committee on Bill 85; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

Sections 1 to 5 inclusive approved.

Schedule A approved.

Schedule B approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 85, Supply Act No. 2, 1976, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Committee on Bill 24, Mr. Speaker.

BRITISH COLUMBIA FERRY CORPORATION ACT

The House in committee on Bill 24; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. WALLACE: I would like the minister to comment on whether consideration was given under the definition of "ferry system" to incorporate the ferries now under the Department of Highways. We have a bill before the House which is meant to facilitate the ease with which some responsibilities can be transferred to other departments. When I was discussing the Municipal Affairs estimates, we talked about the ferry system across Burrard Inlet which, I admit, is much more in the nature of a very short trip for pedestrians, but I wonder if the minister could tell if any consideration has been given, or is likely to be given once this bill is set up, to incorporate all ferries under this corporation, including those presently under the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser).

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Transport and Communications): Briefly, Mr. Chairman, the present intention is simply to transfer the routes and the vessels now administered under the Department of Transport and Communications, but at any time routes could be added or deleted and vessels included or not but this would be a matter referred by the directors to the government and would be a matter for order-in-council or, of course, the government could take an initiative of its own.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

On section 3.

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): Mr. Chairman, I was wondering, in view of the minister's earlier remarks about the possibility of worker representation on the board of directors under the section 3…. I see no mention of this in this section and I was wondering if the minister could possibly inform this House if he does intend to proceed with the worker representation on the board of directors.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, the directors will be appointed by order-in-council. This is a matter for the cabinet. I'm personally inclined to favour that kind of representation, but certainly it would be a decision by the government as a whole.

MR. GIBSON: When it comes to boards of directors, I am always worried about jobs for the boys. There's a lot of….

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: Yes, that's right. There are a lot of government backbenchers that there's just not going to be any room for in the cabinet. I just want to know, is it the government's intention at all, within their term of office, to put any MLAs on this board?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, not to my knowledge.

MR. GIBSON: In that case, Mr. Chairman, I would ask the minister if he would accept an amendment adding a new section 9, saying that no MLAs shall be eligible. Mr. Chairman, I move that amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: A copy of the amendment.

MR. GIBSON: That should be subsection (9) .

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, the proposed amendment as it is submitted is incomplete. It simply

[ Page 3341 ]

says that no MLAs shall be eligible. However, it is not….

MR. GIBSON: To sit as directors — I had to scribble it out quickly. I'll finish it off, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If you would have a completed form sent to the table.

MR. GIBSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Isn't this wonderful to be making law right on the floor of the House like this?

AN HON. MEMBER: Dreamer!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, the amendment appears to be in order. Shall the amendment pass?

Amendment negatived.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I am not sure if this is the right section in which to ask this question or raise this point, but I understand that the service of B.C. Ferries is going to be transferred to the new corporation for the sum of $1. I have it on pretty good authority that there was a major organization prepared to — at one time not too long ago — purchase the service for $1. I think it was the union and I have it on very good authority they are now prepared to pay $2. So I just wondered if the minister had a comment.

Sections 4 and 5 approved.

On section 6.

MR. WALLACE: On this rare occasion I wish to pay a compliment to the government, because they've got two words in section 6. Twice in different subsections it says: "except expropriation." We have had so much time and discussion in debate on various bills — and I'll be referring in another bill later on today to the opposite of this point — but I think it's very wise and a credit to the government that in this particular section in acquiring property it has made the point very plain that it cannot exercise the power of expropriation. I congratulate the government for that.

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): Mr. Chairman, if anyone is getting hungry I would suggest that this is going to take a little bit longer than the member for Oak Bay. You will recall, I am sure, that this is one of the bills that did not get a very intensive examination in second reading. It just seemed to me that at the time this went through second reading there wasn't anyone in the House who wanted to discuss government legislation. The only opportunity to really discuss the principles of this legislation as I see it, having forgone that opportunity, would be under section 6.

I would certainly like to say something about the proposal to set up the B.C. Ferry Corp., particularly now about the proposal to enter into a leasing arrangement with some eastern financial interest. The minister, at least, was good enough to make available to the members a report that was done on this subject. I think perhaps this argument would have been stronger had he not made this report available, because in telling us about this arrangement he told us what a good job he had done, or was at least proposing to do, on behalf of the Crown — certainly seeking to serve the public interest best.

But I wonder, Mr. Chairman. And I intend to say that I don't think it is serving the public interest; I don't think it is a prudent step on the part of the Crown to enter into this proposed lease arrangement which section 6 authorizes the minister to do.

I like to look at it from the points of view of the government, the people of the province of British Columbia and from the point of view of the lessor as well.

Let's look at the benefits — the so-called benefits of the deal — that the minister has quietly worked out to sell three new ferries — and there's some question, and the report brings this out, as to whether it could be three or two or…I suppose it could even be one. But, Mr. Chairman, I'm going to assume that we're dealing with three ferries since the B.C. Ferry Authority is currently engaged in buying three ferries. So let's assume that we're dealing with three ferries — the figures, of course, would have to be different if we were dealing with something less than that.

The minister boasted, in talking about this arrangement, that he's going to save millions of dollars for the people of British Columbia. It's been suggested by some that in doing this the minister is really coming up smelling like roses in presenting this deal that's going to save all these millions of dollars for the people of British Columbia. Well, Mr. Chairman, I suspect that anyone who takes a close-up sniff of that boast will be instantly repelled, because there's an unwholesome stench to the way this deal has been presented to the public — to the whole deal itself.

It's another example of the political dishonesty and decay which has already beset this coalition government. Political dishonesty. No wonder the whole province is beginning to hold its nose over the nauseating expediency of this recycled government.

It's past time this administration came clean with the public, and that's my statement, Mr. Chairman.

[ Page 3342 ]

Remember the administration that talked about no increases in taxes, the administration that talked about no deficit financing? It's going to be on a pay-as-you-go policy. It's past time you came clean…. I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, not you. It's past time this government came clean with the public by scrubbing up its act — cleaning up its act with some strong soap and water.

Mr. Chairman, instead of saving the taxpayers…. And that's the way the deal was presented to us, that it was going to save the taxpayers some millions of dollars worth of money. Let's look at the deal a little more closely. This wonderful sale-lease-repurchase scheme will:

(1) More than double the original $46.5 million capital cost of these ferries to the people of British Columbia — $46.5 million is the figure for the total cost of the three ferries. We're going to end up paying more than double that amount.

(2) It's going to short-change our provincial income tax because to the extent that those eastern lessors are earning money in the province of British Columbia, and are avoiding income tax, B.C. is losing income tax. I calculate that would be something in the neighbourhood of $4.6 million. It's going to short-change the taxpayers of Canada as a whole by $18.6 million in taxes they are saying.

It puts an absolutely no-risk return totalling $46.5 million — equivalent to the original cost of the ferries — an absolutely no-risk return of $46.5 million into the pockets of eastern money lenders for the privilege of letting us rent our own ferries back over a period of 18 years. Now that's the minimum cost. There are other costs in addition to that. There are no savings, except the illusory ones, if you like, Mr. Chairman, of delaying the purchase of the ferries.

Something that we have done ever since we've had B.C. ferries is that we have paid for them on a pay-as-you-go policy. Certainly the previous Social Credit administration supported that policy and always followed it. The succeeding NDP administration always followed it with respect to the capital costs of ferries. Now we're going on to this method — an illusory saving.

Mr. Chairman, the fact is that the ferry is being ordered to operate on the high seas of financing, of borrowing — in spite of everything that the administration has said about borrowing — a bond of debt and debentures from now. That's what the minister is talking about in these proposed — or supposed — savings.

This government is doing the opposite of what it promised the electorate it would do if it became government — that is, during the election campaign — and has continued to promise the electorate after it formed the government. It promised no debts, except, of course, what had to be borrowed to make up for three years of NDP administration. It promised a pay-as-you-go policy. Well, we'll be paying, Mr. Chairman, for some time to come. It has ditched that policy in the hope of confusing the people with spurious comparisons with the NDP government's performance in delivering programmes within relatively balanced budgets.

The ferry-lease deal…and that's just one of them, Mr. Chairman, as you are well aware. You recall there's also an addition to the British Columbia Ferry Corp. There's also the British Columbia Building Corp. There's the British Columbia educational institutes capital financing. All of these are just ways, sneaky ways, of borrowing money and pretending that we are operating on a pay-as-you-go basis with a balanced budget.

I'm not arguing against the policy of doing that, Mr. Chairman; I'm simply arguing against the sneaky way in which this administration is doing it.

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Agriculture): You were going to do the same thing.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, we would not do the same thing; that's the point I'm trying to make. We would borrow, but we would do it openly; we were quite prepared to admit that we were borrowing.

This government, Mr. Chairman, is trying to pretend that they are not borrowing, and all the time setting up new ways and new institutions for borrowing money, or new ways of financing long-term assets over longer periods. Deficit financing is legitimate; it's a legitimate course to follow on economic grounds, but it should be declared openly, defended and debated openly, and the consequences for future taxpayers revealed openly. Come clean!

Mr. Chairman, they should be coming clean with the public. It shouldn't be hidden behind the PR smokescreens of fictitious savings, which is what this is. It shouldn't be conducted surreptitiously, quietly — another ingredient in the cookbook comparisons of what this government is doing and what the previous administration did. The sort of things they did in talking about Clarkson Gordon…remember, the Premier said that it was an audit; the Minister of Finance said it wasn't an audit and that it couldn't be an audit in less than five years. The double-editing of the budget speech — that kind of cookbook stuff, trying to fool the people of British Columbia.

Again we're doing it in what is presented to us as a good financial deal, a saving, when in fact it is actually going to cost us money. If deficit financing is economically sound, then we have made a case for that previously in this Legislature — and we have discussed that. This minister and his colleagues should have the integrity and the political honesty to say so. Instead, we have the pretence that the very real and substantial cost of the ferry lease-back is savings —

[ Page 3343 ]

the cost is presented to us as savings achieved by a clever minister. We have the pretence that the sordid use of tax avoidance is astute and circumspect financial management by an administration holding public trust.

Mr. Chairman, let's look more closely at this lease-back deal the minister has arranged as the forerunner, no doubt, of many similar kinds of financial transactions that will be introduced by this government. The report presented in the Legislature, the Macleod, Young and Weir report, which, of course, as it was paid to do, praises the minister's lease-back scheme…. In the fine print in the columns of figures that this government is replacing as a pay-as-you-go policy, which is really a deceive-as-you-go policy….

Under the NDP government's policy of paying as construction progressed, these three new ferries would have been fully paid for this year at the total cost of $46.5 million, as was done previously by the NDP administration, and as was done previously by the Social Credit administration.

Instead of producing savings, Mr. Chairman, this new lease-back policy, as the report says — and the minister somehow forgot to mention this — should be regarded as another form of financing for B.C. Ferries. This is a quotation from the report: "…as though it had financed it through conventional sources." That is borrowings, debentures. Mr. Chairman, right here in a report that was tabled we are talking about borrowings and debentures, the very things this administration was not going to do except insofar as it was necessary to do to make up for what the NDP had done. But here we are, right in the government's own report, talking about borrowings, talking about debentures. We all know that financing costs money, Mr. Chairman. Nobody is doing a favour for the people of British Columbia because they like us.

What are the full costs? Well, let's take a look at them. First, a relatively minor one — the $36,500 cost of this report. On page 24 of this report we read where Macleod, Young and Weir are talking about their own fee as a percentage of the total cost of the ferries. They don't say how much that fee might be. Are we talking about 1 per cent, 2 per cent — which would be $1 million — or 5 per cent, 10 per cent? I don't know. I'd like to know from the minister whether there has been any negotiation on this fee, and how much additional cost, which has not been referred to in any way at all and would have to be added to the total of almost $100 million for $46.5 million worth of ferries. How much will that additional cost be, which has not yet been mentioned?

Mr. Chairman, secondly, apart from any moneys paid to Macleod, Young and Weir, B.C. will have to pay annually $4,633,151 for the next 18 years, for a total of $83,396,772 in lease payments — that's on top of the cost of the reports and the cost of getting this deal. At the end of that period we would still have to buy the ferries back, and the suggestion in the report is that we could do this at a figure of $11,625,000. But, Mr. Chairman, it's only a suggestion; there's no guarantee that we would be able to buy them back at that rate.

As a matter of fact, the report does say that another cost, which has not been referred to in any way yet, is that we would be obliged to hire tax lawyers who would help us in negotiating with Ottawa to try to get some certainty as to what that final figure would be. Now whether or not Ottawa would make that deal, we don't know. Whether or not it would be at the $11 million figure we don't know — and, of course, that's very important to lessor as well; it could be double that.

It could even be four times that. It could be that at the end of the 18 years we would find that the tax department would insist on us buying back the ferries at market value then, which could be the original cost. It might be that after paying lease payments over 18 years we might still have to pay the full cost of the ferries to buy them back. We don't know what Ottawa is going to do on that. We don't know what the tax department is doing. We don't know what they're going to do. I think I heard the Attorney-General say, "We never know," and that's true.

But their only advice is that we'll hire the best tax lawyers we can to try to negotiate with Ottawa and make a good deal — not much of a guarantee for the people of British Columbia but a good guarantee for the people who are in the business of, in effect, lending us money. That's really what they're doing.

AN HON. MEMBER: CNR does it.

MR. STUPICH: CNR does it. Air Canada pays corporation tax too, or at least shows it in their financial statement as an item of expense. They can use leases to reduce their corporate tax. B.C. Ferry Corp. — I see nothing in the legislation, I've heard nothing from the government, to show the intention that they are going to pay any corporation tax. So don't compare with Air Canada. I would expect that if Air Canada is paying corporation tax, CNR is too. But I don't know.

AN HON. MEMBER: They have to.

MR. STUPICH: In any case I don't know anything about…. I haven't looked at CNR but I do know that Air Canada shows, on their financial statement, corporation income tax and that….

Interjection.

[ Page 3344 ]

MR. STUPICH: Used to? Well, the most current ones I have seen. They used to in 1975. I haven't gone beyond 1975 yet, but that's the information from 1975.

Mr. Chairman, it's a sleazy tax deal, really. It's illustrated by two things. First, the federal government recognizes how bad it is for the Government of Canada, and that's the reason they're closing this tax loophole. The minister had said: "We've got to hurry up and get into this before they shut the door on us." So it's a bad deal for the taxpayers of Canada or the federal government wouldn't be so anxious to shut the door before we squeak in. It's a bad deal. It's not a good deal for the people of British Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, the minister is talking about how things used to be and how they are today with respect to Air Canada. To the best of my knowledge we used to be, and still are, citizens of Canada, and we should be thinking about Canada as a whole, not just trying to get some deal in B.C. of questionable value compared to the citizens of Canada as a whole.

The report also points out that the province would have to guarantee that it will indemnify the lessor in the event that there is any change at all in tax laws, either provincial or federal, that would in any way at all impair the possibility of the lessor making the same profit out of this deal.

We've got to give them a blank cheque. If there's ever any change in legislation at all that would reduce the amount of money that they'll make on this deal, we'll make it up. Now, Mr. Chairman, how big is that blank cheque? There's not even an absolute maximum in there to say that it will be good up to $100 million — nothing in there to limit the amount by which we would have to indemnify that lessor in the event that there's any change at all in federal-provincial tax laws that would affect the lessor. It's a good deal for the lessor, Mr. Chairman, but how good a deal is it for the people of British Columbia?

Mr. Chairman, I've talked about what it's going to do to the people of British Columbia. The cost of the ferries instead of $46.5 million is going to be about $100 million apart from the open-ended things, that is the guarantee that they will not suffer anything regardless of any changes in law and the hope that the federal income tax department will say that a reasonable value at the end of 18 years would be 25 per cent of the cost. Now those are two very wide-open cheques, Mr. Chairman, that the people of British Columbia are guaranteeing.

But what are the lessors doing it for? I've already suggested that I don't think they're really doing it because they like us. What are they getting out of it? Of course, they are getting the lease right from the beginning. Their maximum tax advantage is accruing right at the beginning of this contract. Their maximum cash flow will be in the first two and a half years of this. They are going to have in that first two and a half-year period a net cash flow of almost $24 million that they will be able to invest at the rate they suggested of 10 3/4 per cent and earn on that $43 million in interest over that period. That's what they're doing this for, Mr. Chairman.

We're going to give them $23 million in two and a half years that they're going to invest at 10 3/4 per cent and earn something like $46 million on it. It's a good deal for the lessor, Mr. Chairman. Of course it is. That's why they want to do it. That's why they are in a hurry that we get in behind that door before the federal government closes it. It's one of the reasons the federal government is so anxious to close that door.

When all the income is added up, the principal's deducted, the interest is deducted, the taxes, everything they have to pay, they're going to end up with a net return equivalent to the original cost to us of the ferries, and that adds up. If it's costing us twice as much, well, they must be getting the other half. Now they're getting more than that. They're going to pay some taxes out of it. But their net is going to be equivalent to the original cost of the ferries — a great deal for the lessor.

Now the minister, talking about this deal and what a good deal this is for British Columbia — if he was a director of the company that's lending this money to British Columbia then he could talk about what a good deal he had done for his employers. But I question, Mr. Chairman, whether it's a good deal for the people of British Columbia.

We could pay the $46.5 million. We could even borrow it from ICBC, Mr. Chairman, if we wanted to. The Minister of Education told us the other day that they had $301 million sitting in deposits and told us that they'd likely have $100 million left over at the end of the year. Why don't we borrow the money from our own…?

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): I never said that. That's what you said.

MR. STUPICH: That's not what I said.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for Nanaimo has the floor.

MR. STUPICH: In any case, Mr. Chairman, I don't think there's any doubt but that, as the actuary for ICBC said, "they've overcharged for ICBC." They're going to have enough money left over that they could provide the money to buy these things — and let's

[ Page 3345 ]

keep it in the family. If we're going to pay interest to somebody, keep it in the family. That would be a better deal for the people of British Columbia.

What he's done in this deal and in setting up this corporation and in going to this lease-back is that he's saved the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) the necessity of showing deficit budgets to this extent from here on in. They're going to make good, Mr. Chairman, on their promise to be on a pay-as-you-go basis and their promise not to have any deficit by gradually transferring out of the public accounts of the province all of the capital expenditures. There's nothing wrong with that, Mr. Chairman, if they would come out openly and say to the people of British Columbia that this is what they are doing. This isn't a good deal for B.C.; it's a good deal for the lessor. Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to financing long-term assets on a long-term basis if the government would only come clean and admit that that is exactly what it's doing.

MR. GIBSON: This section is unquestionably a deficit financing move by the government of the province. Let the public make no mistake about that. There is nothing wrong with deficit financing on capital items, but let the government not pretend that that is not exactly what they are doing.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I have a very brief question to the minister, and I think this is the appropriate section. I am concerned, in view of what the previous speaker has just told us and informed this House about, that we can anticipate further fare increases, possibly next year. Mr. Minister, will there be fare increases? Do you anticipate further increases in the ferry rates next year, later this year or the following year in view of the formula for subsidizing the corporation that you have explained to this House at an earlier time?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, a brief answer — I certainly hope not.

Sections 6 and 7 approved.

On section 8.

MR. GIBSON: I have a little amendment to section 8 which I would hope the government would find acceptable. This is the section that says that the books of account and financial record should be open at all times for inspection by the minister or such other person as he should designate. I would like to add the words "including the Standing Committee on Public Accounts and Economic Affairs," so that members of this House can know what's going on in that company at all times.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment appears to be in order. Shall the amendment pass?

Amendment negatived.

AN HON. MEMBER: They want to stop the Legislature from knowing what's going on!

Sections 8 to 10 inclusive approved.

On section 11.

MR. GIBSON: I just want the public to know that political control of the ferry rates remains under this section.

Sections 11 to 18 inclusive approved.

On section 19.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I want to make very serious representation to you under this section. I want you to declare it out of order. The reason for that is that this section purports to have this House divest itself of the power to control expenditure.

As you will see, this section purports to give the cabinet the power to purchase shares in this corporation, to purchase notes, bonds, debentures or other securities or to advance money, and the money required "shall be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund without an appropriation other than this section." Mr. Chairman, to me that is an attempt to have this Legislature abdicate its hard-won right and responsibility to control the expenditure of public moneys, and that is recognized in every other Crown corporation. British Columbia Hydro has a borrowing limit on it which says it can only borrow so high. If they want to borrow more they have to come back to this Legislature. British Columbia Railway has the same thing.

I think this is an absolutely outrageous section and I think it's offensive to the theory of parliament and to protection of the public of this province through this Legislature. I ask you, sir, to rule it out of order on those grounds.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think the member knows that he's asking the Chair to do something that it is not empowered to do. Perhaps I could cite Bourinot, 4th edition. On page 180, it is said: "The Speaker or the Chairman, as the matter may apply, will not give a decision upon a constitutional question or decide a question of law." So I must pass on to you the knowledge that what you are asking me to do is something which the Chair has no power to do.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry to hear that. Having explained that problem to the

[ Page 3346 ]

government, through you, Mr. Chairman, I could perhaps be sure that they would at once see what they are asking the Legislature to do and the impropriety thereof. What they are asking this Legislature to do is to divest itself of its rights, either through the estimates procedure or the limitation on lending authority procedure, to control the amount of money raised out of taxes, authorized by this Legislature, that the government may give to this corporation. Mr. Chairman, this House controls expenditure on everything else this government does. Why should it not control expenditure on the B.C. Ferry corporation? Why should this be a separate, district item?

Do you remember under the old Social Credit government when the B.C. Railway needed more share capital? They came back to this House to get it. Under the NDP government, when the B.C. Railway needed more loan capital, they came back to this House to get it, raised the borrowing limit. But here, while I appreciate there's a borrowing limit, there are all kinds of barn doors in that borrowing limit under section 15 — there are so many exclusions there.

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: We're on section 19 now. The point is that this section 19 gives the government the power to issue money to this corporation without the permission of this Legislature. Would some minister stand up and tell me where that is not correct?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, two sections which have already been passed, section 4 and section 15, deal with this matter. Section 4 sets an upper limit on the equity value and section 15 on the borrowings of the corporation. I'm told that the wording used throughout is in precise parallel with the legislation setting up B.C. Hydro.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, the alleged protection under section 15 notes that there is an aggregate net sum of $250 million on the borrowing, but then the following words: "and in computing that aggregate net sum the following shall be excluded," and that includes, under section (a) (iii), "payment of the whole or any part of a loan, a liability, or bonds, debentures, or other securities, payment of which is guaranteed or assumed by the corporation."

Mr. Chairman, that is a complete barn door through which you can derive any amount of money. To me, section 19 is very, very wrong in that it removes the power of the Legislature to control that barn door. I say it's wrong.

Section 19 approved.

On section 20.

MR. GIBSON: On section 20, Mr. Chairman, I would ask the minister if it is the intention of the Crown to pay grants in lieu of taxes even though this section makes it clear that there's no obligation. Is it the intention of the Crown to pay taxes?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, that matter is under active consideration.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, I wonder if you could activate the consideration a little more and just tell us you're going to follow the policy of ICBC which, by order-in-council this year, said ICBC would pay grants in lieu of taxes to the municipalities. Would you just tell us you're going to do that for this new corporation?

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: You can't do that yet? The municipalities need the money this year. I think that's shocking.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

Interjections.

Sections 20 to 30 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 24, British Columbia Ferry Corporation Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 1:19 p.m.