[ Page 1175 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Executive council estimates. On vote 18.

Mr. Stupich — 1175

Mr. King — 1177

Mr. Strongman — 1181

Mr. Barnes — 1184

Pollution Control (1967) Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 5), Second Reading.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen — 1189

Mr. Skelly — 1190

Mrs. Wallace — 1191

Ms. Sanford — 1192

Mr. Lockstead — 1193

Mr.Cocke — 1194

Mr. Mussallem — 1197

Ms. Brown — 1198

Mr.Lauk — 1199

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 1977

The House met at 8 p.m.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

(continued)

On vote 18: executive council, $713,648 —  continued.

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): Mr. Chairman, shortly before we adjourned for supper the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) was asking the question about the Land Commission and the Premier responded to the effect that he had answered that question previously. I'm afraid that anyone who has any concern for the preservation of farmland in the province will take little comfort from the answer — as I heard it — that legislation will be introduced and the people would then know what the government's reaction or attitude toward the Land Commission and toward the preservation of farm land really is. But I suppose we'll have to await that legislation.

I'd just like to comment on a few of the things that I didn't cover before when I was speaking. Again, reading from the Blues of February 21, the Premier said: "They" — referring to the last government — "have left a debt that we can't service now." You'll recall, Mr. Chairman, that I did mention three items of revenue, totalling some $57 million. These were the excess given to the petroleum companies producing natural gas, the removal of succession duties and the coal royalty — in total $57 million. The Minister of Finance told us earlier that the total amount of outstanding debt at this present time is $150 million. So although the Premier said in the Blues — as reported in the Blues — that we can't service that debt now, had he been prepared to continue to receive those three items of revenue, the debt, including the interest, could have been wiped out in a period of three years. So I think it's not quite correct to say that it couldn't be serviced. It would be correct that the government's priorities are different.

Then another quotation from the same page in the Blues: "The last government spent excessively." Mr. Chairman, without any detail as to the ways in which we spent excessively, I think it would be worthwhile recalling some of the comparisons and some of the differences between the spending habits of the previous Social Credit administration and the NDP administration. Regional colleges, for example, in the fiscal year ended March 31, 1972: the previous Social Credit government on capital expenditures for regional colleges spent the grand sum of $4.3 million. In the fiscal year ended March 31, 1975, the NDP administration spent $22.9 million. That's quite a different priority, Mr. Chairman.

And there's the matter of looking after the aged. On old-age assistance and on Pharmacare — there was no Pharmacare programme in 1972 but there was some old-age assistance programme — the previous Social Credit administration spent at the rate of $23.5 million that year, whereas in the year ended March 31, 1975, the NDP administration spent on that same group of citizens $132.4 million.

Mr. Chairman, we make no apologies for having spent money on the people who need it most in our society. The present administration is boasting about taking out of the pockets of the needy, the ones least able to look after themselves, $100 million, and being able to save that. Mr. Chairman, we made no apologies for spending money on the people in our community who need it most — on the aged, on the handicapped. It's up to this government to apologize and not to boast. Their attitude is to boast about saving $100 million by extracting it from the pockets of the people in our community who need it most.

Another new programme introduced by the NDP administration — there's no comparison in 1972 because there was no programme — was ambulance service: $16 million.

On sewage and water assistance facilities the previous Social Credit government in the year ended March 31, 1972, spent the grand sum of $11,000 in assisting the municipalities with programmes like that; the NDP administration in the year ended March 31, 1975, spent $7.4 million.

Now these are all budgeted expenses, Mr. Chairman, and show the ways in which we were spending this money on behalf of the people of the province. The Premier said the last government spent excessively. Now certainly he wouldn't challenge any of those programmes or the very good programme that provided recreational facilities in so many communities in the province — tens of millions of dollars that, in cooperation with the municipalities who had to put up two-thirds of the money, produced a lot of excellent facilities, produced employment and represented an excellent programme.

Mr. Chairman, earlier when I was speaking about this, I talked about non-budgeted expenses. I mentioned the fact that assets that cost the province something less than $215 million were producing revenue at the rate of $217 million a year. I asked the Premier to tell me what the Social Credit coalition

[ Page 1176 ]

people have accomplished in their 15 months in office to compare with the records of accomplishment of the NDP administration;

You'll recall, Mr. Chairman, perhaps what the Premier's reply was. He said: "Well, in one of these instances" in one out of 10 corporations that I described "possibly there was some conflict of interest."

He mentioned Plateau Mills. Well, that's a pretty small one to pick out of the picture. I listed the revenue from the 10 Crown corporations, and with respect to Plateau Mills approximately 0.6 of 1 per cent of the revenue that I listed came from that one organization, that one company, so it's one of the smallest of the lot. He picked on that one and said there was possibly some conflict of interest there, and did away with my whole question of what we had done, the jobs that we had saved, the impetus we had given to the economy by spending something in excess of $200 million to produce assets that were earning at the rate of $217 million a year. The only thing he could come back with on behalf of his government was to say that there might have been conflict of interest in one of those. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, it's a pretty weak response, a pretty weak record for a government that has been 15 months in office, when I ask him: "What have you done?" and his only comment is: "Well, there might have been some conflict of interest in one of the organizations about which you are boasting at this time."

And what kind of conflict of interest, Mr. Chairman? To say that to an organization, whether it's Crown-owned or privately owned, that is prepared to go to work and process the products of our forests, "if you are prepared to spend the capital necessary to build up this plant, we will allot timber...." Mr. Chairman, I would think that the government would do that to any organization that was prepared to expand its sawmill facilities, to expand its pulp mills, as long as there was a market for the product that was coming from those areas, and as long as there were timber resources that were not already allotted. Now those are the keys, Mr. Chairman, and in that area timber was available, and the markets were available at that time, and in order to produce more jobs, to produce more dollars in the economy, we did encourage that particular enterprise.

I remember the Minister of Economic Development (Mr. Lad) of that time entering into negotiations with an organization that was going to build a smelter. As long as people were prepared to invest money in B.C. and produce dollars in B.C., we were certainly prepared to allot to them resources in the province. I would think this government would be interested in doing the same thing, although, to date, the Premier has not listed one simple example of that.

He has suggested that the public of the province can judge the previous Minister of Forests (Mr. R.A. Williams), the NDP Minister of Forests, and I would think so as well, Mr. Chairman. There was some judgment on December 11, 1975 — judgment in the city of Prince Rupert where the member was re-elected with an increased majority. There was judgment in the constituency of Mackenzie where the member was re-elected with an increased majority and, in particular, the town of Ocean Falls where he got something like 96 per cent of the vote. There was judgment in Nelson-Creston where the member was re-elected with an increased majority because of Kootenay Forest Products.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): How about Vanderhoof, where Plateau Mills is located?

MR. STUPICH: All of these things, Mr. Chairman, were some judgment of the achievement, and the people recognized that that particular minister was producing employment, was maintaining employment, and was improving the economy. I ask again, Mr. Chairman: what has the present government done for the province of British Columbia?

Again I would like to refer to the Blues, this time for February 18. Earlier I suggested that the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) had said that the Premier spoke in half-truths and that he was only half right, and you correctly called me to order and I did withdraw that statement. But there's another statement here in the Blues, on February 18, where the Premier said: "The last year of the former government there was a surplus of $140 million and it was spent, but they spent $261 million more than that." That's a total of $401 million. Mr. Chairman, not 5 cents of that money was spent by the NDP administration. It was all spent by the incoming Social Credit administration — every nickel of it!

Mr. Chairman, along with the Premier, we released a statement on December 18 that said there would likely be some drawdown in the $140 million cash reserve, but we predicted no drawdown of that $261 million. All of that money was spent by the incoming Social Credit administration — every nickel of the $401 million — because when we left office even the $141 million was still intact.

It was your policies that politically decided, for political reasons, to get rid of that surplus and to go into a deficit as well. It was your government that did that, Mr. Chairman, through you. It was the Premier's government that did that, not the outgoing NDP administration, because we still would have ended that year without going into a deficit position. You could have done it had you not made the political decision to give $181 million to ICBC, for example.

Interjection.

[ Page 1177 ]

MR. STUPICH: All of that money was spent after December 22.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members!

MR. STUPICH: Every nickel of that money was spent after December 22, 1975, and I defy you to show me otherwise, Mr. Chairman — every nickel of it.

Interjections.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, again going to the Blues....

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): And the Reds went into the red.

MR. STUPICH: I won't deal very much with this now, but the quotation I wanted to read is: "I pointed out what deficit financing does." Well, Mr. Chairman, he really didn't point out what deficit financing does. He did speak. I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if he's had an opportunity.... I would not have seen it had not one of my constituents referred it to me, but there's an article in Newsweek called "The Myth of the American Economy." Lester C. Thurow is the author of this. It's in Newsweek, February 14, 1977.

In this article, Mr. Chairman, he does deal with the myth of the American economy and he talks about those industrialized countries that are surpassing the American economy in producing economic benefits for the people of their countries. He deals with some countries in particular. Talking about the United States — and, of course, we're comparable — he says:

"We have been surpassed, or are about to be, by a number of countries in Europe. Among industrialized countries, Sweden and Switzerland can each claim to be more successful for the per capita GNP — gross national product — 20 per cent above ours. We have also been passed by Denmark. We are about to be surpassed by Norway and West Germany."

I want you to notice those countries, Mr. Chairman — Sweden, Switzerland, Denmark, Norway and West Germany. Now, Mr. Chairman, I ask you: what do they all have in common? In every one of those countries during the past several decades, social democratic parties have either formed a government on their own or have been a part of the government in coalition with other left-wing groups or have been very strong members of those governments. Every one of those countries is surpassing the United States in industrial activity. Every one of them, Mr. Chairman. He goes on in this article to state:

"Our competitors in Western Europe have enjoyed a sustained rate of productivity growth over the past two decades twice that of ours. We have comforted ourselves with the idea that our poor performance could be explained by our economic leadership. Our competitors were achieving higher rates of productivity growth because they were simply adopting technologies already developed by us"— that was the argument — "but as these countries have reached our level of productivity their growth rate has not slowed down.

"In the first five years of the 1970s the levels of industrial productivity rose 11 per cent more in Sweden, 17 per cent more in West Germany, 25 per cent more in Japan, than they had in the United States. The standard conservative response is to advocate the liberation of free enterprise and a reduction in social expenditures."

And that's certainly the approach of this particular government, Mr. Chairman. This is the author going on:

"Yet this is how any of these countries have outperformed us. Sweden is faced with the most comprehensive social welfare system in the world. West Germany insists that union leaders hold places on corporate boards of directors.

"Liberating free enterprise also runs into the facts about the U.S. economy. In the history of the United States, our best decade in terms of growth in real per capita GNP (a 36 per cent increase) was that of the 1940s when the economy was run on a command (socialist) wartime economy. The second-best decade (a 30 per cent increase) was that of the 1960s with all of its social welfare programmes.

"Lack of government planning, worker participation and social spending may, in fact, be at the heart of our poor performance in recent decades."

Mr. Chairman, that applies to Canada and it applies in particular to British Columbia just as much as it does there. In an earlier debate I pointed out that the province — the government — has under its control some $10 billion in assets producing an annual income of some $7 billion. For the Premier to say that it's up to the rest of the economy to worry about what's happening in British Columbia and up to us to simply worry about balancing our books is to abdicate his responsibility as Premier of this province.

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke- Slocan): I asked the Premier some questions earlier on — I believe it was yesterday — and I didn't really receive any response to the questions I asked so I'd like to refresh his mind and hope that he will provide some answers to the questions I'm interested in.

[ Page 1178 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, I must remind you that we cannot insist on answers. It is at the election of the minister whom we are interrogating as to whether he wishes to answer questions singly or together or at all. To simply repeat the questions is not to serve the purpose of the House, but I'll listen to what you're saying.

MR. KING: Well, Mr. Chairman, I think I appreciate the rules of the House fairly well and until I start to violate those rules of the House I don't know whether it's appropriate for the Chair to keep interrupting debate with warnings.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the hon. member please withdraw any attack on the Chair? The purpose of the Chair is to keep orderly debate and I'm fulfilling the rules to which you yourself subscribe and, therefore, I am only assisting the hon. member.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I did not ascribe anything improper to the Chair and I have nothing to withdraw. When a member of this House violates the rules, then it is appropriate for the Chairman to intercede, and not until, I suggest. Otherwise I think the Chair does nothing but impede debate. I asked the Premier some questions on an earlier occasion. It's his choice whether he wishes to respond, but for a government that ran in an election on the basis of being an open government, I find it incredible that the Premier of the province would choose not to respond and be frank with the House.

However, I do have additional material that I want to draw to the Premier's attention in his capacity as the leader of the government. I have a concern, Mr. Chairman, with the tremendous conflict in statements — policy statements and otherwise — which have been enunciated by different cabinet ministers over the past month. I would draw the Premier's attention to the wide variety of cabinet ministers who have commented on labour policy, the Premier included. I would draw the Premier's attention to the Minister of Education's (Hon. Mr. McGeer's) comments on the particular brand of federalism which he feels is appropriate for this nation. I would draw the Premier's attention to the statements by the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) with respect to the role of Quebec in Confederation. I would further draw the Premier's attention to conflict between his own position on a motion that was passed in this House last year regarding assistance to Vietnamese children and that of the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy).

Mr. Chairman, what concerns me about all of these diverse and conflicting statements by ministers of the Crown and by the Premier himself is that British Columbia seems to be foundering like a ship without a rudder. I believe that the kind of chaos, the kind of conflict, the kind of wondering and rambling that is evident in this government and its cabinet is doing harm to the economy of British Columbia. This certainly is a time when the province, the nation and the world face stormy economic times. I don't think we have to remind the Premier again that there are 112,000 people in British Columbia unemployed. It's a time when we need leadership, strong leadership and strong direction, and it concerns me that in the debate on the Premier's estimates we have seen no such strong statement of where this province is going. Rather we have seen a cabinet that apparently is divided and in conflict.

We've seen a Premier who is not prepared to get up and give any definitive statement to the House regarding his leadership role, where he intends to take us, any initiatives to come to grips with the high level of unemployment, any clear indication of a strategy for encouraging investment in the province so that the economy might start moving again. Mr. Chairman, I think that the Premier owes us that. He is the leader of the government; he is head of the Treasury Board. He's certainly the man who ran on the basis of "working with Bill" and getting the economy going again. I believe that we have the right in this House to expect some clear and concise statement from the Premier before we pay him.

We've had the spectre this afternoon of a backbencher in the government benches having the temerity to get up and advocate a certain economic thrust by the government, a certain direction and initiative, and we have seen that member admonished by the Premier. With a gesture of the hand he was told to take his seat and keep silent. We saw that member banished from the House later on. I think that he's still under the firm rule, under the firm thumb, of people on the treasury benches because I see he's back over there again being counselled.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I want to say in all seriousness that each and every member of this House is concerned, not only on a politically partisan basis, but on the basis of our obligation as politicians to those 112,000 people in this province who do not have a job to work at. I might say I think that's a very conservative estimate because there are many people unemployed who are not registered with Canada Manpower. Those people who have been unemployed beyond eight months obviously would not be registered for benefits because they do not have adequate stamps to entitle them to any unemployment insurance. So the probability is that there are many more than 112,000 people unemployed in this Province.

Quite frankly, it goes against my grain, Mr. Chairman, to allow the estimates of the Premier of

[ Page 1179 ]

this province to be passed through this House without some definite statement, without some indication that all of this House could support to provide some hope, some succour for those people who are unemployed and having difficulty feeding their families and maintaining their house payments. Maybe the Minister of Education and the head of ICBC (Hon. Mr. McGeer) feels they can sell their cars, but many of them need automobiles. Many of them need them in the hope that they may be able to find a job and they'll need the automobile to travel to and from work again.

Mr. Chairman, perhaps I sound like a broken record needle on this theme. Perhaps I do, but I make no apologies for that. I make no apologies for that because the local newspaper from one sector of my riding, the Nakusp Arrow Lakes News as just come out. I want to read a headline to you which says: "Unemployment Rate Tops 20 Per Cent."

"Unemployment in the area served by the Nelson Manpower centre, which includes the Arrow and Slocan Valleys, has topped 20 per cent, according to figures released last week. With an estimated labour force of 12,000 there are now 2,234 persons out of work and seeking employment. This figure does not include those out of work but not actively seeking employment.

"Ken Yeoman, acting director of the Nelson unemployment insurance office, said last week that unskilled workers had been particularly hard hit and that twice as many men as women are registered with the UIC.

"He said construction trades are the hardest hit, with a 25 per cent unemployment rate, followed by clerical and related workers with 12 per cent, the service industry with 10 per cent and both mining and forestry with 7 per cent unemployment. Younger workers, those between 25 and 34 years of age, are experiencing a 33 per cent jobless rate, while those between 20 and 25 years of age have 25 per cent of their number looking for work.

"The jobless figure for the area has been steadily rising since late 1975, when 1,718 persons were looking for work — almost twice as many 14 months later.

"The job opportunities are especially tight in the region. Only 123 vacancies were reported to Canada Manpower in Nelson last month, and the agency managed to fill 112 of those."

Mr. Chairman, I'm not going to ask you to call the House to order. I would just hope that members of the government benches would be concerned enough about unemployment all through this province to pay some attention to debate in this House and to listen to some positive recommendations regarding what we are going to do about it. When I say "we" I don't mean just the government, I mean all of the people who were elected to come down here and do the province's business.

"District supervisor of Human Resources, Bill English" — and this is significant; I want the first member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) to listen to this, Mr. Chairman — "said last week he had expected to see a dramatic increase in social allowance recipients as a result of the rising unemployment in the past year, but the number of persons receiving social assistance has remained fairly constant." I wonder why. I wonder why, under the tender mercies of that humanitarian Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), Mr. Chairman, he could not explain why high unemployment has not resulted in more people seeking or receiving welfare. Isn't that unusual?

Now, Mr. Chairman, I would think the Premier of this province would be sincerely embarrassed to come before this institution and ask for his salary, ask that his vote be passed, when he realizes that situations like I have outlined obtain all over this province. The general rate of unemployment is close to 10 per cent, but there are pockets of unemployment in sections of this province which exceed 30 per cent. I think that it's just morally incomprehensible that the Premier of the province would come demanding his salary before this institution without having the decency to outline to the House any programme, any initiative whatsoever in terms of how we are going to put these people back to work.

I spoke on an earlier occasion about the cries of indignation that would echo through this chamber if 112,000 British Columbians were idled as a result of strike action. We'd have a special session of the Legislature called, Mr. Chairman. We'd have advocacy from all sections of that government bench regarding the type of restrictive and reactive labour legislation that should be passed to prevent strikes in the future. Well, I want to reiterate, Mr. Chairman: productivity that is lost through 112,000 people being out of work is identical to productivity that's lost as a result of strike action.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Hear, hear!

MR. KING: It's absolutely appalling that this government that claimed it was a businessmen's organization, that claimed it had a formula to get the province moving, has allowed the economy of this province to deteriorate in this accelerated fashion over the last 14 months — not one positive statement, not one positive programme, no initiative whatsoever.

It's true that we have the odd stipend, as it is referred to, of $3,700 a month for friends of certain cabinet ministers to occupy dual positions as heads of large forestry corporations in this province, while at one and the same time they draw that kind of paltry

[ Page 1180 ]

stipend to hold vigil over an ICBC Crown agency that that minister has destroyed, Mr. Chairman. What hypocrisy! What inconsistency! Let 112,000 workers in this province, and their families, sell their cars, the minister says, let them sink or let them swim — not one programme, but a stipend for the friends of the government.

Interjection.

MR. KING: Oh, just a paltry, insignificant little sum of $3,700 a month. That's scandalous, Mr. Chairman, and if I were the Premier of this province and the ministers in my cabinet could not come up with more imaginative initiatives to do something about the plight of the unemployed in this province, quite frankly, I tell you I'd take an axe to them. I'd bring in someone like the dynamic young member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem), because obviously they need some young thinkers in that cabinet, some people with some initiative and imagination. It's about time the Premier shook them up.

Primarily it is the Premier's responsibility to lead, and he has abdicated any role of leadership in this province. He has shown himself to be shallow. He has shown himself to be devoid of any control of his cabinet, so how on earth can we expect him to lead the province out of the doldrums? But he wants us to pay him, Mr. Chairman. I'm not anxious to pay him. I don't think he's earned it. Quite frankly, when I read in my local paper, "20 per cent unemployed," I think if I voted for that Premier's salary tonight they'd skin me alive when I went home, and I wouldn't blame them.

Interjection.

MR. KING: Well, I can tell you, Mr. Member, I'd be a bit concerned about that at home, but there's no one on the government benches who is prepared in this debate to skin me alive — or anyone else. You're all mice, and properly so. You have nothing to be proud about — not a thing.

Mr. Chairman, there's a pattern developing. It's a pattern of weak leadership, the absence of leadership. It's evident in the conflict of statements between that cabinet. They're all over the ballpark. The Premier says, when the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) insults our sister province, Quebec: "Well, he's a colourful minister." He apologizes for the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) waffling all over the place and saying she's not going to honour a commitment of this total House that was made unanimously. He's devoid of leadership. He lacks the intestinal strength to admonish and to censure his ministers when they make irresponsible statements. That's the obligation of a leader. That little man ran on the platform of rotating his ministers. I think it's about time, Mr. Chairman, that they rotated the First Minister in this province. He's the one who should be rotated, and I don't mean just through the swinging doors of this chamber. I think he should be rotated right out of the cabinet.

Mr. Chairman, there is another question that bothers me, and I'm not prepared to let the Premier's estimates go through, personally, until I have a more frank statement from the Premier regarding the morality of this government on a question that I think is extremely important. That is the question of a blacklist or, if you will, to neutralize it as much as possible, an alleged blacklist — and that's a serious allegation — that emanated from the Premier's office marked "strictly personal and confidential." It came from the Premier's office and was directed to the Minister of Environment's (Hon. Mr. Nielsen's) office. It named and characterized certain public servants by their political persuasion.

The Premier responded to the tabling of that list by saying he was upset and concerned about the source of the leak of confidential documents. I can understand that that's partially a valid concern, but where are the priorities? Where are the priorities of the Premier and the government? He enunciated concern about the source of the leak. He at no time in this House, or in his statements outside the House, gave any indication that he was concerned about the possibility that someone in his own office, in addition to someone in his cabinet, was indulging in identifying public servants by their political persuasion. He at no time said: "I would not countenance that." He at no time censured or admonished the person who was responsible for directing that list from his office. It's a real irony.

Interjection.

MR. KING: Well, look, I want to tell you, Mr. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe), there are 18 leaders on this side of the House. You haven't even got one on that side.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who's No. l?

MR. KING: There's no question about that over here, Mr. Chairman. I want to tell you that I've heard more common sense....

Interjections.

MR. KING: Listen, the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) is well. He's back again. I'm glad to see the Attorney-General recovered from his....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members.

[ Page 1181 ]

MR. KING: I'm glad to see the Attorney-General recovered and came back. I understand he had a sore back and I hope it's not a stab wound that was bothering him, Mr. Chairman. I hope it wasn't that, because I hear the Premier might be afflicted the same way.

Mr. Chairman, I've heard more common sense from speakers on this side of the House in today's debate. We heard the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly), we heard the member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) and we heard the member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) — all of them backbenchers offering positive recommendations. All of them were offering positive recommendations on things that the government could do in a worthwhile way to assist people. I know the people over there take it in a pretty light vein and I know that the Attorney-General is going to go out and have a game of squash tonight with his partners and I know he can afford to laugh. But, Mr. Chairman, I just don't think it's too humorous when I'm discussing 112,000 real people — not statistics — who are out of a job and who are worrying about not only being able to involve themselves in a little bit of recreation like the boys at the Racquet Club. They're worrying about being able to continue to buy a membership in their local gym for their kids. I don't think that's too humorous. By golly, I think it's about time that the government started taking their responsibility seriously. It's not good enough to sit there in passive form and hope, by not answering, by not responding, by not offering something positive, that eventually the opposition will tire out and your vote will pass. I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, I remember the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) when he was in opposition. The only thing I ever admired about that man was his resilience and his tenacity. I want to tell you that I admire it so much that I think I can emulate it and duplicate it if need be.

Until the Premier, as the leader of this government, is prepared to get up and give something positive in terms of where he's taking this province and in terms of giving the impression that he has control in his own house and is going to start directing not only his cabinet but this province in some positive directions, then I'm afraid I can't allow a vote to be taken on his salary.

Frankly, Mr. Chairman, I don't think the Premier's too concerned about that because I don't think he's going to suffer too badly if he doesn't get his salary. In any event, it's a gesture and it's a token. That's what this institution is all about. I think the Premier owes us, at least, the respect of taking us into his confidence. He's talked vaguely about studies and reports that he has. We know there are difficulties in governing. But be frank with the House. Table those documents. Take us into your confidence. We're all legislators. We're all elected by the people. Tell us where you are taking the province. Tell us what economic initiatives you have underway and under study.

AN HON. MEMBER: This is the worst I've ever heard.

MR. KING: We understand that it takes time and we can forgive. We can forgive the need to study and prepare initiatives. But we cannot forgive inertia in the face of very difficult and troubled economic times, Mr. Chairman. I ask the Premier to give that kind of mature statement to this House. If he deserves the name of leader, Mr. Chairman, he will do so.

MR. W.G. STRONGMAN (Vancouver South): Mr. Chairman, before I begin my remarks I think I should make a few comments on the last speaker's lengthy remarks.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please, hon. member. We are on vote 18, which is the administrative responsibility of the Premier.

MR. STRONGMAN: Mr. Chairman, I was just going to remark on the previous speaker and certainly I could refer to what he said if you allowed him to carry on. Certainly I can comment on what he said.

I just wanted to say to the previous speaker that over the last year I've become — not necessarily a close friend — but certainly a man who admires him and I would like to warn him that he's starting to look too good. He's starting to look like a leader and I can tell you that the history of the previous administration would indicate that anyone who looks like a leader will be stabbed quickly in the back. So please, Mr. Member, as a man I respect, don't look too good too soon. You'll peak too soon.

MR. KING: That's really positive stuff.

MR. STRONGMAN: Mr. Chairman, I thought that I would like to speak tonight on a topic that has been raised on a number of occasions, once in the throne speech and again by our Premier in his remarks on the opening of his estimates, and that is the often unknown and not understood description of negative income tax. When I first heard the phrase I remembered back to my days studying, and I must say a little bit of time was spent in economics. It twigged my imagination.

So last Sunday I thought that I'd spend a little time cracking some old economics books and also some more recent publications. I would like to say that it's the first time I've done something like that for almost 17 years. I found that it was a very

[ Page 1182 ]

intriguing study, a topic that all of us should be aware of and perhaps all of us should do a little research on because it's a topic that the Premier seems to be espousing on a regular basis. I think it would behoove all of us well to know more about it.

It pertains to a guaranteed annual wage. I think the first member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) spoke at length on that topic this afternoon, although there's a new wrinkle in negative income tax as opposed to guaranteed annual wage. She's shaking her head. Well, she obviously doesn't know what she's talking about if she doesn't agree with what I'm saying.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. STRONGMAN: A negative income tax, as I said, is a new wrinkle on guaranteed annual wage.

MS. BROWN: I've got enough wrinkles.

MR. STRONGMAN: I think likely the most important difference between a guaranteed annual wage and a negative income tax is that there is a built-in monetary incentive for the recipient to continue to look for work to gain employment.

Interjections.

MR. STRONGMAN: Mr. Chairman, I don't think anyone's listening to me. (Laughter.)

There's a built-in monetary incentive in negative income tax that allows the recipient to actually go out, look for employment, gain it and still actually make gains in their real income.

I would quote from a paper that I read, as I said, on the weekend by a well-known economist by the name of Walter Williams who happens to live in Washington state. I think that he summed it up in his dissertation entitled "The Struggle for a Negative Income Tax," which was written about 1972, I believe.

"In its most basic form a negative income tax focuses exclusively on an individual's income deficiencies, his income below some minimum level, and increases his income while allowing him to benefit from any additional earned income in the future."

I think the key words there are "to benefit from any additional earned income in the future."

He also goes on to say:

"A characteristic feature of negative income tax is that the recipient always gains in total income from additional work."

Again I'll quote from the same article:

"The most important features of negative income tax, then, are the break-even income which sets the level of income at which no allowance is paid. The guaranteed level which establishes the minimum allowance a unit receives with no other income, i.e., the tax floor, and that is the tax rate."

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Stick with it, Gerry.

MR. STRONGMAN: Thank you, Mr. Member. I'm sure I will.

An article was written in Scientific American in October, 1972, by David N. Kershaw. David N. Kershaw, in my readings, is an economist who has spent a great deal of time and was involved in what is known now in terms of the New Jersey study on negative income tax. David N. Kershaw has spoken about negative income tax almost from the time that Milton Friedman introduced it in 1962 in a paper written for the federal government of the United States. What I'm going to say now really sums up even better than what Williams did in his article, which is the real strength behind this particular concept.

"The concept of the negative income tax is a downward extension of the income tax system that would pay out cash in the form of negative taxes to families at the low end of the income scale. An essential feature of the concept is that as a family's income rises above the poverty level, the tax payments are reduced by an amount less than the earnings so that the family is always better off the higher its own earnings are. The concept was first presented" — now I know where I got the information — "to the broad public in 1962 by Milton Friedman."

I don't know if you people happen to realize that Milton Friedman has been a well read, widely read economist in the Times.

MR. LAUK: Can I have the name again?

MR. STRONGMAN: Milton Friedman, Mr. Member. You might like to read him next weekend. It might do you some good. He's currently, I believe, a regular columnist with Newsweek magazine.

MR. LAUK: Adam Smith, did you say?

MR. STRONGMAN: One of the most difficult decisions which a government must decide when implementing a negative tax is the rate of the negative tax itself. Most of the reports that I read in the U.S. publications seem to want to use a figure of 40 per cent, and I must say that that particular philosophy doesn't seem to fit the lifestyles and the type of benefits that this country is using and giving to its population. I think that Canada and B.C. in particular are far ahead of most regions in the United

[ Page 1183 ]

States in giving benefits to people who are underprivileged.

One of the points I raised earlier, and I tried to put it into my own language and translate from what I just read to you, is that the lower the negative tax — i.e. the percentage of tax you're going to charge — the lower the total income, but conversely, the higher the percentage of earnings that can be retained by the family. In other words, there is a real incentive to work if you have a lower tax percentage. Conversely, the higher the negative tax rate, the higher the total income, but the lower percentage of earnings that can be retained by the family. There is an incentive to work but it's much lower.

So if we go toward the negative income tax, what particular system would we use? Do we go with something that is going to require high payments to being with, or are we looking for something that gives more benefits to people as they increase their incomes and as they increase their willingness to work and as jobs become available? And that's something that our government, or whatever government is in power, is going to have to wrestle with. I think that most members in this House, since this government in power is starting to talk about negative income tax, should start to think in terms of what your position would be if, in fact, the presentation is given to this assembly. What route do we go?

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

I can give you an example. Most of the studies that I looked at used income levels that were much lower than what we would accept in this country. For instance, most of them have been written, say five years ago. Even so, benefits in the United States are not quite as high as the benefits in this country, and I had to come up with my own figures. To give you an example, if we would use a 60 per cent negative income tax figure — I seem to be causing a great deal of humour in.... If you were to use a 60 per cent tax figure based on what they call a "floor-level income" of $7,000 for a family of four — and I chose that figure. It's an arbitrary selection, I'm certainly not saying it's what our government or what our party believes in. It's a figure that I put forward — a figure of $7,000.

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): Not enough in B.C.

MR. STRONGMAN: The interesting concept is that, if someone were to earn $2,000, let us say, in income, the tax allowance would be $3,000 and they would actually end up with a $5,000 income. If, in turn, they raised it by $1,000 to $3,000 in earnings, they'll go from $5,000 to $5,400. So for each $1,000 they actually earn per year, they will get a net increase of $400, based on a 60 per cent tax.

If we were to go the other route, the route that's espoused by most economists south of the border where they talk 40 per cent negative income tax, at the $2,000 level they would go to $4,000; at the $3,000 they'd go to $4,600, which is almost $1,000 less. For each $1,000 earned, the family would actually get $600 in increase. So although the levels of income are lower to begin with, there is more incentive on the lower tax percentage base.

There was a very interesting study done in negative income tax in New Jersey in 1968, 1969 and 1970, and it's likely the most complete study that's available. There isn't really a jurisdiction that has ever put this philosophical tax — this tax on negative incomes — anywhere in the world. It's really never been put into effect except in New Jersey, as I say, on a test basis. At that time there were 1,300 families involved. One of the interesting things that came out of it is that, almost without exception — there was the odd exception, and that, maybe, could be based on personalities — anyone who was put into the plan tended to increase their income by going out and looking for work. Because of the built-in incentive to go and look for work — and if you had been listening to my comments earlier, Mr. Member, you'd understand what I'm talking about — the results show that under a negative income tax, although it is a benefit to people who are in need, people will still go out and work because they can increase their income and they won't be penalized, unlike a straight welfare grant system that's in existence in this province.

MR. LAUK: Does that make a difference? Was that proved in the New Jersey study?

MR. STRONGMAN: Yes, it was.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, will you kindly address the Chair, please?

MR. STRONGMAN: I'm sorry, a number of the members keep addressing me and I paused to answer them. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): He's not finished.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry. The second member for Vancouver South still has the floor.

MR. STRONGMAN: Now I know you're not on my side. (Laughter.) I sense that the Chairman would like me to finish. I've almost completed my remarks.

To me, the benefits of going into this type of distribution of wealth, if you will, will cut down on bureaucracy in a number of areas — I'm talking provincial and federal — if negative income tax is put

[ Page 1184 ]

into the federal scene. We can cut back in bureaucracy in a number of areas: old-age pensions, Human Resources, Canada Pension Plan, UIC benefits. These bureaucracies aren't going to disappear and I don't think any of us would really except'them to. But they certainly would be cut back in need because many of the recipients of those benefits now would come under the blanket of a negative income tax plan.

I would urge all of the members to consider what I have been talking about carefully — not that they have to use my notes. I would urge them to start considering what happens if this type of plan is put in, and what their position will be when it is actually debated in this House. It is one that has absolutely limitless possibilities. I think that both sides of the House will support it. I would ask, and urge, that the Premier continue to espouse this particular philosophy. I think it has real possibilities for benefits and savings to people.

I would say to the members that if any of them would like to read the articles I read, I would be more than delighted to give you the sources. I would also ask you to consider what I have had to say carefully and perhaps have positions available if and when the time does present itself.

MR. BARNES: I'll yield to the Premier if we would like the opportunity to answer a few of these very serious charges.

Mr. Chairman, I am only going to take a few seconds to ask the Premier a few questions. You know, this is the most sedate set of estimates that we have had to deal with. That is, things seem to be very peaceful and quiet, except perhaps for a few moments ago when the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) was inspired to remind the Premier that he has been somewhat negligent in his duties as leader of the government — or you could say the opposition, in the sense that he is not attacking those people who are being irresponsible in his collection over there.

I am going to spend a few moments asking the Premier some questions that I hope he will answer. I am going all the way back to last spring. I asked the Premier a question and he referred it to the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), who referred it to her assistant, who said they were going to be coming back with some answers, and I never did find out. But you'll recall, Mr. Premier, last spring we were getting ready for the Olympics. You were planning to go back and run one leg of the ceremonies, I believe. You were going to take the lead-off and run — what was it? — one mile.

HON. W. R. BENNETT (Premier): A kilometre.

MR. BARNES: One kilometre. At that time you were indicating that the government would pay part of the cost for a contingent from British Columbia to go back and carry the torch — I don't know the city — for quite a few miles to the site in Montreal. Each one was to run a certain amount of the distance. I think there was $300,000 involved. Do you recall that? At that time it was supposed to be partially sponsored by the provincial government and partially sponsored by the private sector. I don't know if that meant corporations, or individual donations, or what, but....

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: The B.C. Sports Federation?

AN HON. MEMBER: That's government.

MR. BARNES: Well, the thing is that that question was never answered. I wanted to know what portion the provincial government was going to pay. Now don't refer it again, Mr. Premier. These are your estimates, and I am sure you are going to get this information for us.

MS. BROWN: Did they give you $300 to run or didn't they?

MR. BARNES: You see, Mr. Premier....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, would you kindly address the Chair?

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I note you have been very diligent this evening in trying to keep good order in the House. You've worked very hard and very judiciously, I am sure, in trying to see that each and every member doesn't waver from the main objective, and that's the leader of the government. I certainly don't intend to breach those directions you have been giving us.

I would like the Premier to stand up in the House and clear up a few things for us. For instance, he says one thing and he does something else. He makes a promise, and then he says: "Well, at the time I meant it, but you know, one can change one's mind." Really I think that from the day he stood up in this House on his estimates and made his opening remarks he seemed to be somewhat discouraged and not too enthusiastic about his department. Where is the leadership? You know, convince us we are a House undivided. We want to follow you. We want to feel that we can rally behind your good intentions.

You know, it is like the member for Vancouver South (Mr. Strongman) has said. You know you are going to bring in a guaranteed income tax. I'm sure you wouldn't be playing a game. You wouldn't be playing a game with us, would you, like your daddy

[ Page 1185 ]

used to do? He always talked about the negative income tax, or the guaranteed income, or whatever you call it. He was always making reference to it because there was nothing he could do. You see, you had to go to the federal government to get some help there.

I'm not sure what you're doing, quite frankly. You talk about regionalism and yet you talk about unity — you leave one confused. Just when we think you've got a cohesive unit over there and the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) is doing a very diligent job, promoting tourism and making profound statements about how the economy is going to improve — she's working very closely with the Minister of Economic Development — then when she thinks she's flying really high, you come out and you zap her. She says one thing and you said "No way!" I wonder whether you people communicate.

MS. BROWN: They don't.

MR. BARNES: I can see that you believe that each person should have their own free voice and free choice, except this afternoon when the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Mr. Loewen) made a few comments.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, would you kindly address the Chair, please?

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, I'm only trying to do an overview...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, would you do an overview by addressing the Chair, please?

MR. BARNES: ...of this Premier's approach to handling his council and his back bench, and his general projections in the community.

It was a little while ago that he also made an interesting comment. I've got a whole list of things that he promised in 1975. Let's see what the date is on this one. This was just last June, 1976. I won't read the whole column, but here is just a little quote from the Premier. This is what is so confusing about you. I never know what you're going to do. I bet you don't even want yourself to know what's going to happen because you'll begin to believe something.

The Premier says: "I campaigned against any raise in taxes." He says: "We meant that. We campaigned against tax increases." But then he says:

"The first thing I had to do was to raise them to meet our commitments. At the time I was making those promises, I didn't really know what the commitments were; I was just trying to get elected. But when we got in, we had to live up to that, so we raised them."

What do you mean when you make a statement like that? What are the people supposed to believe? You didn't answer my question; you said you were going to give it to the Provincial Secretary — she'll look into it. I still haven't heard. This is almost a year.

You say: "We're not going to raise any taxes." But you meant you would have indirect taxes. ICBC is an indirect tax. You say: "What we'll do is we'll raise it just once — 400 or 500 per cent — and each year we'll give you a rebate." Very similar to what they're doing to the automobile today. The new gimmick now is: "Don't invest, get a rebate. Buy this car and we'll give you $400." That's the kind of economic rationale that you seem to be using. You set the people up.

You've got a Provincial Secretary who is telling the people that tourism is the most important industry, and yet the first thing you do with your fiscal policies is to wipe out tourism not only on Vancouver Island but all up the coast, because people need ferries to commute. All of the goods and services — everything is related to transportation. Not only have you wiped out the services that were related to it, but your costs have gone up because you're not even getting as much revenue as you were before. What's your explanation for that?

I would think you would be quite disturbed about the people who've made these decisions. Your Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) perhaps went off half-cocked. Don't you communicate? Don't you believe in using those analysts that were in the Minister of Economic Development's estimates? You've got dozens of people with expertise who are paid for that and that alone — to advise the government on economic policies and procedures.

I just feel that, as a leader, you are of dubious benefit. I'd like to be with you because I know you're a nice fellow. You're a family man. You're a Canadian; you make that quite clear, and I think we're all together. You're a fellow who likes to live a clean life; you only take a sip every now and then.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, vote 18.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, the man is an avid jogging fan. He gets out and takes care of himself. He put a shower in for the opposition next to the toilets.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Wonderful, hon. member, but we are relating this to vote 18.

MR. BARNES: There's a lot of good things about this man, a lot of good things. But you are a tricky man. I can't quite figure out, Mr. Chairman, why this minister is asking us to vote on his salary. I would suggest to him that maybe he should just forgo his salary altogether and apply to ICBC for a stipend. You'd make more money on stipends than you'd ever

[ Page 1186 ]

make on salary.

MS. BROWN: That's right.

MR. BARNES: You just found that out this afternoon. They don't call it salary or a payment; they give you a stipend of $3,600 a month as a consultant.

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: Oh, $3,700 — that's not bad change for not getting a job. What you should do is talk to Dr. Pat and ask him to keep you in mind for the next time one of those consultants' jobs comes along and you just go there, sit in on a few board meetings, pick yourself up a couple of bucks for yourself and forget about it.

MS. BROWN: He won't need the 28 cents.

MR. BARNES: I wonder if that job was posted with UIC — with Manpower. I wonder if Manpower had any knowledge. Was that open competition, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I am waiting for you to get back to vote 18.

MR. BARNES: The Premier has no responsibilities. He very cleverly got rid of all of them. He passed everything off to everybody else.

MS. BROWN: He's responsible for everything.

MR. BARNES: He has assumed no responsibility. He makes referrals and that's the thing I don't like about him. When you ask him what he's going to do about something he says: "Well, we'll look into it and I'll pass it on to the minister in charge."

MS. BROWN: He's not going to get away with it.

MR. BARNES: Now you were calling everybody back to order and I think we should follow the example of some of the members in your back bench who tried to be honest and who tried to come forward with the goods and share with an open mind, with no politics involved.

MS. BROWN: Hear, hear!

MR. BARNES: The member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Mr. Loewen) stood up here today and endorsed programmes that we've been trying to bring in to try and help small businesses and they're sitting on the Premier's desk.

MR. R.L. LOEWEN (Burnaby-Edmonds): Wrong again.

MR. BARNES: He made a plea today that I think the Premier should stand up and say: "I agree."

MR. LOEWEN: You're wrong again.

MR. BARNES: After all, it was brought up by a backbencher and not by the opposition.

MR. LOEWEN: You are completely wrong.

MR. BARNES: That's the excuse you usually want to say that we brought it up, you guys did. And here you have a fellow who is giving you the opportunity to do that.

Let's just take a look at some of the other things that you said in 1975 that you were going to do. You said that you were going to increase efficiency on the ferries. Well, that's really interesting. I hope you will get up and explain what efficiency you have achieved.

MS. BROWN: He wiped out all the passengers. That's what he did.

MR. BARNES: You know, we're so dumbfounded in the opposition that we don't know just how to reach you. Because once your estimates are passed, Mr. Premier, through you, Mr. Chairman, we can talk all we want to the various departmental ministries and they are just going to say: "Well, you know, we have to consult back with the cabinet." The Premier is really the one who has the veto power and who is the real dictator. So he should be the one standing here right now and giving us some idea of what the thrust is with this government and giving us some indication of what the government intends to do in terms of being a people's party, which is what it said it was.

You suggested that you would be dealing with the rent situation. You would have ways and means of dealing with rents — rent reviews. Believe it or not, you did, on the local level. That's hard to believe that you would say that, but you said that you were going to administer rents.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, with great respect, many of your points could be better covered under the particular ministry.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, I beg to differ with you, in all due respect.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well don't, hon. member, because they should be covered under the ministers.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased

[ Page 1187 ]

to take your advice if you would outline to me just what subjects can be discussed under the Premier's vote.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, it is not for the Chair to teach people the rules of the House — that's for you to learn yourself — merely to bring you to order and control of the House.

MR. BARNES: Well, perhaps you could circulate to me that part of the rules that gives an outline of what the Premier is responsible for.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I am merely suggesting to you that much of your debate would be better covered under the particular ministries involved.

MR. BARNES: I see. Well, do you have any idea of what they will say? Could you give me some idea of what they will say?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, you can ask them when they come up for debate.

MR. BARNES: I want you to keep interrupting as much as you please because I have lots of time and we can all learn. If you think that by interrupting and trying to divert....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I am not trying to divert you. Again, I would ask you to withdraw that. It is my duty to keep order in this House.

MR. BARNES: Well, Mr. Chairman, I find it very strange that members for the last two or three days we have had....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, hon. member. May I explain this to you for a moment, please? It is merely my duty to keep order in- this House. I would ask, if you would, to revert to vote 18 at hand — the administrative responsibilities of the Premier.

MR. BARNES: Remember my comments a few moments ago, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Proceed, hon. member.

MR. BARNES: Thank you. I said that the Premier had no responsibilities.

MS. BROWN: At least he'd like to think he had no responsibilities.

MR. BARNES: That's why I've got to fire all over the place. I don't know what his responsibilities are and he doesn't know either. If he knows what his responsibilities are, Mr. Chairman, I think he should stand up. Ill be glad to sit down and listen to him tell me what his responsibilities are because I really question whether he has any that he will take responsibility for when the pressure is on. Certainly the things that were raised by the hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) about unemployment in this province, show where we have 112,000 people unemployed and in some areas 30 per cent or greater unemployment. We have a Premier who heads a group of people who call themselves Social Crediters, and of — what shall we say? — Liberals and Conservatives and whatnots who aspire to power at all costs.

It is no wonder this Premier is afraid to say what his responsibilities are. He's dealing with a group of people he's not familiar with, who just came together all of a sudden in order to get rid of the socialists. I don't think he really knows what his thrust is.

He himself, if I can find some of the quotes, has said that his is not a party that really has a movement, but is a party that is trying to appeal to the most popular vote — where the action is. He's not here to take this parliament along sound, managed lines of prosperity but is yielding to the pressure, wherever the pressure may be. I think that those of us on the opposition have found it so hilarious and so ridiculous that we're dumbfounded sometimes, Mr. Chairman.

We've raised many serious issues. We've asked the Premier to give us some idea of how you have a society of confident citizens who believe in participatory democracy, who want to respect the British parliamentary system, and who want to feel that those elected people that are representing them throughout the province mean what they say. We find there is no way nor any opportunity for people to participate. In fact just last session what did the government do in order to eliminate any real input on behalf of those of us on the opposition but come in with the Reorganization Act, an Act which, in effect, means that no matter what vote we pass, no matter how much detail we put in the estimates, when they go back to cabinet they can change it. They can wipe out a department, transfer a fund, alter any of the votes.

Now if the Premier is going to tell me that they do not have that power under the Reorganization Act, then so be it. But things have changed. They get rid of the community resource boards because there was too much input on the grass roots; people were having too much to say about their affairs. These were elected boards, incidentally.

He says: "We're going to balance our books. We're not going to spend money that we don't have. Governments have no money of their own." That's what he said: "Governments have no money of their own." At the same time he's saying that he's creating new Crown corporations like the B.C. Buildings

[ Page 1188 ]

Corporation, which now has power to deal in real estate, to buy and sell, and it has a new borrowing capacity of $700 million. He's doing the same thing with B.C. Hydro. All other Crown corporations have raised their borrowing capacity several hundred thousand dollars.

So now that you've heard the big charade about the Clarkson Gordon report which gave you the propaganda tool to say that you inherited a government with a deficit, you're going to play games by saying you're balancing the books, jacking up the taxes, raising social insurance taxes 2 per cent to 7 per cent. You're doing the same thing in practically every service.

How do we find out what's really happening in the government unless you're going to give the people an opportunity to have real, legitimate input? You're a serious man; you've got young children that are going to be growing up and they're going to have to believe in something. You make beautiful speeches, but where's your sense of commitment? You've told a lot of — well, I won't say lies, I'll just say untruths. You've misled a lot of us, Mr. Premier....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that is also unparliamentary. Would you kindly withdraw?

MR. BARNES: I tried to couch that in such a way, Mr. Chairman... .

MR. CHAIRMAN: Not quite well enough, hon. member. Would you withdraw.

MR. BARNES: Okay. Well, I'm having trouble believing the Premier.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you withdraw, please?

MR. BARNES: What did I say? I'll withdraw if you tell me what it is.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Untruths.

MR. BARNES: Did I say "untruths"?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.

MR. BARNES: Oh, by all means.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member.

MR. BARNES: I don't think that the Premier would deliberately utter an untruth. He may have difficulty distinguishing the difference between what is factual and unfactual. Now don't stand up and object.

AN HON. MEMBER: Withdraw!

MR. BARNES: No, no. You'll get your chance to stand up in a minute. Now he wants to get up, you see? I never know. The only reason he wants to get up is because he thinks I'm not getting to the point and he wants to rush it, you see.

You remember a little while ago when you were in the opposition, Mr. Premier, and we all used to sit here and watch you, very fidgety, sitting over here, and you were conniving. At that time you had Allan Williams over here....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I hate to bring you back to vote 18, but would you...?

MR. BARNES: Pardon me. But he is the Premier and after all, this is all about the games that he's playing — no one else. He used to play. We're just trying to show how it all happened so that the people can understand what a truly masterful leader they have over there. Some of those members I don't think really know how it all happened. There were only nine of those people over here at that time: the Premier, at that time the Leader of the Opposition, and eight others — and all of them were running for the leadership.

There's one right behind you now. He did not do too badly, considering he didn't have the support of your father. The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) did pretty well — a pretty good effort. Then your Deputy Speaker, Mr. Chairman, also was a candidate for the leadership — the member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder).

MR. KING: And the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot).

MR. BARNES: That's right. You have the present Minister of Mines.

MS. BROWN: The Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) is still running.

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]

MR. BARNES: You had all those fellows over there trying to get the leadership but they didn't have the casual style that you have, so they were off guard. By the time it was all over you zapped them. You're the leader. But that was only the beginning. You were trying to get some unity among all of those people over there. You even tried to get the NDP to break up. Imagine that!

You went down the line. Very early in the game you got a Conservative who had been a Liberal, I think, before that so he's been all over the place. I don't know where he's going next.

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

[ Page 1189 ]

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, you have a member calling for order, but that's what we're looking at — that's the government.

MS. BROWN: Yes, we need some order.

MR. BARNES: We have the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom), who was over here pounding away at the old Social Credit regime for many, many years. He could not beat them so he joined them. And now that he has joined them, of course, he's finding out there are two sides to every story. He's wondering if he could not go back to the story he used to tell.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member....

MR. BARNES: Well, I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. BARNES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the hon. member please show how this relates to vote 18?

MR. BARNES: Very quickly. I'm going to sum it up very quickly, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much.

MR. LOEWEN: Barnes, you were a great football player! (Laughter.)

MR. BARNES: That's true, Mr. Digger.

Mr. Chairman, I think that the Premier would do well to take the lead from that member for Burnaby-Edmonds because he's shown many times that he makes very few remarks, but when he does they're very profound and far-reaching. (Laughter.) He inspired the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) to jump up today and try and get on the bandwagon with him, but he was running so fast he couldn't catch him.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, unless we can relate these remarks to the Premier's estimates, we're going to have to ask you to cease your debate.

MR. BARNES: Oh, my goodness! That would be a precedent! I hope you won't do that, Mr. Chairman, because if you were to ask me to cease my debate then you'd be forcing the Premier to stand up and start answering questions. If he's prepared to do that I'll sit down now.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, a lot of ground has been rehashed. It must be the greatest attempt to spin their wheels that the opposition has ever made in this House. I don't know what the purpose of the filibuster is except to convince the public that they made a good choice in throwing them out. The irrelevance that has dominated the House in the last few days as we've attempted to deal with the very serious problems facing this province and some of the solutions.... The opportunity to get on with legislation and other ministers, where quite properly many questions could be asked.... It's disturbing that we seem to have hit some sort of impasse. The opposition doesn't seem to be prepared to deal with my estimates in a very straightforward way — most of the questions have been asked before and answers given.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): Second reading of Bill 5, Mr. Speaker.

POLLUTION CONTROL (1967)
AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

HON. J.A. NIELSEN (Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, to the members of the House, the purpose of this amendment Act is to fill a void that is very apparent in attempts to combat pollution, particularly pollution which may occur in an emergency situation. The existing Acts which are within the capabilities of provincial authorities do not offer a situation of emergency or speed to combat dangers of pollution, particularly by toxic materials.

Much has been made about the Act as it would relate to oil spills, because of the oil spill being on the minds of so many persons at this time. But I might emphasize that the purpose of the bill goes beyond oil spills. We have been concerned recently about pollution on land as well, either by spill or leakage; particularly of toxic materials such as PCBs.

The bill would provide the minister with powers to move very, very quickly to make such orders as were deemed necessary to prevent pollution from spreading, to move in equipment, men and material to remedy the situation or contain the pollution and to cause removal of the substance and disposal if necessary, and then, eventually, to assess the costs to those persons deemed to be responsible. Part of the Act will provide a method whereby those persons named as responsible as polluters may appeal such a decision in the court of law.

We recognize, of course, that emergency powers will not be the only necessary step in combating some of these pollution problems we can see in the future. But at the present time we seem unable to

[ Page 1190 ]

respond quickly because of limiting effects of certain legislation. Recognizing that under present circumstances the federal government must play a very large role in combatting pollution, particularly in the area of oil spills, we feel that the province should at least have equal ability to move rapidly when it comes to such spills, and perhaps argue about jurisdiction or compensation later. The federal Minister of Fisheries and the Environment, visiting Victoria last week, agreed basically that speed is essential and that all should do what can be done to see that speed can be utilized.

We have been in contact with many persons in the private sector over the last few months or longer, regarding the need to move quickly if pollution threatens, and also in an attempt to develop a catalogue of equipment and a catalogue of methods that could be used to combat pollution. I must say that the response has been very, very positive. We are initiating a catalogue of equipment that is available, that could be used and that could be ordered in use. Also, the various methods which have been brought to our attention by persons involved in the public sector who have been using these methods for private industry or other reasons, apparently were just not known within the government prior to this past year.

The other portions of the bill are relatively routine: definitions and some emphasis being shifted slightly. The main emphasis of the bill, Mr. Speaker, indeed, deals with the speed, permitting the minister to act quickly in a pollution emergency.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of the bill.

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): The opposition has taken a fairly careful look at this bill. We're not quite convinced of the necessity for presenting a bill of this nature under the Pollution Control Act, 1967. After all, we feel that the province has the authority under other emergency measures legislation to attack emergencies such as might occur when there is a spill of toxic substances. I think we should congratulate the B.C. Hydro and Power Authority and the minister's ministry when they, in response to Hydro's initiative, moved on the PCB problem at Sheridan Lake up in the interior of the province. There is the administrative machinery in British Columbia to mobilize available forces and to get people and equipment in action quickly enough to accommodate spills of toxic materials and to remove the danger of those toxic materials when they appear.

There are some problems and, of course, the major problem is the preventive aspect. That's something that this bill doesn't deal with. It's one thing to duplicate procedures that are already in existence under emergency measures legislation such as we have in other laws on the provincial statute books. In fact, this probably doesn't go far enough. It's not even equal to emergency legislation that we presently have.

But the major aspect we're concerned about in the opposition is the preventive aspect. When the minister has discussed this bill outside the House, after the bill was tabled in the House some time ago, he discussed it relative to the problem of oil spills, particularly on the coast of British Columbia, and the problem of amassing people — I think he mentioned, in one case, conscripting people out of beer parlours to fight oil spills....

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Wrong again!

MR. SKELLY: The minister will have an opportunity to close debate according to the parliamentary system here.

There was some discussion about conscripting people out of beer parlours and about having the same powers as we have under the Forest Act to fight forest fires — to conscript people, to pay them, and to mobilize men and equipment — to attack problems of toxic spills, including the problem of oil spills. But again, we have this conflict that has taken place and that has not been resolved in this House over the past several months. That is the problem of whether we are going to prevent the kind of toxic spills, and extremely dangerous oil spill disasters particularly, that might occur on the coast of British Columbia. We in the opposition feel that this bill is kind of a sop to the public, to say that the provincial government is ready to take action, that we are preparing ourselves through this type of legislation to take action in the eventuality that an oil spill might take place on the coast of British Columbia that would constitute a threat to the environment of this coast.

MR. KEMPF: Are you saying we shouldn't take action?

MR. SKELLY: I'm saying, Mr. Member, that there is already, under other legislation, the right of the provincial government to take emergency action to conscript men and materials and to solve those problems, and there is the same under federal legislation. But there appears to be no concern on the part of the present government about prevention of spills of toxic materials and about prevention particularly of spills of oil — crude oil in particular. Again it refers to this question: are we going to allow ourselves to be placed at risk so that these toxic materials will be placed on water and on land in this province?

There has been no statement whatsoever from that Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen), or from any other member of the government, concerning in particular the Kitimat oil pipeline which is probably the most dangerous project that could put this province, both terrestrial and in the marine aspect, at risk from toxic spills. There has been no action

[ Page 1191 ]

whatsoever, and no policy has been adopted. We have been looking forward to that Minister of Environment coming up with some type of statement to indicate that he is taking the necessary preventive measures to prevent these types of toxic spills occurring. Nothing has been forthcoming.

It's interesting that at the recent convention of the United Fishermen and Allied Workers the Minister made a speech to the convention, and the people at the convention asked him: "What are you going to do about tanker traffic coming up and down this coast? What are you going to do about the risk of toxic oil spills off the coast of British Columbia?" The minister kept putting forth in front of these people the idea that they were taking steps, under this legislation, to clean up any oil spills or any toxic spills which might take place. The question was asked time and time again: "What are you going to do to prevent the eventuality of those spills taking place?" People from Environment Canada have told us that it's going to be impossible to clean up the spills. There is absolutely no possibility whatsoever that men and equipment can be mobilized, or that money can be made available, to clean up a spill of toxic oil of the magnitude that we can expect if the Kitimat oil port and the Kitimat pipeline are built.

There's an article in the Vancouver Sun today, February 22, 1977, where Moira Farrow, in an interview with Captain Young of the Canada Coast Guard, has stated:

"'There's really very little one can do on the west coast. We have good capability for using chemical dispersants sprayed from ships, but in winter we'd probably have to leave things to Mother Nature.' Young said very few British Columbians have any idea how severe the weather can be on the northern coast of British Columbia. 'The Coast Guard's stockpile of oil cleanup equipment in B.C. is now worth more than $1 million, but it's dispersed on the whole coast between Vancouver and Prince Rupert. For us to get equipment from Prince Rupert to Kitimat by water would take 12 hours.'"

We're dealing with an emergency bill which really is going to have very little effect on spills of toxic chemicals and oil in the waters of British Columbia and on land in British Columbia. Captain Young mentions the oil spill in the Sea of Japan recently where it required the labour of something like 232,000 Japanese to clean up that oil spill, that took place in the Sea of Japan, and still the cleanup wasn't satisfactory.

This bill doesn't solve the problem that is being presented to us by the present government through the simple fact that they're not taking a strong position against the risk of tanker traffic up and down this coast and the risk of tankers negotiating the narrow channels on the northern coast of British

Columbia and the enclosed waters of Puget Sound. The government, if they are really concerned about pollution, if they are really concerned about cleaning up pollution and the prevention of pollution, must take a strong stand against that Kitimat oil port and against the transfer of oil and toxic materials by ship on the waters of British Columbia. This is the major problem.

Our party feels that we already have the legislation. It has been demonstrated in the Sheridan Lake PCB spill that we can mobilize people and equipment to clean up our problems as occurred in the Sheridan Lake area. Hydro did an excellent job in that area in cleaning up the PCB contamination that resulted from the burial of electrical apparatus containing the PCBs.

This legislation doesn't go far enough to solve the problem. What we need is a preventive measure; what we need is the Minister of Environment to come out and say: "No tanker traffic on the coast of British Columbia, no Kitimat oil pipeline, no Kitimat oil port and no transportation of oil in Puget Sound!"

Mr. Speaker, the main environmental disaster in this province that we should be concerned with right now is right in that minister's office. He has not offered any single concrete solution to the problem of pollution in this province in the year and a half that he has been in office. It's recognized almost universally throughout British Columbia that that minister is an environmental disaster. If the government wants to deal with environmental problems in British Columbia, then it's the responsibility of the Premier to sack that minister and bring in some legislation that's going to do the job.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): I might say that I was surprised at this bill in that it is such a minor solution to such a major problem. But really, I shouldn't be surprised because we have become more and more aware as the past year has progressed that we only have a token Minister of Environment, and this is a token bill that is being presented for our consideration today.

The problems confronting this province in the way of environment are far more wide-ranging than can be solved by a mere bill that would bring in some sort of method of conscripting people to control any possible oil spills or other types of problems that might occur in this province. It's a token bill, Mr. Speaker; that's all it is. It changes a few words and a few terminologies, and it does nothing that will in any long-term or long-range way do anything to prevent or even correct some of the problems that are facing B.C. now. We have problems in lack of environmental controls and in things that are affecting the ecology — very wide-ranging and serious problems, Mr. Speaker. They're the kind of problems that cannot be ignored any longer; they're the kind of

[ Page 1192 ]

problems that, if they are ignored, are reaching a point of no return.

This bill is not the answer and that minister is not the answer, Mr. Speaker. He told us when he was elected he'd do nothing about the environment and he has continued to prove it every day of his office. Not only does he not know but it appears he does not care.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, if would appear not only by your own remarks but by those of the previous speaker in this debate that you wish to engage on an attack upon the minister. That would more properly be done when his vote is under debate, if that is your intention. There is a means of determining in your minds the action of a minister, and it is more properly done when his estimates are before the House, but not when a bill is before the House which has to do with pollution control, please.

MRS. WALLACE: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's very difficult to attack this bill without attacking the minister. He is the man who is responsible for it, Mr. Speaker, and I feel it is a lacklustre bill with nothing in it of any concrete significance, nothing in this bill that moves to protect the harbours of Vancouver Island which are already reaching a point where, if action is not taken soon, those harbours will be completely destroyed.

There are so many kinds of pollution, Mr. Chairman; it's not just the oil pollution, though I'm as concerned about that as the member who previously spoke. I'm concerned about the waste from logging operations. The minister in his opening remarks said he had been speaking with private industry regarding this bill. Mr. Speaker, private industry, the major industry in this province — the logging industry — is one of the greatest polluters we have, and this bill does nothing to take any steps toward controlling that kind of pollution.

It's an insignificant bill. It does not go into the things that are so seriously affecting the waters and the land of this province.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to deal just very briefly with the section regarding the conscription of people — or at least, as the minister has indicated, that there would be conscription of people to go out and fight pollution. I wonder if there is any concept here of the size of operation if we were faced with a major oil spill, the size of operation that would be required here. And what are the terms under which these people would be conscripted? What can a handful of people do without the equipment, and where is the provision for the equipment, Mr. Speaker? I fail to see an adequate provision for adequate equipment. Where would this be available from? How readily could it be brought onto the site?

The bill is simply not explicit, Mr. Speaker. It does not go into the kind of detail, or the degree, or the extent. We're dealing with a major catastrophe here and we're trying to deal with a million-dollar problem by a two-bit bill. It's not adequate. It's very, very incomplete. And it's apparently the only solution that we're going to be presented with at this session, or perhaps any other session, for solving the ecological, pollution and environmental problems that are facing this province.

It's interesting to note that one of the pre-election promises made by this government was that they were going to scrap the Pollution Control Board. It would seem, in effect, that this kind of an Act is just doing nothing to add to the pollution control. It would just be as well to scrap the board completely. Really, Mr. Speaker, we have to start out with something far more wide-ranging and in much greater depth than this particular Act. It's simply inadequate. It's far, far too small-minded an approach to a very major and a vital problem, Mr. Speaker. It concerns me very much because it has the degree of seriousness that could decide which way this province will go for all future generations. It's even more vital than curtailment of social services to people because those things can be corrected. But we involve ourselves in a kind of programme that is slapping on a very small, Band-aid type of cure on something, when we should be looking at the preventative measures that would prevent the complete spoilage of our whole coastal waters and, in fact, our whole province. It's just such a token that it's a sham, Mr. Speaker. I'm really concerned that this is the only kind of legislation that we are presented to consider as far as environmental protection. It's just not good enough, Mr. Speaker.

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): I have to agree with the two previous speakers on this bill. It's nothing but a sop, and I don't understand, if the minister is going to amend the Pollution Control Act, why he doesn't do a proper job of it. It's 1967 since this Act was brought in, and in that period of time, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, we have had far greater understanding of environmental problems. The public is far more concerned about the environment than it was back in 1967. If you're going to amend the Act, why not amend it so that it includes so many of the other issues that concern us, at least on this side of the House?

I think it is nothing more than an attempt, Mr. Speaker, to give some credibility to that minister, because he doesn't have any out there in the public. The people within my constituency certainly don't have any confidence in that minister and this is a minor attempt to try to convince the public that, yes, this Minister of the Environment is really concerned about oil spills and is concerned about other pollutants that go into the waters. If he is concerned about the environment of this province and if he is

[ Page 1193 ]

the minister responsible for the environment, why hasn't he been shouting day after day: "We must not allow oil tankers into Kitimat. We musn't"?

He has said nothing, Mr. Speaker. We've had a lot of fancy talk from the Premier on this subject. But that minister, who is responsible for protecting this environment and who is responsible for ensuring that we have a fishery in this province in years to come, has not even spoken out against the oil tankers and the proposed Kitimat pipeline. That's disgraceful, Mr. Speaker.

Minister of the Environment! You know, he's not even taken to task the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) who says: "Oh, yes, go ahead and log...."

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I ask you to return to the principle of the bill, which you are certainly departing from in the line of debate that you're following at the present time. In second reading we debate the principle of the bill and not other matters which may come before this House at a different time.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, what I am saying and pointing out to the minister is that the bill is very inadequate. It does virtually nothing in terms of coming to grips with the problems that face the environment of this province today. What I am saying is that as Minister of Environment he should be, in this bill, making a much broader amendment to include the concerns that the people out there have. They are not happy with just this. They are concerned about the logging that the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) is talking about in the Stein. They are concerned about what might happen to the Tsitika-Schoen area up in my riding. There's nothing in this bill that deals with any of those issues.

HON. T.M. WATERLAND (Minister of Forests): Are you against jobs?

MS. SANFORD: My, isn't that interesting! Am I against jobs? When we have been speaking day after day in this House, in response to that minister, who interrupted me, Mr. Speaker, about the 112,000 people who are looking for work in this province and that you people have done nothing about.... Am I against jobs? What nonsense!

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member for Comox has the floor.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, this bill is inadequate in that it does not deal with the very precious estuaries of this province, except for the little matter about oil spills and some of the other pollutants that might occur.

AN HON. MEMBER: Little matter?

MS. SANFORD: All right! But the major problems with the estuaries in this province today, Mr. Speaker, are not dealt with in this bill. Let me cite what is happening at Campbell River, where there's been a study underway for some time about the protection of that estuary. There are no chemicals in that estuary. There are no oil spills in that estuary, but that estuary is dying.

MR. KEMPF: They didn't tell me that in Campbell River last week.

MS. SANFORD: This bill just does not provide for those kinds of concerns. As a matter of fact, the Minister of Environment, who is supposed to be protecting the environment, has recently granted permission to a private firm up there to go ahead and dredge in the estuary area of the Oyster River so we can have another Coney Island, as the developer said. He'd like to make a Coney Island up there. He has now been given permission to do that dredging so that the privately owned marina can go in.

This is the kind of activity, the kind of attitude, that we've seen from that non-Minister of Environment. He's not doing a job for the people of this province. This bill is completely inadequate, Mr. Speaker.

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): In regard to the second reading on the principle of this bill, I have a very deep concern that this bill has certainly not gone far enough in terms of where it should have gone. Some of these concerns have been expressed by previous speakers. I want to bring to the minister's attention a certain instance that was brought to my attention only late last week and which I spent a bit of time looking into just yesterday. I really think that the minister should be aware of what is happening in a certain area of our province and why I think this bill has not gone nearly far enough and is inadequate.

We have a situation in Squamish where there's a chemical plant called FMC Chemicals. It has been brought to my attention — and the press reported this some time ago — that there has been one incident of chlorine leaking from that chemical plant. I found to my astonishment yesterday, in fact, that there was more than one incident of chlorine leaking from that FMC Chemicals plant at Squamish.

I have before me signed statements from some of the people who work near the plant — in fact, almost a quarter of a mile away from the plant at Squamish Terminals on the wharf site. That wharf site was evacuated on at least four occasions. The dates of

[ Page 1194 ]

those occasions were August 3, August 5 and August 6.

But the worst of all was November 29 of last year. On that date there was a very bad leak. There was a state of panic apparently, I am told, in the FMC Chemicals plant itself. The men over at the Squamish Terminals were having lunch when they were finally notified of the leak. They were told to get the heck out of that lunchroom immediately or they had a good chance of being polished off if they didn't get out of there quickly.

On that date the Workers' Compensation Board investigated that particular incident. I'll read part of the compensation board's report on this matter, Mr. Speaker. We all know that chlorine in excess of one part per million can be detrimental to your health. I am going to forward for the minister and his attention some of the incidents that have happened and how workers have suffered from vomiting. One worker here was temporarily fired from his employ because the foreman thought he was drunk when in effect he was suffering from chlorine poisoning. This is one of the reasons for the statement.

To get back to the WCB report, I'll read the observations of the inspector, and I think you might find this interesting, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Yes, I'd be pleased to make these documents available to the minister, Mr. Speaker.

MR. KEMPF: Just table them. We'll read them.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: It says:

"The salt unloading operations were located about a quarter mile from the FMC of Canada Ltd. Industrial chemical division plant. Although no chlorine was found at the salt unloading site at the time of inspection, the work crew had to be evacuated earlier...."

This was the November 29 spill, Mr. Speaker.

"... in the day due to the accidental discharge of chlorine from the FMC plant site. Due to the nature of the FMC operations, the potential hazards of future releases of chlorine exist."

This is serious, Mr. Speaker — "... the potential hazard of future releases of chlorine exist." Right in the WCB report.

"An inspection of the unloading operation shows that considerable time may be required for operators of front-end loaders and personnel located on the scows to disembark during a chlorine emergency."

You want to remember, Mr. Speaker, that this plant is approximately one mile from the community of Squamish. I just want the members to keep that in mind.

"As a result of this inspection, future work in this area shall take place when the following conditions are met."

This is quite lengthy, but basically what it amounts to, Mr. Speaker, is that the respirator equipment shall be provided to employees when needed on the Squamish Wharf site.

The problem with this, Mr. Speaker — and I would like to get into this for just a minute — is that, first of all, you recall I mentioned earlier about the lunchroom being evacuated and people heading for the high ground. Chlorine, as you know, is heavy and will stay close to the ground. So the advice is, in terms of a chlorine leak, to go upwind and get to high ground, if you have the time.

The problem with the WCB recommendation is that, first of all, if the men are in the lunchroom eating lunch, obviously they are going to have one heck of a time eating lunch through a respirator in the first place. (Laughter.)

MR. WALLACE: Agreed!

MR. LOCKSTEAD: So the fact is that the respirators cannot be worn at all times, and are certainly not adequate safeguards.

Secondly, and more importantly, and the point I want the minister.... I wish that Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot) had a respirator on right now, and wouldn't keep interrupting my nice speech.

HON. J.R. CHABOT (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): What are you reading about?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Anyway, Mr. Speaker, the point I want the minister to take particular note of is this: there are at least five different types of sniffers on the market today that can detect chlorine leaks — five different types. You know what? In spite of the union demands that this type of detection device be installed at that location, you know what they are told? They can't find out who's responsible. Apparently the Ministry of Environment takes no responsibility; apparently the WCB takes no responsibility for the installation; apparently the company takes no responsibility. In the meantime, people's lives are in danger. People have actually got sick on the job. Very little has been done to rectify that situation in spite of the fact that this whole incident and a series of incidents have been well documented by union and management people.

I hope that when the minister gets up to close the debate on this bill he will assure this House that steps and regulations will be added, and amendments added to this Bill 5 to control this type of incident. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr.

[ Page 1195 ]

Speaker, I rise with surprise debating a bill that we all expected to debate sooner or later with no trepidation at all. The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe), however, hasn't seen fit to stand in the House and support the bill. None of the other ministers have stood in this House to support this bill. None of the backbenchers have stood in this House to support the bill.

MS. BROWN: They're ashamed of it.

MR. COCKE: I don't expect that they will, either. The Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources suddenly jumps up when he finds that I have the floor, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: I recognized the hon. member for New Westminster.

MR. COCKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SKELLY: Followed by the member for Columbia River (Hon. Mr. Chabot).

MR. COCKE: Followed by the member for Columbia River, and I hope he takes his place and I hope that he can defend his back-bench minister who has before him a bill with wide, sweeping powers. I can recall the days when we were government, when we put forward a bill that had words in it such as "emergency programme Act" and other situations, that suddenly there would be those words going out through the airwaves.

Well, Mr. Speaker, there are some good aspects to this bill, and I suggest to you that I can support some of the aspects of this bill. But I'm much more worried about what happens to this province not "if" there's a major pollution accident, but "when" there's a major pollution accident, particularly on our shores. We have our friendly neighbour to the south, and I have a great respect for the United States and I have an understanding of their need for energy, but it strikes me that one of the things we have to be is very much like our friendly neighbour to the south — hard-nosed business people.

When it comes to the utilization of either our foreshore, our waters, or our land to carry energy in the form of oil, or whatever, that endangers our land and our foreshore, Mr. Speaker, this bill gives some powers to the minister. I suggest to you that the minister isn't going to make the kind of recovery that's necessary from a boat, from a ship, or from a vessel, as my colleague from Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) describes it, that's licensed under the Liberian flag, or Panama, or whatever. Flags of convenience provide a great deal of other conveniences, as the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources I'm sure will point out when he gets up.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Sit down and I'll point it out right now.

MR. COCKE: He is very anxious to get up, Mr. Speaker, and I hope that we all note he's going to get up and he's going to see to it that he supports that minister who sits behind him.

Men it comes to the Liberian freighters, the oil tankers, this bill is a weak bill, put forward by a weak government, and supervised by a weak minister. As a matter of fact, I hear a rumour around — just talking in terms of that weak minister — that that minister will be the sacrificial lamb. He will be the one fired as opposed to the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), who should be. That's the rumour I hear, talking about a weak minister.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would you please return to the principle of the bill?

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry that I mentioned the scapegoat rumour. I recognize that it's somewhat untoward when I'm speaking to the principle of this bill, but I must confess that it worries me that a bill of this nature is in the hands of a minister who really hasn't given any kind of direction in this province to date about the whole question of keeping our environment clean. He has not stood up either in the House or on the hustings and indicated grave concerns about the future of our environment.

He comes in now, Mr. Speaker, with Bill 5. He gives himself the power to charge, to clean up, similar to the Forest Act. His duties will be somewhat in line with the duties of the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) when a forest fire occurs, and I recognize that. I feel that possibly gives him a little bit of muscle but, Mr. Speaker, he's going to need a lot more than this bill. He's going to need a lot more than the kind of energy he has shown to date to really make an impression on the potential polluters in our province.

We've now seen the thrust toward the harbour at Kitimat. Any of us who have looked at a map know for sure — when we know the climate up there, we know the storm centre that that is, particularly in the winter time — that to escape a major polluting accident up there is almost unthinkable. I am saying, to escape it — not thinking in terms of "if." I am saying "when." Mr. Speaker, we have exactly the same situation down our west coast of Vancouver Island and we have a particularly hazardous situation in Juan de Fuca Strait on the way to Cherry Point. All these areas are areas that this minister is going to have to police and this is his weapon. It's not strong

[ Page 1196 ]

enough, You see, Mr. Speaker, this does nothing preventive about this. This says that "after the fact I'm going to jump in and I'm going to have a little army of recruited people around me...."

AN HON. MEMBER: Not enough.

MR. COCKE: Not enough is right!

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: That's right. "I'm going to have a little army of people whom I have recruited around me, to try to clean up. Then I am going to have the right by this bill to charge the polluter." I hope, Mr. Speaker, it's not a Liberian oil tanker. How are you going to charge them? Where are you going to get the money? What's going to be left of the ship? Nothing's there, Mr. Speaker. Nothing to charge. They'll give him short shrift. Meanwhile, the jeopardy hangs in there.

Mr. Speaker, while the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Chabot) whispers and makes a joke of something that I don't consider to be funny, he makes a joke about the potential hazard that we have in British Columbia, a hazard big enough at this point that the Minister of Environment should be before us talking in terms of prevention, talking in terms of going down and talking tough to Uncle Sam, talking tough to those people who, we agree, require energy. But, Mr. Speaker, do they require energy to the extent that we're prepared to put up with the poisoning and with the destruction of our beautiful environment?

Mr. Speaker, British Columbia is not ours. British Columbia does not belong to us. British Columbia belongs to the future of British Columbia. British Columbia belongs to our children, our grandchildren and their children and grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, we can no longer afford the luxury of looking in short-term. We can no longer look forward to saying what we might do if an accident occurs. We have to stand up today, Mr. Speaker, and say that, in order to make sure of our heritage, we have to do the preventive type of thing.

I hoped, Mr. Speaker, when I didn't see this government put forward any strong opposition to the pipelines and when I didn't see the government putting up any strong opposition to the tanker traffic that at least they would come up with some legislation that might mitigate the problem. The Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources sits there. And the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) sits there and shakes his head. You know, Mr. Speaker, if that minister treated his portfolio as lightly as the Minister of Environment has treated his portfolio, I suggest to you we're being endangered in the forests, too, to a greater extent than we are.

I am not suggesting that the Minister of Forests is doing all he can do but I certainly suggest that I want to see something preventive. I want to see something from that minister who indicated that he didn't know what he was getting into and he wondered why he was appointed. I want to see something stronger than Bill 5. I want to see something that's going to tell us that this government is prepared to put forward some very strong preventive measures and that this government is going to be prepared to go and argue the position of British Columbia. Our federal government argued for a 200-mile limit on fishing boats and fishing in the B.C. waters or, for that matter, in the Canadian waters. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, we should be arguing as strongly for those kind of limits for oil tankers. Who needs them, Mr. Speaker, if they are to jeopardize the future for a short-term gain and long-term hazards? It's not good enough, Mr. Speaker. So with his powers to conscript, with his powers to charge the polluters, with his powers to let these things finally go to court afterwards, it isn't good enough.

Certainly it's a bill you can't oppose. It's very difficult to suggest that there isn't motherhood in it...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. COCKE: ...but it's just not far reaching enough. If anybody should know that, the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) would. I can remember all the great and glorious speeches he gave in opposition.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Maybe. It depends on your bias. Incidentally, I didn't buy this suit in Calgary.

AN HON. MEMBER: You didn't?

MR. COCKE: No.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Nice fit!

MR. COCKE: That's right.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, your suit is not a principle of this bill.

MR. COCKE: Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm glad you brought that to my attention. Every once in a while I get distracted by the Minister of Mines, who accidentally slipped into that portfolio. It seems to me that the Premier overlooked the fact that he wasn't a Liberal.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Ho-hum!

[ Page 1197 ]

MR. COCKE: But, you know, accidents do happen. When I'm talking about accidents, Mr. Speaker, I'm talking about the kind of accidents that that minister, the Minister of Environment, should be protecting us from — accidents that can hamper, impair and absolutely wreck our environment. I don't really think that a bill that says the minister has emergency powers after the fact is good enough. Let's see something better come out of the Minister of Environment. Otherwise, when he is fired, I'm going to applaud the fact.

MR. G. MUSSALLEM (Dewdney): Mr. Speaker, the longer I remain in this hallowed chamber, the more I stand in amazement at some of the statements made by hon. members here who say that there should be changes made. They are all the time suggesting great changes, but having had an opportunity in three years, they turned out a total disaster.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. MUSSALLEM: However, I come to you....

Interjections.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I do not understand. I thought that in all the catalogue of bills that will be out this session, if there was any one bill that this opposition could accept wholeheartedly, it would be this one.

MS. BROWN: It's not good enough.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Here's a bill that anybody who can read can see that it gives the right to the minister.... Listening to the opposition, it would appear to me that they expect the minister to don a pair of overalls and go charging out with a broom and stick every time there is an oil spill.

MS. BROWN: That's what he's going to do!

MR. MUSSALLEM: Well, that's the attitude they give us. I would like to tell the opposition — and I think this is very, very simple indeed to say — that the minister represents the whole department.

The Hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) clearly says the bill is not far-reaching enough. How much farther-reaching can it be when it gives the minister the right to move in at any time, using all the resources of the country that he can command and take charge of any pollution problem?

AN HON. MEMBER: After the fact!

MR. MUSSALLEM: It would appear that most of our friends think that the only problem is oil. That's only one of the problems. I would like to say to our hon. friends that it was only this government that took the leadership in pollution control since 1957 in the province of British Columbia. I would like to say further — and I say this clearly — that we have today in British Columbia the cleanest and finest province in all of Canada. I'm sure that applies to the whole of North America, but I'm not going to brag about that. I'm not in possession of all the facts...

AN HON. MEMBER: That's for sure.

MR. MUSSALLEM: ...but it's obvious that we are the leaders in the field. Here we have an Act that the hon. member for New Westminster says is not far reaching enough. How much farther can you reach than to say everywhere, whenever there's trouble, pollution of any kind?

My hon. friend from Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) sits there and looks at me, sits and smiles, my friend who wants to vote me to the ministry and all that sort of thing, and refers to me as the "young fellow from Dewdney" — so kind of him, indeed. I often wonder how much younger, perhaps, he really is, or how much older he is. I'm not sure of that point, but why does he keep harping on this point of the young fellow from Dewdney?

Interjection.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I'll tell you this much, hon. friend: I am honoured to be here and it's a privilege to be here. The snide remarks I receive occasionally from some hon. members are accepted as if it was given in good faith.

However, I don't want to go and read this Act. Anybody can read it. I always thought the idea of opposition was to discuss the principle of things and inform us where it could be better, where it could be improved. But do we get a word about improvement, do we get a word about it being better? No, we just get the statement: "It's no good." What point can you tell us where that can be improved? It cannot be improved; it's totally far-reaching, it's totally encompassing, it's in the hands of an excellent department, and it is the right Act and a good Act. Anyone who stands up in this House and defies it merely says they're not ready to stand for clean and proper pollution control in British Columbia.

I decry the opposition. I would like to think of the opposition as responsible, but I have reason to believe after many years' consideration that this is the most totally irresponsible attitude I have ever seen on the floor of this House. When you attack...

MR. BARNES: Oh, what a vicious attack.

[ Page 1198 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MUSSALLEM: ...such a far-reaching and worthwhile bill....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The position of the respective parties in this House, hon. member, is not part of the principle of this bill.

MS. BROWN: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: I would hope that he would return to the principle of the bill before us.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I stand corrected, hon. Speaker. It may not be the principle of the bill, but at the same time it's the cause of the principle of the bill. They're still irresponsible, and their irresponsibility would destroy the bill. What loosens the bond of parliament? What raised the difficulty we had here tonight? We should be on the Premier's estimates now; we should have finished with those.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. MUSSALLEM: We're still monkeying.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. May I direct the attention of the hon. member to the principle of this bill, which has nothing to do with estimates at the moment?

MR. MUSSALLEM: No, no. It's just an aside, Mr. Speaker. I say to you with the greatest deference that you're quite correct in what you're saying.

But I say that the principle of the bill is clear. It's a far-reaching bill; it's a bill that gives the minister the right to move in on any pollution of any kind, correct it and charge the bill to the offending party without question.

Interjection.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Yes, it's right here. Can't you understand plain English? But yet they take the time of this House. If you did the right thing now, there would be no more talk. Just sit down and pass second reading with a few words from the hon. minister.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, the young member for Dewdney issued a challenge. He suggested that we should make some positive suggestions to the minister about this fantasy bill of his. It really is a fantasy bill. It's not real; it is a figment of his imagination. He is saying that you can control pollution — and everyone knows that you can't control pollution. You have to prevent pollution.

So my first positive suggestion, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Environment...

AN HON. MEMBER: Resign.

MS. BROWN: ...is that he withdraw this bill and substitute it with a pollution prevention Act. That is what we need in this province.

AN HON. MEMBER: You stole my line.

MS. BROWN: I'm sorry, Mr. Member. A pollution prevention Act. When the bill tells us that he is going to move in and control pollution once it occurs in the air, on the sea, on the land or wherever, and then is going to penalize the polluter and he's going to clean up the pollution, he's living in a fantasy world.

Everybody tonight has been talking about reading, and I want to confess that I have been reading too. I have been reading a book called Supership. Ever heard of it?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I got 400 free copies.

MS. BROWN: I've only got one free copy, Mr. Speaker, and I read it. I want to share with the Minister of Environment some of the reasons why I believe that this is fantasy legislation. It's irresponsible and it's fantasy.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: He has 400 copies. Why should I table it? My mother would be ashamed of the Minister of Health if she were here now.

Mr. Speaker, what this book Supership talks about is oil pollution. It talks about the kinds of damage created when supertankers either break up or, through leakage or whatever, pour their oil on the shores or in the sea. This is the pollution that you're going to go rushing around to the beer parlours to collect everybody to come out and help you clean up. This is the pollution, Mr. Speaker.

"In May, 1970, the 50,000-ton Norwegian tanker Poly-Commander, carrying a full cargo of crude oil, ran aground and burst into flame on the Spanish Atlantic Coast near Vigo. It caught alight on the sea and the flames created by this burning oil were so fierce that they caused a fire storm, a heat disturbance of such intensity that it raised hurricane-force winds in the immediate vicinity of this stricken ship."

Now tell me, what is there in this bill that is going to make it possible for the Minister of Environment to collect everyone from all the beer parlours around, to rush out and deal with this kind of pollution? What is there in this bill? I'm asking you, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 1199 ]

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

That is why I refer to this as fantasy legislation. It is unreal.

AN HON. MEMBER: So are you.

MS. BROWN: I'm trying, Mr. Speaker. I'm trying.

"The winds whirled aloft a huge amount of oil, spraying it into a fine mist, and bore it up to high altitudes. The mist condensed into drops and, some days later, a black rain began to fall upon the coast, upon its farmland and upon the village. It did damage to the homes, gardens and crops, and cattle died from eating the oil-covered grass."

Now what is there in this piece of legislation that would make it possible for the Minister of the Environment to go and collect all of the people out of the beer parlours in this province and deal with this kind of pollution? And this is just one example, Mr. Speaker. This book goes on and itemizes, one after the other.... It deals with the Torrey Canyon disaster, which this bill certainly could not have been any assistance to the minister in dealing with. It deals with the Arrow. This bill would have been no assistance because of the fact that that particular tragedy resulted in the death of seabirds 125 miles away from the coast where that tanker broke up. This is mythical legislation.

When the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) said that it is not far-reaching enough, he was being very kind to the legislation, because, in fact, the legislation doesn't reach anywhere. It's a smokescreen. The legislation is a pollutant. You introduce this kind of legislation and everyone goes home feeling safe because now the Minister of Environment has under his belt a piece of legislation that makes it possible for him to go out and clean up any pollution that takes place in the air, on land, in the water, or wherever it may occur, or even any territorial jurisdiction, whatever, of the province. But the minister knows full well that this legislation doesn't give him any kind of power because you cannot clean up pollution once it's occurred. You can't.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: You give up.

MS. BROWN: No, you don't give up. You stop it before it happens. Okay? This is what I'm trying, Mr. Speaker. I'm dealing with the principle of the bill and I'm also speaking, through you, to the minister.

On the recommendation from the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem), I am trying to offer some constructive suggestions to the Minister of Environment, which is, we need legislation to deal with pollution prevention. We don't need legislation that pretends to do what it is incapable of doing. This legislation cannot control pollution. Whether the minister has read any of his 400 copies of Supership or whether he's read his own reports, surely he knows that this piece of legislation does not make this province secure from pollution and it certainly doesn't make it possible for him to clean up the kind of really drastic pollution that could occur. Certainly those super-tankers are allowed to travel to Kitimat.

In the December issue of Monday Magazine — a really good little newspaper and unbiased — an article deals with what would happen with those tankers that take two and a half miles to stop in an uncontrolled panic stop and seven miles to stop in a controlled stop in their attempts to reach Kitimat in zero winds. And he's talking about tankers of 120,000 to 500,000 tons. That's the size of the tanker. I don't know what their capacity is or how much oil they would be carrying. But it certainly would be a lot more than all of the people in the beer parlours in Kitimat could cope with in terms of cleaning up any pollution caused in those waters.

I'm not quite sure what the real reason for the introduction of this bill is. Now the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) tells me that there is a rumour circulating that the minister is about to be relieved of his portfolio and this may be the last desperate act of a sinking ship. I don't know.

AN HON. MEMBER: Prop him up!

MS. BROWN: If the minister is really serious about saving himself and hanging on to his portfolio, then he should start by withdrawing Bill 5. Withdraw Bill 5, explain to the House that you would like to amend it further and reintroduce it. We'll give you permission to do so, Mr. Minister, through you. We will give him permission to reintroduce a new amendment Act, 1977, that deals with pollution prevention, rather than pollution control.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to draw to the attention of the hon. member for Dewdney that I have made a positive suggestion, a very positive recommendation to the Minister of Environment. I certainly hope that the minister will accept this very kind attempt on my part to help him hang on to his portfolio.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I was not intending....

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Oh, yes, you were! Come on!

MR. LAUK: The member for North Okanagan says I was. She has caught me, indeed. I wasn't intending, really, to speak in the debate on this bill.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Well, you can

[ Page 1200 ]

still restrain yourself.

MR. LAUK: The hon. member for Dewdney rose in his place and he spurred me into this debate.

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): George Washington would be ashamed. You intended to speak right from the first!

MR. LAUK: He said he's very honoured and pleased to be in this House at his age. Well, at his age, Mr. Speaker, he should be pleased to be anywhere.

AN HON. MEMBER: Author! Author!

MR. WALLACE: That was Diefenbaker, wasn't it?

MR. LAUK: I think that was John Diefenbaker.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Very clever! Brilliant!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. The first member for Vancouver Centre has the floor.

MR. LAUK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is a piece of what I would call typical Social Credit cosmetic legislation.

MS. BROWN: Hear, hear!

MR. LAUK: When there's a serious problem and an issue is raised in the province of British Columbia, what is the typical Social Credit response? It was the same under the previous Social Credit government as it is today under the present Social Credit government. You can't teach old or new dogs new tricks, it seems, on that side of the House. Bring in a piece of cosmetic, useless, futile legislation that does not come to grips with the major issue, the major problem facing us in the province of British Columbia today.

Another example of cosmetic legislation was the original Pollution Control Act. Instead of meeting the problem head on and providing the finances to do a job....

I have sent out to our research department to get the speeches of the hon. first member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Hon. Mr. McGeer), now the Minister of Education. Let me paraphrase his speech on the original Pollution Control Act. The Minister of Stipends — let me paraphrase for you. "What we need in this province, Mr. Speaker," he used to say so eloquently, as is his wont, "are not symbolic gestures, but a real pollution control programme that will come to grips with the problems of increased industrialization and come to grips with the problems of air, water and land pollution."

HON. MR. McGEER: I liked the original speech best.

MR. LAUK: Well, I did at the time, Mr. Speaker, through you to the member. I did at the time, but now it's rather sour, because what you're doing is you're sitting over there, and I don't know whether.... Has he spoken in this debate?

MS. BROWN: No.

MR. LAUK: Well, I assume that if he's going to be consistent.... Is he going to be consistent and stand up and say that this bill is cosmetic legislation, which it is? There is no financial support for the minister to bring to bear a full government programme for the control of the environment and for pollution control. This minister hasn't got much clout in cabinet and probably hasn't got much money in terms of the department. I would think that if one were serious about pollution control, there would be that budgetary item in the minister's estimates. Nowhere does it appear.

He ran off to Spain the other day and.... Was it Spain? Was it you? Was it Keith Frew or was it you?

MR. WALLACE: That was the Delaware River.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Proceed, hon. member.

MR. LAUK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Looking at an oil spill, it cost about $32 million to clean up. It was a medium-sized or small-sized oil spill.

I don't know exactly what he's getting at in this Act. All this means is that he's going to get a little clean-up crew à la the Marx Brothers or the Keystone Cops trundling out to a major oil spill with a broom and a dust pan to clean up the spill. I don't know; maybe he's really thinking of the major disaster out in Port Moody where four birds were eliminated because of soya bean oil. The minister, of course, has special expertise in other forms of oil slicks.

I don't know exactly how serious we can take this proposed statute. There is no budgetary item; there is no outline by the minister that I heard with respect to how he's going to handle this thing. Again, it's the typical cosmetic approach of this government. They feel they can pull the wool over the people of British Columbia's eyes every time. There's nothing of substance, just superficiality on every occasion.

When people were doing strip development in the Premier's own riding, when the agricultural land of this province was going to land speculators and fast-buck artists across this province, of which the Premier knows very well, it was left to the New

[ Page 1201 ]

Democratic Party administration to bring in the Land Commission Act to protect farmland. Not a party or a government was the NDP to put in cosmetic legislation.

AN HON. MEMBER: Bill 5.

MR. LAUK: Nonsense legislation like Bill 5. Yes, thank you, Mr. Member.

MR. COCKE: And look how they've attacked it.

M R. LAUK: The Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) as he is now, spoke for several hours in this chamber against the Land Commission Act. Of course we know the Premier himself has made a great deal of money taking farmland away from agricultural purposes and selling it off at great profit.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, we are dealing with Bill 5.

MR. LAUK: You know, they talk about the Premier as being a great financial wizard and financier and businessman.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. We're dealing with Bill 5, the Pollution Control Amendment Act.

MR. LAUK: That's exactly what I'm talking about. They say the Premier is a great businessman. The Premier went around this province during the last election campaign and said: "What's wrong with you poor people? Don't you have enough gumption to inherit a hardware store?"

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I'm waiting to see how you relate this to Bill 5. Would you kindly do so, please?

MR. LAUK: What I'm saying to you, Mr. Speaker, is this: this bill, being cosmetic in nature, is consistent with the cosmetic approach taken by the previous Social Credit administration. It doesn't indicate a very good future for this province. Another cosmetic piece of legislation. It was the NDP administration that came to grips with pollution control in this province. We didn't succeed very well on December 11, 1975, to contain pollution, but it was through the Land Commission Act and other bold and substantial measures taken by the NDP administration that should be the example, not this piece of cosmetic legislation that is just mere words. The people of the province now, Mr. Speaker, are interested in substantial action.

Look at how bored the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) now is — he's yawning. I'm sure he should yawn. I remember the speeches he used to make about the old Pollution Control Act and the ineptitude of the previous administration. Nobody was here.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: I'm glad you're back in your seat, Mr. Speaker. Thank you very much for coming in specially for my speech. Mr. Speaker, I want you to ask the Minister of the Environment, who's clinging to office, how he is going to handle pollution control with respect to that great Crown corporation giant, B.C. Hydro.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LAUK: I learned a great deal about B.C. Hydro by reading Politics in Paradise. It was a very well-written book, written by a young man who knew what the truth was at the time and has been corrupted with age. (Laughter.) He's become jaundiced in his lunge for political power. He's forgotten those days of truth and wisdom and sunshine. Yes, he has!

But thumbing through one of my 400 copies of Politics in Paradise, I see that B.C. Hydro is above the law and above this proposed statute and above any order of a Crown minister. I see that B.C. Hydro can pollute the province of British Columbia without any kind of stricture whatsoever. They now have a czar as the head of B.C. Hydro who borrows at will without reference to the government, who can pollute at will, and in the previous days of the previous Social Credit administration expropriated land at will without any kind of redress to the courts. Now B.C. Hydro....

MR. SPEAKER: It would be a great speech, hon. member, on another bill, but you're on the principle of this bill, please.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I am shocked and amazed. Mr. Speaker, you should know that any kind of reviews or critique of my speech should appear in the press and not from the Chair. Any of the standing orders I, of course, would abide by. I am relating the role of B.C. Hydro as being above the law and a fearful corporate giant in this province, and the fact that the Premier or the Minister of Environment have no control over Hydro, and that Hydro can pollute and will not be subjected to this statute. They have buried all kinds of their pollution and they're digging them up again. We have stories every day of the horrific practices of B.C. Hydro. What about the pollution of the past years? What can be done about

[ Page 1202 ]

this? This rather ineffectual minister puts forward what I consider a cosmetic piece of legislation.

HON. MR. McGEER: Could you say a few words on verbal pollution?

MR. LAUK: All that can be said about verbal pollution has already been said by the Minister of Education in many debates past. There's nothing I need add to what he has said on the subject and contributed to the subject. Of course, I have never really recovered from the hon. Minister of Education's experience with sexing whales. I never really understood how....

MR. SPEAKER: And it's not part of the principle of this bill hon. member. (Laughter.)

MR. LAUK: Indeed it isn't. I am concerned in Bill 5 with respect to control over B.C. Hydro. There has been no perceivable action on the part of his department in dealing with Hydro and coming to grips with the problems of that toxic substance that they've been burying all over the province.

MR. COCKE: PCB.

MR. LAUK: Yes, what a coincidence — PCB. It would be helpful indeed, Mr. Speaker, had the minister risen in his place in introduction of this bill and indicated a broad new programme to reinforce and expand the pollution control branch and give it some teeth instead of bringing in another layer of cosmetics. This will defeat the purpose. It distracts the people from the real issue, and it's typical of this administration.

Mr. King moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. McClelland moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:01 p.m.