[ Page 4843 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

BCR Dease Lake extension. Mr. Lank –– 4843

Hasler Flats scrubbing plant. Hon. Mr. Chabot replies –– 4844

Fingerprinting of juveniles. Mr. Wallace –– 4844

BCR Dease Lake extension. Mr. Lauk –– 4844

Quesnel Green housing project. Mr. Barber –– 4844

Third level air transport system. Mr. Wallace –– 4845

British Columbia Resources Investment Corporation Act (Bill 87) Hon. Mr.

Bennett

Introduction and first reading –– 4846

Strata Titles Amendment Act, 1977 (No. 2) (Bill 75) Second reading

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 4846

Mr. Barber –– 4848

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 4849

Revenue Sharing Act (Bill 58) Committee stage

On section 4 amendment

Mr. Skelly –– 4850

Mr. Barber –– 4850

Division on Mr. Chairman's ruling that the amendment is out of order –– 4852

On section 4.

Mr. Barber –– 4852

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 4853

Mr. Skelly –– 4854

Hon. Mi. Curtis –– 4854

Ms. Sanford –– 4855

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 4856

Copper Smelting and Refining Incentive Act (Bill 15) . Committee stage.

Report and third reading –– 4856

Department of Mines and Petroleum Resources Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 38)

Committee stage

Division on section 3 –– 4856

Report and third reading –– 4857

Klondike National Historic Park Act (Bill 48) Second reading

Hon. Mr. Bawlf –– 4857

Mr. Nicolson –– 4857

Hon. Mr. Bawlf –– 4858

Klondike National Historic Park Act (Bill 48) Committee stage

Report and third reading –– 4858

Provincial Court Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 54) Second reading

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 4858

Mr. Macdonald –– 4860

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 4860

Matter of privilege

Attendance of members in the House. Mr. Speaker rules –– 4861

Routine proceedings

British Columbia Railway Company Grant Act, 1977 (Bill 47) . Second reading

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 4862

Mr. Lauk –– 4862

Mr. Mussallem –– 4870

Mr. Gibson –– 4872

Mr. King –– 4874

Presenting reports

Report of the Law Reform Commission of British Columbia Offences Against the Person Act. Hon Mr. Gardom –– 4875

Appendix –– 4876

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. G.H. Kerster (Coquitlam): In the gallery today with his charming wife, Doreen, is Mr. A.C. Green of Victoria. Mr. Green officially started his much deserved vacation today but chose to begin that vacation back at the Legislature where he can continue to keep a watchful eye on us all.

Mr. Green is well known to all members of this assembly for his frequent visits to the members' corridor where he's affectionately known as Smokey.

With Smokey and his wife is their very special guest from Glasgow, Scotland, who arrived in our province this morning, Miss Annette Mower. I would ask all the members to join me in making them welcome.

Hon. J.A. Nielsen (Minister of the Environment) ; It's a pleasure for me today to introduce two visitors to Victoria to the galleries today, from the great city of Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan, my aunt and uncle, Mr. and Mrs. Frank Reilly.

Mr. E.N. Veitch (Burnaby-Willingdon): From Clearbrook, visiting the Legislature this afternoon are Mr. and Mrs. Isaak and Mr. and Mrs. C.F. Funk. I'd like this House to bid them welcome.

Mr. H.J. Lloyd (Fort George): Visiting the Legislature today from Fort George we have three people: Dave Parker, who is a forest consultant in Prince George, Jack Kennedy, the general manager of Ziegler Plywoods at McBride, and Don Monroe, also of Ziegler Plywoods. I'd ask the House to help me bid them welcome.

Mr. R.L. Loewen (Burnaby-Edmonds): I'm very happy today to introduce to the House my niece and nephew, Richard and Marilyn Friesen, from Winnipeg. Richard is a consultant to Parks Canada and is doing research on the Klondike Goldrush International Historic Park on the British Columbia, Alaska, and Yukon border. Marilyn is on a management assignment programme with the Canadian Employment and Immigration Commission. Would you please welcome two of the more responsible and intellectual members of my family to this House.

Mr. L.B. Kahl (Esquimalt): Today in the gallery we have someone who has come here for a considerable number of years, is a senior member in the press gallery and who celebrated a birthday yesterday, Andy Stephen. I'd like everyone to welcome him and bid him a happy birthday.

An Hon. Member: Twenty-nine. (Laughter.)

Oral questions.

BCR DEASE LAKE EXTENSION

Mr. G.V. Lauk (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, would the Premier answer a few questions on the B.C. Rail Dease Lake extension? I wonder if the Premier can indicate to the House how much was paid in the latest secret out-of-court settlement with Chinook Construction Ltd. What was the amount of the original contract with Chinook and the final amount paid?

Hon. W.R. Bennett (Premier): Mr. Speaker, as this House must know, we have an independent board of directors, and the House also may know the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) acts as a director to liaise between that board of directors and the House and bring information back to the House, but does not interfere or direct, as may have happened in the last few years,

Mr. Speaker. I will take that question as notice,

Mr. Lauk: If the railway had its own money I would take that answer, but surely the Premier is aware of the amount of the settlement. I am instructed that he is aware. Now why is he taking the question as notice?

Mr. D.G. Cocke (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, I will ask the Premier a question. Would the Premier inform the House what day the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) will present his private paper in Norway?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: No, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Cocke: Mr. Speaker, maybe I can inform the Premier.

Mr. Speaker: Do you have a supplementary question?

Mr. Cocke: Yes. Is the Premier aware that the Minister of Education does not present his paper until tomorrow, yet left a week ago this weekend? Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Premier why, with a heavy load ahead of him, he would permit a minister with this kind of obligation to the House to have a holiday right in the middle of this summer session.

He's not answering.

[ Page 4844 ]

HASLER FLATS SCRUBBING PLANT

Hon. J.R. Chabot (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Mr. Speaker, the member for Alberni on August 17 asked the following question: did the B.C. Petroleum Corporation request Westcoast Transmission to build a scrubbing plant at Hasler Flats to service the gas fields in the northeast sector? The answer is no.

Mr. R.E. Skelly (Alberni): Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. This information differs from the information provided by Westcoast Transmission. We will have to look further into that.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. member, when you rise to state a question, I would appreciate it – and I'm sure all members of the House would – if you could state a question and not make a statement.

FINGERPRINTING OF JUVENILES

Mr. G.S. Wallace (Oak Bay): To the Minister of Human Resources, with regard to the recent decision by the Supreme Court of B.C. allowing the fingerprinting of juveniles without their consent, and the fact that the superintendent of child welfare has challenged that ruling and exercised his right to do so before notifying the minister. Since the minister is reported to have wanted to discuss the matter with the superintendent, can the minister tell the House if he has discussed the matter with the superintendent, and if so, what was the outcome of these discussions?

Hon. W.N. Vander Zalm (Minister of Human Resources): I have discussed it with my deputy and that's the only person I have discussed it with.

Mr. Wallace: Since the action of the superintendent of child welfare would appear to challenge a ruling obtained as a result of an appeal by the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) , can the minister tell the House if any prior discussion was carried out between his ministry and the Attorney-General's ministry prior to the appeal being lodged by the Attorney-General in the Supreme Court of British Columbia?

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm: I know that this particular matter has been discussed between the Attorney-General's department and mine, Mr. Speaker, but whether this particular case was discussed, I can only assume it was.

Mr. Wallace: Does the minister hold to the opinion that the superintendent of child welfare was in conflict with the policy of his ministry in his unilateral action in lodging an appeal? If this is the case, will the minister now be discussing it with the superintendent of child welfare to look into the possibility of disciplinary action against the superintendent?

Mr. Vander Zalm: So far it's only been notice of appeal. No appeal has been launched and the matter will be further investigated and reported on.

BCR DEASE LAKE EXTENSION

Mr. Lauk: Is the Premier aware that a settlement has occurred between Chinook Construction Ltd. and the BCR?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I only have the reports in the newspaper this morning. I have taken as notice the member's previous question to which this refers on behalf of the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) . He is a director of the BCR who responds to questions in this Legislature, so that new, independent, free-from-political-interference board of directors will be able to bring the business reasons why they made certain decisions and make them available to the Legislature.

Mr. Lauk: The Premier has indicated, Mr. Speaker, that he only had newspaper reports. I just want to be very careful about this. Is the Premier saying that he had no other information with respect to this settlement than newspaper reports?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: The first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) apparently wasn't listening when I first answered this question. The first I heard of this particular case was in the newspapers today. Because he has difficulty listening, I'll say it again: I just read it in the newspaper today. As I pointed out earlier, I will take his question as notice on behalf of the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) , whose responsibility it is to make available answers from the board of directors to this Legislature – the board of directors being free from the type of political interference that took place when that member was vice-president of the B.C. Railway.

QUESNEL GREEN HOUSING PROJECT

Mr. C. Barber (Victoria): A question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Hon. Mr. Curtis) , Mr. Speaker.

Some Hon. Members: Are you still here?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. second member for Victoria has the floor.

[ Page 4845 ]

Mr. Barber: Thank you for your attention.

At Quesnel Green in Burnaby there exists a 282-unit building that was constructed by the previous Minister of Housing and committed as a co-operative. When this minister came to power, as a result of a dispute with the co-operative, that particular matter ended up in court and it was resolved in January of this year. Since that time, the minister has altered the policy and has tried to convert and sell those 282 as condominiums.

Mr. Speaker: What is your question, hon. member?

Mr. Barber: I'm getting to the question, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker. Immediately, hon. member.

Mr. Barber: Of the 282 units, only 18 have been sold as condominiums in the last eight months.

I wonder if the minister would be willing to table with this House, in view of the complete failure of his policy to convert Quesnel Green to condominiums, a complete financial statement of the capital and interest costs now being borne by the people of British Columbia because of the failure of that policy. Since January, that policy has failed. It has cost this province hundreds of thousands of dollars, and we want a financial statement. We're losing money every month and we want a statement.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member has a question to ask, the Speaker will listen to the question.

Mr. Barber: I asked it!

Mr. Lauk: Answer the question, Hugh.

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

Mr. Speaker: Order, please!

If you are up on your feet to make a statement, whether you consider it factual or not, hon. member, it is not part of the question period. This is a time to ask questions of the hon. members of the House, including the ministers.

[Mr, Speaker resumes his seat.]

Hon. H.A. Curtis (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing) . Mr. Speaker, I believe within the speech I heard a question, but I think it would more properly belong on the order paper where we can analyse the several parts which it comprised, then provide an answer.

THIRD LEVEL AIR TRANSPORT SYSTEM

Mr. Wallace: Mr. Speaker, this question is to the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications with regard to the government's announcement to assist in the development of a third-level air transportation system within B.C. and the minister's reported statement – and I emphasize it as a reported statement in the press – that the province may acquire small planes which will be leased to individual carriers. Since this seems to be exactly the opposite of selling new ferries and having the Ferry Corporation lease them back, can I ask the minister: will these planes be part of the government fleet of aircraft or will they be owned by the government through some separate form of ownership, such as a Crown corporation?

Hon. J. Davis (Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications): Mr. Speaker, the question of government support – certainly the nature of provincial government support – for third-level air carriers is a matter under study at the present time and hopefully a programme will be announced in the new year. There has been no statement on my part to the effect that the government would buy aircraft and lease them. Reference was however made to the practice in Ontario of doing that sort of thing.

Mr. Wallace: Mr. Speaker, the minister is also reported as stating that studies are underway but that the government would only consider supporting one particular carrier. I wonder if the minister can tell the House how many carriers he will be holding discussions with and how many planes he expects to acquire in order to meet the kind of arrangements that are being discussed.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I wouldn't expect the government to acquire any aircraft – certainly not aircraft for its own operation. In respect to individual firms applying to the Canadian Transport Commission to fly a given route, I did say that the province would not support any individual carrier but is currently looking into, and would continue to look into, the advisability of a carrier, unnamed, flying on any particular route, such as Victoria-Vancouver. It would seem to be desirable that a carrier operating on an hourly basis flying, say, Twin Otter type aircraft might be desirable. Certainly that kind of carriage is desirable. That's the kind of opinion the province might state, but not to endorse AirWest, or Victoria Flying Services, or any other particular corporation.

Mr. G.R. Lea (Prince Rupert): On a supplementary, could the minister inform the House, concerning the agreement signed between Canada and

[ Page 4846 ]

the province of British Columbia involving $8 million, whether any money for aircraft in the northern part of British Columbia is coming out of that $8 million?

Hon. Mr. Davis: The answer, simply put, is no. We do, however, expect the federal government to assist us in helping to build docks and in assisting the airline industry to operate through the provision of air strips and so on.

Mr. Lea: I wonder how long it's been since the minister's read that agreement. It's included.

Mr. D.F. Lockstead (Mackenzie): On a supplementary, the minister mentioned financial assistance for the building of docks in certain communities. In view of the minister's statement yesterday in regard to central and north coast transportation, is the minister now willing to keep the commitment he made under estimates that he would provide transportation services to Bella Coola and Stewart?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, we will be serving various communities on the north coast, especially those that don't have roads and other modes of transport available to them.

Mr. Lockstead: On a supplementary, I asked the minister specifically if be would keep his commitment that he made during estimates to provide transportation services to the communities of Bella Coola and Stewart.

Hon. Mr. Davis: These are matters which the directors of the B.C. Ferry Corporation will be considering. This week, for example, they'll be in Prince Rupert and listening to briefs. They will be considering all those possibilities. But I personally am not in a position and never have been to make a personal commitment to serve any given community.

Mr. Lockstead: In view of the minister's announcement yesterday to provide services to certain selected communities on the coast, and in view of the fact that that ministry is currently carrying out an investigation and a study to see what services may be required in the various coastal communities, what is the purpose of that study? If you're making announcements while the study is being carried out and they are not prepared to have the report down until September or October this year, what's the purpose of the study? Why are we spending the money?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the directors of the B.C. Ferries have reached certain conclusions and passed certain resolutions. Where it's required, it's been approved by cabinet. We're proceeding on a step-by-step basis. Each step is being taken in the light of the facts we have available to us. Yes, more studies are needed and comprehensive studies are underway.

Introduction of bills.

BRITISH COLUMBIA RESOURCES

INVESTMENT CORPORATION ACT

Hon. Mr. Bennett presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled British Columbia Resources Investment Corporation Act.

Bill 87 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to table documents and papers from the 18th annual Premiers' conference held at Saint Andrews, New Brunswick, August 18 and 19,1977. The documents include the communiques from the 10 provincial premiers on the economy, a statement on language, the British Columbia paper on natural resource management and provincial economic development, and the British Columbia proposal for refundable tax credit.

Leave granted.

Orders of the day.

Hon. G.B. Gardom (Attorney-General): Second reading of Bill 75.

STRATA TITLES AMENDMENT

ACT, 1977 (No. 2)

Hon. Mr. Curtis: Mr. Speaker, in introducing this bill for second reading in the Legislature today, I would like to make a few observations. For approximately the past 12 months, this ministry has given considerable study to the Strata Titles Act with the primary objective of making it a more effective instrument not only for the production of multiple housing but to allow the kind of housing where occupants can live together harmoniously. I have found this a challenging bill and I believe that members on the other side of the House who had some involvement with strata titles legislation earlier would understand what I mean by that particular remark.

One of the major problems involved in a condominium results from people who had never met before and, up to that point, had no common

[ Page 4847 ]

interest, but have been brought together in a housing complex where they are required to co-operate in the self-management of the project.

The most common problem arises from conflict – and occasionally bitter conflict – between tenants and owners of rented units on one hand, and owner-occupants on the other hand. In recent months, as members will know, Mr. Speaker, this problem has been aggravated because the market for condominiums in British Columbia has been soft. They were overbuilt – and I think that is generally recognized – so many owner-developers were forced to rent their units. Bill 73, which was introduced in 1976, would have removed the right of future strata corporations to control the number of units that could be rented, no doubt because it was not understood that existing bylaws of strata corporations would not have been affected. The government received many objections from then strata owners.

We also had strong expressions from owners who did not want their right of property ownership to be infringed upon. Perhaps one of the most frequent and valid complaints came from purchasers who were not aware, Mr. Speaker, that many of the units had already been rented at the time they purchased, and other units were rented rather than sold by the developer.

Mr. Speaker, if there is a perfect solution to this problem, I say, frankly, we have not found it. But I believe that we have come up with a reasonable solution. The right of the owner-developer to rent is protected in this bill. On the other hand, the prospective purchaser will have full knowledge as to the number of units that the owner-developer may rent, and for what period of time they can be rented.

Mr. Speaker, when this bill was introduced for first reading, I made available to members of the House, in non-legal terms which I could understand, the main provisions of this amendment Act. We have additional copies should any member wish to avail themselves of the various provisions and explanatory notes.

Last October, the B.C. Council of the Housing and Urban Development Association of Canada presented a comprehensive submission recommending legislation to allow what they called "automatic homeowners' associations" similar to the fairly common American concept of planned unit development. Basically, the concept is somewhat like a local improvement area, where a special tax or a levy is imposed on owners benefiting from a particular amenity.

I am happy to say that the amendments before us will permit this kind of land development without the technical problems created by the existing legislation. In effect, it allows for the subdivision of bare land so that a purchaser will own his parcel of land and a share of the common facilities and all strata owners will pay for the maintenance of such common facilities.

The government believes that this provision has significant potential for good quality and innovative land development and, in many cases, for the preservation of natural amenities associated with the development. The approval of such bare-land subdivisions by municipalities and regional districts will be the same approving officer who now approves land subdivisions under the Land Registry Act. However, since the services such as roads, water, et cetera, within the strata plan will be maintained by the strata owners rather than by the local government jurisdiction, there will be special guidelines for the approving officer. These will be established by regulation. The approval of bare-land subdivisions in this amendment, Mr. Speaker, will replace the approval process provided for in Bill 70, the first Strata Titles Amendment Act, 1977, which will later be repealed.

The cities of Vancouver and Victoria, and some other municipalities in British Columbia, are trying to encourage the provision of housing in the downtown core area. The joint use of buildings for commercial and residential purposes is an obvious answer, but because of the possibility that the residential section can, so to speak, outvote the commercial interests, there has been a reluctance so far to invest in such developments. Hopefully we have solved this problem in our proposed amendments by providing a method of safeguarding the interests of all parties in a mixed commercial-residential condominium. The desirability of such a mix, particularly in the inner cities, I think cannot be denied.

Mr. Speaker, we've also had many complaints about certain developers, or their sales agencies, underestimating the cost of common expenses when a purchaser is considering a strata acquisition. Therefore we have clarified and simplified the provisions whereby the developer will pay shortages that might occur in the early stages of operation of the strata. The problem has arisen in some cases where, following the sale of all strata lots, the owner-developer has simply walked away from the project. He's abandoned the project without taking any steps towards the formation of the strata council. In some cases, the owners themselves were either unable or unwilling to get together to re-elect a strata council.

Therefore the government has made provisions which will enable any person who has an interest in the project to apply to the minister for the appointment, or the re-appointment, of a strata council.

Another important feature of the bill is where we have made provision for an owner of a strata lot to have recourse to arbitration, or to the court, where he considers that he has been oppressed by the conduct

[ Page 4848 ]

of the strata council or the strata corporation, or where some measure or proposed measure is unfairly prejudicial to him or to the other owners. Members will know that the present Act provides for arbitration or referral to the court only to settle disputes, and not on the grounds of oppression or prejudice.

One of the more serious problems that has arisen in strata developments is that a mechanic's lien can be filed against a strata lot, long after that strata lot has been completed and sold. In respect of materials or labour supplied in the construction of the common property, we feel that our solution provides a reasonable middle course protecting both the strata lot purchaser and, fairly, the suppliers of labour and materials. The thorough review of the existing Strata Titles Act by this ministry over more than a year has exposed many minor, mostly technical and legal problems in the existing legislation. This is understandable with legislation which is still evolving. Therefore a great deal of this bill deals with housekeeping provisions which, though minor in nature, when taken in the whole have an important effect on the administration of the Act, and the services offered by the provincial government with respect to strata corporations. I look forward to the observations of members and move second reading of Bill 75.

Mr. Barber: The official opposition intends to support the bill. The intent of it is excellent. With three exceptions, which perhaps could best be debated section by section as we get to committee stage of the bill, we find no objection whatever to it. We have, however, three problems with the bill. These are perhaps not so much criticisms as problems; they are matters of some debate. All the same we think the bill is generally very good. I congratulate the minister on an excellent job of updating and making more helpful legislation which has, for many jurisdictions in the country, been very difficult.

The first problem that we have with the bill is basically philosophical. It's not a major one, but I draw it to the minister's attention and would ask for his comments. Bill 75, as I read it, would remove completely the concept of a separate locally appointed approving officer for strata title subdivisions, and as the minister said in his opening remarks today, would require such plans to be approved instead by the Land Registry Act approving officer.

In non-municipal areas, this officer is in fact an official of the Ministry of Highways for all practical purposes. It seems to us that this may be an undesirable move on one very special ground. What may happen is that it removes most of the benefit now obtainable from choosing to proceed by what will now be called a bare land strata title subdivision.

If the government insists on this particular route, pressure to turn the conventional subdivision approving officer function over to the regional districts, in the case of non-municipal areas, might in fact be a worthwhile alternate strategy. This reform may well be long overdue in many regions of the province, and if achieved could remove much of the harm done by the removal of the present strata title subdivision officer function from the regions of British Columbia.

The minister is well aware that there's been considerable criticism of the role of regional government in the province, and one specific aspect of that criticism has been the approving officer for strata titles. However, babies and bathwater, and all that, it just may be that something's been thrown out here, too. I would appreciate hearing, when the minister comments, if he thinks that this is a problem to any extent. Is it possible that now, or sometime in the near future, we might see a partial remedy for it? The problem is not so grave by any means, that it causes us to vote against the bill, but it is a matter of some dispute. I've been advised of this by planning people and regional district people who advise me in my role as critic here.

There is a second problem, however, that I think is somewhat more serious. The minister may or may not agree with this interpretation, but once again, it has been provided by a couple of planning people who have to deal with this in a very practical way,

Section 3 (l) of Bill 75 would allow approval of certain types of strata title subdivisions by the simple signature of a B.C. land surveyor. That's all that's required, as we read the bill. The signature only of a land surveyor would allow approval of certain types of strata title subdivisions listed in the bill.

There's a local example, that has come to my attention, and it comes from the Sunshine Coast Regional District. In the view of a person familiar with the problems of that district, this could unwittingly turn out to be a very dangerous provision in the bill because it could lead to a very unhappy situation which I'm sure the minister did not intend.

In that particular regional district they have, at the moment, a general policy implemented in its land-use regulation bylaw of allowing two dwellings per lot, provided the lot meets certain size and drainage requirements. This has proved a worthwhile policy as it allows provision of a home for children on the same property as the parent's home, without the need for troublesome subdivision. In rural areas that's a fairly sensible local land-use regulation. We take absolutely no objection whatever to it, and it allows families to stay together without a great deal of red tape popping up in the middle of them.

It also allows the provision of a revenue suite in a large home. Indeed, to his credit, it has been the policy of this minister to encourage that kind of

[ Page 4849 ]

rental accommodation. He's made a number of statements to that effect, and we support that policy.

However, the part of this policy which essentially assures its success is that there are, in the district, very large lots with two dwellings allowed on them. This is very different from having two lots within the same property, each with only one dwelling allowed. I'm sure the minister realizes the conflict there.

The problem with section 3 (l) is that it would allow any person having one of the larger lots with two dwellings, to divide it by strata title subdivision so that each dwelling was on a separate strata lot, and therefore would be separately saleable. The only approval needed would be the signature of the British Columbia land surveyor. It would not have to go to the district, and the protective covenants which the minister is introducing in this bill would not head it off that way either. The regional district would have no legal authority to prevent that kind of subdivision. The result locally – and this is the most dangerous part and I'm sure unintended – would be effective doubling of the density of these lots. This would be completely contrary to regional district plans, and, indeed, to local government plans.

If that problem is clear to the minister, I'd appreciate his comments on it. It's clear to us that the planning intentions of local and regional government generally may well be thwarted by this otherwise innocent provision, which would allow the doubling of the number of dwelling units permitted on lots which were not intended to be so doubled, and which were not properly planned for as strata titles either.

It would also mean that the density of houses would increase as only a proportion of people take advantage of the second home permission at present. If more lots were created by strata title, they would be much more likely to be built on. Unfortunately, the only remedy for the region in this particular case would be to abandon its two-house policy, which in the view of some of us would be a great shame.

The real remedy may lie in removing the option of tile British Columbia land surveyor's signature as the chief approval mechanism, or in this case, exclusive approval mechanism, returning this power to the regions instead. The regions feel that they may be in a very difficult position because of this. Admirable as the broader intent is, the specific result of this particular approving mechanism may be to contradict their own plans and to effectively allow the doubling of density on those lots where it was not originally intended.

The rest of the bill, however, we think is pretty good. There's a technical problem in section 3 which I hope to draw to the minister's attention as we get to that section in committee stage.

Apart from that, we have nothing much further to say about the bill, except to say that it is highly technical, highly complex and a very difficult situation. As far as we can tell by reading that I've done, and which the committee that advises me in my role as critic has done, it is really pretty good. We're happy to support the bill and would be happy to hear the minister's comments on these two philosophical problems, if you will, raised by apparently unwittingly allowing things to go through that are obviously not intended by the general purpose of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Curtis: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) for his observations. I enjoy this kind of situation where we have an identification of concerns from the other side of the House. I in no way suggest that I am not going to answer those questions. He has dealt in some detail with matters which concern him in a complex bill, and which I will answer quite happily in committee on a section-by-section basis, if that is acceptable. We've noted them, but we'll also want to read the Hansard Blues and prepare our answers. With respect to point three, you may have touched on something which should be examined quite carefully.

I indicated at the outset, Mr. Speaker, that we don't pretend that it's absolutely perfect. I wouldn't stand here and suggest that. It is complex legislation and will in years to come require further refinement and fine tuning, to use an overworked phrase. I also observe that a few more amendments are coming which will appear on the order paper for committee debate. They will be on very soon.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Curtis: We're examining section 3. We will respond more fully in the committee stage, which I think is the appropriate place in which to do that, Mr. Speaker. I thank the member for his comments. After this exhaustive debate, I now move second reading of Bill 75.

Motion approved.

Bill 75, Strata Titles Amendment Act, 1977 (No. 2) , read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

Hon. R.H. McClelland (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 58.

REVENUE SHARING ACT

The House in committee on Bill 58; Mr. Veitch in the chair.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

[ Page 4850 ]

On section 4.

Mr. Skelly: On behalf of the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) , I move the motion standing under her name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

On the amendment.

Mr. Skelly: The intent of this amendment is to recognize the right of Indian band councils to their fair share of the revenues of this province and to give an opportunity to Indian band councils to provide local services on somewhat the same basis as municipalities and regional districts throughout the province,

Some Indian band councils now function largely as local government administrations. They provide housing and local services including roads, sewers, water systems, fire protection, economic development measures and recreation services largely on the same basis as municipal governments. Many councils now function as local administrations with local government clerks and services. They are very much the same as villages and municipalities throughout the province. But we feel they still are discriminated against, Mr. Chairman, in that although Indians pay their fair share of taxes in this province, including income tax, gasoline taxes, sales taxes, and all the taxes that apply to the citizens in British Columbia in general, in most cases they do not receive their fair share of revenues in return even though they provide the same services as local governments.

Under the NDP administration we made homeowner grants available to Indians on reserves, we provided community recreation facilities fund to facilities being developed for recreation purposes on Indian reserves, but Indians still do not share in their rightful measure in many of the revenues that are raised by the province and are distributed by the provincial government to local governments.

I would just like to give one example and that's with regard to recreation programmes throughout the province. Most municipalities support recreation programmes out of property tax revenues, as well as out of provincial funds made available under revenue-sharing grants and that type of thing. Indian band councils do not have the power to levy property taxes nor do they share in provincial grants similar to the ones that will be provided under this bill.

We would like to even out that inequality in a small measure, Mr. Chairman, and we hope that the minister will accept this amendment to the Act. Manitoba does provide Indian band councils, under their revenue-sharing legislation, with some funds to support programmes provided by the Indian band councils. We would like to see the same thing done in British Columbia.

Recreation programmes in British Columbia are very difficult for Indian bands and also for Indians to co-ordinate on a provincial basis. When they approach various government departments, such as the Minister of Recreation – who is just leaving – the Provincial Secretary's office and some other departments, they find it very difficult to obtain funds for the administration of recreation programmes. Local governments find it easy, because they do share in provincial revenues and also have the power to levy local property taxes.

By making these funds available to Indian bands councils - and the minister has the power to impose conditions under this section of the Act – the minister will even out that inequality and make a lot of these programmes available to band councils. We are hopeful that the minister will accept this amendment to include Indian band councils for sharing programmes.

Mr. Barber: I concur entirely with my colleague from Alberni and very much support the motion proposed by my colleague from Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) .

A lot of us in this House are often guilty of prejudice by omission. Bills come up, motions come forward and resolutions come to our attention, and we seem often to forget the converse of them. This is a bill which our opposition supports. Revenue sharing with municipalities is a very important step forward, and even though we have some objections to it, we certainly support it in principle.

It's a fact, and an embarrassing one in this province, that native Indians, especially on reserves, continue to be treated as second- or sometimes third-class citizens. Indeed, the prejudice by omission, for which we are all responsible in this House, in the case of this particular bill, is that native Indians in their communities -–their municipalities, so to speak – are, at the moment, omitted from the provisions of this bill.

The revenue sharing that white citizens are permitted to enjoy in their communities and their municipalities throughout the province will be taken care of. We think, Mr. Chairman, it would be an important step forward for this government to recognize the legitimacy and the value of sharing revenue with native Indian communities, particularly on reserves in the northern part of this province, where the ordinary financial resources that especially white people in the southern communities and on Vancouver Island enjoy, are not available to them.

If the minister were willing to accept this amendment, we believe that this would be a statement of confidence in the future of native Indian communities and a statement of respect for their hopes and their ambitions and their dreams for

[ Page 4851 ]

self-improvement and self-help. We think that if this motion were acceptable to the minister, it would be an important statement of high regard for the promise and the potential of native Indian communities in this province. We think that that is an extremely important step forward.

As amended, section 4 would read, to begin with: "In the fiscal year ending March 31,1979, and in each subsequent fiscal year, the minister may make grants from the fund to all municipalities and to native Indian band councils and regional districts that qualify under the regulations, and the grants. . . " We believe that there is no reasonable objection that could or should be taken to this.

We think that native Indian communities should be recognized in many ways as legitimate statements by native Indian people of their cultural and co-operative interests as citizens in this province. We recognize white communities and no one ever seems to call that into question. By omission, we have failed to recognize native Indian communities as being eligible for the same support that white communities can receive under the provisions of this bill. I would remind the minister that in the province of Manitoba, a Canadian precedent has been set to allow such recognition of native Indian communities.

As far as we are concerned, if it's good enough for citizens, typically white, who live in the urban centres of this province, it should certainly, as a matter of revenue sharing, be good enough for native Indian band councils in the rest of the province to enjoy the same privilege as would be provided under this bill. We hope the minister finds it acceptable and we certainly inform him that every member on this side strongly supports the motion proposed by the member for Cowichan-Malahat.

Mr. Chairman: Before we continue on, hon. member, the Chair has investigated further and finds that the amendment is out of order, in that it would infer additional expense upon the Crown.

Mr. Skelly: On that point of order, Mr. Chair-man, I think the bill specifies the amount of money the Crown will be obliged to spend regardless of the number of people who participate in it. The bill specifies, point by point, what revenue sources are available to share and I don't think this would add any additional obligations on the Crown to raise or distribute revenues. It's the same amount of money regardless of how it's distributed.

Mr. Barber: On the same point of order, we examined this when proposing this resolution. We discussed it in caucus and examined precedent. As far as we can tell, the effect of this would be to share a fixed pie in a somewhat different way. There is no additional impost on the Crown provided by this motion.

Mr. Chairman: Hon. member, your caucus would not set precedent for the government.

Mr. Barber: No, Mr. Chairman. What I'm saying is that we examined precedent elsewhere when we discussed this resolution. We were well aware that there might have been a problem with it. The information that we have – and I would appreciate your references to the contrary – is that, to put it in the plainest language, what we have proposed is not to enlarge the pie by any means – i.e., to create an additional impost on the Crown – but to divide in a somewhat different manner by recognizing, respecting and including native Indian band councils in the revenue-sharing formula. There is no additional impost on the Crown provided in this resolution and, to the best of our information, that would be the only grounds upon which this would fail. As far as we can tell, it should succeed. I believe your earlier ruling was correct.

Mr. Chairman: One moment, please, hon. member. We'll provide you with a citation on it very shortly.

Mr. Skelly: Mr. Chairman, if the amendment is out of order, and I don't feel it is because it doesn't impose any further obligations on the Crown, one way it could be placed in order is for the minister to accept it.

Mr. Chairman: Hon. member, if the amendment is out of order, it's therefore not debatable. I would ask you to return to section 4.

Mr. Skelly: I challenge your ruling, Mr. Chairman.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: One moment, please, hon. members. May the Chair ask of the minister if, in the minister's opinion, it does incur an additional expense upon the Crown?

Mr. Lea: On a point of order, obviously if you're asking the minister, you're asking a partisan person inasmuch as he's a member of the Crown. The point of order, Mr. Chairman, is that you ruled it in order. We accepted your ruling. You can't come along later and say: "Well, I think it's out of order but we'll find some citations and give them to you later." It was ruled in order and we accepted your ruling.

Mr. Chairman: Hon. member, it can be ruled out of order at any time if it comes to the attention

[ Page 4852 ]

of the Chair that it is in fact out of order at that point in time.

Interjection.

Mr. Chairman: Hon. member, your point of order is out of order in that the ruling of the Chair has been challenged. I must therefore report to the Speaker.

Mr. Barber: On a point of order, we'd be happy to know precisely which ruling we're in a position to challenge. The original ruling allowed us to debate it. We did so. We were 10 minutes into the debate....

Mr. Chairman: Hon. member, 1 can tell you right now that it was the ruling that the amendment was out of order. I ruled that the amendment was out of order and the hon. member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) challenged that ruling. That's what we're standing on now.

Mr. L. Nicolson (Nelson-Creston): On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, there were two rulings. First of all you ruled that the motion was in order, with no objection from anyone on the floor of the House. Then, about 10 minutes later, you gave a second ruling that the motion was not in order. You are not abiding by standing order 9, which says. "Mr, Speaker" – or in your instance, Mr. Chairman – "shall preserve order and decorum, and shall decide questions of order, subject to an appeal to the House without debate. In explaining a point of order of practice, he shall state the standing order or authority applicable to the case.”

It would appear that since you ruled in the first case, we had a ruling that the amendment is in order. Then we had a second ruling that it's not in order. It would appear that you must, therefore, at least have some citation at hand. Why was it brought to mind and why does the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) keep on interjecting? If he wants to be a Clerk, he should resign his seat.

Mr. Chairman: Hon. member, are you still stating a point of order? The reason was that additional information came to the Chair.

Mr. Lea: What was it?

Mr. Chairman: The fact that an impost may be imposed upon the Crown. The Chair ruled the amendment out of order and that was challenged. 1 must therefore report to the Speaker.

Interjections.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, in debate on Bill 58 an amendment was presented by the hon. member for Alberni which the Chairman subsequently ruled out of order. That ruling was challenged.

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

YEAS - 25

NAYS - 15

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Mr. Cocke: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if you could inform the House which ruling we were dividing on; there were two rulings.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. member, it was the ruling that was reported to the Speaker by the hon. Chairman.

The House in committee on Bill 58; Mr. Veitch in the Chair.

On section 4.

Mr. Barber: I wonder if the minister would be willing to take this opportunity to discuss the idea of extending the benefits of revenue sharing to organizations of government other than those presently listed in section 4. I realize that the amendment specifically was ruled out of order, but I wonder if the minister might be willing to discuss the merit, if he sees it as such, of possibly extending to native Indian band councils the same privileges, on his own initiative.

That is in order, Mr. Chairman, and I would appreciate the minister's comment.

[ Page 4853 ]

Hon. Mr. Curtis: Mr. Chairman, I look to you for guidance. I was prepared to discuss the matter earlier but I accepted your ruling.

Mr. Lea: On, come on! That's got nothing to do with it and you know it,

Hon. Mr. Curtis: Don't be so touchy. We can get you a Valium if you want.

Mr. Chairman, I look to you for your direction – as you wish. I'm prepared to answer the question, but is that not reflecting on a vote?

Mr. Chairman: Hon. minister, you may discuss changes in revenue as a minister of the Crown or changes in grants to municipalities at your discretion.

Hon. Mr. Curtis: The principle of the amendment was on the order paper for quite some time.

Mr. Chairman: The principle of the amendment was out of order in that the opposition cannot grant an impost on the Crown.

Hon. Mr. Curtis: Mr. Chairman, we examined this and I think the point that perhaps has been missed with respect to extending revenue sharing to other components or other "whatever" in British Columbia, is that this is a municipal revenue-sharing programme. There is nothing to prevent any unorganized community from forming itself into a municipality and therefore sharing in the financial assistance that is available under this particular programme, Bill 58.

The exclusion applies to all classes of communities outside municipal boundaries, whether they be Indian reservations or improvement districts. We've had considerable pressure from improvement districts, as members will know, Mr. Chairman, who feel that they should participate in revenue sharing.

The fact of the matter, and it should not be lost sight of, is that this bill is municipal revenue sharing, municipal in this sense being a local government jurisdiction – a city, town, village district municipality or, in certain instances, a regional district.

I've had conversations with a number of unorganized communities in the last 28 months who have shown interest in incorporation. They will have to make that decision on their own as to whether they want to take advantage of the benefits of municipal status in one form or another or remain as they are.

I think that is the best and most complete answer that anyone could give to the point that has been raised and which was debated earlier.

Mr. Barber: Mr. Chairman, following that point, to the best of my knowledge, the only Indian reserve that has succeeded in applying for municipal status is the Cape Mudge band on Quadra Island across from Campbell River.

Interjection.

Mr. Barber: It was defeated, yes. Therefore we can presume there is no Indian band that has, in fact, concluded the application process at this date.

That being the case, I wonder if the minister might not be willing, given that he is prepared to extend the benefits of this bill to presently unorganized but potentially organizable communities that apply for municipal status, have it granted and therefore may apply under this bill, to circularize such a statement among the native Indian band councils of the province.

If he recognizes, as we do, the cultural necessity for survival and growth of native Indian persons being able to continue to live as citizens in their own communities – if he's willing to encourage those communities to become organized and incorporated as municipalities – would he be willing on the strength of his statement today to write to the chiefs of each of the band councils providing them with that information? I'm sure at present it's unknown to them that they could, by that process, be eligible for benefits under the municipal Revenue Sharing Act. I think that would be an act of encouragement and leadership that would be extremely helpful to them and that it may indeed solve the present technical problem.

All the same, we recognize on this side of the House that there is a particular class of municipality – "muni" and "cipality", referring to the Latin origins of the word – that may well in fact have been here long before white people ever set up their municipalities. I'm referring, of course, to native Indians, who've had a form of citizenship and co-operative living for many more thousands of years than we white people have had in this province.

Their form of "municipality" may well be just as legitimate as any white people have organized for themselves. Perhaps it too should be recognized. Perhaps that basic judgment that they do not otherwise qualify is not right. We should recognize and respect what they've achieved culturally for thousands of years and be prepared to include them in this bill without asking that they incorporate as white municipalities presently incorporate, or white districts presently incorporate as municipalities in this province. I think that some respect should be paid to them, and this bill may be one of the vehicles for so paying it.

Hon. Mr. Curtis: I can't accept the premise

[ Page 4854 ]

advanced by the hon. second member for Victoria that native bands in British Columbia are unaware of municipal status and of the advantages and some disadvantages of incorporation. I assure him, and I assure you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, that I have met with representatives of various bands to discuss this precise point. Therefore a circular letter, in my view, is not necessary, any more than would be a circular letter to every unorganized, somewhat cohesive community saying: "Did you know. . . ?” It would be sort of a sales letter: "Did you know that you can incorporate?" We assume – and this debate will assist in that information being spread further – that most communities know that they can at least discuss incorporation and that representatives of the ministry, if indeed not the minister himself, will meet with individuals or with groups and review the merits, the advantages and the disadvantages of this very point.

I had a very, very beneficial meeting with one Indian band in the interior. The conclusions which were reached in the first two meetings have yet to be resolved. The next move is up to the native Indians themselves. But they're fully aware of the availability of incorporation, should they decide – rather than should we decide for them – whether it's as a developing community under Bill 42, another bill before the Legislature, or as a village, a town, or whatever is appropriate.

Mr. Skelly: Mr. Chairman, I don't think it's necessary for a community to be organized under the Municipal Act except possibly on a specified-area basis for water facilities or something in a regional district. Indians, because of the fact that they live on reserves and don't have the power to levy taxes to provide, for example, water facilities, don't really have the right to organize on a specified area basis.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for North Okanagan on a point of order.

Mrs. P.J. Jordan (North Okanagan): Mr. Chairman, would you clarify, please, standing order 40 (3) , and if appropriate, apply it?

Mr. Chairman: What is your point of order?

Mrs. Jordan: I believe that the bon. members are reflecting on a vote just taken in this House.

Mr. Chairman: Hon. member, there has been no vote taken in this House. It was simply out of order. It was in the wrong context.

Mrs. Jordan: If it is ruled out of order by the Chairman, and the Chairman's ruling was challenged and upheld, is this not considered a vote?

Mr. Chairman: Hon. member, the ruling was that the opposition did not have the right to put an impost upon the Crown. Is that clear now?

Mr. Skelly: Again, I understand that funds would be made available to water facilities within regional districts and that in order to qualify for these funds under the Revenue Sharing Act, those water facilities would have to be put in place by a specified under the Municipal Act.

A specified area is based on the power to tax property; Indian reserves and Indian band councils operating on reserves don't have the power to levy property taxes. As a result, they are excluded from the application of this section of the Act, even though Indians pay corporate income tax, directly or indirectly, and they pay individual income tax. They pay all the provincial revenues and contribute to the generation of provincial revenues. In fact, Mr. Chairman, there is some question as to whether or not resources owned by Indians in this province, but still under dispute as to ownership, contribute to the majority of revenues of this province.

In spite of the fact that Indians contribute to provincial revenues, this Act excludes their participation in the sharing of those revenues, because they don't have the power to levy local taxes on property. By just a simple change introduced by the minister, that can be made available. We are not asking for that right now if it is out of order, Mr. Chairman, but perhaps an undertaking by the minister that he is willing to look into the sharing of funds for the provision of municipal or local government services on Indian reserves. I might add, without reflecting on the vote, that the Union of B.C. Indian chiefs, in a letter to the member for Cowichan-Malahat on August 15,1977, said that they would like to go on record as strong supporters of the amendment that she proposed.

So I am wondering, Mr. Chairman, if the minister would undertake to look into the possibility of Indians sharing in the revenues of this province in order to provide local services on reserves.

Hon. Mr. Curtis: Mr. Chairman, I respond as I did before, because I think we are really saying the same thing. This is a municipal revenue-sharing bill. If any cohesive or potentially cohesive unit of population in British Columbia wishes to consider incorporation as a village, town, district, municipality, city or whatever it may be ...

Mr. Skelly: Specified area?

Hon. Mr. Curtis: ... then we will certainly extend and will be required to extend to that

[ Page 4855 ]

community, after incorporation, the benefits which are spelled out in this Bill 58.

The "specified area" question is a very complex one. I cannot this afternoon give the member the undertaking which he seeks. It is not that I don't want to, I cannot. We've had discussions along these lines and we have had discussions with representatives of Indian bands, and I am quite certain, Mr. Chairman, that we shall continue to do so.

Ms. K.E. Sanford (Comox): Mr. Chairman, I wanted to ask the minister about under section 4 (3) (e) , where it says that money may be granted on "any other prescribed basis." I would like a little clarification on this. Hopefully, some of the communities within my constituency may be able to benefit through this "any other prescribed basis" that he has included under section 4.

I am thinking particularly of one community in my constituency, namely Alert Bay, which is able to raise only $930 per mill, which means that that community must operate with a minimal budget trying to provide all the services that are required in that community. The community itself is fairly static; there is not much growth there. They are not going to be able to qualify for much in the way of additional assistance because of housing starts. They have no major industrial base that they can tax.

We were very happy, Mr. Chairman, under the previous arrangement, where they were able to qualify for the disparity fund. I am wondering if the minister is considering something along the lines of a disparity fund under this particular section which says: "any other prescribed basis." In view of the fact that community has a minimal amount of money and that they are under duress trying to provide essential facilities such as fire protection and water facilities, might they not be able to receive some money under this prescribed basis on somewhat the same approach that was used for disparity grants under the previous Act?

Hon. Mr. Curtis: Well, Mr. Chairman, we come to the basic difference between this government's attitude with respect to revenue sharing with local government and the previous government's attitude on the same subject.

I have to say to the hon. member for Comox, on the basis of what I knew then as a member of the opposition and as a mayor in a municipality, that I've found out since that the disparity grant method of distribution was a horror show. It was chaotic and I'm quite sure that the former minister, who no longer sits in this House, was sorry that it was ever imposed upon him or that he ever decided to proceed on that basis.

The problem was that it was so arbitrary and the Union of B.C. Municipalities, their staff and executive, were involved in attempting to identify the priorities of disparity.

I think the minister and his executive assistant – and I emphasize "I think" – were also involved in going through the list of requests of what qualified as an area genuinely deserving a disparity grant and how much it should be. The work just went on for weeks and weeks and weeks, and finally, in almost a spirit of desperation, money was just distributed on the best possible basis. We say that we just cannot accept that kind of approach to distributing or sharing revenue between the provincial and local government jurisdictions in British Columbia, so we have set out those specifics under section 4 (3) (a) , (b) , (c) and (d) .

Then, fortunately, legal counsel, who review all legislation, said: "There may be some other problem or some other means which you would care to bring into play, which you cannot identify at this particular time." That answers, I trust, for the member why the phrase "any other prescribed basis" is there. We could encounter some desire to assist a municipality, but not on the basis of clauses (a) through (d) . So (e) is a catch-all.

Ms. Sanford: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to have that clarification from the minister, except that "any other prescribed basis" is what I consider disparity grants, because it would then be given out for some reason other than those that are listed. In other words, there is some special disparity that exists within a given community that would then enable them to qualify for some additional funding. Am I correct in that?

Hon. Mr. Curtis: You make your statement, I'll make mine.

Ms. Sanford: All right. There would be some additional problem or some additional reason that a community such as Alert Bay, which has a very difficult time.... I think the minister is aware of the difficulties that a community such as that has in trying to meet the needs of that community. They need that extra assistance – that disparity – because they are unable to raise money in the manner in which a lot of other communities can. So I am hopeful that what the minister is saying is that he has his own disparity grants under this section which I'm assuming will assist communities like Alert Bay.

Hon. Mr. Curtis: Mr. Chairman, to the hon. member, as you know, I've been to Alert Bay and it's quite a classic case of a community with some difficulties. No, we don't intend to have a disparity fund as such, or to identify a community requiring a disparity grant. The problem previously was that this was enshrined. Disparity grants were a block amount of money which had to be distributed.

[ Page 4856 ]

What we have here under clause (e) of section 4) 3) is the flexibility, in the event of an Alert Bay situation, or Ucluelet, or Tofino or Port Alice, to name communities on or close to Vancouver Island, to provide assistance which may be required in a very unique circumstance. That's what we want, and I think that's really what members opposite would want, Mr. Chairman. If we do encounter a particularly severe problem, a community which does not have the assessment base for major renovation to essential services, or which loses its major recreation facility, or whatever it might be, then we have some mechanism to assist. It's for future programmes of general application, but examined on a one-by-one basis. I really think we are saying the same thing.

Ms. Sanford: I just have one final question on this. I'm wondering now whether communities such as the ones you have outlined, which have some particular problem or some special need that they are facing, should, at this time, write to you and say: "Look. We have this particular problem. This section does exist within this Act. We would like you to consider us at this time because we do have a special need." I can assure you right now that Alert Bay has a special need, I am wondering if that would be the procedure. How do you find out what these special needs are? Do the communities write to you? Do you have members from your staff who go out to determine which ones in fact have a special need?

Hon. Mr. Curtis: Mr. Chairman, clause (e) will be used very carefully. I don't think we need to invite individual communities or municipalities to communicate with us. They do, in any event, when they find that they are in a particularly difficult situation.

I look to the assistant deputy minister at this point, but I would think that at the moment we probably have three or four specific requests or proposals before us from communities that are in some difficulty. One is the southeastern part of the province, one is, on Vancouver Island and one is a little further north. No, Mr. Minister, Surrey is not included. We hear from these communities in any event and will continue to do so.

The hon. member knows, Mr. Chairman, that local governments in British Columbia review those sections of Hansard that apply to local government and regional district government most carefully. So they will have the message.

Sections 4 to 8 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. Mr. Curtis: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 58, Revenue Sharing Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. Mr. Gardom: Committee on Bill J 5, Mr. Speaker.

COPPER SMELTING AND

REFINING INCENTIVE ACT

The House in committee; Mr. Veitch in the chair.

Sections 1 to 5 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. Mr Chabot: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

Bill 15, Copper Smelting and Refining Incentive Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. Mr. Gardom: Committee on Bill 38, Mr. Speaker,

DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND PETROLEUM

RESOURCES AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 38, Mr. Veitch in the chair.

Section 3 approved on the following division:

YEAS - 23

NAYS - 16

[ Page 4857 ]

Mr. Barrett requests that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Sections 4 to 6 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. Mr. Chabot: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Leave granted for division to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Bill 38, Department of Mines and Petroleum Resources Amendment Act, 1977, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. Mr. Gardom: Second reading of Bill 48, Mr. Speaker, Klondike National Historic Park Act.

KLONDIKE NATIONAL HISTORIC PARK ACT

Hon. R.S. Bawlf (Minister of Recreation and Conservation): As the explanatory note at the introduction of this bill states, the "purpose of this bill is to authorize the government to enter into an agreement with the government of Canada for the establishment of maintenance of the Klondike National Historic Park, located in the northwest corner of British Columbia near the Alaska border."

The Klondike gold rush was a unique historic event in the development of North America. In the words of a famous Canadian author: "There is no experience quite like the experience of the Chilkoot Pass. No words on paper can bring it to life. It is one of the few spots left in this continent where the visitor can actually live with nature and feel the ghosts of the past crowding in upon him in an unchanged environment."

British Columbia's special interest in the unique area of the Chilkoot Pass was established in 1967, when the Department of Lands placed a map reserve over the historic portion of the trail. Subsequently, formal discussions at the federal, territorial and provincial levels, and with the United States, led to the evolution of a concept of an international historic park, administered by the two national governments and consisting, in the main, of restoration of Dawson City and Whitehorse in the Yukon Territory; the Chilkoot Pass in British Columbia; the Skagway-Dyea area of Alaska, and Pioneer Square in Seattle.

An international committee has been involved for a number of years in planning to commemorate this colourful event in the history of British Columbia, and indeed of the Yukon and Alaska, when more than 22,000 men, women and children clawed their way along a remote trail against incredible difficulties in their desire to reach the fabulous Klondike gold fields. Evidence of their passing still prevails in the form of a well-defined trail strewn with artifacts. The trail begins near Skagway, crosses the northwest corner of B.C. and then crosses the Yukon to Dawson.

An agreement in principle has been reached with the federal government as of June, 1973, to transfer lands relative to the British Columbia component of the trail to Parks Canada, to be included in the national historic park system. Since that time, there's been much discussion and negotiation between federal authorities and the province to ensure that a suitable segment of land is transferred to ensure the historic integrity of the trail, yet not in conflict with other resource users in the area. I stress that.

On June 4, at a ceremony in Skagway, the United States dedicated their section of the Klondike Goldrush International Historic Park. On June 15, this bill was given first reading. It is intended, of course, to clear the way for British Columbia's participation. Tentative agreement has been reached with Parks Canada on the conditions for such a transfer, some of the important elements being that all costs of the survey be borne by the government of Canada , acquisition costs be borne 100 per cent by the government of Canada; a master plan required to be prepared by Parks Canada in advance of the provincial order-in-council to transfer lands; and that Canada be responsible for resolving any Indian claims. With that, Mr. Speaker, I would now move that the bill now be read a second time.

Mr. Nicolson: Mr. Speaker, the official opposition, of course, intends to support this bill, I'd like to thank the minister for providing us with some of the information which he used in his opening remarks prior to debate in second reading. He has also supplied us with a map of the areas affected.

I'd like to say that I certainly do take a little bit of a personal interest in this, as I was very privileged, I guess, to have married into a family which ... my wife's grandmother and grandfather having been present. Her grandfather was customs agent in Dawson City prior to the gold rush, and he was there at the time of the buildup of the Klondike gold rush. I think he was up there in '96. He was joined after the rush by his wife, and my wife's uncle was born at that time.

[ Page 4858 ]

They also shared many stories with Sgt. Dempster, after whom the Dempster Highway is now named. Sgt. Dempster led a group of Northwest Mounted Police to go out and look for the lost patrol of the Northwest Mounted Police. He found them against insurmountable odds in those barren wastes.

I think there is tremendous heritage here being preserved in the Chilkoot Pass. It's rather an exciting thing that has gone on through three provincial governments. I know that the agreement in principle was reached in June, 1973. I assume that the minister then would have been the hon. Jack Radford, and this would have taken place very shortly after his appointment.

I would also like to mention that another one of the benefits of having married into such a family is that I got to attend the sourdough banquet in Vancouver when there were still a great number of those pioneers alive. I enjoyed one of the greatest parties and heard some fantastic stories and an original poem that had been especially written for that event by Robert W. Service.

Hon. E.M. Wolfe (Minister of Finance): Let's hear it.

Mr. Nicolson: Well, I wish I could have found it, I just might happen to have it at home. I could recite a few that I know by memory.

Mr. Speaker, I think for this reason it is very appropriate that we preserve this area. It contains one trail of probably the greatest and widest fame, possibly even more well known throughout the country than the Dewdney trail, although British Columbians would know the Dewdney trail and some of the other trails of this country.

I think it's a very fine little piece of legislation. I think it's a. shame that there aren't a few rockets going off outside as this piece of legislation is coming forward, because I think it should be given pretty good recognition. I'm sure the minister will think of something appropriate in due course to recognize this event.

Mr. Lauk: Just as a suggestion, Mr. Speaker, rather than rockets, the minister should consult the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) , I understand that with one stroke a cannon went off, trumpets sounded and even the cathedral bells at Holy Rosary pealed, Mr. Speaker, as the Provincial Secretary passed the reviewing stand during the PNE parade. She is a woman of many parts, Mr. Speaker, very, very accomplished indeed.

Mr. Loewen: We might not be able to promise rockets, Mr. Speaker. It was a total coincidence this afternoon that the guest I introduced happened to be a gentleman who was commissioned by Parks Canada to write the history of this park. On the weekend he described his travels over the trail and how he climbed on hands and knees to get over it. Now he cannot promise rockets, I suppose, but he did promise that he would write a very colourful history of this park.

Hon. Mr. Bawlf: Mr. Speaker, I don't feel there is need to respond to the comments made, and I thank the members for their favourable comments on this legislation. I'll just say that in light of those comments 1 could try to arrange for some sourdough to be available after final passage.

I move that the bill be read a second time.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Bawlf: With leave, I move that Bill 48 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered now.

Leave granted.

Bill 48, Klondike National Historic Park Act, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House forthwith.

The House in committee on Bill 48; Mr. Veitch in the chair.

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. Mr. Bawlf: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 48, Klondike National Historic Park Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. Mr. Gardom: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 54.

PROVINCIAL COURT

AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

Hon. Mr. Gardom: Mr. Speaker, the proposals contained in this bill are designed to assist the processes of the administration of justice in the province in a number of ways. Many of the cases that are tried in our provincial court obviously require legally trained judges to decide complex issues, be

[ Page 4859 ]

those issues legal or of an evidentiary nature. But there are also many other types of cases that are not so involved and do not become problems with this sort of legal or evidentiary complexity,

Pretty well since British Columbia was a colony, Mr. Speaker, and certainly since it became a province, people who were not lawyers have served in a judicial capacity, and they have served very well as justices of the peace. There's no question that the administration of justice has benefited from the good sense and the breadth of experience of this lay adjudication. So Bill 38 stands to recognize the potential of laymen being judicial officers, but with safeguards, because the responsibility of the chief judge of the provincial court to supervise judges has been extended to include justices of the peace. Also, the jurisdiction of a justice of the peace is restricted to determining and adjudicating proceedings only where an imprisonment may not be a penalty.

I would like to mention to you, Mr. Speaker, that over the past two years JPs have served on a pilot project basis as traffic court judges in Vancouver, Terrace, Kamloops and Campbell River, and I would say with considerable success. The results of these projects are very convincing. Hence I would say that with the power and the assistance of supervision by a judge, and with the fact that the kind of case that will be within the competence of these justices of the peace is definitely parametered, these lay judges may not only serve exceptionally well as judicial officers, as they indeed have in the past, but they will be able to bring special qualities and a lot of local experience to their role.

Hence, Mr. Speaker, we are by this bill restoring some of the former functions of the justices of the peace in B.C. As I have stated to you, they will now be authorized to hear and determine minor cases, bylaw and traffic offences, less serious offences against specific statutes and so forth. They will deal with situations where imprisonment would not follow as the result of breach.

Mr. Speaker, by far the large majority of individuals charged with these kinds of offences that I'm relating to you are not by any person's definition criminals by nature. The issue at stake in trials such as these is usually factual. Was the dog running at large? Did the accused have a fishing licence? Was there a fire permit? Was the elevator inspected? Did you jaywalk? And so on, on into the night. The penalty on conviction is most often just a small fine. So as I have said, this will enable minor matters to be dealt with very promptly with increased service to the public, as well as being of considerable assistance to the judges on the criminal side of the provincial court by relieving them of matters of lesser magnitude.

Now the second major aspect of the bill, Mr. Speaker, deals with court referees and their proposed powers, duties and procedures for appointment.

Under the court referee programme, a Court referee will be a quasi-judicial officer. He will be appointed following recommendations of the judicial council in the same manner as is the provincial court judge. He will function under the civil jurisdiction side of the provincial court and deal with small claims, with its present financial jurisdiction up to $1,000, as well as cover maintenance matters under the Family Relations Act. So where the parties to the lawsuit agree, a provincial court may referee, may determine their financial circumstances, and attempt to arrive at settlement, with a net result that where the ability to pay is the principle issue, a dispute can be reconciled by the court referee and then processed by a consent court order.

Now the parties, if they wish, may also request that the court referee arbitrate the financial matters that are in dispute and make final awards, again to be processed via the medium of a consent court order. If the parties wish to appeal a finding of the court referee, then they can go to the provincial court for that purpose.

We see there are many, many effective checks and balances. A court referee, Mr. Speaker, doesn't become involved in liability issues or in the issues of entitlement between litigants, but merely assesses financial circumstances and/or arbitrates all that the litigants may wish and consent to.

I'd say, Mr. Speaker, that the referee's role as an arbitrator has proven most successful in the small claims court. This has resulted in an 8 per cent diversion of Vancouver small claims court cases and 15 per cent of Victoria small claims cases. The small claims judgments that have been arranged through this referee procedure have resulted in default situations in only 12 per cent of the time. In the other 88 per cent of the cases handled by the court referee, court enforcement proceedings have not proven to be needed. You can see, Mr. Speaker, that in the pilot projects we have, I think, encouraging results indeed. In the Victoria family court, 24 per cent of the enforcement of maintenance orders were dealt with through the court referees so, you see, roughly one-quarter of all the enforcement difficulties of maintenance orders were effectively dealt with through the court referee.

We feel, Mr. Speaker, that the concept will improve service to both debtors and creditors. It will relieve the court from the problems of lesser significance plus cut down considerably the expense of those on the support side – the court reporters, the court administrators, and other related personnel – which will result in cost saving. Over and above that, Mr. Speaker, it will provide a less formal, more personalized and, in many cases, speedier process for debtors and creditors in these small claims and family proceedings. All in all, Mr. Speaker, I think it will better serve the general public.

[ Page 4860 ]

There are some housekeeping amendments also included. The name of the committee which municipal councils have established through the province to advise local and provincial governments and community groups concerning measures which can be taken to help prevent family dispute, child welfare and juvenile delinquency cases from arising or from requiring court intervention will now have a change of name to family court committee. These committees, in many communities, sponsor with a great deal of success local projects in addition to their advisory work. I think the new name perhaps better describes their function.

Mr. Speaker, by these measures it's planned to help to increase the capacity of our provincial court system to deal with cases that come before it in a speedy, fair, relevant and efficient manner. I think, Mr. Speaker, that when we reflect, by far the majority of our civil, criminal, juvenile delinquent, family dispute and child welfare cases in this province are heard by the provincial court. In consequence, the view of the legal system is largely shaped by the experiences of individuals, or their friends, in the provincial court setting.

The importance of the proposed changes is obvious. They should be in the interest of all of our citizens who may become involved with the provincial court system. Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of this piece of legislation.

Mr. A, B. Macdonald (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, there is no reason to oppose this bill. It is continuing trends that have been proceeding for the last few years. I think the arbitration by a referee is a new one. I hope it will be utilized, but I rather doubt it. When you get two parties fighting over a money situation, it's very unusual that you get them both to agree to go to an arbitration route rather than a judge. I hope it will work, but I rather doubt that it will be used very much in the contested cases.

Hon. Mr. Gardom: He doesn't decide liability.

Mr. Macdonald: No, not liability, but quantum of maintenance and things of that kind. Those can be very bitterly quarreled over. I think the tendency will be to insist on the day in court rather than the arbitrator.

The justices of the peace have been trying minor cases and now it's being extended – that's a good provision. I would still think the provincial court should be made more understandable in a public way, in terms of publications as to the work it's doing. It's doing very good work but I come back to the point that the amount of utilization of the justice system in simple terms should be made available to the public. How much are the courtrooms that the taxpayer pays for being utilized – mornings only, afternoons only?

I think the public are entitled to know that. To what extent are the judges devoting a full- or part-time day to the work that is before them?

I don't think that with these reforms we've had there is any excuse for backlogs of cases anywhere in the province. I know the backlogs have been substantially cut down, but I do think the provincial court, and the justice system generally, is sort of still kept as arcane matter where the economics and the productivity of it is something the public shouldn't have any access to. I think that's a mistake. I think that throughout all of the public agencies of society there should be good statistics readily available so that the public can judge how well the system is working. I don't think we have that, but the raw material in the case of the justice system is certainly in the Attorney-General's hands. I think he should collate that and publicize it in an understandable way so that the public, too, may be looking on and seeing that we have a very good justice system in this province.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. minister closes the debate.

Hon. Mr. Gardom: I thank the hon. member for his remarks, Mr. Speaker. The arbitrated process is one via consent. I think he will agree with me, as will the members of the general public, that we are receiving very, very good value from the judges, not only in our provincial court, but in our country court, the supreme courts and the court of appeal. It takes a very dedicated person to take this on as a lifetime vocation, I think that we certainly have, without question, one of the best methods of appointment in the country, Personally, I think it is far superior to the American system.

I do feel, Mr. Speaker, that insofar as the workload and the caseload are concerned, they were having some problems in the past. We have some monthly indices here, which I'm happy to file with the House rather than take the time up with debate this afternoon, They just indicate, for example, that in May, 1976, there were 15,401 cases before the provincial court. They've always got to have a workable caseload. Giving that an index of 100, in June, 1976, it was down to 98.6; in July, 1976, up to 103.5. Then we sort of see steady reductions: August, 97.9; we move along here to October – 94.2; February, 94.3; March, 91.9; the lowest ever in April, - they were down to 89.7 from 100. It was down from 15,401 cases in May, 1976, to 13,812 in April, 1977. I do feel that we have broken the back of certain logjams, principally in one court.

Insofar as the duties and responsibilities of the judges to do their job. I think this is impressed upon them. It's a matter that is one of discussion between myself and the chief judge. But I.think in British

[ Page 4861 ]

Columbia we can be proud of our bench in all of its areas. Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I would move second reading.

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

Bill 54, Provincial Court Amendment Act, 1977, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, before we proceed further this afternoon, and seeing as the hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) is in his scat at the moment, I wonder if I could interrupt the proceedings on bills long enough to deliver a matter respecting privilege.

On Thursday last, the hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan rose on a point of privilege relating to the requirement of' attendance in the House, and referred to the absence of the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) . Standing order 8 provides that: "Every member is bound to attend the service of the House unless leave of absence had been given him by the House." No distinction is made between ministers of the Crown and other hon. members. While an unauthorized absence is technically a breach of the standing order, it has never been a practice of this House, or other parliaments, such as Westminster, to strictly apply the rule. If you refer to May, 16th edition, page 237, which I do not intend to read, you will see my reference.

Perusal of the statutory declarations made by members from time to time relating to attendance discloses many instances of leave of absence without leave. It will also be recalled that the Constitution Act provides for deduction to be made from allowances to members for absences beyond those permitted by the Act. The House has on many past occasions temporarily passed over certain items of business and carried on with other business of the House in order to accommodate hon. members who, for one reason or another, were absent from the House. I can find no support for the proposition that the absence of any member or a minister would give rise to a prima facie question of privilege,

Hon. Mr. Gardom: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 47.

BRITISH COLUMBIA RAILWAY

COMPANY GRANT ACT, 1977

Mr. D. Barrett (Leader of the Opposition): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it was my understanding that a request was made a month ago for the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) to be here during this debate. I am just inquiring of the government House Leader as to whether or not that request was passed on, or if it is to be honoured. If so we would prefer that this bill be postponed until the minister returns, as requested.

Hon. Mr. Gardom: No, this is second reading.

Mr. Barrett: I appreciate that, but the request was made on that basis and in terms of co-operation of the House it's important that the only board member....

Hon. Mr. Gardom: It's not a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Bill has been called and the minister will be here for committee.

Mr. Barrett: Mr. Speaker, the request was made....

Interjections.

Mr. Barrett: Certainly on the basis of courtesy, can we have this kind of exchange? The request was made a month ago. There is only one cabinet minister on the board, and it was a simple request that this bill be held over until that minister was present to hear second reading and participate in committee.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Speaking to the hon. Leader of the Opposition, the point of order is not well taken, hon. member.

Mr. Barrett: Come on, Garde. It's not the end of the government.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The point of order is not well taken in that it doesn't really apply. The bill is in the name of the Minister of Finance.

Mr. Barrett: I realize that, Mr, Speaker. It's a point of smooth running and some co-operation. It is a matter that the Premier has pointed out. There is only one government member on the board and we're making a simple request that the bill be held over until he is here; otherwise there's no accounting, . . .

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. Leader of the Opposition has the floor.

Mr. Barrett: Surely the Attorney-General is not that rigid.

An Hon. Member: Oh, he is!

Hon. Mr. Gardom: Mr. Speaker, all the hon.

[ Page 4862 ]

members will know, if they've checked the order paper, that the bill is in the name of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) , and it is his responsibility to present the bill.

The Minister of Finance, I am sure, will acquit himself both in opening debate and in closing debate, and will respond to the member's questions. He has sufficient information at his disposal and I can certainly assure the hon. members that the member to whom they are referring will be here during the committee stage. I've called the bill, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Barrett: Mr. Speaker, the Premier gets up in the House ...

Mr. Speaker: Hon. member, there is no further discussion.

Mr. Barrett: ... and says he takes questions on B.C. Rail on notice for the minister. We accept that. We accept that there has been one minister designated, but they can't play it both ways.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please!

Mr. Barrett: Mr. Speaker, is this House going to be run on some level of co-operation or not?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please! If the hon. Leader of the Opposition wishes to make his point in second reading he certainly has that opportunity.

Mr. Barrett: Oh, don't lecture me on that basis! Is there any common sense over there? For goodness' sake!

Mr. Speaker: Unfortunately, hon. members, that's a requirement and a necessity sometimes by the Chair.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe: Second reading of Bill 47, Mr. Speaker.

BRITISH COLUMBIA RAILWAY

COMPANY GRANT ACT, 1977

Hon. Mr. Wolfe: An agreement was entered into between the government of Canada and the government of this province on July 23,1973, on a comprehensive programme for the northern region of British Columbia involving railway, port and resource development. Pursuant to that agreement, construction of the Dease Lake line was undertaken on the basis of a 25 per cent federal share and 75 per cent provincial share for the first half of the line, and a 50-50 sharing for the balance of the line. Four changes have now been made in that 1973 agreement.

The first change removes the scheduling commitments to build rail lines by certain dates as delays in construction have gone beyond the completion dates set out in the agreement.

The second change establishes a joint federal-provincial committee to advise on scheduling of further construction work so that another forecast of ongoing financial commitments to the northwest rail project will be available.

The third change will result in an increase of the railway's share of net profits earned on the lines from 25 per cent to 35 per cent of the net operating profits on the lines. The 65 per cent portion will go to repay federal and provincial governments in proportion to their contribution to the construction costs.

Mr. Speaker, the fourth change redefines the running rights of the railways on the new lines so that the Canadian National Railway will only have running rights on the Dease Lake line in respect of traffic to and from the Yukon Territory.

In addition to this, a new financial agreement has been made. This was necessary because of the escalation in the construction costs of the Dease Lake line. In 1969, the line was estimated to cost $68 million. Today that figure is $320 million, not including any payment to native people for the parts of the line already constructed on Indian reservations. Because of this substantial cost increase for construction of the line and the question as to whether there will be sufficient potential resource freight to justify the costs of construction and operation, it has been mutually agreed between Canada and the province that there be a pause in the construction of the line.

Mr. Speaker, the new financial agreement covers Canada's sharing of the cost of construction of the line up to December 31,1977, and resulted in the payment of $54 million from Canada. After audit of the construction accounts, an additional payment not to exceed $27 million is to come before the closing of the fiscal year ending March 31,1978.

The purpose of this Act is simply to transfer the funds received from Canada, for its share of the construction costs of the Dease Lake line, to the British Columbia Railway Company which has paid these construction costs. I might add that an amendment is before the House at this time which will include the payment of interest earned on these moneys from April 1, the date that the first payments were received, until the date when the Act may be given royal assent. Mr. Speaker, I move the bill be read a second time.

Mr. Lauk: A letter was sent by the hon. Liberal leader to the House Leader of the Social Credit Party, hopefully to have present during second reading, and certainly in committee, the hon. Minister of Economic Development.

[ Page 4863 ]

Mr. Barrett: It's an insult to the House.

Mr. Lauk: The Leader sent the letter at least three weeks ago, and my impression is more than a month ago. I sent a letter along to the Attorney-General associating myself with that request. With the greatest conceivable respect to the Minister of Finance, we want the man who sits on the board, the man who's familiar with More or less the day-to-day details of this railway. The official opposition regard the B.C. Railway with utmost seriousness. It is our responsibility, we feel, to thoroughly canvass what goes on with this railway in terms of its finance, hidden or otherwise, its operations, competent or otherwise, because of the substantial and ever-increasing investment of the taxpayer's money. It is always appropriate to canvass the history of this railway and to bring it up to date, because so often people forget where we've been. When we forget where we've been, very often we don't know where we're going.

The substantial complaint that I made in January of this year that led to forcing this government to hold a judicial inquiry into the operations of the BCR, was the unsavory political actions of the previous Social Credit administration, and the ineptitude in handling the problems of the railway since this current administration has taken office. It should be pointed out that when the Barrett administration took office there was a complete disclosure of all the problems of this railway. Reports on engineering, accounting and management were ordered, completed and tabled immediately by the administration in this House. There was every attempt to reveal to the public through this Legislature what was the real history of the British Columbia Railway, so that all of us together could come to a solution about where it should go. The Swan Wooster report told us that the Fort Nelson line was the Toonerville Trolley, that it was built on silly putty by an administration that had absolutely no regard for the taxpayers' ability to understand these statements, and no regard for the public purse. Tenders were placed, low bids were taken up, overruns were paid. Suspicion upon suspicion over the years. We had absolute confirmation that there was a deliberate coverup in the accounting for the British Columbia Railway. Buttar & Chiene were suspended as accountants.

Mr. Barrett: It's absolutely true.

Mr. Lauk: There was a coverup of the real losses of the British Columbia Railway for many, many years in this province by the former Social Credit administration.

Mr. Barrett: The accounting firm was suspended, that's true.

Mr. Lauk: The Touche Ross management report indicated archaic practices on the BCR that were second to none in the world. The labour management relations and conditions that had built up over the years was another incredible story indeed, and this was allowed to happen under the former Social Credit administration. I don't like raising old stories, Mr. Speaker, but sometimes we forget, sometimes we get confused. It's not a question of assessing blame today, it's a question of understanding clearly where the railway has been, what its history is, to understand what its major problems are, in order to have them cleared up today. I see that the hon. Minister of Transport is taking notes and I hope he does speak in this debate, because I've got a great deal to say about that Dease Lake agreement with the federal government. A great deal to say. I am reminded of the many answers he gave during question period, and some he neglected to give.

Let's canvass the contracts that were let on the Dease Lake line, the Fort St. John line, the Fort Nelson line and so on. Let's canvass the practices of the previous Social Credit administration. To understand what the MEL Paving case was all about, what the Keen Industries case was all about, what the Ragan Construction case was all about, and what the Chinook Construction case was all about, let's understand what was being done on that railway under the previous Social Credit administration.

On November 15,1968, a total of 12 bids was received for work on the BCR between Fort St. John and Nig Creek, a distance of 75 miles. The high bid is from Attachie Construction for $3,485, 220. The low bid is from Peter Kewitt and Sons for $2,240, 550. On November 20,1968, the contract is awarded to the low bidder, with the work completed about March 3,1970; total amount paid in the contract – $3,585, 198. That's an overrun, if you like that word, of $1,344, 648, about $100,000 more than the high bidder in the first place.

An isolated example? Sure. We can say the BCR made a mistake. Let's go on. Remember who the board was in 1968 and remember the MEL Paving case.

August 18,1969 – five bids are received for work between Nig Creek and Beatton River, a distance of 12.5 miles. The high bid is from Mannix and Co. You remember Mannix, which strangely inherited those claims at Hat Creek. That will be an interesting debate in this House one day. Mannix and Co. – $1,051, 875. The low bid is from Peter Kewitt and Sons, again – $449,000. Okay. On August 19,1969, the contract is awarded to the low bidder and the work is completed by December. Total amount paid in the contract – $1,129, 211. Again, it's around $100,000 more than the high bid.

[ Page 4864 ]

August 18,1969 – five bids received for work between Beatton River and Natal Creek, 82.3 miles. The high bid is from Catermole-Trethney, – the low is from R.J. Keen of $3,949, 620 – $1,807, 000. I wish to point out to the Legislature what the high bid was and the low bid was. There are incredible differences and there's no reasonable excuse given by the BCR board of that day as to why the low bid was accepted on that basis. Suspicion upon suspicion.

Let me carry on. $3,900, 000 from Catermole-Trethney, and $1,800, 000 from R.J. Keen August 20 – the job again goes to the low bidder, who was eventually paid $2,145, 638, some $337,000 more than originally contracted.

September 26,1969 – seven bids for work between Natal Creek and Fort Nelson. The high bid is $5,884, 160 from Poole Engineering; the low bid is Keen again, $4,101, 740. October 2 – the job goes to the low bidder with the work completed in August, 1971. Total paid on the contract – $6,445, 000, a whopping $2,344, 000 and more over the original contract, and considerably higher than the original highest bid.

An Hon. Member: Businessmen, huh?

Mr. Lauk: That's the previous Social Credit government. Just a little history to remind us why we're a little suspicious in this province about the running of this railway, why we came to a watershed in the MEL Paving case, and how this government has done everything to prevent the truth of the MEL Paving case to come before the province of British Columbia.

In a Christmas Eve situation – a modern miracle – the MEL Paving case is settled.

Mr. Barrett: After they said they wouldn't.

Mr. Lauk: A complete reversal of tactics on the part of this administration.

An Hon. Member: One wise man bearing gold.

Mr. Lauk: That's right. A wise man bearing gold – the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) .

Interjections.

Mr. Lauk: There is some speculation that that is why Arthur Weeks was doing his leaking at that period of time – to try and throw some heat off this issue.

But, Mr. Speaker, at Christmas, 1976, the MEL Paving case was settled and everybody was home with their turkey and a nice hot fire in the living room, and they were settling down with their families for Christmas. No one reads the paper or listens to the news. They just listen to Christmas carols, except for a handful of Social Credit cabinet ministers wearing their 19th century cloaks and sneaking in through the snow under the gas lamps to the cabinet room to secretly, surreptitiously and deceptively settle the MEL Paving case. Why?

The MEL Paving case included charges of civil fraud against the board of directors, the British Columbia Railway and against the former general manager, Mr. J.S. Broadbent. The board of directors included Mr. Williston, Mr. W.A.C. Bennett and Mr. Einar Gunderson – well-known railroaders. They were the ones who made these decisions accepting these low bids. In almost each and every one of these cases except one, the lowest bid turned out to be absolutely impractical. The final amount paid in each and every one of these contracts vastly exceeded the highest bid on these contracts.

What possessed the board in those days to accept those low bids? They should have known better. We know now because of the sworn testimony in the MEL Paving case from engineers and experts that they did know better. They knew better in the MEL Paving case; they knew better in all of these contracts. What's the big question before the public – why? Why did they give the lowest bidder the contract?

Interjection.

Mr. Lauk: I would say so. The truth of MEL Paving is not just in that case of civil fraud, which has alleged that they deliberately misrepresented to the public of this province the costs of the Dease Lake extension for political reasons. Were there other reasons, Mr. Speaker? We don't know, because the present royal commission has still not come to grips with that problem and is still not investigating the MEL Paving case. This government has gone through a process of deliberate coverup in that civil fraud - in that conspiracy which stretches back 15 and 20 years in this province.

Will the truth ever be told, Mr. Speaker? Will the truth ever be told about the MEL Paving case, the deliberate coverup and the fraud that has been perpetrated in the running of that railway?

Hon. Mr. Wolfe: During the three years you had it too.

Mr. Lauk: In the three years that we were operating that railway, we tabled every document. Every minute and every decision was before the public of this province, There was no deception; there was no midnight meeting to settle cases, my friend, on Christmas Eve, What a totally cynical attitude this

[ Page 4865 ]

government has towards the people of this province – settling on Christmas Eve!

Hon. Mr. Wolfe: Never mind the courtroom stuff. Get on with the facts.

Mr. Lauk: What we want is not my courtroom stuff, Mr. Speaker, but the courtroom stuff in the MEL Paving case. Let's have a judicial hearing into these cases of civil fraud, not a commission that is going about the province saying it doesn't know whether it's in the terms of reference or not. Let's have an investigation.

What happened after they settled the case? Well, I and other members of the opposition stood up and made a speech, and we started putting heat on the government. You see, their Christmas Eve ploy to keep it covered up from the public didn't work. All three opposition parties brought it forcefully to the public's attention.

What was the answer? The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) first of all tried to give us a straight-arm, saying: "I've got an in-house investigation going." This was an afterthought. He gave birth to an afterthought, after the speeches that were made in the House. We waited patiently for a few days; we asked a few more questions; the heat was building.

Then, as a great announcement, because we were forcing the issue on MEL Paving and we wanted the truth and the people of this province were demanding the truth, what was the next great big red herring? It was a royal commission with elaborate terms of reference. They were throwing up their hands and saying: "Let the royal commission really decide what it is our responsibility to decide."

Again, this elaborate smokescreen has kept the people of this province from the truth, because we have a commissioner who doesn't even know – or doesn't even feel, perhaps, depending on the day – whether it's included in the terms of reference. The hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) , the hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) , the hon. Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) all asked in this House whether the MEL Paving case would specifically be included in the terms of reference. It took two days even to get a response. Nobody rose to give a reply in this House on the government's side – two days, cynicism.

We fought this every step of the way and we're not going to let go of this, Mr. Speaker, because it costs money. It costs the people of this province money. There's also a point of principle - it's called justice. It's called setting the record straight on the British Columbia Railway.

We even had to fight the press for several months during this great controversy. We know about The Fort Nelson News. We know about the attempts of Mr. Radler, who is a friend of the government, to cover up the truth in his newspapers. We know about the tremendous effort we had to make just to get the facts of the MEL Paving case into print, just so it will go on record so that some historian someday may be able to put the pieces together and tell the truth about this great hoax which has been perpetrated on the people for so many years.

During the course of this, the heat started to build again because the opposition can't be silenced or fooled by smokescreens. We questioned carefully the cost of the Dease Lake extension. No fewer than five contractors had lined up at the wicket for that generous settlement that MEL Paving has received – Keen, Regan, and that grand British Columbian, poverty-stricken with his box of Kleenex, Ben Ginter, came up to the wicket for his piece of the pie. They were coming up for their welfare, Mr. Speaker. Why is the government day after day succumbing to threats of civil fraud, fearful of court actions, fearful of evidence, settling case after case, when they have a sound contractual reason for not settling?

Mr. Barrett: Secret deals.

Mr. Lauk: They are being bribed and intimidated and threatened into settling these actions, Mr. Speaker. They are afraid to have it come out in the light of day. And talk about audacity! The press reports that Chinook has settled. The principle member of the Chinook industries yesterday told the press, Mr. Speaker, when asked how much the settlement was for. . . BCR has no money of its own, Mr. Speaker. This is our money – taxpayers' money – that is going to settle these cases. Do you know what he said? "It's part of the agreement with this government that I don't tell you how much the settlement is for." It's part of the demand made by this government that the amount of the Chinook settlement not be revealed.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. member, may I just suggest to you one thing? That is that we're debating the principle of this bill, which has to do with the granting of certain funds to the British Columbia Railway. If you would relate your remarks to your arguments under the bill, I think you would be a little more in order.

Mr. Lauk: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. What I'm saying is that I am discussing the settlements in the past several months. This $54 million must in part go to pay those settlements. I'm saying that in this bill those settlements are improper.

Now there were five companies, then there were one or two more, and now we have, I think, the seventh or eighth, Chinook industries, which have received settlements from BCR without an explanation of the contractual relationship, without a

[ Page 4866 ]

sense of obligation....

Mr. Lloyd: On a point of order, could I have some clarification on this? I don't see where this talks about the disbursement of the $54 million. It talks about the money transfer from the federal government to the provincial government to the British Columbia Railway. I don't see anything about the disbursement in here. Are we going to go through the entire royal commission? Are we going to go through the entire BCR operation for the last 20 years? Are we going to talk about Bill 47, which is the transfer of funds from the provincial Act?

Mr. Lea: What's the point of order?

Mr. Lloyd: It's a point of clarification.

Mr. Speaker: The point of order is not well made in this respect: the members are free, in dealing with the principle of a bill in second reading, to say why they either support the bill or why they oppose it. In this particular case, the principle of the bill is to provide funds by way of a grant to the BCR. In order to debate that bill it's fairly wide open, hon. member, in my opinion, as long as the hon. members relate their remarks to the bill that is before us. I have brought it to the attention of the hon. first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) that he must relate his remarks to the bill. In my opinion, he has been attempting to do that.

Mr. Lauk: Mr. Speaker, referring to the February 2 Vancouver Sun report.... I don't like news clippings, but it has an interesting headline. It starts with "Overruns" on the top, and it says: "Fifth Firm After BCR for Money. MEL Paving recently settled a lawsuit for $2.5 million for extra work required on the Dease Lake extension. Keen Industries of Edmonton and a subsidiary KRM Construction, have been trying to renegotiate BCR contracts." Well, we know what happened to them. Doug Ragan –we know what happened to him. "Argus owner, Ben Ginter, wants $2 million in connection with overruns experienced on the Fort St. James extension of the railway".

Now this relates to the history that I outlined to you just a moment ago, Mr. Speaker, of accepting the low bid and paying the high bid. I wonder what happens with the high bidders, It's funny about the business community. It always amuses me. It seems to me that if I put in a high bid, but it was fairly on – within $100,000, like a lot of the high bids here – and they accepted a low bidder, I've been cheated. The public of this Province demands that Crown corporations put these contracts out for tender not so that we get the lowest bid and then pay the highest, but because we can get the lowest possible bid within the practical framework of the construction project in mind.

Interjection.

Mr. Lauk: Right, "So that it's in the open, " the Conservative leader (Mr. Wallace) says. But it was not so.

A few years later, when the contract was completed and paid out, we find that they've paid more than the highest bid. Now what if I was somebody like Attachie Construction, that put in a bid for $3.5 million and the work came to $3.5 million eventually, but a $2.2 million bid was accepted from Peter Kewitt and Sons? I say to myself: "I knew my engineering. I knew what cost is to be expected. What did Kewitt know that I didn't know?" What was he made aware of that he would put in that $2.2 million bid?

Why wasn't J.S. Broadbent called to give evidence in the MEL Paving trial? Why was Mr. Broadbent given a gratuity of $8,000? Why was he also given a superannuation? Why was he not in the country during the settlement and controversy around MEL Paving? Why, why, why? What is the truth on these contracts, Mr. Speaker? We want the truth, we want it now, and the people of this province want it now, notwithstanding royal commissions and smokescreens. We know that the railroad is in trouble for practical, general reasons. But the major reason it's in trouble is because of the fraud and deceit on this railway for 15 years. We want to know the real reasons.

What did Mr. Kewitt know that Mr. Attachie didn't know? Can that be answered? What did Mannix and Company not know that Peter Kewitt knew in the other bid as well? What did R.J. Keen know that Catermole-Trethney didn't know? The bids are too far apart to be an accident, Mr. Speaker. Somebody was talking to somebody. Somebody was talking to somebody, because those final payout figures in those three cases were within $100,000 of the highest bid. They were cheated.

So the heat builds up, and around about April, the commission starts to get rolling and the opposition asks some more embarrassing questions. The Premier comes into this Legislature and informs the House that there'll be what is called a. "pause" in the construction of the Dease Lake extension. He announces for all to see an agreement that he has signed with the federal government, What was that agreement? The agreement was for $81 million if we car) wind down the construction of the Dease Lake extension for $10 million; otherwise it'll be $71 million. So far we've got $54 million.

He was asked in a press conference on April 5,1977: "Are there any conditions or strings attached to this agreement and this pause in construction, and

[ Page 4867 ]

in particular, are there any strings attached to the receipt of money from the federal government as their share of the construction of the Dease Lake extension?" The Premier of this province said: "No."

I disagreed with him on April 5. I went to his press conference. I thought it was a public press conference, and the Premier and his press aide were very upset that I was there. They said I crashed his press conference. I was told by one of the Premier's aides – and he'll go nameless, as so many of them are.... He whispered to me: "You know, the Premier gets upset when you're there, Mr. Lauk." I should think so. He likes his own show. He likes his own shell game. He doesn't want prying eyes looking at him.

So he told the press conference: "No strings attached." He had Charlie McCarthy – the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) – sitting there, holding his copy of the federal agreement. It was very embarrassing, because on three or four occasions that I noted, they contradicted each other. I take it one had read the agreement and the other hadn't, or perhaps one had read one part and the other the other part. In any event, they weren't coming together.

But the Premier said: "No strings attached." The Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications didn't say that; the Premier said it. He said: "no problem." Then we find that Mr. Frayne, the chairman of the board of the British Columbia Railway....

By the way, on April 5, I said to the same press conference: "This is not a pause, this is an abandonment. Secondly, the agreement will cost us more and we've lost money from the original agreement. Thirdly, it's going to cost us millions of dollars a month to discontinue the construction of the Dease Lake line.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe: Did you say that from the front row seats or when you got up on the stage after? Do you remember? I can't remember.

Mr. Lauk: You weren't there, so that's why you can't remember.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe: No, I can't remember whether you said that from the front row seats or after.

Mr. Lea: You haven't had any paper on your desk for two years.

Mr. Lauk: There is a rumour, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Finance really has had nothing to do since 1975 except sign his name. He's like Louis XVI.

Mr. Lea: And he does it up against the window!

Mr. Lauk: Cardinal Richelieu would prepare all the documents and Louis XVI would just sign them and play chess or chew peppermints. In any event, I don't believe those uncharitable rumours about the Minister of Finance. Heaven knows it's....

Hon. Mr. Wolfe: Next time call your own press conference. (Laughter.)

Mr. Lea: He got you, Gary; he got you!

Mr. Lauk: I remember when the hon. Minister of Finance was unwise enough to run against me in Vancouver Centre. He was at an all-candidates conference – if I could digress for just a moment. He stood up in the crowd and said....

Mr. Speaker: Sorry, hon. member, rather than digress on what happened in previous election campaigns, I'm afraid we are on the principle of this bill.

Mr. Lauk: We don't want to reflect on a vote?

He merely said, Mr. Speaker: "Capozzi and Wolfe are the answer." And somebody said: "What's the question?" (Laughter.)

Anyway, the question is: Where do you think they'll run next time?

Mr. Speaker: The question at the moment is the principle of Bill 47.

Mr. Lauk: On April 5 at the press conference, I stated those three propositions, and some newspapers reported it. The Province, however, didn't think it was important; they printed the Premier's remarks. They thought the opposition's comments on the Premier's remarks were not worthy of print. The three statements made by the opposition in the ensuing months have proven correct.

This is the same newspaper that didn't publish much about the MEL Paving case and whose publisher's – Paddy Sherman's – voluntary appointments have been recently increased by the Social Credit administration to various things like the Universities Council, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. I wonder what has happened to that newspaper, because I checked with the person who wrote the story on the press conference and she included the opposition remarks in the story she filed. She didn't pull them out of the story. I checked with the desk, and the only reply was that the usual story that was about to be printed was interfered with at a slightly higher level. I wonder who.

Mr. Speaker, the first point I'm trying to make is that this pause was an abandonment. Secondly, there were strings attached to the money, and, thirdly, it's costing us millions of dollars every month that we sit

[ Page 4868 ]

back and don't take a definitive decision as a government and as a province to build the Dease Lake extension.

The Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) was asked in the Legislature about the comments of Mr. Fraine, the chairman of the board, who said this was an abandonment and that the only way we could get the money from the federal government was to agree to abandon. The answer that we had to pry loose with a pair of pliers from the Premier and the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications eventually was that Mr. Fraine was probably mistaken and his words were perhaps not well chosen.

Then we found out that a Mr. Gilliatt on the federal side who negotiated this agreement said that was exactly the case. He said: "There was an agreement that we would not pay one thin dime for the Dease Lake extension unless they shut her down."

I asked both the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications and the Premier, and they both agreed that Fraine and Gilliatt were honest, honourable men. They wouldn't tell untruths about the nature of that agreement, and they're honest and honourable men – we've heard it from the mouths of the First Minister of this province and the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications, a former federal cabinet member. Therefore, Fraine and Gilliatt wouldn't tell untruths. Who has? Who did? And why?

We have heard the history of the railway, we've seen the problems that have arisen, and we have reviewed some of these problems in terms of letting contracts. We know there is a deliberate coverup, we know that this commission is being used for a smokescreen, and we still haven't had any of the answers. We've seen one of the most hopeless agreements with the federal government, and again this is an attempt to deliberately cover up the truth of the railway.

Mr. Speaker: I would just like to interrupt you just briefly. You are on your final three minutes, unless you are the designated speaker, in which case there is no time limit. Perhaps I can inquire.

Mr. Lauk: The caucus has designated me speaker.

We've been through the triumph of the eraser over engineering in the MEL Paving case. We've been through the calamitous history of this railway, and we are seeing more of it. On April 5 the Premier misinformed the press. He was corrected by Fraine and Gilliatt, two honest, honourable men, who said there were strings attached. Can the people of this province believe what the Premier says? He has consistently, since taking office, made statements

That were subsequently proven incorrect. It was proven that he knew the truth at the time he made the mis-statement.

Mr. Speaker, somewhere along the line there has to be a just review of the First Minister's actions and statements, because if he didn't know that there were strings attached to that money from the federal government, then the Minister of Transport should resign, because he probably did. If the Minister of Transport didn't know, he should fire the civil servants that didn't tell him. But they did know. That degree of lack of knowledge is just unbelievable. Even with this administration it couldn't happen.

Well, Mr. Speaker, we are now arrived at this bill to grant a further $54 million, the child of that most unhappy agreement announced on April 5. The railway is full of scandal, and we yet haven't heard from the principal players on the board of directors in the 1960s; they haven't been before the commission. Will they be asked about the MEL Paving case, and, if so, who will cross-examine them? The adversary system in a trial is very, very good at getting out the truth. I'm not sure about a royal commission, you just have to rely on who appears before you and makes a statement. Cross-examination is pretty weak, and there isn't anyone there that has an interest in getting at you. But we are waiting to see if the truth will come out through that.

There are some major problems with this railway, Mr. Speaker. The first is financing. Most of the debt is held, skilfully drafted and composed by the most honourable civil servant now gracing our presence. That paper is held by the government – a huge debtload by the BCR – and if you could find some way to communicate that problem to the minister, through some sort of slow process of jolly numbers, perhaps we can get a knowledgeable solution to the railway's problems. It's not enough to throw up your hands and throw it to a commission. There are hundreds upon hundreds of millions of dollars of debt owed by the BCR, and debt service charges in the tens of millions per month are being paid on that hundreds of millions of dollars of debt. What is the solution? You knew the solution a year ago. You didn't need a royal commission to tell you that you have to refinance the BCR.

The second problem is accounting. If you are going to account properly for the British Columbia Railway, you have to look carefully at the Fort Nelson line and the Dease Lake extension and you have to say those are not operational railways; you have to call then development lines. Those are development railways, There is no other railway like it – no line like the Fort Nelson or Dease Lake anywhere in North America. Those lines are built by the government as an economic development tool; it is to create jobs and wealth in the future for the province of British Columbia.

[ Page 4869 ]

As you, Mr. Speaker, well know, your constituency would be virtually without population, wealth and jobs if it weren't for the railway. When people build the railways first, the jobs and the wealth and the economic development follow. But until the operations of those lines – the Fort Nelson line, the Dease Lake line, any development line – come to a level where they start to pay for themselves, you must account for that railway differently on its development lines than you would on its ordinary operational lines. That solution has been available to the government for 18 months, and it's a very sensible one. An honest accounting before the people, saying: "We can't pay for the Fort Nelson line; we can't pay for the Dease Lake line. But you just can't account for a railway of itself; you've got to look at the wealth and the jobs that it's going to create."

How many people look at a school or a hospital or a highway ... Let's say a highway, and start accounting for that. Do the highways people tell? And because it doesn't pay for itself, does that mean we don't build it? A highway doesn't pay for itself, unless you put a toll on it like the old Liberal administration used to do. The Liberal administration used to put a toll on everything. If you wanted to go in and see Boss Johnson, there was a little toll-gate in the office there.

Mr. G.F. Gibson (North Vancouver-Capilano): You can come and see me for nothing.

Mr. Lauk: That's right. Well, you know what you're worth. The hon. Liberal leader said "You can come and see me for nothing." I withdraw the remark that I made.

Mr. Speaker, accounting for the railway lines separately from operational and developmental will accurately reflect to the people the real efficiency of the railway. But if you lump them together, you have to lie about it. The former Social Credit administration lied about it for over 15 years for crass political reasons. Oh, you don't even know. You weren't even here, you were incognito.

Interjection.

Mr. Lauk: I wish she was incognito today, Mr. Speaker.

Mrs. Jordan: I would ask the hon. member to withdraw the statement that the former Social Credit government lied. I was a member of that government. I do not believe it lied, and I find his comments offensive.

Mr. Speaker: An hon. member has found your comments offensive, Mr. Member for Vancouver

Centre. I would ask you, therefore, to withdraw them.

Mr. Lauk: I will withdraw any offence to the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, in that I exclude her from any kind of association with those charges. I'm sure that the hon. member herself was not aware of what was going on in the BCR.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. member, the hon. member, on a point of order, indicated that your remarks were offensive to her and I would just ask you to withdraw them – not a qualified withdrawal.

Mr. Lauk: I must refuse to withdraw that charge, Mr. Speaker. I wish to assure the hon. member for North Okanagan that I don't include her in the remarks.

Mr. Speaker: Is the hon. member for North Okanagan prepared to accept that withdrawal?

Mrs. Jordan: No, I am not, Mr, Speaker. I would ask him to withdraw. There are hon. members who sat in this House who are not now in this House and whom this member is offending. They are not in any position in which they can defend themselves. I would again ask on their behalf and on my own behalf that this member withdraw.

Mr. Lauk.: The evidence is before the people of the province and Buttar and Chiene were the auditors. They were thrown out of the accounting fraternity.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member is well aware of the rules of the House.

Mr. Lauk: Well, I am. That's why I'm not withdrawing that statement, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Unfortunately, hon. member, if you are aware of the rules of the House, you must withdraw this statement, because it was found offensive.

Mr. Lauk: I'm sorry. I will not withdraw, Mr. Speaker, and I would ask you very cautiously to attend to the advice of the Clerks of the House.

Mrs. Jordan: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my request for him to withdraw, except as it affects me, because I feel that the statement he has made in terms of his position condemns him. I don't wish to see a useless use of the time of this House.

Mr. Lauk: Mr. Speaker, so long as there is a Legislature and a free democratic society, hon. members of this House are not only free to stand up

[ Page 4870 ]

and state the truth; they must. It is their responsibility. That's what I'm doing here today. I'm sorry if it offends the sensibilities of members of the Social Credit party. I'm sorry if they wince at the truth. I'm sorry if they wish that things bad been different many years ago, but the truth is nevertheless the truth.

Mr. Speaker, Buttar and Chiene were the auditors of the BCR. The reason they were caught in misrepresenting the real losses of this railway is because they or the accountants for the BCR did not adequately advise the board of the day to account for development lines separately, openly and publicly, and for operational lines separately, openly and publicly.

The operational line should be able to pay for itself. The board of directors and the people of the province should therefore be able to make a judgment about the efficiency of the railway. When you cover up, the problems of such a large corporation build on themselves until finally you have a misrepresentation of the accounts, mismanagement of the railway, and a coverup on construction costs of the kind that occurred. One thing feeding on the other.

The third thing that must be stated, so that we don't have to constantly pass bills that are presently before the Legislature, is that the government and the board of BCR must address itself to the management of that railway. I'm not going to reflect on personalities, but I will say that the management structure of' BCR is archaic. The attitude of senior management officials towards the trade unions on that railroad is in many cases disgraceful. We have to be able to use that railroad to the benefit of everyone in this province and again, we don't need a royal commission to tell us that. A royal commission, with the greatest conceivable respect, has been used as a smoke screen and a coverup to the real problems of BCR, Until this government addresses the problem squarely and with responsibility, the problems will never be solved.

Let's set the record straight. Let's move on and have that railway a viable economic development tool, which it's supposed to be. I know that my words to the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) are falling on deaf ears. He doesn't know anything about the railway. Nothing. They drafted a bill and put it in his hands, and that's it. I hope in committee that you will allow us to do an extensive examination of the sections, with cross-examination of the minister who sits on the board, and has liaison. I hope that the minister will indicate that the government will not take issue with an extensive debate in committee while the real minister on this bill is present.

Mr. G. Mussallem (Dewdney): Mr. Speaker, it is impossible for me to listen for an hour to this debate without replying in some way to the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lank) .

An Hon. Member: You don't know the facts, George.

Mr. Mussallem: The facts I know very well.

An Hon. Member: No, you don't.

Mr. Mussallem: But my hon. friend does not know the facts.

An Hon. Member: It's all here.

Mr. Mussallem: He's a polished and excellent debater, one who knows the rules of debate, but he falls to a very low ebb when he uses the term: "The Social Credit Party lied." It's not parliamentary. It's improper, when in fact the hallmark of the Social Credit Party throughout the years was honesty, integrity and that was proved totally.... And through seven consecutive elections, the people of British Columbia commented on that electing us each time with a greater and greater majority.

Mr. Lauk: Was the member here during the Sommers Case, Mr. Speaker? I don't know.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) has had his opportunity to speak in this debate. We're now listening to the hon. member for Dewdney, who has the floor.

Mr. Mussallem: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Bringing him to order is very proper.

What is the major trouble with the BCR? He asks what is the major trouble. He should have asked, more properly, what was the major trouble with the BCR. The major trouble with the BCR happened in 1972 when the people of British Columbia saw fit to change the government, and from that day on the system was plagued with bad management. That was the problem with BCR, totally bad management.

We were treated to an excellent debate by this member and he leaves now. He can't take it. The facts are that he asked another question. What about these bids? He looks under the bed, knocks at the front door and runs to the back to see who is coming out, asks questions in great suspicion of what is happening. There's something wrong here, but does he indicate at one time what is wrong? No, because he doesn't know, There was nothing wrong with the management under Social Credit policy. It was good management because we approved it.

Every year Social Credit was in power, every year they were in office, the railway made a profit. That's the thing we should understand. He said: "What

[ Page 4871 ]

about these bids? The low bidder gets the bid but when he is paid out he is way up over the highest bidder." He asks: "What is wrong with that?" There is something under the bed. There must be a scheme somewhere. "They gave this man the bid at a low price and then said to him: 'When you're through, we'll boost it up higher.' " There's somebody under the bed. There's somebody running out the back door.

I'm telling you, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member only knew a little bit about bidding, and he must know something – he can't be that stupid – then he knows that when a bid of this nature is taken the bidder bids on the job as specified, but he also bids on additional work that may be called for because it is impossible to specify the job precisely as it is to be done. There is no way of knowing on a railroad the job required so the bid is not only in total but also on extra work. That's the reason for it. It's so simple. There is no need to look under the bed because at no time was it ever brought out that there was anything wrong with any of the bids.

I would like to tell you, Mr. Speaker, a little bit about the BCR, and I think it is important. The hon. member should know what happened to the BCR during the previous Social Credit regime. I will start at 1960. 1 won't go through every year; I will just take some years.

Mr. Speaker, in 1960 the BCR made a profit of $3 million.

Mr. Lauk: That was a lie.

Mr. Mussallem: That's the absolute truth. The books show it, and it is the truth.

Mr. Lauk: The books were proven to be lies.

Mr. Mussallem: Order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Lauk: You can't come in here and make statements....

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, will you please allow the hon. member for Dewdney to make his speech? The hon. first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) has had his opportunity to speak in this debate.

Mr. Lauk: Table those documents.

Mr. Mussallem: I will indeed. These figures are from the BCR statement.

Mr. Lauk: The statements were proven false!

Mr. Mussallem: They were not proven false at any time, Mr. Speaker. He's had his say. He's been washed up and washed out. Let him take it and shut up.

I won't go through every year. I won't take the time of the House, as he did, chattering and muttering and saying nothing, dancing from one foot to the other with great gestures, floating through the air, and saying: "Now do you see this? There is somebody else under the bed." No, I'm not going to take the time of the House. I could read every figure here and take an hour at it, but I won't do that. I think this honourable House does not need to be treated to a display such as we have just had.

I will jump to 1965. In 1965 the railway made a profit of $7 million – a profit every single year. I'll jump to 1970 – the profit was $12 million. The figures are here, and he can see them. Anybody in this House can see them, anybody who would just take the trouble to look at the statement.

I'll jump again to 197 1. There was a profit of $ 15 million. Hear this! Then let's go to 1972 – a profit of $ 15 million,

What happened in 1972? The people of British Columbia are entitled to one mistake, and they made that one mistake. They elected a socialist government. So the next year, in 1973, the profit dropped to $275,000. They didn't have time to throw it all away, but they're working hard at it.

But what happened in the following year, 1974? Listen to this – a loss of $13 million in the first year of the socialist government. There was bad management to the square root. We know who the director was. Let's not say names, but we know.

Let's take the next year, Mr. Speaker. What do you think the loss was that year? Would you believe $22 million-plus? That is the picture of mismanagement.

You just heard a few days ago that BCR is again under very good management, And what is happening today? BCR is just now breaking even. BCR will make money under proper management and under this government, but never under socialism.

We have a different philosophy. We have a philosophy of good management. We have a philosophy of honour and respect. We have a philosophy of "never mind the words, but do the deeds.” Our deeds have been proven, and the BCR is a shining diadem, a shining light, under the Social Credit policy, and it will be again.

I will say this. Had we not gone through these terrible three years of socialist government - had we not gone through that period – the line would have been finished to Dease Lake. It would have been done and that would have been a resource railway. But under their management, building the line the way they were building it, it could never be built, and that's why we have the pause today. Such a mess! The socialist theory of giving everything to everybody, being nice guys – being smart alecs, really

[ Page 4872 ]

– playing fast and loose with the public funds...

That is a socialist failure – playing fast and loose with the public funds, because they do not and never will realize that the funds of the public come out of the backs of the people.

Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. member for Dewdney please relate his remarks to the bill that's before us?

Mr. Mussallem: Yes, I am exactly, because we're dealing with money. I'm pointing out that the philosophy of the socialist party is to play fast and loose with cash, and that was the problem – bad management. So I think the debate should close on that note.

Mr. Gibson: Mr. Speaker, it's always a pleasure to listen to the hon. member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) . He has a delightful turn of phrase – and often of fact – that puzzles many members of this House.

I noted that both parties approached the history of the British Columbia Railway having concentrated on somewhat different sections of its history. I couldn't help noting, though, that the hon. member for Dewdney, in speaking of the former Social Credit government, seemed to have taken somewhat amiss something the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) said. He felt impelled to say that the hallmark of the former Social Credit government was honesty and integrity.

Then he went on, as I understand it, to cite some of the former accounts of the British Columbia Railway, which, if I recall my figures correctly, were accounts that grossly neglected to account for depreciation during that particular period of years. So I think that was playing just a little fast and loose with the accounts, but we were used to that from that former government. I won't go into reasons with that, at least during this debate, why I think that perhaps his statement about honesty and integrity as being a hallmark could not perhaps be questioned a little bit.

Mr. Wallace: Did you not mention Sommers?

Mr. Gibson: The hon. member for Vancouver Centre mentioned Sommers. Certainly that was one of the counter-examples; there were others.

He made the statement that the previous Social Credit management of the railway was good. I wonder if the member would be prepared, on the basis of the findings of the royal commission which his government appointed, and which is now looking into the management of that railway, to stake his seat on a finding by that royal commission that yes, indeed, the management of that previous Social

Credit government was good. The hon. member can nod. Nod, George.

An Hon. Member: What about your seat?

Mr. Gibson: I have a first-rate seat, Mr. Member, but I was talking to the hon. member for Dewdney.

Interjection.

Mr. Gibson: No, no, no. I'm calling for you to account for your statements, Mr. Member, because I don't think those statements accurately reflect the facts as the facts are on that B.C. Railway.

Here we are again in this House, Mr. Speaker, talking about this railway, which has been one of the fantastic boondoggles of British Columbia history. We are looking at least $90 million here in this bill, when you count the first payment, the second payment and the interest which is provided for in the amendment. Yes, that money is spent, but this Legislature should never lose the occasion to draw to the attention of the people in British Columbia just how badly some of that money has been spent and just how badly governments can waste their money if they aren't continuously watched. That was certainly the case here.

This is one of the great white elephants in British Columbia history, that Dease Lake extension. That's what this payment is about, as you know, Mr. Speaker, in this bill. It was an economic disaster, one of the four great what I would call "capital works errors" of the previous Social Credit government. There are other errors, of course, relating to not spending enough money on education, or human resources, or development of a tertiary sector of economy, and so on, but there were four great capital works errors.

The first, as you will recall, was the initial Columbia giveaway attempt – the attempt to give Kaiser the Columbia River for $1 million back in 1954.

Interjection.

Mr. Gibson: You weren't quite a member of the government then, Mr. Minister. I think you would have disapproved, had you been a member back in those days.

Then there was the second Columbia River Treaty, and that was one of the monumental giveaways of British Columbia history, also done by the same group. Then there was the Wenner-Gren giveaway.

Finally, there was the British Columbia Railway, which in total dollars is more than any of the others. We are talking on the Dease Lake extension of something like $300 million. That has been a waste. It has been the largest single misjudgment in British

[ Page 4873 ]

Columbia's history. The funds that went into the Dease Lake extension could have built at that time, Mr. Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) , two pulp mills that could today be employing 2,000 people in this province, day after day – making money, paying taxes, adding to the export dollars of British Columbia. Instead, BCR's Dease Lake extension every month now is requiring the provincial taxes of 3,000 British Columbia working people, one-third of 1 per cent of our work force, just to pay the interest on that Dease Lake debt.

Interjections.

Mr. Gibson: I wish those members would stand up and make their own speeches instead of sniping back from the back benches, Mr. Speaker. I wonder how much they have to say. One-third of I per cent of the work force of British Columbia is working and paying taxes just to pay the interest on that Dease Lake extension, and you're happy about it? That is one of the most disgraceful errors of judgment that's ever been made in British Columbia's history.

Interjection.

Mr. Gibson: The member's talking about the St. Lawrence Seaway, I would point out that the St. Lawrence Seaway has some traffic on it. The Dease Lake extension has none. Zilch. Zero.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Vancouver Centre went on to speak of a development-line philosophy for extensions of the type of the Dease Lake and the Fort Nelson. I agree with him on one aspect of that, and I disagree on another. I agree very much that separate accounts should be kept on these so-called development lines, so that we know exactly how much we are subsidizing them, and how much money we're taking out of our pockets today as provincial taxpayers hopefully to get it back sometime tomorrow. But I won't go much further than that. I won't go for so-called development lines in a blind way. I think they have to be justified. That was never the case with the Dease Lake extension. Back in 1969 or so the go-ahead was given for that extension without proper forecast in terms of costs and in terms of revenues.

Now the shocking situation in terms of cost is well known to the people of this province and will be better known after the royal commission reports in due course. The situation as to revenues is perhaps even worse, because there was only the most cursory kind of economic study done as to what revenues that railway might carry.

We are learning today, as more and more investigation is done, that the timber in those regions is very marginally economic and the transportation patterns are not necessarily railroads. Nor are they with mineral. In some cases, the mineral economically should go out by sea – by river to the sea. In other cases, the mineral should logically go out by trucks down the Stewart-Cassiar. The railroad, it turns out, has very, very little freight in that whole enormous area. Because of the lack of these kinds of revenue projections, we got into the situation where 0.3 per cent of the work force of British Columbia is working every day with their provincial taxes to pay the interest on that Dease Lake debt. It was an absolute monstrosity. It was a shocking blot on our financial past and the stigma must be clearly fixed by the royal commission, as I have no doubt in due course it will be.

The hon. member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) said something else that I have to question. He said that without three years of the NDP government that railway would have been finished and it would have been a resource railway now.

Mr. Barber: Did he say that?

Mr. Gibson: He said that, Mr. Member.

Mr. Barber: Does he believe it?

Mr. Gibson: I don't know if he believes it or not, but I hope he will come up to me privately afterwards and tell me what revenues that railway would have been operating on if it was running as a resource railway now. What facts are you privy to, Mr. Member, as to potential revenue up in that area that nobody else in the province knows about?

Interjection.

Mr. Gibson: Lots of revenue? That sounds like the former Premier, the man who approved the thing: "Lots of room, my friends." Mr. Member, I'm disappointed in you. You don't run your car business like that. I know that. Mr. Speaker, I know he doesn't sell a car to somebody until he knows that somebody has the revenue to pay for the car.

In this case, he sold us a railroad and we didn't have the revenue to pay for it so we're paying for it out of taxes.

The second thing, Mr. Member, is: do you think on that old basis there would have been any federal funds coming into that railroad? That's what we're talking about disbursing here right now. We finally got some money from Ottawa out of it, and I give great credit to the former government. They started negotiating with Ottawa on that. The former Premier, the man who started that line, never even allowed the senior civil servants of this province to make a telephone call to Ottawa, let alone sit down and talk with them in a friendly way.

Instead, let us give some credit where credit is due.

[ Page 4874 ]

The former NDP government did start the negotiations which led to the dollars we're talking about giving to the BCR today.

Mr. Mussallem: That's where the trouble started.

Mr. Gibson: No, Mr. Member, that's not where the trouble started. The trouble started years before that in the completely inept management and the completely erroneous and unfounded decisions that were made in terms of the capital investment of that railway.

Mr. Speaker, I believe the British Columbia Railway has a lot to be proud of. It has a communications system that it has pioneered on this continent. It is just a remarkable thing. It has a pattern of labour-management relations that in the past have been poor but have been improving markedly in recent months. It gives some hope that it will emerge as a stable shipping transport medium for that vital forest products industry through the centre of British Columbia. It has something to be very proud of.

One of the things it does not have to be proud of is its past. Let no one in this House try and delude themselves about that. I am, as I say, amply satisfied that the royal commission, when it brings in its report in the fullness of time, will make that perfectly clear as well.

There are some questions of current operation of the railway that have to do with the operating practices of the moment. They have to do with such things as Railwest and other things that require capital and that will be the recipients of some of these funds which we're being asked to pay. I will be seeking to delve into those in committee stage rather than here.

I very much hope and trust, Mr. Speaker, that at committee stage, we will be honoured and graced with the attendance in this House of the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) .

Interjection.

Mr. Gibson: The Minister of Mines says it's not his bill; it's his railway, Mr. Minister. It's his railway and he should be here to account for it. If this House is being asked to vote $81 million plus interest to his railway, he should be here to tell us what that railway's doing. It's been a millstone around the necks of the people of British Columbia for too long.

An Hon. Member: Crap!

Mr. Gibson: Nonsense!

Hon. Mr. Chabot: "His railway" – what kind of a nonsensical statement is that?

Mr. Gibson: That's right. The Minister of Economic Development is on the board of the railway.

An Hon. Member: It's not his railway.

Mr. Gibson: He is the minister who is responsible to this Legislature for that railway, and it is absolutely unthinkable that that bill should go through committee stage without that minister being here to answer questions about the operation of that railway.

Interjections.

Mr. Gibson: Mr. Member, are you telling us the minister might not be here?

Mr. Lauk: He's on holiday in New Brunswick right now. He went for the First Ministers' Conference and stayed there, eating lobster.

Mr. Gibson: I have no doubt then, that that bill will be held up, because I was sure I heard the Attorney-General say that he would be here in committee stage, did I not?

Interjection.

Mr. Gibson: I'm pretty sure that's what I heard the House Leader say, so I'll take the House Leader at his words for the time being.

An Hon. Member: He's wandering around New Brunswick with amnesia.

Mr. Gibson: I would very much hope and trust and would put the government on notice that they are going to have some questions that they're going to have a great deal of difficulty answering if the Minister of Economic Development is not here at committee stage, because his presence is absolutely required.

Mr. King: Well, Mr. Speaker, I could not let the opportunity go by.... I beg your pardon.

Oh yes, we have a station and we have a first class railway through Revelstoke also. It's too bad that some of the members of the government side would not take a trip or two over CP Rail, and examine some of the engineering standards that apply to that railway. They could well be utilized on the BCR. That would solve a lot of the problems.

One of the things about this bill that concerns me is the expenditure of large public funds for a railway that has a questionable history, and which has

[ Page 4875 ]

suffered from political interference by the previous Social Credit government and the current one. We have to be concerned about the unending supply of public taxpayers' dollars into that kind of operation.

I think members will recall that a former employee of CPR who the hon. Minister of Mines might know, Mr. Mike Wakeley, the chief engineer for BCR and a man of excellent capabilities and competence, gave a report of the cost and engineering standards that should be utilized on the Dease Lake extension. He submitted that report to the then general manager of BCR, Mr, Joe Broadbent. The price tag was considerably higher than the price that was subsequently fixed by the then Premier of the province, W.A.C. Bennett.

Mr. Wallace: Eighty million dollars.

Mr. King: Eighty million dollars. That was the estimate that Mr. Wakeley brought in. Much to his chagrin, after the limited engineering appraisal he had made of the railway right of way, and it was limited by the time that he was given to investigate the Dease Lake extension and the facilities that he had been provided with to make this engineering assessment nevertheless, after submitting his report, Mr. Broadbent notified him that construction of the line would have to be undertaken for $68 million. He didn't know where that advice came from. He presumed it came from Victoria. This is a matter of record. It certainly came out in questioning before a variety of forums in this province, and certainly in the royal commission investigation into the whole BCR management that is now underway.

There is no question that there is an undeniable record of political interference with the railway. The limited engineering survey that was made showed $80 million. History has proved that even that was an extremely conservative estimate, and that implies no criticism of Mr. Wakeley's competence. He was not provided with the lead time. He was not provided with the facilities to make a sound, detailed, thorough engineering study of the proposed extension. Nevertheless, in typical fashion the then Social Credit government ignored the report, ignored the professional advice which they had received and flew by the seat of their political pants and the elbow of the then Premier, who issued a dictum that this line must be undertaken for a public estimate of $68 million – $12 million lower than the indication he had received from their own railway engineer.

Mr. Speaker, what do you make of that kind of management decision? What do you make of it? There's only one conclusion that can be drawn, and that is that it had nothing to do with sound management decision. It was strictly a political ploy to deceive the taxpayers of British Columbia and to keep the facts from the people in terms of what the costs would really be surrounding the Dease Lake extension.

All down through the subsequent years, Mr. Speaker, with the exception of the three years that the NDP were in office in this province, where an attempt was made to get at the facts and to table all the documents in this Legislature – where they saw the light of day for the first time – under the former Social Credit and under the current one, if it is indeed a Social Credit government.... Whatever kind of coalition it is, there's been that classical attempt to hide information from the public and to submerge the true costs involved in maintaining that railway.

The member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) and my colleague, the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) , have outlined in very capable fashion chapter and verse of the economics of the proposed Dease Lake extension. It was highly questionable to begin with in terms of any revenue tonnage that would support construction of the line. It's still questionable by that yardstick. It's quite true, though, that the B.C. Railway in total has been a development tool in the economy of British Columbia. That's the history of it.

Mr. Speaker, I wish the hon. Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair) would get up and join the debate if he is so disposed. He's interfering with my concentration. I wish he would either get up and join the debate or remain silent.

Mr. King moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. Gardom presents the report of the Law Reform Commission of British Columbia Offences Against the Person Act.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:59 p.m.

[ Page 4876 ]

APPENDIX

58 Mrs. Wallace to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 58) intituled Revenue Sharing Act, to amend as follows:

Section 4, line 2: By adding after the word "all" the words "Native Indian Band Councils".