[ Page 5159 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

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

Mr. Wallace –– 5159

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 5162

Division on second reading –– 5163

British Columbia Railway Company Grant Act, 1977 (Bill 47) . Committee stage.

On section 1 as amended,

Mr. Gibson ..

Mi. Cocke –– 5171

Division on third reading –– 5172

Islands Trust Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 25) Committee stage.

On the amendments.

Hon. Mr. Curtis ..

Mr Barber

Division on sections 1 to 7 as amended –– 5175

On section 9 as amended.

Mr. Barber –– 5175

On section 11 as amended.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 5175

Mr. Barber –– 5175

Report and third reading –– 5176

Municipal Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 42) Committee stage.

On section 28.

Mr. Cocke –– 5176

Mr. Macdonald –– 5177

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 5177

Mr. Wallace –– 5179

Mr. Macdonald –– 5180

Mr. Barber –– 5181

Division on section 28 –– 5181

Report and third reading –– 5182

Appendix

The House met at 8 p.m.

Orders of the day.

Hon. R.H. McClelland (Minister of Health): Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 47, Mr. Speaker.

BRITISH COLUMBIA RAILWAY

COMPANY GRANT ACT, 1977

Mr. G.S. Wallace (Oak Bay) Mr. Speaker, I'm always a little apprehensive when I stand up and people thump their desks, because I don't have a back bench in this House, as everybody knows.

Hon. E.M. Wolfe (Minister of Finance): It gets kind of heady.

Mr. Wallace: Well, puzzling more than heady, Mr. Minister of Finance. It was such a problem dragging myself away from the piper who is performing out on the lawns of the parliament buildings tonight. I just want to know why he plays "Amazing Grace" every night.

Mr. D. Barrett (Leader of the Opposition): If you were paying his salary, he'd play a song about you.

Mr. Wallace: Mr. Speaker, the debate on this bill is really quite important because we're really passing a verdict on the past history of BCR. In deciding to accept the new proposed federal-provincial agreement, we're really signifying whether or not we feel that the future of the railroad is a little brighter than its past. Whatever else this particular bill demonstrates, it does emphasize the importance of federal-provincial co-operation in such crucial areas as transportation and the role that transportation plays in the ongoing development of this province. We've already debated today, in fact, and in earlier days in this session, ways and means to develop, in the most judicious and profitable way, the many natural resources which reside in British Columbia. The essence of this bill is the validity or value of the rewritten 1973 federal-provincial agreement and the dollar ramifications of this agreement.

Mr. Speaker, before anyone in this debate can express either support or opposition to the bill, it is really unavoidable that one should review some of the details regarding the past history of the B.C. Railway. In particular, it's quite obvious that the rewritten agreement was only brought about when the British Columbia government, to use a very euphemistic expression, agreed to a pause in the construction of the Dease Lake extension. It's really one of the basic facts that members of the opposition have to consider when they determine whether they should support or oppose this bill.

The Dease Lake extension was initially expected to cost $68 million, and even at the start of the planning the engineer decided it would cost $80 million. Now we find that $191 million has already been spent and there are still 177 miles of the original extension unbuilt. The current estimates are that if we were to proceed with the extension of this railway to Dease Lake, the final bill would be somewhere in the neighbourhood of $3 11 million, from an original projected cost of $80 million. That's almost a 400 per cent increase over the original estimate.

I think that before any member of the opposition can support this bill, we have to have some reassurance from the minister that the kind of incredible maladministration that has gone on in the past in the operation and planning of the railway will not be repeated. Some of the evidence before the royal commission leaves one almost speechless, and certainly should not be the least bit appealing to the so-called businesslike government we have in British Columbia that believes in being efficient and diligent in the way in which it handles money.

An Hon. Member: He says it leaves him speechless. Not according to my records!

Mr. Wallace: One witness before the royal commission, Mr. Speaker, said that the railway's chief draftsman told them he liked to put tender requests out with the smallest possible quantities because the railway got better comparative bids. I wouldn't think that is a very efficient, businesslike way to deal with proposed extensions of any railway, when the ultimate end of the practice was underbidding by the contractors, and there were subsequent overruns. I don't wish to take up the time of the House to document the degree to which tenders were far below the final costs incurred. Time after time B.C. Railway simply agreed to pay for the overrun, but finally got caught up in one particular example, namely the MEL Paving case, and settled out of court for $2.5 million.

Other evidence before the royal commission, Mr. Speaker, showed that the chief engineer, M.S. Wakely, prepared a capital budget in 1971 for construction of the Dease Lake extension, estimating a cost of $80 million. There was evidence before the commission that Mr. Wakely gave his budget to Mr. Broadbent, who was then the general manager, In a completely arbitrary way, Mr. Broadbent told him to reduce it to $68 million. There was no evidence that any of the directors were ever informed that the $68 million budget given to them by Broadbent was not a reliable one. The absence of any evidence in this

[ Page 5160 ]

regard was due to the fact that neither Mr. Broadbent nor any of the directors was called to testify at the MEL Paving case. Without rehashing all that particular argument for the nth time, one thing is very clear: the manner in which BCR functioned in regard to planning and capital expenditures for the planning was grossly inadequate, to say the least.

Furthermore, at the same royal commission, the chief geologist in the Ministry of Mines, Mr. Athel Sutherland-Brown gave some very surprising evidence. He said that the potential contribution of BCR to northwest mineral development is limited by the restricted forecast of mineral production expected to materialize in the intermediate future. He went on to say that the alignment of the Dease Lake extension is not ideal to permit it to compete with truck freight for many developments, and spur lines with additional loading facilities will be required.

Questioned by the commission lawyer, Martin Taylor, Mr. Brown said copper in the Shaft Creek deposit, adjacent to the uncompleted portion of the Dease Lake extension, is too low in grade to be a producer this decade.

Other evidence, Mr. Speaker, has been presented to show that there is a great deal of evidence to ask as to whether the Dease Lake extension was ever put in the right place from the outset. We also have all kinds of evidence from the Fort Nelson extension to show that there was totally inadequate planning. Even plywood was used for ballast in the preparation of the railbed. There is evidence that the rail line was installed on soggy muskeg and that bridges and culverts were built on inadequate bases. Within a period of two years, there were 270 derailments.

I'm sure, Mr. Speaker, that you are smiling because you are very familiar with all the problems that have arisen in your riding and in your area because of the incredibly inefficient and inadequate planning and development of those particular extensions of the B.C. Railway.

The Vancouver Sun, on July 2, reporting on the BCR activity, stated that neither of the provincial governments responsible for administering the resources was fully consulted or even asked to determine the extent of the mineral and forest wealth in the area through which the Dease Lake extension was to be built. We have evidence before the royal commission that BCR management was simply told to get on with the construction. Mr. Ritchie, who is the executive assistant to Mr. Norris, came out with the statement that the decision came from on high. In other words, the management of the railway itself was not really given an opportunity to give professional or consultant advice as to whether or not the project should proceed.

As I have already said, copper prices are low and the grade of copper in that area is low. The coal is of less thermal value than northeast coal and even the timber growth is now reported as being stunted and of poor quality. With regard to the Fort Nelson extension, Mr. Speaker, the commission lawyer, Mr. Taylor, said that the Fort Nelson extension is one of the great engineering fiascos of modern times.

It is against this background that we are debating this bill and trying to determine whether opposition parties should support the rewritten 1973 federal-provincial agreement. One of the crucial elements in the agreement, as I see it, is the subterfuge involved in suggesting that this is an outright payment to the British Columbia government to be passed on to BCR when, in point of fact, if one reads the agreement, it is quite obvious that repayment of the $81 million is involved. Here again, if the citizens of British Columbia are confused they have every reason to be, because apparently there is only repayment out of net profits. The day that BCR starts making a net profit will be the day that hell freezes over.

So we've got another delightful indulgence in semantics whereby we are told that this is not a loan, but an outright payment of $81 million to B.C. Railway to assist with the payment for what has already been built on the Dease Lake extension.

The financial agreement which the Premier tabled copies of in the House some time ago.... On page 6, paragraph 5 is entitled: "Repayment of Investment from Net Revenue." It states in subparagraph (1): "The net revenue derived from operation of the Dease Lake line shall be apportioned to repay Canada and the province for their investment in the rail lines and to provide an incentive for BCR."

Subparagraph (2): "The province shall ensure that the gross revenues derived from traffic generated on or by the Dease Lake line shall be recorded in a separate account, the annual disposition of which, after the in-service date, will be as follows. . . ." It then goes on to describe how repayments will be made, first of all, to BCR out of the gross revenue, and also to Canada, the province and BCR, "who shall share any remaining moneys in the BCR account on the basis of the following formula."

I wonder if I could have it on the record from the Minister of Finance that the money we're discussing in this bill is not an outright grant to the British Columbia government or to BCR. It is $81 million which is repayable according to the formula, spelled out in the financial agreement, but only if there is net revenue from the operation of the BCR on the Dease Lake line. My first question to the minister is whether or not my interpretation is accurate. Does the minister ever anticipate that there will be repayment based on the fact that it's very unlikely there will ever be net revenue? My second question is: to what degree was the so-called pause in construction of the Dease Lake line a mandatory clause in getting the federal government to agree to these two payments of

[ Page 5161 ]

$54 million and $27 million?

Once again, I think we're perhaps being asked as members of the opposition to take a great deal for granted. I want to quote the Premier in the House on April 5 of this year, when he said: "On the recommendation of the new board of directors of the British Columbia Railway there will be a pause in the construction of the line until we have a report from the royal commission looking into all aspects of the B.C. Railway." I want to stress the next sentence, Mr. Speaker, which are exactly the words of the Premier as recorded in Hansard on that date, He said.

This pause has been recommended by the directors of British Columbia Rail because of escalating costs through changes in specifications and inflation and by delays in construction, combined with the fact that resource exploration and development these last few years has not proceeded as rapidly as was originally envisaged.

But we find, Mr. Speaker, that on March 10, the executive committee of the B.C. Railway board of directors met with cabinet. I would say, just in passing, that we're being told quite often by this government that there will be no political interference with Crown corporations, and yet it's very interesting that the executive committee of the BCR met with the cabinet on March 10. I'm just asking the minister exactly where the recommendations originated in regard to the pause on the Dease Lake extension. Did they originate with the federal government, who said, "We will pay the following sums of money under the following conditions if you discontinue the construction on the Dease Lake extension, " or did the recommendation come in the first place from the executive committee of BCR? The latter proposal is clearly the one which the Premier wished to leave with the House and with the public, and yet within the financial agreement the phrase that is being used in paragraph (b) of the preamble is the phrase "mutually agreed." The minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) is looking across at me as I say that and I would just repeat that the financial agreement under paragraph (b) of the preamble states: "Whereas construction of the Dease Lake line was undertaken pursuant to the July agreement" – of 1973, that is – "and now it has been mutually agreed between the province and Canada to suspend construction of the Dease Lake line. . . ."

I wonder if the minister in closing second reading would care to put into the record the true facts of the situation. Did the federal government say, "We will give you this money if you suspend construction, " or did the minister go into negotiations already in possession of recommendations from the BCR board of directors recommending a cessation in construction? Whichever it is, Mr. Speaker, the record of the B.C. Railway is a sorry one indeed. In the years that I've been in this House, it reminds me a little bit of the same kind of legislation that we deal with regarding B.C. Hydro. Just about every time this house goes into session, we are asked to approve borrowings of hundreds of millions of dollars for B.C. Hydro. Time and time again, almost as regularly, we are asking to approve expenditures or borrowing or both for B.C. Railway.

In the case of B.C. Hydro, it seems to be such an enormous octopus that for most members of the opposition, it's a little difficult to even get close to all the facts and figures. But on this particular occasion tonight, at least we have a great deal of evidence, facts and figures which were brought before the royal commission on the BCR, and which give us some accurate insight into the incredibly inefficient and haphazard way in which that Crown corporation has spent hundreds of millions of taxpayers' dollars. Not only do we find that the line to Dease Lake is still 177 miles short, but there are even recommendations that we not only stop construction, but that we rip out some of the line that's already been laid.

Now I just say, Mr. Speaker, to these businessmen over there, that if they stepped outside of their government position for a moment, and they were in some form of private investment.... If the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) was investing his private money in a business venture, and he asked for a prospectus and got the kind of prospectus that we've got in relation to BCR, I wonder how interested or enthusiastic he would be about saying: "Yes, this is the way we should go. We'll sign this agreement which ties down the formula by which future financing will be arranged." I don't think the Minister of Finance would be particularly excited by the situation as it relates to B.C. Railway.

I would like to ask the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) , if it's in order, or maybe he can tell the Minister of Finance to answer on his behalf.... But I was puzzled when I compared this federal-provincial agreement to the one that's been reached regarding north-coast ferries. In question period a week or two ago, I asked the Minister of Transport about the similar kind of agreement that we've reached with the federal government in providing funding for ferry service on our north coast. The Minister of Energy on that occasion replied that the $8 million which the federal government had provided for the B.C. ferry system could be transferred by order-in-council. But apparently when it comes to transferring money for the B.C., Railway, the money has to be transferred to the government as such and to the Minister of Finance, who in turn brings a bill before the House so that the money can then be passed on to the B.C. Railway.

I've never professed in this House to be an expert on constitutional procedures or protocol in regard to

[ Page 5162 ]

federal-provincial financing, but it seems to me we've got two completely different methods when, in point of fact, in each case the federal and provincial have come to an agreement regarding transportation financing. I'd be interested if the Minister of Finance could explain why there is this different method that's required when in one case we're dealing with ferries and in another case we're dealing with railways. Regardless of the mode of transportation, the essential importance of an integrated transportation system developing province-wide in British Columbia is so important that I would have thought there was some consistent way in which these cost-sharing arrangements were implemented.

Be that as it may, Mr. Speaker, this bill, if it were to be judged only on the past history of the BCR, should certainly be opposed in the strongest fashion. But I suppose it's always very important that we look at the future as much as the past. I would hope that since we recognize the tremendously important economic development that's just around the corner as far as the Alcan pipeline and its impact on economic development in British Columbia is concerned, that transportation will be very much an integral part of that overall project.

I would hope that B.C. Railway would have every opportunity to be a very active participant and revenue earner as and when the Alcan pipeline construction begins.

My third and final question to the minister is: to what degree does the minister see in the Alcan pipeline project, which I feel fairly confident will go ahead once President Carter makes his announcement on September 7, the involvement of BCR in the transportation of materials for the pipeline construction? And what kind of income is envisaged in the hope that last year's $53 million deficit can be either neutralized or perhaps turned into a modest profit?

These are some of the questions that I think have to be answered before we can very readily support this bill. Was the pause in construction made mandatory by the federal government? What in the next few years can the minister predict as being the better financial fate of the BCR if, in fact, the Alcan pipeline project goes ahead?

Hon. Mr. Wolfe: Mr. Speaker, the debate on this bill has ranged over a previous day and once again today and it is somewhat difficult to recollect comments made earlier on. Suffice to say that it's a very simple bill of some two clauses covering the payment of moneys received from the federal government by the province on behalf of the B.C. Railway to cover the federal government's share of the total cost of the Dease Lake extension. I don't propose t o participate in the charges and counter-charges that were raised in the earlier debate about whose fault it might be that the escalation in costs has taken place in the railway and the earlier decisions on the Dease Lake itself, but I would like to say that ample opportunity was provided during the estimates of the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) , whose estimates were prolonged over some six or seven days, to ask a multitude of questions on this same topic. And I might say with regard to governments – former and present – as to facing up to the problem of the Dease Lake extension and the implications of it, that we did have on the board in previous years the former Minister of Economic Development and present member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) as an executive vice-president.

Similarly, we latterly had the former Minister of Labour, the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) , on the board of that railway and having in their possession studies that were showing concern over these matters. I only want to say that in those events, and faced with that knowledge, no decisions were made to act on this question – a very serious question of cost implications as related to the eventual potential traffic and costs of a very expensive extension of the railway. Admittedly, we would all foresee the need for a resource railway without any substantial revenues in sight in the immediate future in the interests of developing the north country. But this project had, by escalation, reached proportions where decisions had to be made.

Much was said earlier about overruns in the contracts. A lot of innuendo and suspicion was cast about how persons were.... A lot of hanky-panky must have gone on for these contracts to have escalated. Where there were bids made and a low bid which obtained the contract was, later on when the costs were in, allowed to be in excess of the high bid in the contract, didn't this suggest that something was wrong? Mr. Speaker, any one of these roadbed contracts has involved in them supply of materials which are, in effect, open-ended to the extent that the quantities involved are simply indeterminable at any beginning given date. Suffice to say that in the period of double-digit inflation which took place in 1973 and beyond, any contract of this nature with the delays involved and the conditions involved in that kind of country, anyone in their right mind would have expected escalation of a substantial quantity. So I'm not surprised when I hear it said that a low bid escalated by substantial percentages over a period of time.

Much criticism and innuendo was levelled, Mr. Speaker, at settlements out of court. Well, any lawyer I've ever talked to would always recommend in favour of a settlement out of court as being the best avenue to arrive at a reasonable settlement. One should not look sideways at a settlement out of court as being a reasonable, most plausible method to take

[ Page 5163 ]

to arrive at an economical settlement. I only cast that out for what it's worth.

I don't look with suspicion, therefore, at the fact that certain settlements are arrived at out of court. This is strictly a financial bill in this Legislature which authorizes the government of British Columbia to pay over the agreed amount to the B.C. Railway. It has been said that this was originally estimated at $68 million. It is now estimated that when the present-day costs are all in, it will come to somewhere between $210 million and $220 million.

To complete the line will involve at least an additional $100 million. What we must remember in terms of this contract, which probably will total some $81 million, is that without this agreement we wouldn't have received one nickel. The interest on this money which we didn't get goes on and on. Not one nickel was going to be obtained towards these tremendous costs incurred several years ago.

In my view this is a good agreement for three reasons. It removes the cap on the original agreement which existed as a complete ceiling on the eventual costs that could be incurred. That is not so now. At any foreseeable time in the future we can re-enter into an agreement with the national government to proceed on these lines to develop the north country. The interest on these tremendous amounts of money now becomes the purview of the railway, which has expanded the capital costs.

We shouldn't overlook that the board of directors of the railway is party to this agreement and the consequences of it. I think that we have here a very responsible group and that the House should take the opportunity to be aware of who they are once again. To cite the members of that board, they are: Mr. J.N. Fraine, chairman; Mr. Stanley Horner, chartered accountant; Mr. E.C. Hurd, chairman of the board of TransMountain Pipe Line; Mr. Norman Hyland, president of Granduc Mines; Mr. Glenn McPherson, chairman of the Vancouver port authority; Mr. Bruce Rome, businessman; Mr. Robert Swanson, consulting engineer; Donald Watson, chairman of the board of Canadian Cellulose.

The members opposite belittle these names, MR. Speaker. I think that they should hang their heads in shame. Here are responsible people of experience, and we are most fortunate to have them acting in the province's behalf to do what is best by this railway.

Mr. Speaker, I should remind the members of the House that there is an amendment that will come forward in the committee stage, and which will now provide for the addition of interest onto the payment which has already been received on April 1.

Mr. Speaker, I now move that the bill be read a second time.

Motion approved on the following division.

YEAS – 26

NAYS – 13

Hon. Mr. Wolfe: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to refer Bill 47 to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill 47, British Columbia Railway Company Grant Act, 1977, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House forthwith.

BRITISH COLUMBIA RAILWAY

COMPANY GRANT ACT, 1977

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

On section 1.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

On section 1 as amended.

Mr. G.F. Gibson (North Vancouver-Capilano): We're being asked here to give the British Columbia Railway quite a lot of money.

Mr. D.G. Cocke (New Westminster): I thought you voted for it.

Mr. Gibson: I did vote for it, but I want to know how it's going to be used.

Mr. Cocke: So you voted in the dark.

Mr. Gibson: Oh, no. We're not past third

[ Page 5164 ]

reading yet.

I want to know from the Minister of Economic Development, in his capacity of being responsible for the railway, what is now happening with Railwest at Squamish. In particular, I'd like to know why this railway, which needs this $81 million, because we're voting it here, turned down work that was available to Railwest at Squamish. In terms of the renovation of a certain number of chemical tank cars, and in terms of the minor repair work on several hundred grain cars, and in terms of a potential order of several hundred ballast cars from eastern Canada, I'd like to ask the minister why that work was turned down and what costing studies that turndown was based on.

Hon. D.M. Phillips (Minister of Economic Development): Mr. Chairman, I'll endeavour to answer the member's question with regard to Railwest. First of all, I'd like to deal with the closure of the Railwest plant. As the member knows, for quite some time, we did our level best to obtain an order of cars from Ottawa. I won't repeat it, because it's history now – the efforts we made in going to Ottawa, the last-ditch attempt. Then the member will recall that the board of directors had a meeting with the officials who flew out from Ottawa. At that time there were three offers of repair work – maybe. There was nothing definite; they were still iffy. Repair work may have been available. As I recall from memory, the provincial government was going to have to pick up the labour bill, providing we could have gotten the parts.

But what I'm trying to point out to the member... – I noticed his article in yesterday's Sun or today's Sun – something about this – where he wants to know what cost studies were done. I want to tell the member that there were no cost studies done because, as I say, there were no firm orders. We had to make a decision. We discussed it with the labourers in that plant. Are we going to continue to keep them on tenterhooks? Are we going to close the plant down now and open it up maybe in a month, if we happen to get this repair work, and keep them on the hook? Maybe we're going to get an order; maybe we're not. If we do get the order, it is going to take us four months to get the steel. I want to tell the members of this House that the board of directors of that railway agonized and agonized over this problem.

I want you to put yourself in a position, Mr. Chairman, through you to the members, of those workers in that plant. I'm not going to go back over the history, but you will recall that it was in early spring that that carrot was hung out. "Maybe an order; maybe in two weeks; maybe another two weeks; just around the corner." All of those phrases were used, but in the long run, and in the end, there was still nothing firm.

We discussed that. We sat down with the workers in that plant. We said: "What do you want? Do you want to be kept dangling? Do you want to do this little bit of work? Your future is still not secure." We outlined to them the facts of the matter as were known before the plant was built – what the long-term possibility of building cars for western Canada in that plant was. It wasn't a very bright future. I don't wish to get political – far be it from me to get political – but the plant was built in spite of the information, as you know, Mr. Member. So I just want to outline to you those facts. When you start talking about cost studies, that was not the case. It was not a case of economics; it was a case of telling those workers that yes, you were going to close down the plant. "You can start looking for employment elsewhere. We'll come to an agreement. We will give you assistance, or we're going to keep you dangling for another six months, maybe, if, and, or but."

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, the minister, unless I missed something he said, only gave us the first half of the story. He said that these questions had been discussed with the workers. But unless I missed something, he didn't report to the House what the Workers said in return.

Mr. Lauk: It was unprintable.

Mr. Gibson: I would be glad to hear that. I would also like to note that the minister said he was speaking from memory in this particular regard. I won't comment on that, but I will say to the minister that on August 5, 1 wrote to the chairman of the B.C. Railway, Mr. Fraine, asking for details as to the available repair work and cost studies, and why the work was turned down. It was a short, frank request for information. In a letter dated August 25, almost three weeks later, I get back a reply referring me to the minister.

Now the minister is a person whom I like, Mr. Chairman, and if I ask to see the minister, I would hope that within a space of, say, three weeks I could perhaps get an audience with him. He's a busy man, but I know the minister's office is upstairs. I don't need to write the chairman of the board of the BCR to learn that the minister's office is upstairs and I can go and get this information from him. The minister might not have known that information – like tonight, he, might have been speaking from memory. That's why I wrote to the chairman of the BCR and said: "Can I have this information?" He put me off. He wouldn't give the information direct to an MLA. I think that's wrong. I think that with an allegedly independent Crown corporation like this, MLAs have a right of direct access to the board and to the executive officers, and have a right to get their questions answered, rather than the minister having to have the embarrassment of standing up in the

[ Page 5165 ]

committee here and saying he's speaking from memory.

Mr. Chairman: Hon. member, that is interesting but it has nothing to do with the section of the bill.

Mr. Gibson: Well, as I see it, this money wouldn't be quite so urgently required had the Railwest thing been a little differently handled. The minister was saying it would take four months to get the steel. Now that's for the ballast cars, of course – the potential ballast cars. But I want to know about what repairs were available. I've heard various figures. One is 46 chemical tank cars and the other was 1,600 grain hopper cars – 1,600, Mr. Chairman. Then I have heard various figures as to whether it was $100 per car or $160 per car. That's a relatively small amount of work per car, but when you get 1,600 cars – if that figure is true – then you've got a fair amount of work over the coming months. It would be at least enough to keep a skeleton crew on. In the four months to get steel, something like this would have helped to keep a skeleton crew on. The minister said he discussed it with the workers. Were the workers aware of these possibilities? Were they aware of the very real work that I happen to know was being done to try and do everything humanly and legally possible to guarantee this ballast-car order?

I would like to know from the minister this: what was the workers' answer? What does the minister have to say about officials of the BCR having the right to speak, directly to MLAs, and vice versa? Finally, I would like the minister to give us a comment on what may or may not be the good news we read in the newspaper tonight of the possibility of Railwest getting an order from Devcorp, I think it's called, headquartered in Portland, Oregon, and what was rumoured to be 6,000 to 8,000 cars. What substance is there in this, Mr. Chairman? It's very important to this bill if there's any truth to it.

Mr. G.V. Lauk (Vancouver Centre): I'll answer these questions for the hon. Liberal leader. He seems to know where the minister's office is, but he doesn't know that I sit right next to him, I could have answered these questions.

The fact remains that although this minister, with the greatest conceivable respect, has handled the whole Railwest affair with a maximum of ineptitude.... I mean, no one could have done a worse job, and everybody in the province agrees with that. Once again, Ottawa has ignored British Columbia. It just is a little bit too much listening to the hon. Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) lay it on thick on Railwest. He shouldn't have the temerity to say anything about Railwest. It doesn't even concern the Liberal Party. The Liberal Party turned its back on Railwest. They did not do anything in their power to help. I could see clearly, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) , although inept, pulling off his Don Quixote act by going in the last twilight moment to Ottawa with his sidekick was a little bit of showmanship. He knew it would fail. At the same time, I think it's the responsibility of the federal government to have done something about providing some orders for the Railwest plant and keeping those 300 families with an income.

I don't accept the minister's throwaway line about why Railwest was built or how it was built. I don't think that comment was justified. I think the plant at the time was justified in a high economic period. I think that with the integrated plans of the Previous administration, Railwest would have been economically viable and successful and competitive. But as the minister well knows, there's a failure to communicate. We can't teach the minister because of his narrow-minded economic views. I don't think Railwest has anything to do with the $81 million going to the Dease Lake line – at least, that's not what I've heard. I want to ask the minister some questions about the Dease Lake line.

I want to know, first of all, what was the original contract with Chinook. How much? How much in dollars and cents has been done by Chinook in fulfilling that contract? How much is left of that contract for Chinook to have done had not the Dease Lake line been abandoned by this government?

Secondly, I want to ask a question that's long overdue, and it has been asked several times of the minister: what were the legal costs incurred in defending the action of MEL Paving – the total legal costs leading up to the Christmas Eve settlement? Did the minister know that the agreement with Ottawa, announced by the Premier on April 5...?

An Hon. Member: Go get another Mustang.

Mr. Lauk: The announcement made by the Premier on April 5 about that federal-provincial agreement....

Interjection.

Mr. Lauk: I'm not keeping you awake, am I?

Hon. Mr. McClelland: No, you're not. (Laughter.)

Mr. Lauk: That's the fourth thing the Minister of Health has said in two years, and the best. He's always rapier thrust, the wit of a crocodile. (Laughter.)

Mr. Wallace: Where were we?

[ Page 5166 ]

Mr. Lauk: April 5. My back bench is giving me trouble, Mr. Chairman.

On April 5, the Premier announced an agreement, which is involved with this sum of money. The Premier was asked by the press: "Were there any strings attached?" He said: "No. This is only a pause in the construction of the line." We have found out, Mr. Chairman, that wasn't true.

Secondly, at the time it was stated to the press conference, the Premier must have known it was not true. I want to know whether the minister himself knew about the strings being attached. That is to say, the federal government has publicly admitted that they would not have settled and paid the $81 million in accordance with that contract or agreement, unless they abandoned the Dease Lake line – stopped construction.

So the statement made by the Premier is incorrect. I'm wondering whether the minister can comment about his knowledge in this affair or if he can recall.

So the three questions then involving Chinook are: How much was the original contract? How much has been paid for work done or is owing for work done? And how much is left in the contract of work that has not been done in relation to the total settlement? The legal costs in relation to MEL Paving, outstanding since early spring, is a question to the minister. Did he know on April 5, when the Premier made his announcements, about the strings attached?

Hon. D.M. Phillips (Minister of Economic Development): Getting back to the member for North Vancouver-Capilano, I want to reiterate. Yes, you're talking about various repair jobs. As I say, I'm recalling from memory.

Mr. C. Barber (Victoria): Where else would you recall from?

Hon. Mr. Phillips: But I want to impress on you once again, that we had there from Ottawa the official who outlined the possibilities of certain repair work. I want to impress upon you once again that these were not definite repair work contracts; they were "if we do certain things." I want to impress that upon you.

I also, Mr. Member, as much as possible, want to outline to you the scene. There was a board of directors and we sat there and we had to make a decision. We made a decision based on "would it or would it not be in the best interest of the workers?" Then the next morning, the board sat down with the workers and they discussed it. I think you've got to realize that was ... I guess you'd call it a confidential meeting, because there were representatives of the labour unions there.

The agreement was reached which was best for the workers and for the long-term future of Railwest.

That decision was made. It was made after a lot of long deliberation, taking into consideration what was best for the workers and what the long-term future of the plant was. I think, Mr. Chairman, that has to speak for itself. Immediately, the decision was made and the wheels were put in motion to assist those workers. Other wheels were put in motion to find a buyer or a leaser for the plant. Mr. Chairman, I'm not going to go into all the details. There are public records. It wasn't an easy decision to make. I'm not going to go back over all the history. But when you start talking about cost studies, I told you before that it wasn't a case of a cost study. When Mr. Fraine replied to your letter, Mr. Member, he attached the press release that was made the morning the announcement was made.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Phillips: Well, he attached a copy of the letter that he sent to me of you. But the press release really outlines the decision-making process that was made, how it had come about and why that particular decision had to be made.

It wasn't a case of just sitting down and analysing. It's what I said before. I want to repeat: there were no sure contracts. Can you imagine keeping a staff and bringing in these 1,200 cars when we weren't sure when you could get them? I don't know how experienced you are in trying to run a repair shop of that nature, but there are people on the railroad and on the board of directors who have had experience in it. All of those things were taken into consideration. This was not an easy decision to make, but that decision was made after hours of agonizing by that very good board of directors that we have on that railway,

I want to tell you, Mr. Member, only the history books will tell the amount of time and effort and agonizing that has gone into that railway since that board of directors was put in charge of it; the expertise that they have brought to running that railway; the number of long hours of work and devotion to duty that they have put into that railway.

The member full well knows that we've tried to open the books on the British Columbia Railway by having a royal commission. It is not my intention here tonight to go into all details of the railway. We have opened the door so that the public of British Columbia will hear every in and out on the operation of that railway. Now how more open could we be? When that decision was made, we said to the people of British Columbia – not only for us as government and the citizens of this province today – that recommendations will be brought in by that public inquiry to guide future governments. The future generations will know that we did everything possible and surveyed every avenue, because, as you know, the

[ Page 5167 ]

British Columbia Railway has been a political football since day one. I'm not saying it's just the British Columbia Railway that's been a political football. I did a study last spring and I couldn't find a railway in any country, in the United States, in North America, or anywhere, that hasn't been a political football.

It is not my intention to get into all of the details and the costs, and the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) knows full well that I haven't got the figures here. I'm not going to be political here tonight. I want the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) to know that it was a difficult decision made after a lot of agonizing, and it would be very difficult for the chairman of the board to talk to you in terms of something that is completely unrelated in the decision-making process. I would have gladly sat down with the member and given him this information at any time, but I haven't heard him knock on my door.

The third question the member asked was, I believe, with regard to tonight's paper. I just want to say again that there are a lot of negotiations going on with various companies, and I don't intend to prejudice those negotiations by talking about any one particular firm. The board of directors and the British Columbia Development Corporation are working jointly to find somebody to fit into that plant who will bring employees back to Squamish and to utilize that facility which was built with the taxpayers' money.

Mr. Lauk: It's just not good enough, Mr. Chairman. We requested the Attorney-General as House Leader to inform the Minister of Economic Development, with great respect, that we would like him to attend a committee to answer questions. The letter went to the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) from the hon. Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) and I associated myself by letter with the Liberal leader's request.

Interjection.

Mr. Lauk: The House Leader (Hon. Mr. Gardom) could have taken it up with you. The point is, if it is an amount that relates to the federal-provincial agreement on the Dease Lake extension, we would want to talk about the settlements and the outstanding questions that are before this minister as a member of that board, and as a minister who must answer questions with respect to that Crown corporation in this House. He knows the answer and he says that all the figures aren't before him. I would ask that the Attorney-General adjourn this committee hearing on this bill until the information is before the committee, perhaps tomorrow.

Interjection.

Mr. Lauk: I'm not going to speak to my Whip, Mr. Chairman. If the minister does not answer these questions tonight, this bill won't pass tonight.

Hon. G.B. Gardom (Attorney-General): Threats.

Mr. Lauk: Not threats. The information is available to him. He can give that information now or the bill doesn't go through.

Mr. J.J. Kempf (Omineca): Intimidate him.

Mr. Lauk: Now if the minister steadfastly refuses to answer these simple questions, what's the problem? The questions are on Chinook; what was the amount of the original contract, how much of the work was done, in terms of dollar value, and how much is yet to be done?

Secondly, what were the total legal costs in the MEL Paving case? Thirdly, was the minister aware of the strings attached to the agreement announced on April 5? There are three questions and if the minister refuses to answer those questions, this committee will not pass this bill. I find this absolutely astounding arrogance on the part of this government.

Mr. Kempf: Intimidating!

Mr. Lauk: All the Attorney-General can do is look across and say: "Talk to your Whip; we've got an agreement." An agreement to roll over and play dead, without answers?

This is absolute arrogance on the part of the Minister of Economic Development – absolute arrogance! Look at the smile on his face. He thinks it's cute. Let me tell you, the cheating that is going on in the Dease Lake extension is not cute to the people of British Columbia, Mr. Minister – it's not cute at all.

I want answers to these questions. What was the original contract with Chinook? What is the dollar value of the work done? What is the dollar value of the work yet to be done? What is the total legal cost of the MEL Paving action and settlement? Was the minister aware of the strings attached to the agreement announced on April 5 – that is to say, that the government of Canada would not have paid money without a commitment to shut down construction on the Dease Lake extension? Will the minister answer those questions?

Mr. Chairman: Before the minister proceeds, I must remind the House that the line of debate that has been going on is not strictly relevant to this section.

[ Page 5168 ]

Mr. Lauk: It is strictly relevant.

Mr. Chairman: I'm sorry, it is not.

Mr. Lauk: For heaven's sake, check something other than your own thoughts on the matter. It is strictly relevant!

Mr. Chairman: Order!

Mr. Lauk: Never mind order. I said it is strictly relevant.

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

Mr. Chairman: I say take your seat, hon. member.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Take your seat, please.

Interjection.

Mr. Chairman: Hon. member, it is the job of the Chair to bring to order members of the House when they are....

Interjection.

Mr. Chairman: Order!

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

An Hon. Member: You have just lost your collar button.

Mr. Lauk: You're darned right I lost my collar button when I hear something that stupid.

Hon. Mr. Phillips: Mr. Chairman, I hate to see the little member for Vancouver Centre lose his cool. I know that he would like the answers to these questions and certainly if he will put them on the order paper I will endeavour to obtain them. Otherwise, as I stated before, Mr. Chairman, it would necessitate bringing over again the officials of the British Columbia Railway if we want to get into a full-fledged debate.

If these are the only questions that the member would like answered, as I say, if he wants to put them on the order paper I would be most happy to get the answers for him. The terms of the contract are history now, Mr. Chairman, and I am certainly not going to make any further comment on them.

Mr. Lauk: Mr. Chairman, if the minister will undertake before the close of proceedings of this

House tomorrow to give me the answers to those questions I will sit down and remain silent in committee. Will the minister undertake to do that?

Hon. Mr. Phillips: As I said, if the member would put the questions on the order paper I will endeavour to get the answers for him.

Mr. Lauk: Mr. Chairman, if the minister is sincere in his offer to provide information he can undertake to give me those answers tomorrow. The matter is made very simple then. It's a genuine desire to get the information.

Hon. Mr. Phillips: Mr. Chairman, in my sincere desire not to mislead the member, I'm not sure that it would be possible for me to get those answers by tomorrow. It could be that the board are tied up. I know that they are having meetings all the time and they are working very long hours. I'm not sure whether the manager of the railway is there or whether the personnel will be there. Really, Mr. Member for Vancouver Centre, I wouldn't want to tell you in this House that I am going to have those answers for you tomorrow and then not be able to get them for some reason. I do assure you that if you put the questions on the order paper I will endeavour to get the answers for you.

Mr. Lauk: Mr. Chairman, the question to the minister with respect to MEL Paving costs is over eight months old. The question on Chinook is as quick as a phone call.

Hon. Mr. Phillips: Well, maybe. I don't know.

Mr. Lauk: Not maybe; the figures are there and all you have to do is get them. They won't give them to us but they will give them to you. It's very simple. The minister could answer tonight if he was aware on April 5 of the nature of the federal-provincial agreement – in other words, that the feds demanded that we shut down construction. He could answer at least that question tonight. Was the minister aware of the federal-provincial agreement on April 5?

Hon. Mr. Phillips: As I said, Mr. Chairman, with regard to the contract settlement, that's history and I am not going to comment on what I knew or what I didn't know because I don't want to mislead the member. I can't recall what I remember. I remember the settlement being made, but I certainly wouldn't want to mislead the hon. member for Vancouver Centre.

Mr. Lauk: Flattery will get you nowhere, Mr. Minister. I'm not operating a popularity contest with the front bench. What I am doing is trying to

[ Page 5169 ]

represent people who want answers to legitimate questions, Mr. Chairman, and it is frustrating when simple questions cannot be answered. Now if the minister will undertake this in the chamber, as an hon. member, I will sit down. All I want is an undertaking that the information will be provided. If he says he can't do it by tomorrow, I accept that, but I want an undertaking that it will be provided within a reasonable period of time.

Hon. Mr. Phillips: Mr. Chairman, I know the member from Vancouver Centre has a sincere desire to obtain information on the railway, as witness the questions that he asked during my estimates. I'm sure there will be many more questions to be asked in my estimates as they come up in the next budget. I am looking forward to providing that member with the information which he wants. If you don't want to put the questions on the order paper, I will certainly endeavour to get you the answers at the earliest possible date.

Mr. Lauk: I just want the word "undertake." That's an important difference. "Endeavour" doesn't mean a thing to me, Mr. Chairman. Will the minister say the he will undertake to get the information?

Hon. Mr. Phillips: We're all honourable members in this House, and I said I will endeavour to get them. I'll make a phone call and do the best I can, and the hon. member knows that. He respects me, I'm sure, as I respect him as a very honourable member of this place.

An Hon. Member: Oops! You went too far!

Mr. Lauk: I want to thank the hon., minister for quickly responding to my request.

Mr. Wallace: I would just like to pursue the question I asked of the minister whom I believe is in charge of this bill – I think it's the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) ....

Mr. Chairman: I was beginning to wonder, hon. member.

Mr. Wallace: I would just like to ask the Minister of Finance a couple of questions. I would like it on the record as to who initiated the precondition that there be a pause or a cessation or a temporary suspension or whatever fancy word we want to use.

The Dease Lake extension was to be brought to a halt. The Premier read into the record in this House on April 5 that it was on the recommendation of the new board of directors of the British Columbia Railway. Yet there is a great deal of evidence to suggest that in negotiating the $81 million payment, the federal government in fact said that any payment would be contingent on bringing to a halt the continued work on the Dease Lake extension. So I would like in clear, understandable language which of the two parties, provincial or federal, was the first to state that the Dease Lake extension should be discontinued.

The reason that I dwell particularly on this is the fact that we've heard again from the Minister of Economic Development tonight that the BCR has been a "political football from day one." That was the phrase he used. Yet on March 10, the executive committee of the BCR under Mr. Fraine, met with the cabinet. I would like to ask the Minister of Finance, who's responsible for this bill, if the cabinet told the BCR executive, "Look, fellows, the federal government will not pay us the money unless you discontinue the Dease Lake extension, " or if the BCR executive said to the cabinet: "We think that work should come to a halt on the Dease Lake extension." These are some of the questions to which we're entitled to answers from that side of the House. One of the things your government's talking about all the time is the new way in which Crown corporations are functioning, devoid of political interference. Now I for one would like to believe that, because I happen to think that a Crown corporation is a distinct entity which will probably function better and make independent, realistic decisions in keeping with the economic facts of life, if it's not pressured by government.

But on the other hand, Mr. Chairman, we now know that we've already put out $191 million, or close to that figure, on the Dease Lake extension, and we're now being told that it should come to a halt, and that I forget how many miles should be ripped up and the materials used as spares for repairs on the other line, the Fort Nelson extension. Now this just doesn't make economic sense, Mr. Chairman. You're a man familiar with financial matters, and you've shown a great interest in the House in auditing and scrutiny of the way in which money is spent. Here we are, debating a bill that involves $81 million for a non-completed – and, as far as I can see – a relatively useless extension if it stops where it is. It's like so many other capital expenditures in life, Mr. Chairman. If you stop halfway through, you lose your shirt. Yet it's very expensive to find the capital to do that other half of the work so in the long run you will all finally gain financially.

I would like to know which of the two parties initially said: "This must come to a halt." Did the BCR executive say: "This whole situation is ridiculous, and although we spent $191 million, it still makes sense to bring it to a halt”? Or did the federal government say to the provincial government: "We just feel that you've built the railroad in the

[ Page 5170 ]

wrong place. The copper ore is of a low grade and the timber's not very good. It just makes no sense to put a railway extension at this expense into an area where the resources are just not worth recovering economically. We think you'd better cut your losses and get out. Stop, and we'll give you $51 million until the end of the 1977 fiscal year, and another $20 million, adding up to $80 million"?

One of the reasons that I think this deserves an answer is that the confidence that the railway might build in the future will depend very much on the established wisdom of its decision at this time. Because the evidence is all in. Some of the decisions that have been made in the past, to put it very charitably, have been seat-of-the-p ants decisions where the former Premier of this province decided that we had to get the BCR up to the Yukon border before CNR, and if that cost the province its shirt or if it meant the kind of hasty and inefficient and inadequate planning that did follow, then that was perhaps the risk we had to take in order to get the BCR up to the Yukon border.

I think the people of British Columbia realize that in this modern age where technology and sophistication are the keys to success in the business world, you can no longer make these arbitrary decisions where you just say to the management: "Build these extensions and don't ask questions. Do it."

From the evidence before the royal commission, it's quite obvious that that's exactly how the decision was handed down from on high. Even the chief engineer, when he did his professional studies and came up with an $80 million figure, was just told by another official: "It's got to be done for $68 million." So the figures were changed. I don't want to belabour all that over again. I think, Mr. Chairman, that what is important is – and I say this from a completely objective point of view – that the BCR must try to gain the confidence of the citizens of British Columbia, because that confidence, if it ever existed, has been completely shattered by the evidence presented to the royal commission. So this debate – perhaps more important than just discussing dollar value – is discussing the potential for this new government and the new BCR board to stimulate confidence and the fact that future decisions will be based on a much more realistic, economically feasible and altogether responsible kind of study, planning and engineering.

And so I wonder if the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) can tell us this: whose original decision was it to terminate the Dease Lake extension? Was it done for the very simple reason that it had already cost four times what was planned and built in the wrong place anyway in relation to resources? Or is it expecting too much that the government would admit that?

The other question is the one I asked earlier on, Mr. Chairman. It was an administrative question and I just want the answer. How come we have to have a bill for this money when the B.C. Ferries received $8 million which the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) said could be passed on by order-in-council?

Thirdly, on this section, Mr. Chairman, if I could just have the minister's attention. Part of the agreement that we are debating under this bill in section I also relates to the CN agreement with the federal government on the Meziadin line that the provincial government would pay 25 per cent of the capital cost of that CN link. According to the agreement.... If the minister would like, I can read him chapter 4, subsection (1) relating to the capital costs of the rail lines. Under the agreements to be shared by Canada and the province in relation to the Meziadin fine, the provincial government was to pay 25 per cent. I would like to know if, in fact, that money has been paid to the federal government and what was the sum of money. The approximate figure mentioned in the press release that went with the agreement was $500,000. Since that also is part of this agreement, namely a 75-25 cost sharing between federal and provincial governments, has the provincial government actually paid its 25 per cent of the Meziadin line and, if so, what did that 25 per cent amount to?

Hon. Mr. Wolfe: Dealing with those questions in reverse order, Mr. Chairman, there has been no construction on the Meziadin line so there has been no money, to my knowledge, transferred under that part of the agreement in the clause referred to by the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) .

Going back to his first question which he stressed at some length, this agreement is a mutual agreement that was arrived at over a considerable period of talks, consultation, negotiation.... I'm talking about almost years. I can only say in response that the final decision was arrived at by virtue of a visit from the board members of the railway who appeared before cabinet and made a presentation with projections and the complete situation.

If I could have the member's attention, Mr. Chairman, he wanted an answer to this question.

I'm simply saying to him that the board of the B.C. Railway, as a result of these projections, recommended a pause in the construction, in the name of common sense, with every possible consideration being given to the consequences of continuing. Not to be overlooked in this consideration is the fact that were the line to have been completed, in consideration of another $100 million or whatever it would be, the operating costs of starting to operate with potential traffic would have been a substantial drain in the early years after

[ Page 5171 ]

completion, which the railway would then be exposed to. That's about the only way I can respond to the question about who initiated the pause. It did take place by mutual consultation with federal authorities and the province and the railway over a period. But in the final analysis, after considerable study of financial aspects, the railway came before cabinet and made a recommendation.

Mr. Wallace: The actual transfer.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe: We were asked why there was any need for a bill. I think that's just a matter of the requirements of the Audit Act and so on. We're unable to appropriate money received by the province without a necessary piece of legislation. The agreement is between the province and the federal government, to pass it on to the railway. We do have to have some kind of Act to authorize it.

Mr. Gibson: Mr. Chairman, I just have one very brief question to the Minister of Economic Development. I think he will recognize that very many members of this Legislature are sincerely interested in the operations of the BCR and want to be in contact with the corporation from time to time, without necessarily having to disturb the minister, who in most cases will simply have to inquire back to the BCR officials to get the information himself. I'd like to ask him if he would be prepared to assure the board that as far as he's concerned, he has no objection to members of the board of senior executives of the corporation having conversations and giving information with respect to the operations of the railroad, to MLAs in this Legislature.

Hon. Mr. Phillips: Mr. Chairman, I want to assure the member that before that board of directors was appointed, there was an agreement, reached at that meeting before they agreed to serve, that they would be an independent board of directors. I certainly could not go to them and direct them with regard to information which they desire to give out or which they desire not to give you. I can't direct that board as to what information they're going to give out.

Mr. Gibson: But you have no objection?

Hon. Mr. Phillips: I certainly have no objection. However, Mr. Chairman, I do want to caution the member that I wouldn't want to see every MLA in this House running to the board all the time, asking every picayune question about what goes on in the operation of the railway, because the, position would become untenable. Since I am responsible for the liaison with the board of directors, I think normal questions should be related to me. Otherwise, you're going to have, as I say, the situation where we would have to put in an answering service over there. I think the member will understand the logistics of this. We'd have to put in an answering service if all 55 MLAs of this House started phoning up every second day asking questions about the operations of the railway. I just think it's a case of normal logistics.

An Hon. Member: Crown Corporation Reporting Act.

Mr. Gibson: It's easier than if they phone you, Don.

Hon. Mr. Phillips: You certainly have the opportunity every day in question period to ask questions about the operation of the railway. You have the opportunity during public accounts. Certainly there's a financial report tabled every year by the railway. The member understands. But as I say, I wouldn't recommend it. I think you understand the logistics of that board having to answer questions every day.

It would be the same as if you were going over to B.C. Hydro every day about everything they do. I think you understand. But I certainly haven't directed the board of directors one way or another. I couldn't direct them. They'd tell me where to go. I think you understand me, because I know that you know very well, Mr. Member, the calibre of men that we have, as I say, devoting long, hard hours to the operation of that railway.

Mr. Cocke: Mr. Chairman, we've heard many brave words tonight about the BCR from a government that isn't particularly brave about the operation, having suspended the extensions and having cancelled many of the programmes of that railroad. They were concerned earlier that some of the opposition voted against second reading of this particular bill. Certainly the active section of this bill is section 1. Having voted against it, I would like them to understand that one of the reasons – the major reason – was the fact that they just don't seem to know where they're going. So how can we vote for moving money into BCR in the amount of $54 million, when the government is not really in control of that railroad? I'd like the Minister of Finance to tell us that he has some thoughts about the future of that railroad and to explain to us what those thoughts might be.

Because I haven't seen any evidence of any confidence in this province's railroad since this new government has taken power. I've seen no confidence whatsoever. They found the plywood under the tracks the old Social Credit government built; they found some problems of under calculation of costs. All of a sudden they swoop in cancelling contracts

[ Page 5172 ]

and cancelling work on the railroad, suggesting they have no vision for this province. I'd just like the Minister of Finance to indicate to us where he thinks he might be going.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe: Mr. Chairman, did the member ask where I think I'm going? I just didn't quite understand that.

I think we have been over this ground before, but what should be said is that the railway has had a greater degree of stability in the past 12 months than for some considerable period of time. The car loadings and everything are substantially up. That railway and new board of directors are enjoying a great deal of confidence, both from its customers and the other people who do business with it. I think there's every indication that it will continue. What we are talking about here is drawing down on funds -which should have long since been passed – to share the cost of this construction project, which is tremendous. So I don't think we need to elaborate on that, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Cocke: I have just one more word, Mr. Chairman. The minister indicates that the railroad has been more stable in the last 12 months. It would have been just a little more stable had he closed it down, because that's the stability that he's created by reducing the impact of the BCR.

Section 1 as amended approved.

Section 2 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 47, British Columbia Railway Company Grant Act, 1977, reported complete with amendments.

Mr. Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time?

Hon. Mr. Wolfe: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, is the bill not yet printed with the amendment?

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe: By leave, now.

Leave granted.

Bill 47, British Columbia Railway Company Grant Act, 1977, read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS – 26

NAYS – 13

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

Hon. L.A. Williams (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 25.

ISLANDS TRUST AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

The House in committee on Bill 25; Mr. Veitch in the chair.

Hon. H.A. Curtis (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): With the consent of the committee, I move all the amendments to Bill 25 standing under my name on the order paper, specifically those which appear on pages 10, 11 and 12 of orders of the day for today, August 31.

There are a number of amendments, as the committee will notice, Mr. Chairman. Part of the amending action is renumbering of the sections, Therefore, with the permission of the committee and for simplicity, I would suggest, if it is acceptable, that I move all the amendments. Then the bill and the amendments can be debated in the proper renumbered sequence. (See appendix.)

Motion approved.

Mr. Chairman: Shall the amendment to section 1, so that it becomes section 8, pass?

Interjection.

[ Page 5173 ]

Mr. Chairman: Not really, hon. member. It must be done in this manner.

Mr. Barber: As long as I am allowed to speak on what appears on the orders of the day as amending section 2 (l) .

Mr. Chairman: We will come to section 8.

Mr. Barber: You just want to follow them sequentially like that?

Mr. Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Barber: I thought that you were moving all the amendments at once.

Hon. Mr. Curtis: I did.

Mr. Chairman: They are, hon. member, but we can only call them one at a time, you see,

On section 1 as amended.

Mr. Barber: The minister first introduced this bill on February 25. It concluded second reading on April 6 and here it is August 3 1. One can reasonably conclude that he has had some difficulty with this bill. One could also conclude, by the bulk of the amendments that are present tonight – which we do support and are happy to do so – that the minister, realizing that he was in a great deal of political difficulty with this bill and realizing that he had not found any way out of it by the original amendments, has proposed to bring in new ones and it is those that we are discussing right now.

It has become, therefore, pretty clear to us, Mr. Chairman, that, as the result of the intervention of seven regional districts as a result of a meeting with the Premier, which was a result of complaints from islanders and trustees and, as the result of effective opposition of members in all three parties on this side of the House, we have the happy event of these amendments tonight. I am glad, in this instance, that the government has chosen to respond positively and favourably to criticism and has brought in amendments that we do indeed support.

On behalf of our opposition, I should like to indicate that the section of the amendment that now permits the elected local trustees to choose from among their own number those general trustees who shall exercise the markedly increased powers that the other amendments provide for is something that we especially applaud and support.

Indeed, if I may say, I would like to serve notice now that we will be asking for a division on this. Just so that it will be clearly understood, because of our very strenuous objections earlier that led to another division voting against the bill, in this particular case we axe very happy to vote for it and I should like that on the record.

What we have argued throughout, Mr. Chairman, is that if the minister chooses to grant greater power to the trustees he must also require greater accountability. As the result of considerable opposition, he is now providing for that greater accountability. This particular amendment marks a profound shift in the use and the instrumentality of power in the Islands Trust. It has served to provide a form of democratic self-government and local control that did not previously exist.

What we argued earlier, Mr. Chairman, was that if the minister chooses to give them more power, then make them more accountable. We found no such provision for accountability in the earlier bill and we find it here in the amendment tonight. We are glad for that. It's superior, it's more accountable, it's more sensitive, it's more thoughtful and, we think, it's more workable.

It does not overcome some of the other objections that regional districts still have. Their concerns remain about overlapping jurisdictions. Their concerns remain strong and powerful about conflicts of interest and role and authority within the planning among the seven regional districts that presently have islands also governed by the Trust within their areas of jurisdiction. Those concerns remain.

On behalf of the entire New Democratic Party caucus, I would like to conclude by reminding the minister that we commend him. We congratulate him for having listened to the criticisms and for bringing in, most specifically, this amendment that grants simultaneously greater power and greater accountability. We are very happy to vote for this section.

Hon. Mr. Curtis: Mr. Chairman, with respect to the remarks of the hon. second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) , yes, the bill has been on the order paper for a good long time. It was introduced in late February and, yes, I also recognize that there are those individual members of affected regional districts who are still not happy and who would only be happy if the bill had been hoisted and left to die on the order paper. In government, I think one learns pretty quickly that it is impossible to satisfy everyone.

The amendments, in my view, improve the legislation and I believe I am speaking to the first amendment which is before us. We listened very carefully, not so much to the regional district representatives, because they had an axe to grind, frankly, and I would like to speak about overlapping authority in just a moment. We listened most carefully to individual islanders, most of whom corresponded with both sides of the House, I would

[ Page 5174 ]

think.

We saw a mix of opinion. We saw those who believed that the Trust should be proceeded with and strengthened in the manner originally proposed. Alternatively, we received correspondence from those island residents who felt a change or changes such as this should take place. I believe that we have found the best of both positions, and I am quite satisfied with the amendments.

The question of overlapping of jurisdictions or duplication of authority or responsibility that has been advanced by regional districts is a false argument. I don't suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the members of regional districts who have advanced this are doing so knowing it to be false, but, as far as I am concerned, it is a false argument inasmuch as the transfer of land control matters to the Islands Trust does precisely the opposite of that which has been claimed. It simplifies the land approval or rejection process on the islands within the Trust area. This is what concerned me at the outset when I examined the Islands Trust very early in 1976. Here was a particular part of British Columbia which had to go through a two-step approval system, where only one applies in other parts of the province.

I thank the member for his comments. The bill has certainly been subjected to great scrutiny and debate on a one-to-one basis and in the press in this chamber, and hopefully it is a better bill as a result of the amendments which have been advanced and which we're debating tonight. The fact of the matter is that the government sees a very important role for the Islands Trust to continue to play in those islands within the designated area. While some islanders suggest out of modesty that the islands are not unique, I believe that most members of this House.... I don't presume to speak for them, but I would think that most members of this House see something very special in the islands within the Trust area.

Mr. Wallace: I just wish to add my support to the amendment, particularly in relation to the fact that the trustees will elect their own chairman, vice-chairman and third general trustee. It seems to me that if the thrust of this whole bill is, as the minister says, to recognize the unique character of these islands and to try and bring a special and local measure of planning and wisdom in such matters as the land use of the islands, not to mention all the other problems of waste disposal, health inspection, sanitary sewers and so on, then surely, however important that is or however unique these islands might be, the democratic process should pertain on these islands as it does in the rest of the province. I think it was a very dangerous precedent to attempt to set that the government or cabinet would appoint three persons who would have superior authority to the 24 other elected trustees within the other eight islands.

I think one other thing this bill proves is that if legislation is tabled in this House, and there is a fair amount of time allowed to pass it, you very often end up with a better bill. If a bill is tabled and a week or two later we're into second reading and committee debate, we often find, as members of the opposition, that we're receiving correspondence after the bill has been passed which sometimes suggests constructive proposals which would make it a better bill. I received today, for example, correspondence dealing with the Pesticide Control Act. I think, from what I can read, that it makes some very useful suggestions. But obviously if legislation is tabled in the House and very soon afterwards we embark upon second reading, it limits the scope of this kind of worthwhile amendment.

I just think that the minister deserves credit for having recognized that the basic purpose of the bill would or could probably be denied, had, in fact, three appointed individuals had the final decision which might or might not have agreed with the wishes of the elected trustees. So regardless of the hassle which the minister refers to as regional directors.... Frankly, I found the whole thing a bit confusing in reading reports from Jim Campbell and others. I don't think that's the most important part of this bill, I do agree with the minister that the most important part is to establish the democratic process in regard to the most important element in this bill, which is planning.

Mr. Barber: I wonder if the House might have the guidance of the Chair, especially the Clerk. Referring to the orders of the day for today on page 11, note new section 2 (l) . This specifically, and those paragraphs that follow, is the subject of the present motion of amendment. Is that correct?

Mr. Chairman: Yes, I believe so.

Mr. Barber: I realize that this is extremely confusing. This is the section that I wish to call a division on in order that it should be recorded that our party unanimously and happily supports this because, indeed, in a certain sense we've changed our position, because the minister has accepted at least part of our earlier criticisms, and I want that on the record.

Mr. Chairman: May I read the section out for you, hon. member, to see if it's the one you're speaking of? "Section 2 (1) is amended by striking out the words after 'trust' and substituting 'consisting of the chairman and two vice-chairmen elected in accordance with the regulations. . . Is that the one?

[ Page 5175 ]

Mr. Barber: That's right. This is the section we support.

Division called on the motion.

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

Mr. L.B. Kahl (Esquimalt): Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure if the standing orders refer to a new section. It should be listed by number and subsection, rather than a new section. Perhaps you could clarify that.

Mr. Chairman: Hon. member, we covered that in a motion earlier by the hon. minister.

Mr. Kahl: With all due respect, I don't think it's listed as a new section.

Mr. Chairman: Hon. member, if we insert a new section, it automatically becomes a new section.

Sections 1 to 7 inclusive as amended approved unanimously on a division.

Mr. Barber requests that leave be asked for the division to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Section 8 as amended approved.

On section 9 as amended.

Mr. Barber: I wonder if you might accept a request, Mr. Chairman. You started a practice earlier, which at the moment you do not seem to be following – that was to read the amendments we have from the orders of the day by the numbers which appear on the orders of the day. It was a practice suggested by the minister himself.

Mr. Chairman: We are passing them one at a time but....

Mr. Barber: I appreciate that.

Mr. Chairman: ... we can read them if you wish.

Mr. Barber: You were using the numbers as they appeared on the orders of the day. You're now referring to the newly numbered sections. I have one question in regard to section 4 (5) . Given the problem we have tonight....

Mr. Chairman: It's section 3 (3) .

Mr. Barber: Is that what you're coming to? You were referring to section 8 a moment ago.

Mr. Chairman: One moment, please. It would appear that section 9 is before the committee at this time – the new section 9 as it appears on the order paper. We're renumbering them as we go along, so perhaps you're dealing with section 11.

Section 9 as amended approved.

Section 10 as amended approved.

On section 11 as amended.

Mr. Barber: The part I'm referring to is an amendment to the effect: " . . . but, for the purpose of determining a quorum, a general trustee who is also a local trustee may sit as either trustee but not both." I wonder if the minister could explain for the House the practical application of that.

Hon. Mr. Curtis: This is new section 11 to which the member has referred. Under the new structure of the Trust, where a general trustee is sitting on a Trust committee on a matter which affects his or her island specifically, he's also technically a local trustee. In examining this matter, it was obvious that this would create a procedural problem when forming a quorum, because if he's the only trustee available, the Trust committee could not form a quorum. So new section 11 of the bill provides that in such an instance, the general trustee may choose to sit as a general trustee or a local trustee, but not both.

Mr. Barber: Just to ensure that there might not be at any future time, say, a legal challenge to the validity of a decision taken by a local Trust or members of the general Trust who are also local trustees.... What I'm asking is whether or not there is a provision, perhaps in regulations, because I don't find it here tonight, that would require such a member to declare – and therefore have it recorded in writing in the minutes of the meeting – in which capacity he was acting. So the question of quorum would not form the basis of a perhaps successful – but really not necessary – legal challenge, if any islander would ever decide to challenge it in that way.

Hon. Mr. Curtis: Yes, we examined this very carefully and we had counsel on it. The trustee would, by requirement, declare at the outset of the meeting whether he or she is sitting as a general trustee or local trustee. Whether that's spelled out in regulations or in informal instructions to the trustees I don't think needs to be decided tonight, but that's clearly the intent of what is provided for in new section 11, and what would be indicated in any briefing for the trustees.

Sections 11 to 21 inclusive approved.

[ Page 5176 ]

Title approved.

Hon. Mr. Curtis: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Bill 25, Islands Trust Amendment Act, 1977, reported complete with amendment.

Mr. Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time?

Hon. Mr. Curtis: With leave of the House now, Mr. Speaker,

Leave granted.

Bill 25, Islands Trust Amendment Act, 1977, read a third time and passed.

Hon. Mr. Gardom: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 42.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 42; Mr. Veitch in the chair.

On section 28.

Mr. Cocke: Mr. Chairman, section 28 is under severe criticism in this province. The minister indicated that he was going to use it judiciously. He said that he would only use it under circumstances that would warrant this sort of situation, and he also went on to say, as I recall, that there wasn't too much criticism. I'm not sure if the minister really understands what criticism is. I don't think he really got the message from the Union of B.C. Municipalities.

I suggested some time ago when we last debated this section that virtually all of the executive of the UBCM were in total opposition to this section. There was one exception, the member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) indicates. Mr. Chairman, let me read a message to you that the minister has in his possession from the Union of B.C. Municipalities. I think this is very serious.

An Hon. Member: It's confidential.

Mr. Cocke: It is confidential. It was confidential until tonight. There's a tremendous amount of frustration out there, Mr. Chairman, in that they suggest very directly in this communication to the minister that they're not at all satisfied with this kind of section in an Act.

Mr. G.R. Lea (Prince Rupert): Neither is the minister.

Mr. Cocke: I suggested some time ago that I was a bit sad because I felt that, in many instances, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing has done a relatively good job – relatively. But, Mr. Chairman, in this area, when be is seeking for himself the powers to outlaw a bylaw and substitute his own – that is exactly what he's doing in this Act – he has certainly stepped over the bounds and certainly loses a great deal of confidence from the member for New Westminster and, obviously from the UBCM. Let me read into the record what they say, The Attorney-General wants me to read it into the record and I certainly will. They say as follows: "The amendments in section 28 of Bill 42 give great power to the minister to override basic proposals developed by councils and boards if, in the minister's opinion, the appropriate bylaws are contrary to the public interest of the province." Mr. Chairman, I would wonder what that might be, and I would certainly wonder how the minister could decide what that might be.

To go on with my quote of what they said in their message to the minister:

"The wide-ranging powers in this section extend not only to matters which are within the general jurisdiction of elected bodies, but also to those which are required to have received the benefit of public hearings when the wishes of citizens are heard. We recognize that the provincial government has always had constitutional, overall authority to dictate all responsibilities and authority of local governments, either by legislative changes or order-in-council, but we cannot shrug off the implicit thrust of this section of Bill 42, that such ministerial control is necessary because municipalities and regional districts may be viewed as not acting responsibly. We believe they do act responsibly and we are gravely concerned that the powers given to the minister through this amendment seriously erode the authority vested in local government for which they can be, and are, held accountable to their citizens every two years. Much depends on the definition of public interest of the province and we should appreciate having the minister's explanation of what this phrase includes, "

[ Page 5177 ]

Mr. Chairman, they go on to say: "the amendment in section 28 may have greater impact on all aspects of local government in this province than any earlier provision introduced into the Municipal Act."

This is my aside, Mr. Chairman: I agree. I can't imagine any minister asking for these awesome powers. I can't imagine a minister demanding the right to run this province any way he feels it should be run. I'm going to go on to quote, MR. Chairman: "It places a continuing restraint on all local governments in B.C. While the intent may be to use its powers sparingly, it could be used by private parties to appeal to the minister on policies which have been developed by local government."

That means developers and that's my aside again, Mr. Chairman. "Once such an appeal has succeeded, a precedent will have been set and similar appeals may be more frequently advanced, In its present content, we strongly urge that it not be included within the Municipal Act." I agree with them, Mr. Chairman; I agree with them totally.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I ask the minister in all sincerity to stand up tonight in this House and either give us a good reason for including this section in the Municipal Act or withdraw it from this bill. Otherwise, the bill is okay. But with this section 28 within the bill it is not okay. It is not acceptable. It is particularly not acceptable in view of the fact that elected representatives from every municipality within this province are in total disagreement with this particular section. I ask the minister to show good faith tonight, to show that he's a responsible minister worthy of his designation and to stand up tonight and withdraw section 28 of this bill.

Mr. A.B. Macdonald (Vancouver East): Mr. Chairman, I haven't participated in the big debate, but I've just been wondering about two points. The ability to rewrite zoning bylaws, the minister wants to assume, is a very extensive power, and I want to ask him: are there situations which the minister is unhappy about in the province of British Columbia right now, where he feels that this very strong intervention by a political figure is necessary? That's point one. I'd like him to tell me the answer to that.

Point two: could he tell me in what situations he would exercise that power? What's lie thinking about? You wouldn't put this into the statutes without having something in mind. Could the minister answer those questions?

Hon. Mr. Curtis: Mr. Chairman, this is the rerun of the rerun of the rerun. Earlier tonight, it was quite clearly indicated that the government carefully considers its legislation, and when it sees that a particular bill can be improved, then that is done. Indeed, amendments have appeared to a number of bills, without reflecting on previous votes. We've had a similar opportunity, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, to examine this section. The section will not be withdrawn. The section....

Interjections.

An Hon. Member: Tell us why you want it and you can have it.

Hon. Mr. Curtis: Mr. Chairman, the member for Prince Rupert may care to participate in the discussion, but please, not from his seat, as usual. It is a little hollow ....

An Hon. Member: Don't be so testy.

Hon. Mr. Curtis: I'm not testy; I'm feeling great tonight.

Mr. Macdonald: Tell me why you need the section, that's all.

Hon. Mr. Curtis: Mr. Chairman, it is a little hollow for the socialist opposition in this province to tell us for the third time, fourth time, fifth time – I'm not sure how many times in total – that section 28 is unacceptable; that section 28 has so much wrong with it when, indeed, a decision is to be made by an elected person over a decision made locally.

The member for Vancouver East who's just asked a couple of questions perhaps hasn't heard the previous debate.

Mr. Macdonald: Yes, I have. I've listened to every word.

Hon. Mr. Curtis: I don't know if he has or not. I accept his word that he has, but perhaps he's forgotten, Mr. Chairman, that a number of reasons have been debated and gone into. At the risk of being tedious and repetitious, Mr. Chairman, I want to remind the committee and to remind the official opposition in this chamber tonight, that there was parallel consideration obviously being given to a situation in another province in Canada through the beginning of 1977, with royal assent occurring on June 17,1977. This isn't something on the order paper; it is now law in the province of Manitoba, with a New Democratic Party government.

Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, in order to finally attempt to get through to members of the official opposition, it's necessary to read just a few of the sections, because in all the comments which have been made and the interjections and so on, there's been no answer and no rebuttal to this particular point. This is Manitoba legislation, dealing with the city of Winnipeg.

[ Page 5178 ]

Mr. Lea: You're not answering my question.

Hon. Mr. Curtis: It is the City of Winnipeg Act of 1977. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if you would care, Sir, to pay attention to just a couple of points here, which I believe will be of interest to you. And I hope that the official opposition will do so, because they brushed it aside on previous occasions. Section 60 of the bill which introduces section 572.1 (1) .... This is perfectly germane, Mr. Chairman, to the discussion that has carried on for so long. I'm quoting from the Manitoba legislation.

"After consultation with the council, the minister may, in writing, order the council to prepare and adopt an amendment, alternation, repeal, or replacement or one or more of those things to the Greater Winnipeg Development Plan within such time as the minister may order, and the minister may extend that time." Section 572.1 (2) – "Failure To Comply With Order"

"Where the council fails to comply with an order under subsection (1) or where the minister approves a Greater Winnipeg Development Plan bylaw and the council within the time prescribed by the minister does not finally pass that bylaw, or where the minister approves a Greater Winnipeg Development Plan bylaw subject to conditions and the council does not comply with the conditions and does not finally pass the bylaw within the time prescribed by the minister, the minister may cause all those things that are required to be done by the council under subsection (1) to comply with the order to be carried out by the city, and the minister has all the power and duties of the council in causing one or more of those things to be carried out by the city."

Now, Mr. Chairman, I won't take too much longer, except to go over the page of the copy to section 654 (2) of this particular legislation. And this is:

"Exemption By Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. Subject to subsection (3) where the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council deems it advisable and in the interest of the public convenience and welfare, he may order" – he may order, Mr. Chairman – "that a bylaw, plan, resolution, order, decision or procedure established, enacted, made or required under this Act does not apply to and is not binding upon any agency or person, including a statutory corporation or institution, for purposes described by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council."

Mr. Chairman, if the debate is to continue – fair enough – then perhaps we may hear from the official opposition with respect to New Democratic Party legislation just introduced in the province of Manitoba that goes much further than section 28 of Bill 42. I say again, Mr. Chairman, that....

Mr. Macdonald: Are you adopting us as your standard?

Hon. Mr. Curtis: No, as a matter of fact.... The member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) said. "Are you going to judge us as your standard?" No. We felt that we could not go that far, Mr. Chairman. We felt that we could not go that far, did not want to go that far and will not go that far.

But it is rather empty for members in turn on the opposition side to tell us how terrible this legislation is when their sister government in Manitoba has introduced legislation that is far stricter and which virtually ties the hands of the city of Winnipeg on every issue that is of any consequence. These are hollow words, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, on a supplementary, maybe in Winnipeg they have got a problem, and I don't understand that. No, I am not long-winded. I've listened to this debate very carefully and I want to be able to sum it up in my own mind so I understand what is happening.

Hon. Mr. Gardom: They have a long winter there.

Mr. Macdonald: There may be things that were explained to the Manitoba Legislature, and the legislation may be different, I don't know, but here is B.C. I recognize that it is a compliment to have socialist governments praised as the Minister of Municipal Affairs does. They have things, but here we are in British Columbia, I asked very simple questions because you don't ask for drastic arbitrary ministerial powers unless you have a social problem that you are seeking to correct.

I've listened to the debate all through these seven or eight days and that minister hasn't given one reason why he needs these powers. What is it? Have you got some pocket deal with some developer?

Hon. Mr. Gardom: Shameful!

Mr. Macdonald: All right, that's shameful. Okay, the Attorney-General says that's shameful. Let me ask this of the Attorney-General: am I allowed to go out and tell my brother-in-law, Fred Richards, who lives in Vancouver East, that the minister asks for these powers without giving any reason whatsoever as to why he needed them? Is there any social problem in B.C.? Am I to tell Mr. Richards that? That is a valid question and this minister has

[ Page 5179 ]

not answered it. Through all this debate he hasn't said what the problem is. He has not said how he is going to exercise this power and he has not said why it is needed in this province. That's a very weak minister who comes into any legislative assembly and quotes a bunch of other statutes and says: "I have got to have this power." Now why?

Mr. Minister, when there is no answer to why you need the power at all, no social problem that should be brought to the....

Hon. Mr. Curtis: What's he talking about – a social problem?

Mr. Macdonald: Well, all right, if you don't call it a social problem, call it a municipal problem, a zoning problem, a people problem. Call it what you like. You've given no explanation of any problem that exists....

Hon. Mr. Curtis: That's not correct.

Mr. Macdonald: Okay, I'm sorry, What is the problem that you're seeking to redress?

Hon. Mr. Curtis: Mr. Chairman, either the member for Vancouver East has not been in the House when we have discussed this previously ...

Mr. Macdonald: No, I've heard it all.

Hon. Mr. Curtis: ... or he hasn't read Hansard, or he's a slow learner.

Ms. K.E. Sanford (Comox): What is the reason?

Hon. Mr. Curtis: I have explained those situations where there will be instances, we're quite sure, and there have been instances in the past.

Mr. Macdonald: Name them.

Hon. Mr. Curtis: May I conclude, Mr. Chairman? ... where a local government, a regional district or a municipality would run contrary to the provincial public interest.

Mr. Macdonald: Name a case.

Hon. Mr. Curtis: Now, Mr. Chairman, there are members of the official opposition who refuse to recognize that there will be instances where the provincial public interest.... For those who say, "give us an example, " examples have been cited, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Macdonald: Name one.

Hon. Mr. Curtis: Well, then you weren't paying attention earlier, Mr. Member, and that's your problem, not mine, sir.

Mr. Macdonald. I heard everything. Name one.

Mr. Wallace: Well, Mr. Chairman, with respect, I think I can probably pull this debate into a little bit of focus because while I enjoy the member for Vancouver East, the Minister of Municipal Affairs did explain why he wants this power. The reason that he wants this power is to deal with one of the most important potential problems in economic development in our province, which is the Alcan pipeline. The minister answered me in an earlier debate when he said the kind of situation that might arise would be where a regional district or a municipality thwarts provincial policy.

It's very obvious from much of the debate that has gone on in this House – and the debate, in fact, that we had on pipeline development – that this government is very eager that the Alcan route should finally be agreed to by President Carter and the federal government. Obviously if this were the case and the regional district in northeastern British Columbia held up the Alcan pipeline development, this would be not only of enormous economic significance to B.C., but also an international embarrassment to the government of Canada.

Now I'm not sure that I like this section of the bill – in fact, I don't like it at all – but if it cuts the debate short, I think the minister in second reading made it very plain, in answer to one of my questions, why he is asking for this power. My position, so that everybody can understand it, is that is a once-in-a-50-year or a once-in-a-100-year situation. I very much object to blanket powers of this nature being given, albeit with good motives as to this one particular, specific fear in the future – namely, the obstruction of the Alcan pipeline.

We don't need one section that may well be abused by some minister in the future to deal with some inconvenient obstruction, as it is perceived to be by the minister of the day, by a regional or municipal government on an issue of much less significance than the Alcan pipeline. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest – and this is not to redebate the Alcan pipeline issue, because we all know whether we think it's good or bad – that it's probably going to go ahead and that it's of enormous economic significance in B.C. Therefore some trivial obstruction, or some persistent, misguided obstruction, would be of serious damage to the public interest- I acknowledge that.

All I am saying, Mr. Chairman, is that I just cannot accept a section with this degree of power for any or every issue that might come before the minister being written into a statute because of one possible

[ Page 5180 ]

problem that this government may encounter down the road. For that reason and no other reason, I just cannot do anything but oppose this section.

Mr. Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, the minister did not answer the very simple question I asked through all these hours of debate. There's been a suggestion that it's to expedite a pipeline. If that's a problem, bring it back to the Legislature. That's not the real reason at all. This government wants to be in a position to line a developer's pocket.

An Hon. Member: Oh, oh!

Mr. Macdonald: Well, what else'? What do you want? Do you want to be able to approve, say, a housing development halfway up Grouse Mountain? Is that what it is?

Hon. Mr. Curtis: That's where your mind is at, then. You spend too much time with Bob Williams.

Mr. Macdonald: Well, what else? No other reason has been expressed.

An Hon. Member: Yes, the pipeline.

Mr. Macdonald: Well, possibly a pipeline. That's a matter for the Legislature, If a pipeline's in the public interest, come back here. There's no problem.

This government wants to be able to say to the developers: "We're the last authority. You come to us and give us your campaign funds, and we'll look after you." You're worse than Huey Long. Huey Long was grossly abused in Louisiana, because he....

Interjection.

Mr. Macdonald: I've been trying. I've listened to every word of this debate, and the two propositions are this. The first proposition is that the minister has given no reason in terms of a social or a municipal problem as to why he needs these powers. The second thing is that he hasn't stated in any detail whatsoever when or on what occasion he'll exercise it.

I have to draw my own conclusions, because as a British Columbian I've been watching this coalition that's so far right of centre it's not funny. The greedier grow greedy.

An Hon. Member: Oh, oh!

Mr. Macdonald: Sure they do. What you're getting yourself, Mr. Minister, is the power to collect campaign funds.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ha!

MR. MACDONALD: Well, what else? Oh, they'll give you the money. You've got the power to authorize their developments. If the municipality thinks it's not in the public interest or in the social interest and so forth, you can do it and they'll come to you.

I think what's happening to British Columbia is a shame. Is it time to say "aye"? We've had the debate, but I want to know what I can tell the people out in the province of B.C. I can tell them two things....

Well, the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) is talking in the back of his seat, but lie's been totally inconspicuous from his presence in any of the big debates of this session. It's a funny kind of a coalition when powers like this are asked....

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: No, get up and say it. Get up and say it! What are you doing – running for leader? No, you won't defend this section; you won't defend that minister. The Attorney-General won't defend that minister. I challenge you to get up and defend these powers. You won't do it. You're a coalition of self-interest groups who abandoned your political faith. And you don't care too much for each other, do you? Come on. Once you've thrown over your political principles, you're kind of on the make, aren't you. It's everybody for himself.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Section 28, hon. member.

MR. MACDONALD: The Minister of Labour – I invite him to defend these powers, but he won't do it. Not one minister of the government has defended that minister in these excessive powers. And that's the kind of government that British Columbia has descended to in the year 1977. It'll go on forever because you're rich; you'll have the campaign funds pouring in.

Interjections.

Mr. Macdonald: Even longer. That's right. Arrogance is in the saddle. You've got a king who gives you his orders and you're going to have no trouble. Mr. Chairman, I just want to assure you -because in another capacity you're a member of that group – you're going to have no trouble with your campaign funds.

Mr. Chairman: I am having trouble getting you on section 28, hon. member.

Mr. Macdonald: Do you think that section

[ Page 5181 ]

won't help you with your campaign funds?

An Hon. Member: That's what it's all about.

Mr. Macdonald: Of course it is. British Columbia has become a developer's paradise. They'll reward you with their votes and their money. I just hope that the ordinary people of the province will begin to see what's going on in this province, I think they will. It's going to take time; it's going to take another year. But this kind of a coalition. . . . Did you stand up, Mr. Minister, and defend that power? No, you didn't, because you've got your own little thing going. Did the Attorney-General? No, you've got your own little thing going; sure you have. You all have.

Mr. Chairman: Section 28, hon. member, please.

Mr. Macdonald: No! This is a government of opportunists and Mr. Minister of Municipal Affairs....

An Hon. Member: He has either run down or come to the point.

Mr. Macdonald: This is a developer's section and it's in line with everything this government has done.

Mr. Barber: On behalf of the official opposition, I rise to conclude our part in this debate. I'd like to point out, as my colleague for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) has done, that there are apparently only two interest groups that support this section. In the whole province we can only find two. One of them is an individual; his name is Pat Duke. That's it. To the best of our knowledge, and the minister has not contradicted this statement, no other individual member of the executive of the UBCM supports this section. To the contrary, many of its members and the executive as a whole passed a resolution opposing section 28. So the first interest group that he can find is one individual, the present chairman of the UBCM. The second group is developers, be they developers of pipelines, subdivisions or shopping centres.

We have already argued, Mr. Chairman, that only developers who have failed to persuade municipal government to do their bidding will benefit from a new law where the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing can do it for them. They're the other interest group, and the only other one that benefits.

This section has been attacked by the chairman of the Capital Regional District, the chairman of the Nanaimo Regional District, the mayor of Prince George, the mayor of Vancouver and the executive of the Union of B.C. Municipalities. No one supports this section except that group over- there who, were they in opposition and were we so stupid as to bring this in, would be fighting it all night, too.

There's only one good thing about this section, Mr. Chairman, and I think I've found it. What the passage of this section means is that no longer will we have to suffer pious, hypocritical speeches from the Socreds telling us how much they love local government. At long last, we won't have to hear those speeches anymore. The only good thing about it is that never again will we have to suffer the arrogance and hypocrisy of that coalition telling us that they have confidence in local government, because this section proves they don't. That's the only good thing about it.

Everything else is absolutely appalling to us and we oppose it now as strongly as we did at the beginning of the debate. We predict that the minister will rue the foolish day he and his coalition decided to press ahead with this stupid amendment.

Section 28 approved on the following division:

YEAS – 22

NAYS – 13

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

Mr. Kahl: Mr. Chairman, I think there are 23 on our count. I'm sorry, but I believe that's true.

Mr. Chairman: The Clerk counts 22, hon. member.

Sections 29 to 31 inclusive approved.

On section 32.

Hon. Mr. Curtis: Mr. Chairman, I move the first amendment standing under my name on the

[ Page 5182 ]

order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Hon. Mr. Curtis: Mr. Chairman, I move the second amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Hon. Mr. Curtis: I move the third amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 32 as amended approved.

Title approved.

Hon. Mr. Curtis: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 42, Municipal Amendment Act, 1977, reported complete with amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time?

Hon. Mr. Gardom: With leave of the House now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted

Bill 42, Municipal Amendment Act, 1977, read a third time and passed.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:11 p.m.

APPENDIX

25 The Hon. H. A. Curtis to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 25) intituled Islands Trust Amendment Act, 1977 to amend as follows:

By renumbering section 1 as section 8, section 2 as section 10, and sections 3 to 12 as sections 12 to 21.

By inserting the following before section 8 as renumbered:

"S.B.C. 1974, c. 43, s. 1.

"1. Section 1 of the Islands Trust Act is amended

in the definition of 'designated island' by inserting 'an island or group of islands in the trust area, whether or not in Schedule B, designated' after 'this Act or', and

in the definition of 'general trustee' by striking out 'general trustee appointed' and substituting 'the chairman and vice-chairmen elected'."

"S. 2 (1).

"2. Section 2 (1) is amended by striking out the words a ' after 'Trust, ' and substituting 'consisting of the chairman and 2 vice-chairmen elected in accordance with the regulations by the local trustees from among their number as soon as practicable after the general election of the local trustees, to hold office for a term of 2 years or until their successors are elected pursuant to this section."

"S. 2 (2).

"3. Section 2 (2) is repealed and the following substituted:

"(2) If an office of the trust becomes vacant, the local trustees shall elect one of their number to serve the balance of the term."

[ Page 5183 ]

APPENDIX

"S. 2 (3a) and (3b) .

"4. Section 2 is further amended by inserting after subsection (3) the following:

"(3a) The minister may direct the date and procedure for the first election of general trustees after the coming into force of this subsection and the date on which they will take office.

"(3b) When the first elected general trustees take office pursuant to this section the existing appointments of general trustees terminate."

"S. 2 (5).

"5. Section 2 (5) is amended by striking out 'appointed' and substituting elected', and by striking out 'appointment' and substituting 'election'."

"S. 2 (6).

"6. Section 2 (6) is repealed and the following substituted:

"(6) The corporation, in addition to its powers under the Interpretation Act, may, with the prior approval of the minister, accept, hold, and dispose of real property; but shall not, without the prior approval of the minister, incur liabilities or borrow money."

"S. 2 (8) .

"7. Section 2 (8) is repealed."

By inserting the following after section 8 as renumbered:

"S. 3 (3) .

"9. The Act is further amended by adding after section 3 (2) the following:

"(3) For the purpose of enforcing a by-law made under this Act, the trust committee having jurisdiction has all the power and authority of a municipality, and sections 220,222, 230,232 to 235,237 to 239 (1) , 240,241, 243,244, 734 and 735 of the Municipal Act apply."

By inserting after section 10 as renumbered the following:

"S. 4 (5) .

"Section 4 (5) is amended by adding '; but, for the purpose of determining a quorum, a general trustee who is also a local trustee may sit as either trustee but not both' after 'quorum'."

By deleting section 17 as renumbered and substituting the following:

"S.11.

"17. Section 11 is amended by adding after paragraph (d) the following:

(e) grouping 2 or more islands in the trust area, whether or not in Schedule B, as a designated island, and sections 220,222, 230,232 to 235,237 to 239 (1) , 240,241, 243,244, 734 and 735 of the Municipal Act apply."

By inserting after section 10 as renumbered the following:

"S. 4 (5) .

"ll. Section 4 (5) is amended by adding '; but, for the purpose of determining a quorum, a general trustee who is also a local trustee may sit as either trustee but not both' after 'quorum'."

By deleting section 17 as renumbered and substituting the following:

"S. 11.

"17. Section 11 is amended by adding after paragraph (d) the following:

"(e) grouping 2 or more islands in the trust area, whether or not in Schedule B, as a designated island, respecting remuneration and expenses of trustees,

"(g) respecting the election of general trustees, and

[ Page 5184 ]

"(h) resolving any conflict between this Act and the Municipal Act or making further provisions of the Municipal Act apply under this Act." .

Section 21 as renumbered, line 1: By deleting "ll" and substituting "20".

42 The Hon. H. A. Curtis to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 42) intituled Municipal Amendment Act, 1977, to amend as follows:

Section 32, line 1: By renumbering the section as subsection (1) .

By inserting "1, 2, " before "13 (1) ".

By adding the following:

"(2) Sections 1 and 2 come into force on October 1,1977 and a person who makes a valid application for registration to the Clerk prior to that date shall be included in the list of electors and, at the election in 1977, no elector on that list as authenticated by the Court of Revision shall be challenged on the grounds only that be has not resided in the municipality for 3 months prior to the application for registration."

47 The Hon. E. M. Wolfe to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No, 47) intituled British Columbia Railway Company Grant Act, 1977, to amend as follows:

"Section 1, line 2: By deleting all the words after "pay" and substituting "to the British Columbia Railway Company, out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, the $54 million received from the Government of Canada pursuant to an agreement with the Government of British Columbia respecting northern railway development, together with the interest earned on the money from the date the money was received to the date it is so paid."