[ Page 1001 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral questions,

Shaffer report on proposed transmission line. Mr. Lockstead –– 1002

Unbilled government revenue. Mr. Stupich –– 1003

Housing cooperatives. Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm replies –– 1004

Resort Municipality of Whistler Amendment Act, 1979 (Bill 34). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 1004

Mr. Barber –– 1005

Mr. Lorimer –– 1008

Mr. Nicolson –– 1010

Mr. Lauk –– 1010

Mr. King –– 1011

Mr. Mussallem –– 1013

Mr. Howard –– 1014

Mr. D'Arcy –– 1015

Mr. Barrett –– 1016

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 1019

Mr. Levi –– 1022

Mr. Gabelmann –– 1024

Mr. Cocke –– 1026

Constitution Amendment Act, 1979 (Bill 35). Hon. Mr. Curtis.

Introduction and first reading –– 1027

Presenting Reports

Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts and Economic Affairs Report

No. 1.

Mr. Hall –– 1027

Appendix –– 1028

WEDNESDAY, JULY 25, 1979

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I would like all members of the House to bid a special welcome to a gentleman who's visiting Victoria from Victoria. He is the Hon. Haddon Storey, QC, the Attorney for the State of Victoria in Australia. We'd like to bid him an especially good welcome today.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce to the House some distinguished Victorians who, through your courtesy, are on the floor of the assembly today. They are representatives of the Victoria Budgets fastball team, which recently won a gold medal for Canada at the Pan-American Games in San Juan, Puerto Rico. As most Victorians know, the Budgets have been carrying on a tradition of Victoria fastball supremacy, inherited in 1978 from the predecessor team, Victoria Bates.

Without too much detail, Mr. Speaker, I would wish to recite some of the impressive victories won by Victoria Bates and Victoria Budgets in the last decade: British Columbia champions, 1969, then 1971 through 1979; Canadian champions, 1975 through 1979; world champions, 1976; gold medalists, Pan-Am Games, 1979. It's an impressive record, Mr. Speaker. I think, sir, if I may say so, Victoria has obviously one of the best, if not the best, fastball teams in the world. I'm sure all members will join me in welcoming to the House Harvey Stevenson, field manager; Jack Bell, general manager; Bob Holness, shortstop; and Mark Scott, sponsor of the gold medal-winning Victoria Budgets.

MR. BARBER: On behalf of my colleague for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) and every member of the official opposition, I'd like to add our congratulations to the Victoria Budgets team. I'd like to add, if I may, a word to that of the Provincial Secretary, who congratulated them for their skill. I should like to congratulate them for their stamina. I was invited to attend an exhibition game on Saturday last. It started at 7 o'clock. Ordinarily, it would run seven innings. It ended at five minutes to twelve, 21 innings later. They are an amazing team — tremendous guts — and they won the game at the top of the twenty-first inning. Congratulations!

MR. KING: I would like to introduce a distinguished gentleman whom I spotted in the Speaker's gallery today. He is Mr. Les Keen, president of the Social Credit Party of British Columbia. I understand that Mr. Keen has arrived today to watch his flock, and he has a roll of patching tape in his pocket. I welcome him to Victoria.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Next week in the municipality of Richmond the British Columbia Summer Games will begin. They will be held on August 3, 4 and 5, with the official opening on the evening of August 2. All members of the assembly have been invited to attend either the opening ceremonies or the days of the events.

On behalf of the 1,700 volunteers from Richmond who are working to make the games a great success, I'd like to introduce two distinguished Richmond residents: Mrs. Irene Vennard, who was president of the Richmond Summer Games Society, and Mrs. Barbara Gresczmiel, a director of the Summer Games.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I'm very pleased and honoured to have with us today my terrific son, Jeff, and his wonderful and beautiful wife, and my daughter-in-law, Cheryl. I ask the House to bid them welcome.

MR. KEMPF: It is my very great pleasure to introduce three individuals in the Speaker's gallery this afternoon. Mrs. Pat Euverman is a resident of my hometown of Houston. Pat is the daughter of a gentleman who was a very, very the Speakerclose friend of mine, and who was the first mayor of the district of Houston when it was formed a few years ago. I ask the House to give a very special welcome to Pat this afternoon.

Not to be outdone, I too acknowledge our esteemed president of the British Columbia Social Credit Party. With him this afternoon is Mr. Daryl Anderson, president of the Coquitlam-Moody Constituency Association. I ask the House to make all three of these people very welcome.

HON. MR. CHABOT: We have in the galleries today a group of people from the community of Kimberley: Mrs. Myra Farquhar and her two children, Janet and Grant; Mrs. Elsie Jones and her daughter Tanya; Agnes and Sonny Nomland, formerly of Kimberley, now of Victoria — an unsuccessful candidate for the NDP nomination in Columbia River in the last election; and we also have Mrs. Martha Herron from Kimberley. I'd like the House to join me in welcoming them to this House.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, it is not often that I have the privilege of having any of our family in the gallery, because we live rather a long distance away; but today is very special because in the gallery are members of our family from Englnd whom I've not yet met. Visiting here today are Mr. Len Holding, his daughter, Mrs. Rita Kirby, and Mrs. Kirby's son and daughter-in-law, Mr. and Mrs. John Kirby. They are visiting Canaa from Benfleet, Essex, England, and I would ask all the House to give them a very warm welcome.

Should anyone in the gallery have been omitted from the welcomes today, I would welcome all of you on behalf of the members of this Legislature.

MR, BARRETI: I have four friends in the gallery today, Mr. Speaker: Mr. and Mrs. Kennedy from Nanaimo, and their relatives, Mr. and Mrs. Kennedy from London, England. I ask the House to welcome them.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: In the gallery today are good friends, Don and Virginia Shwery of North Vancouver, their son, Dr. Ken Shwery, and Louise DuPerron of Windsor, Ontario. I would ask the House to give them a warm welcome.

MR. ROGERS: It seems that today everyone will be introduced. Those who are on the front line of the political process, out there where the rubber meets the road, are the constituency secretaries. This being summer, we give our constituency secretaries a day off, and they are allowed to come to Victoria for the day. I would ask the House to

[ Page 1002 ]

welcome Susan MacLeod, who is our constituency secretary for Vancouver South, and who is having a wonderful day off in Victoria.

MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery this afternoon are some guests from Cranbrook in the Kootenay constituency: Miss Lisa Moore and her sister Lara, who are here visiting with their aunt, Kathie Walsh, and her daughter, Kendra. I would like the House to join with me in welcoming them this afternoon.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Not to be outdone by all the distinguished guests we have, I would like the House to welcome Mrs. Mae Ross, a distinguished British Columbian and a strong supporter and friend of mine.

MR. HOWARD: I'm sure the House will join me in welcoming all those visiting the Legislature today who have not yet been recognized.

Oral Questions

SHAFFER REPORT ON
PROPOSED TRANSMISSION LINE

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I have a question for the Minister of Environment. Was Dr. Shaffer telling the truth when he said that he prepared a report for the Environment and Land Use Committee secretariat and the government which dealt with the economic justification for the proposed 500-kilovolt transmission line to Vancouver Island?

HON. MR. MAIR: As the member opposite is so often, he was half right.

Interjections.

HON. MR. MAIR: Give a straight question and you'I get a straight answer.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: On a supplementary, can the minister confirm that Dr. Shaffer was paid approximately $8,000 for his report?

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, this is probably a good time to explain a few facts to the member opposite. I'm not surprised that the member opposite does not want to learn the facts. It wouldn't be as much fun if he knew the true situation. The Environment and Land Use Committee is a committee, as the member might know, made up of a number of cabinet ministers — eight or nine in number — of which I happen to be the chairman. There is also an Environment and Land Use Committee secretariat, and this secretariat is chaired by Mr. Dennis O'Gorman. The secretariat sometimes takes directions from the Environment and Land Use Committee, and sometimes does things on its own initiative. That's the strength of the committee. It isn't always at the behest of the government, but it is there for the government when it needs it.

On its own initiative (I'm instructed by Mr. O'Gorman) sometime earlier this year it decided to investigate the question of the Cheekye-Dunsmuir line. I emphasized the words "on its own initiative," Mr. Member. I am now instructed by Mr. O'Gorman that among other people whom he talked to was a Dr. Shaffer. I've never met Dr. Schaffer. I don't know the man. I wouldn't know him if I ran into him wearing my clothes. But out of the funds made available to the Environment and Land Use Committee secretariat, Mr. Speaker, so that they can do their thing, as it were, I'm instructed that Dr. Shaffer was indeed paid $8,000 for a report he submitted to the secretariat. That report has never been made available, nor should it have been. I haven't asked for it, nor would I ask for it.

Interjection.

HON. MR, MAIR: But I am. If you'd shut up for a minute you'd get the full answer. Didn't you get enough applause at your minstrel show?

MR. SPEAKER: Order please, hon. members. We have a question. Let's hear the answer.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, I'm instructed....

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, it has become fashionable in question period to be rather disorderly. I would suggest that we desist from the practice and make question period an enjoyable 15 minutes.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

HON. MR. MAIR: To complete the answer, Mr. Speaker, during my estimates the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) asked me about a document — and he'll correct me, I'm sure, if I'm wrong — I believe on June 6 or 7. I'm advised by Mr. O'Gorman that document, which is a memorandum between the secretariat and myself — once again, as I say, on its own initiative — does indeed incorporate some of the things he was told by Dr. Shaffer. Dr. Shaffer's name is not mentioned in that report. I think you probably have a copy of it. You certainly seem conversant enough with it. Dr. Shaffer's name is not mentioned in that, and until the member opposite mentioned Dr. Shaffer's name to me during my estimates, I believe I'd never heard of the man. But I do understand that this report was based, at least in part, on the service rendered to the secretariat, not the government, by Dr. Shaffer.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I have a further supplenientary. Can the minister tell us why he told the residents at Sakinaw Lake just last Monday, some three days ago, that no such report, memorandum or document existed?

HON. MR. MAIR: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I might observe that the member for Mackenzie wasn't there. Secondly, I did not say that. What I did say was that to my knowledge no such report existed, and to my knowledge — other than what Mr. O'Gorman told me this morning — no such report exists today.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I have a further supplementary, Mr. Speaker. First I want to correct the minister's statement. I did ask the minister for an opportunity to ride in

[ Page 1003 ]

his airplane with him. He said there was no room for the MLAs.

Can the minister now confirm that this report advises against the proposed project?

HON. MR. MAIR: First of all, I should advise the member opposite it was a no-smoking airplane and that's probably one of the reasons. Secondly, Mr. Member, I have never seen the report and there is no reason why I should want to see it. I don't know how many times....

Interjections.

HON. MR. MAIR: May I have the protection of the Chair, Mr. Speaker? I take exception to the remark made to me by the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) which implied that I was not telling the truth. If he did imply that, I ask him to withdraw.

MR. SPEAKER: I must ask the hon. member for Mackenzie if indeed he was imputing any....

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Yes, I was telling the truth.

MR. SPEAKER: Sorry, hon. members — I misunderstood. Was the first member for Vancouver Centre imputing any improper motive?

MR. LAUK: No, I wasn't, Mr. Speaker. He sought protection of the Chair, and I said, "Seek protection in the truth," which is good advice to all hon. members.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, I find it surprising that this is a satisfactory answer, but I yield to the Chair. Before I was so rudely interrupted by the members opposite, I said that the report that the secretariat sought, and apparently received from Dr. Shaffer is something that they are entitled to get involved in on their own initiative, and they did so on their own initiative. They reported back to me quite gratuitously, but I'm thankful for the report based on what Dr. Shaffer told them. There is nothing sinister about that. The Environment and Land Use Committee secretariat often resorts to outside experts in order to help it with the problems that it is trying to resolve. Once again, it seems to me, they protest a little too much.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I have a further supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Now that the minister has agreed that the report exists, will the minister agree to table the Shaffer report, and/or the memorandum, in this Legislature? Will he make public these facts about economic justification for that line? This government is hiding behind that report. They are afraid of what's in that report. Make it public — we paid for that report.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I cannot accept the question in that it asks for the future activity of the minister.

UNBILLED GOVERNMENT REVENUE

MR. STUPICH: A couple of weeks ago the Minister of Finance observed that was the first question he had been asked in the session. He then took it as notice. A week later he was asked another question he took as notice. I would now like to try a third time.

This is a question about the unbilled revenue of $26 million as of March 31, 1978, which the auditor-general commented upon. We found out this morning that the amount as of March 31, 1979, was in excess of $80 million, which doesn't seem to tie in with what the Minister of Finance said a week ago to the effect that those problems are long behind us. The current figure is still in excess of $50 million, and we were also told this morning that the main factor is an important person in the B.C. Systems Corporation being taken away from Forests and given to Mines to do some work there. I am wondering what work was going on in the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources that was more important than catching up to this $80 million of unbilled revenue. That's the question. Surely the Minister of Finance is the minister responsible for B.C. Systems Corporation — he's a director of B.C. Systems Corporation; the decision was made by B.C. Systems Corporation.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the minister has the question.

As a matter of fact, the practice of the House is that when questions are taken as notice it is the prerogative of the minister to determine at what time he wishes to bring the answer to the House, and it is improper to ask the minister to even state a time when that will be. Next question, please.

MR. STUPICH: This is a brand new question, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. WOLFE: The member has asked a question which relates to the transfer of people for various duties throughout various ministries. This is not uncommon, and I'm sure he realizes this. He would also realize, Mr. Speaker, with regard to comments made about stumpage and the collection of timber dues, that this is the responsibility of the Ministry of Forests. But I think we should all appreciate the fact that notwithstanding what has been said by the auditor-general, the moneys referred to have been collected. There are no moneys that have not been collected. But the whole situation here surrounds the collection of stumpage on timbers which are cut and the delay which takes place subsequent to that before it's possible to arrange for billing.

The member should be well aware of the fact that during the tenure of the previous government a new system was devised, Mr. Speaker, under which a further delay was created in this process inasmuch as the fact that rate determination.... Under the existing system, created by the former government, a new system for delay in terms of the rate determination was introduced back some five or six years ago, and this is no small part of the current situation with regard to timber dues. We are looking at this situation in terms of the time element involved in the cutting of timber and the creation of the revenues in the hands of the government. We are considering such means as interim billings and so on. But I want to say that we're actively pursuing this matter, and the money that has been referred to has been collected. It's just a long-standing matter that the collection of timber dues has been involved in a delayed process.

[ Page 1004 ]

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, obviously the minister didn't hear my question. I'm asking him as a director of B.C. Systems Corporation why this important person was taken away from his work in forestry, where the billings were in excess of $50 million behind, and transferred to the Ministry of Mines. I'm wondering what was going on in the Ministry of Mines that was more important than catching up on this backlog, which has got steadily worse.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I think the member is well aware of the fact I was not in attendance at the meeting he is referring to. I would not have the information that he is referring to. There was a delay in the transfer to a computer system about a year or more ago, which I am advised is not currently a problem. There are many more serious problems involved in the delay in this total system which go back a long way.

MR. STUPICH: On a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, I once again ask the minister responsible for B.C. Systems Corporation, who is also a director of that corporation, what the important work was in the Ministry of Mines that meant that this person had to be taken off his very important work in forestry, where they were $80 million behind in billing revenue, and transferred to work in the Ministry of Mines. That's all I want to know. What was going on in the Ministry of Mines that was so important?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Tell him, Bill.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The member for Nanaimo has a new question.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I would at least invite the minister to take the question as notice, if nothing else.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Thank you very much.

MR. STUPICH: Will he offer to look into it?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Okay.

HOUSING COOPERATIVES

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I would like to provide an answer to the question posed by the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) yesterday with respect to co-ops.

Firstly, no letter was received by my office from the manager for the city of Vancouver, Mr. Fritz Bowers, regarding homeowner grants, but instead he corresponded directly with the assistant deputy minister, who has been in contact with the manager.

Also, the law is that the co-op owners receive homeowner grant cheques indirectly. They are eligible, but under statute it must be paid to co-op development rather than to individual owners.

The Vancouver city legal department brought forward an opinion stating that a number of cooperative associations were ineligible for the homeowner grant because of a clause in their memorandum of association which in effect states that they can rent as well as sell to members. This opinion was confirmed through the research by the Ministry of the Attorney-General. The cooperative association will need to change their memorandum of association in order to qualify. I am pleased to advise that cooperative associations favourably amending their memorandums of association in 1979 will render their members eligible for the 1979 homeowner grant. They need only make application in January 1980 under the retroactive provisions of the statute.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Wrong again, Charlie!

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: I ask leave to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call second reading of Bill 34, Mr. Speaker.

RESORT MUNICIPALITY OF
WHISTLER AMENDMENT ACT, 1979

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, the style of debate during Committee of Supply is one where there are quick interchanges, and it quickly leads to, perhaps, a noisy House. We are now moving into the debate on second reading, in which we discuss the principle of Bill 34. I'm giving this information particularly to those who are new members, and trust you will remember that there's a different style of debate in principle.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's a pleasure to introduce Bill 34 and to give, firstly, some explanation of it. The purpose of the Act is to permit the formation of a resort association for the promotion and development of facilities within the resort municipality of Whistler. It has been requested by the resort municipality of Whistler, and the resort municipality of Whistler is promoting a village for tourists at the foot of the expanded ski facilities there.

For your information, the first phase of the development is to provide 4,000 new tourist beds, and the second phase is to provide for 9,000 additional tourist beds. By 1980, 2,000 of these should be completed. There is also, of course, the proposal for shopping centres and pedestrian malls. The facility can provide for 10,000 skiers a day by 1980-1981. That is the capacity of the ski lifts.

The members of the Whistler council and their staff have very carefully studied all the other resort areas in North America, particularly to try to provide us with the most ideal situation and ensure we have the greatest destination resort anywhere in North America. They have identified the need to coordinate the efforts of the individual businesses to establish an effective approach to marketing and sales management, including such things as, possibly, a Zenith number to make it convenient for people calling from other parts of North America, or perhaps from Asia or Europe, to make reservations anywhere in the Whistler area, and to find out what the facilities are, what is available, or what the weather might be like at any particular time.

[ Page 1005 ]

[Mr. Nicolson in the chair.]

The essential requirement for a resource association to assume responsibility for the common area and maintenance is also of particular importance. In order for this to be a quality resort we should be in the position of providing a very high level of maintenance and care within the common areas, particularly within the resort area. Such should not be at the expense of the ratepayers within the Whistler area, who are the normal taxpayers resident there. They are not requesting a grant from the provincial or federal government. Instead they want to do this promotion through their own efforts and in the best way possible. It will perform similarly to a strata corporation, and any voting structure developed within the corporation will be done by way of bylaws. Such bylaws must be approved not only by the municipal council but also by the Lieutenant-Governor-in Council. All members of the association will determine the budget for promotion, for sales, and for operation. All members will be assessed their portion of those costs. It will be their decision. They will determine exactly what is required and how they might contribute.

If you join the association you will be aware of the responsibilities of membership before joining. Notice of such will be on the certificate of title in the land registry office.

I see here a great opportunity for us to establish a resort that could well compete with any other in North America or, possibly, in the world. I think all members on both sides want this to be a tremendous success, not only in providing a tremendous facility for those who live in British Columbia or in the greater Vancouver area, but for people from any other part of Canada or from North America who wish to visit British Columbia and enjoy its beauty. We want it to be a success. Such success will be largely dependent on the quality and extent of their promotion.

Again, I think all members should be grateful that these people are willing to take it on, that they are not coming with their hands out to seek grants. Unified, they are prepared to assure us that this occurs, and that it occurs effectively.

I move second reading. I'm proud to do so, and I hope I'll gain the support of all members here.

MR. BARBER: If only this bill were as simple and straightforward as the minister makes out it is. If only the bill were a simple attempt to promote tourism and recreational opportunities in British Columbia. If only the bill were a simple, clear and above-board device for doing some things in public which publicly interested people would want to have done in the first place. The problem is, it is no such bill at all. The problem is, it is being promoted by a government which has found a very curious means for supporting their friends in the real estate speculation and development business.

This is not the ordinary bill we would expect to see when a group of individuals want to incorporate. If that were the case, they would have brought forward a private bill. As does the Vancouver Stock Exchange, or any other group of people in British Columbia, they would have promoted a private bill at their own expense, the purpose of which would be to allow them to band together in some corporate fashion to do something or other for themselves. But no, that's not what we have. It isn't the expected private bill. Rather it is a government bill. I'll get back to that in a moment.

Referring to the minister's brief opening remarks, it should be made very clear that this is a bill the like of which we have never seen before in this Legislature. The sole purpose of this bill is to promote the private interests of private developers — period. The public interest, the public advantage and the public good is utterly ignored in this bill. No attention is paid to it whatever. Only private developers will benefit.

There were a number of other routes this government could have taken, and I will discuss those in a moment. The fact that they took this one betrays more of their real intent than the minister will ever care to admit. It's the opinion of the official opposition that Bill 34 is the single most dangerous, defective and mistaken bill the Social Credit government has introduced this session.

It will pass. This bill will pass. They have the votes to make it pass. But it is a bill which betrays the public interest in several significant ways. It betrays the public interest and sells it out to private interest, private benefit and private profit. It is a dangerous, defective and mistaken piece of legislation that calls into question the commitment of this government, if any, to doing anything other than supporting and giving whatever they want to its friends.

This bill betrays a scheme that involves huge numbers of people, that involves a huge scale of enterprise and that involves huge profits. Thanks to this bill, no public interest and no public profit will be guaranteed.

In a moment we will get, as will my colleagues as well, to ask who really wrote this bill. Who really designed Bill 34? It will surely and clearly benefit private interests — foreign interests as well, it should be noted — and private developers. We have a number of questions we'll be asking in committee about who really wrote this and on whose instructions. We'll be asking questions of the MLA for Whistler, the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams), who is no longer in his chair. We'll be asking questions about stories we've heard about affidavits that have had to be signed. We'll be asking questions about the unusual secrecy precautions this government took right up until the moment they dropped the bill. It is a very curious piece of legislation. It does nothing but sell out the public interest to private and foreign interests in the field of recreational development at Whistler.

The first reason this bill is dangerous is because it turns over for private gain what should have been retained for public benefit. These foreign interests, as well as private interests, it should be understood, include the firm of Twentieth Century-Fox, incorporated in Delaware in 1952, which owns the Aspen Skiing Corporation. It paid $50 million a year and a half ago for that privilege. Aspen Skiing Corporation is itself the 50 percent owner, together with the Federal Business Development Bank, of Fortress Mountain Resorts Ltd., a Calgary-based company which operates four skiing operations in the province of Alberta.

Thanks to a decision taken by the former Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen), Fortress Mountain Resorts Ltd. will be the principal beneficiary but not the only beneficiary of this Act. The minister, in his introductory remarks today, failed to tell us that the half-owner of this company is an American corporation, Twentieth CenturyFox.

[ Page 1006 ]

He failed to tell us, as well, that a Canadian company applied for the development rights at Whistler and Blackcomb. The Canadian company was turned down. Fortress Mountain Resorts Limited, half-owned by Aspen Skiing Corporation, which is 100 percent owned by Twentieth Century-Fox, an American corporation, will be the principal but not the only beneficiary of this most curious piece of legislation. That's the first reason it's dangerous.

Secondly, this bill is dangerous because it sets an incredible precedent, one which we've never seen before. This bill creates for the first time in British Columbia a private corporation that has taxing authority. It creates a private corporation with taxing authority over an area of land in this province which has enormous potential wealth and value.

Section 22 of this bill provides that the private corporation known as the Whistler Resort Association may levy charges against its members. It may levy charges against, as will inevitably result, every landowner in the area designated under schedule A and the new schedule B as provided for in the former and the current legislation. This has never been done before in this province.

The minister will no doubt reply: "Strata corporations can levy charges and fees." That is utterly irrelevant to what will happen under section 22 here. A strata corporation that owns 40 units on Heywood Avenue in Victoria is nothing compared to what will happen at Whistler and Blackcomb if this bill goes through. You have created a private taxing corporation, and you have at the same time denied any protection under other statutes that ordinarily are found to protect the residents of strata corporations. We'll get to that in a moment.

Thirdly, it is dangerous because you have created a system of weighted voting. It's a matter now of public record, and I presume the minister won't deny it, that this bill will allow persons who have enormous wealth to exercise enormous voting privileges and enormous numbers of votes in the day-to-day decision making of the Whistler Resort Association. If the minister cares to deny his own comments, saying that weighted voting will not be the result of the creation of the Whistler Resort Association, let him so deny it; and let him deny it to the press that he told it to three days ago; let him deny it to the people who have his words on tape. This government proposes to create a system of weighted voting; this government will thereby permit a system that once again will disfranchise the small, single, private owner at Whistler and instead further the sell out to massive development and speculation interests and the foreign interests of a company like twentieth Century Fox Limited. If the minister cares to deny today what he admitted three days ago about weighted voting, let him deny it.

It is further dangerous, because sections 17 and 19 make it perfectly clear that the inevitable result of this bill will be to require — not permit, but to require — participation in the Whistler Resort Association. How will it do that? It will do that by such bylaws as are passed with, no doubt, the full consent of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, and by such economic pressure as can be brought to bear on those few people who may choose to hold out against the awesome authority you've given to this private taxing corporation of Whistler. However, you needn't take my word for it; you can read the explanatory note in the bill. What does it say? The second sentence says: "The bill requires participation in the association in order to further the association's goals." Now we didn't write that; this is the explanatory note provided by legislative counsel. The bill does not permit or simply allow participation by property owners at Whistler, schedules A or B; the bill requires it. Your own explanatory note makes clear the inevitable outcome of sections 17 and 19.

MR. BARRETT: There goes democracy.

MR. BARBER: Precisely. What kind of democracy is this for the people at Whistler, for those individual landowners and homeowners, for those individual business operators who may not care to get caught up in this giant cartel involving foreign interests? What democracy is this?

The bill looks even more dangerous when you read section 18. Not only have you created a private taxing authority that will allow foreign interests and developers' interests to make enormous profits from the enormous numbers of people who will be using this private facility, but you have also denied the very minimal basic protection that any other citizen would be entitled to if he were confronted with this kind of a scheme. You have denied the protection of the Municipal Act and you have denied the protection of the Companies Act to the people at Whistler.

Now why would a government choose to do this? If it were an ordinary bill, creating an ordinary corporation for an ordinary purpose, you would think they wouldn't be afraid of the Companies Act; you would think that this government might not be afraid of the public reporting and public decision-making provisions in the Companies Act. But no, Mr. Speaker, it appears they are afraid of that because they have specifically exempted the corporation they propose to create from those provisions. Indeed, all we see is that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may order that certain provisions of the Companies Act apply. There is no binding requirement to do so; it's our guess that none will ever be made to apply. To the extent that Social Credit favours big developers and foreign interests, it is to that same extent that they will never take advantage of the one remaining protection that the Companies Act provides, which is that they may order application of its provisions.

Now why does the Whistler Resort Association need this kind of protection? What business do they propose to do in secret that they would rather not do in public? Why do they want exemption from the Municipal Act and the Companies Act if everything they're going to do is above board, if all of the connections this secret society has are with people whose only interest is the public good? Is it possible that there are people who will benefit from this curious piece of legislation who would rather not be known about, who would rather their connections with the governing party were not understood, who would prefer that the enlightening provisions and the public accountability provisions of the Companies and Municipal Acts did not apply to them? Is it possible they need protection because they've got something to hide? Is it possible that this most curious piece of legislation is designed to protect the names and the interests of those who will happily read under section 18 that they are exempt from the provisions of the Companies Act and the Municipal Act and, in fact, the Societies Act? We'll get to that in a moment as well. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, if the bill were as simple and straightforward as the minister pretended it was in his

[ Page 1007 ]

opening remarks, no simple, straightforward corporation would ever ask for such exemptions; no straightforward government would ever grant them.

The bill is defective in a number of areas as well. This bill sets up a brand new corporation, the authority of which is totally unrelated to the authority of the corporation set up in the original Resort Municipality of Whistler Act, 1975. In most amending bills — in all that I've ever seen as a member of this House, and in all that my colleagues can recall — that bill changes the language of some earlier legislation, amends and alters it to make it more contemporary and appropriate. We don't dispute that; that is fair and reasonable. An amending bill amends an original bill. What do we find in this bill, Mr. Speaker? Surprise, surprise! There are actually no amendments at all — not one single amendment to the old Act. The old Act ran from sections I to 13; the new Act runs from sections 14 to 22. Not a single provision in the old Act is altered; not one genuine amendment can be found in this bill.

There is some question raised, therefore, Mr. Speaker, as to whether or not this bill offends against the rules of the House and the requirements that are ordinarily obtained and applied to an amending bill. Precisely because Bill 34 amends no previous legislation, but rather creates a brand-new corporation in a brand new way, you have to ask why they would try to do it under the cloak and the subterfuge of an old bill.

MR. LAUK: Ask the Speaker for an immediate ruling.

MR. BARBER: I won't do that at this time. [Laughter.]

But you have to ask about the strategic intent of a government that doesn't have the honesty to do what they should have done, which was to bring in a separate bill and not pretend that it has anything to do with any other bill. Your new bill doesn't amend a single word in the old Act. You might as well have brought in an amendment to the B.C. Hydro Act for all that this relates to any earlier legislation. In that regard this bill is defective; it doesn't amend a single word in the previous legislation.

The bill is defective in another regard. section 14 tells us that resort land, a brand-new category that we don't find in the Assessment Act, a brand-new term which we find in no other law, to the best of our knowledge.... If I'm wrong I'll stand corrected, but our researchers can't find any other reference to resort land in any other statute. It creates something called resort land. What's the definition, defective as it is, of resort land? Well, it's simply this: it is the land described in schedule B, and land deemed to be resort land under section 17(2), or a lot, stratalot, or other parcel into which the land is subdivided.

What that tells us, Mr. Speaker, is precisely nothing, and precisely this: resort land will mean whatever the government wants it to mean. Later on my colleagues will be talking about the extent to which beneficial taxation and beneficial assessments may come finally to be applied to resort land, and we will discover that not only is that giant scheme denying the public interest, but this giant cartel will, in fact, be given preferential consideration when it comes to tax time. Because now they've been the beneficiaries of this new term "resort land" that exists, to the best of our knowledge, in no other Act, but exists, to the best of our knowledge, here only for a most curious purpose.

There is a further aspect of this bill which, in our judgment, demonstrates that Bill 34 is simply defective as well as dangerous and mistaken as a matter of policy. Section 17 provides, as far as we can tell, that any land anywhere may come under the jurisdiction of the Whistler Resort Association. Let me read to you, briefly, Mr. Speaker, subsection (3) of section 17: "An owner of land in a municipality that is not described in schedule B may, in accordance with the bylaws, become a member of the association, and on becoming a member his land shall be deemed to be resort land."

It could be any developer anywhere, by the way, not just literally in the land around the Whistler-Blackcomb Mountain area. It could presumably be land in the Fraser Valley; this doesn't prohibit it. It could be land on Vancouver Island. There is prohibition. Your bill is defective. There is no prohibition. There is no prohibition against, by bylaw, the Whistler Resort Association determining that someone somewhere or other....

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Come on, read the bill.

MR. BARBER: I just read subsection 17(3) to you.

That someone somewhere may be deemed to be the owner of resort land, and because of the taxing advantages that resort land may offer, she or he will be able to take further public benefit from this very strange piece of legislation.

Section 17(3), again, says: "An owner of land in the municipality...."

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes — "in the municipality."

MR. BARBER: Just a minute. You have expanded under schedule A and schedule B what that municipality shall constitute. and you may do so again in the future. schedule B into which we've been digging most intimately, may itself be expanded by the provisions of 17(3), so you may go on and on to amend the Act. Indeed, it should be pointed out that the ordinary provisions of the Municipal Act regarding boundary expansion of a municipality specifically don't apply. So don't tell me it's any protection that just because it says "in the municipalities" you won't, in fact, be including people who own vast holdings outside the area in consideration, who own the mountain next to Blackcomb, the mountain next to Whistler. Don't tell me that because you've exempted the Municipal Act and the ordinary binding provisions of it from the Whistler Resort Association you have any protection at all against the legitimate fears that many people have, including us, as to what it is you intend to do here, and what it is you intend to take advantage of.

"The land shall be deemed to be resort land, " indeed. That is defective legislation. You can amend the municipal boundaries any time you like. This Act does not provide any of the protections that ordinarily would be provided. It's defective legislation to that extent as well.

It is further defective because this bill may well create preferential taxation for resort land. I made that point before, but let me make it again. If you have a schedule of taxation for resort land, introduce it during second reading and we'll withdraw that objection. If you have a specific schedule of taxation for resort land as you intend it to be applied under the provisions of Bill 34 when enacted, bring

[ Page 1008 ]

in those schedules, tell us what the taxation will be, tell us how you propose to tax resort land. If you don't do that, if you're not prepared to tell us whether or not you have any intention of granting preferential taxation to the owner of resort land, we can only conclude that you just might. We can only conclude that just maybe you'll find it to some advantage later on to create a new section, a new resort land apparatus, under the Assessment Act or some other Act. The door is wide open here for taxation abuse, for creating preferential tax status for the owners of resort land, or those who "shall be deemed" to own resort land. The bill is wide open for the further abuse of the public purse in British Columbia.

The bill is defective in another regard. It isn't a private bill; it isn't a bill sponsored by those who propose to take advantage of its provisions. It isn't a bill like the Trinity bill, like the usual Vancouver Stock Exchange bill, like the UVic foundation bill. We have under our law more than adequate provision for private persons or corporations to come forward and ask for a charter, through the device of a private bill, for a new corporation. Why, one has to ask, would this Whistler Resort Association and its backers not want to choose the ordinary route if, all they had in mind was the ordinary outcome?

It may have something to do with the fact that when a private bill comes forward, it comes forward to a committee of this House, and that committee has the authority to call witnesses and documents. That committee has the authority to bring into its debate people whom we cannot bring into this debate here. If it had come forward as a private bill, the opposition might actually have asked to meet with some of the principals of Fortress and Twentieth Century-Fox. We might actually have asked for documents. We may even have tried to subpoena documents about the real intent of the owners of land described in Schedule B of this Act. So one presumes, Mr. Speaker, that the reason it didn't come forward as a private bill was because the authors of this bill didn't want to be grilled in the committee room where we have an opportunity to call witnesses and documents. We are denied that opportunity here. One wonders whose interests are being served when the ordinary course of legislation is not followed.

Let me say again now what we said at the outset. If this was just an ordinary bill, simply serving ordinary purposes, it would have come forward as a private bill. It would have gone to the standing committee on private bills and orders. The authors of the bill would have been subject to examination and cross-examination by the members of that committee. It's clear that they prefer not to be subject to such questions. It's clear that they prefer, instead, to get Social Credit to run it by for them.

This bill is mistaken as a matter of public policy. It is mistaken because all of the opportunities for public participation, all of the opportunities for public gain and public benefit from this resource, are denied. The minister tells us that tens of thousands of people will be going up there paying, what I read in one document, $11 a shot for the privilege of using that ski lift. Think of the profits involved, Mr. Speaker, at $11 a shot — tens of thousands in a day. This bill will return to the private purse, and to the foreign investor, millions of Canadian dollars that could have come back to the public purse for public good and expanded public facilities.

It's a matter of public record that the previous government, in 1975, very late in its term when it created the Resort Municipality of Whistler Act, proposed as well at that time public development for all the people, and not just private development for some of them, of the vast recreational resources at Whistler and Blackcomb. Our government got kicked out in December, and that plan came to nothing. What's the plan we see four years later? Simply this: a plan in Bill 34 that will benefit foreign corporations, that will benefit private developers, that will benefit private speculators, on a scale we haven't seen in this province for years. It has been years since we saw a Cypress Bowl go ahead under Social Credit. It's been years since we heard talk of Wenner-Gren and his trans-mountain trenches and all the private profit that would have resulted if that lunatic scheme had proceeded. Now this year Social Credit, up to its old tricks, is back here with what they pose and pretend to be the most innocent of bills. Were it so, it would have been brought forward as a private bill. But it is not. It's a government bill. It's a government bill because the government is paying off its friends and supporters. One can draw no other conclusion. If it were not so it would have been a private bill. But, no. Here it is, a government bill that amends no other piece of legislation.

It's already a matter of public record that the editorial pages in this province, specifically that of the Vancouver Sun, as recently as yesterday, have found something wrong, defective, mistaken and dangerous about this bill. Already it has become perfectly clear that this bill will do more to create suspicion about the real motives of its real authors, to create doubt about whether or not Social Credit ever intends to protect the public interest, than almost any other bill we've seen this government bring in previous, or current forms.

It's a dangerous bill. You've created a dangerous precedent. It's a defective bill. You have not met the ordinary requirements of legislation and precedent, as far as presenting a private incorporation of this sort. It is a mistaken bill. You have betrayed the public interest and sold it out, instead, to private developers and foreign developers.

This bill cannot be supported by any person concerned about the proper development of recreational resources in the province. This bill cannot be supported by anyone who cares about the democratic rights of homeowners and landowners of Whistler. This bill cannot be supported because we have, to say the least, misgivings about who the real authors are, and who the real beneficiaries shall be.

This is, by no means, the first set of arguments the official opposition will present. By any means, if the government had the courage and the good sense, they should withdraw the bill. They won't, of course. They don't have the guts. They are too much in hock to their supporters. They are too much beholden to the real authors of this legislation.

It is a bad bill that does no good thing except for those few private corporations that will benefit from it. A government that genuinely cared about the public interest would never have brought in something like this in the first place.

MR. LORIMER: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the minister on his introductory remarks. He gave his remarks with a straight face and he didn't break up at all. I

[ Page 1009 ]

think the minister should be commended for his original remarks.

This is an odd bill. One might even suspect it is an unconscionable bill. What it does and what it doesn't do, what it says and what it doesn't say, are very interesting things to contemplate. What is not said is much more important than what is said.

Who wrote this bill? We can be assured it was prepared by the developers of Whistler. It was brought down to Victoria, probably in a brown manila envelope, and the legislative counsel here were forced to redraft it down in size. But the principle was not altered in any way.

MR. LAUK: They cut out the part about giving them power over criminal law.

MR. LORIMER: I think that's correct.

This bill ruins a very good bill that was brought in during the previous administration a bill that was preparing the Whistler area for public involvement, for public benefit, and benefits for all the people of British Columbia. There has only been a slight change in this amendment. The thrust now is to give the benefits to a few private operators. This bill amends nothing, and it doesn't at all deal with the original bill. It is put in here as an amendment in order to legitimize the amendment instead of having the amendment stand on its own feet.

The Act will consist of 22 sections, and in those 22 sections there's the creation of two separate corporations. There is the corporation of the village of Whistler and a private corporation consisting of unknown people, unknown developers, who are intending to use the great public resource for their private purposes.

I'm very disturbed at the member for Whistler. The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) is not here to make sure that the bill is properly put through and to listen to the arguments that are presented in regard to it. There is quite an absence of cabinet ministers in the House during this debate. There is no other precedent in any British Columbia statute for the government to give a private corporation the extensive powers which this bill includes.

This is not the only resort area. The next step we'll see is possibly Victoria. The merchants and the developers in Victoria will want a private bill to help them to make more funds out of the natural, public areas of Victoria.

What about Penticton? What about the other ski resorts in the Interior? Why can't they benefit in the same way as the developers of Whistler? This is a bill which has only one principle, and that is a giveaway of the rich recreational areas to the developers. It is welfare for the rich. The control will be in the hands of the very few. Not only is the control bad, but the fact is that the property will soon end up possibly with foreign interests. We will find that Whistler is completely controlled by absentee landlords.

The small businessmen, the residents and the others who enjoy Whistler will be at the mercy of the big boys. They will be dictated to, and the control will be in the hands of a very few people. This is what you would pass as jackboot legislation. It certainly means the end of democracy as far as Whistler goes. Weighted voting will mean that the smaller people in that area will have no say in the development of that community.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

The other problem, of course, is that the municipality will be completely controlled by the large interests of Whistler, and instead of developing in a healthy way it will merely legitimize the desires and the wishes of the large developers in the area.

I'd like the minister to advise us why it was necessary to prepare certain affidivits for people to sign. What was in those affidavits? I'm going to ask him to table those affidavits, the ones that he had signed. I'd like to know who didn't sign the affidavits, although requested to sign. Maybe he can tell us all about the affidavits, and I'm sure, before it goes into committee stage, the affidavits will be tabled. I'm sure the minister will do that.

We hear reports of dissension in the ranks of the cabinet in regard to this. Of course, I am not sure of the truth of these vicious rumours. But before I go into that in further detail, I want to mention a few other things. I want to discuss the bill in a cursory manner, and I want to deal first with resort land. It says that "resort land" means the land described and so on, but it doesn't say what resort land is. What is resort land? Are we going to expect another bill next year to give certain tax exemptions or reductions for those areas which have been described in other bills as resort land? Maybe the minister will tell us if there is going to be some further legislation. Maybe the second boot will drop next winter, the second jackboot, and we'll find that the concessions are put into legislation. We don't know this. We'd like the minister to keep us advised of what he intends to do.

There's an interesting section here dealing with cornpulsory membership. I know of no other corporation which involves compulsory membership whether you want to be a member or not. The closest thing to it may be strata title, but certainly before you go into the area, you know you're bound by strata title. But here the people who are already residents are going to be stuck and be bound by membership. Of course, this will not be subject to the rules or the terms of the Companies Act, unless otherwise stated.

Interjection.

MR. LORIMER: Yes, we've got the powers that be, those that drafted the bill, and those that are presenting the bill in communication. So we should be able to get all the answers.

Another section deals with the making of bylaws. There are going to be bylaws here and they are going to set out how the operation is going to work. I'm sure that the minister is going to table the proposed bylaws for us to review before the bill goes into committee stage so that we can be better able to understand what this giveaway bill is all about. So let's have a look at it. Let's have some open government here and let's have a look at what we're doing.

The weighted voting is an interesting one as well, where those with the money have control of the destiny of Whistler. My colleague has already dealt with that. I won't deal any further with it, but it's an interesting concept. I don't know of any other democratic organization where you have weighted voting.

Now what happens to the little fellow who's caught up in the bill? He's stuck by the decisions made through weighted voting by those two or three operators who have control of the whole bundle.

[ Page 1010 ]

But there's one thing to be said about this bill that's good, I think. It's section 20 of the bill, and it says — this is a good one: "Where a member of the association alleges that the affairs of the association are being conducted or the powers of the association are being exercised in a manner oppressive to one or more members, including himself...the member may apply to the supreme court for relief." Now that's a new twist. At least they can go to court. That's really the something that's in this bill that looks good. But we don't know what the bylaws are going to say about this, because I don't think that this section fits in with the rest of the bill.

But as I mentioned earlier, we do hear stories about dissension in the cabinet, and those are distressing to me. I would hate to see this happen. But there are a number of ministers running to the press, as I understand, telling them: "Well, about this bill, I don't support it myself, but I'm going to vote for it to keep cabinet solidarity." In other words, they're making peace with the press, telling the press: "Don't blame me, I'm clean."

I wonder what this bill is. Is it a Liberal bill or is it a Social Credit bill? Now I'm convinced it's not a Social Credit bill, because in the 20 years of Social Credit I never saw a bill like this. I'm convinced it has to be a Liberal bill, and I'm wondering whether the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams), being the member for Whistler, is the designer of this bill. I'm sure that the Minister of Labour will get up and address the House with reference to this bill later on in the debate. He'll be able to tell us how and when this was drafted.

I want to give some sympathy to the Social Credit members here. I realize that this isn't one of their bills that they would like to see put through, but they've been told they have to vote for it. I just want to say that certainly coalitions are somewhat bothersome, aren't they?

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, this is a most extraordinary Act, and I think that it has to be looked upon as something that is being brought in under extreme pressure. I was very disturbed to notice earlier that the member who represents the geographical area of Whistler was not in the House. I'm pleased to see that he has returned and will be here.

The whole treatment of this Whistler area in the last couple of years is rather extraordinary. One has to look at the announcement some months ago of the TIDS agreement. At the time of that announcement it was announced that of the $40 million or $50 million to come to British Columbia, $9 million was already committed to Whistler. When one thinks that at the time of that announcement.... Others had to wait months for the regulations to be drafted, in order to find out whether or not they could apply as travel generators. It made me rather suspicious of what activities might be taking place up there, and what special privileges might be being conferred, and to whom.

When this bill comes into the House, I think it is absolutely remarkable. I can only say that I thoroughly agree with the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) that this should have been brought in as a private member's bill, and that people should then have been brought before the committee, subpoenaed and cross-examined, in order that we could get to the bottom of this very sorry mess. I'm sure that the people of this province will get to the bottom of this mess, but I'm afraid it's going to happen after this bill has been passed and after British Columbia has experienced another one of those sorry debacles comparable to the Cypress Bowl issue.

I want the members of the back bench, who are being told to get up and support this thing blindly, to be fully aware that each and every member of this House — even those who vote against it — is going to be tarred with the brush of favouritism and patronage. We are all diminished. Even those who fought against the Cypress Bowl issue bear that stigma. Whenever one of these sorry things is passed through a legislature or passed by an order-in-council or by some Act of government, it reduces the esteem in which politicians are held by the public.

I now intend to take my seat, in the hope that the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) will get up and explain why he has brought pressure on his government, and why he has seen fit to create a division in cabinet in order that his wishes can be fulfilled in bringing this piece of legislation before us here today in this manner.

MR. LAUK: I'll be brief with respect to this bill. I want to associate myself with the remarks of the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) and with the other speakers on this side of the House with respect to the motivation behind this bill and the critique of the bill, which has already been so eloquently stated.

I think that we should perhaps retitle the bill "A Bill to Create the Sovereign State of Whistler." As of 1857, the laws of Canada and the laws of this province were to be passed in a democratic fashion. It would be worthwhile to cast our minds back and recollect our history lessons about the colony of British Columbia and the colony of Vancouver Island prior to 1857. Who passed the criminal laws and the civil laws? Who appointed the judges, the tax collectors and the police? Was it a democratically elected body? No, it was the board of directors of the Hudson's Bay Co. who appointed the governor of the colonies in this area. A private corporation ran the colonies by imperial letters patent.

Not since 1857 has an attempt been made to return to that kind of system. A Hudson's Bay governor could hang employees. They are creating a sovereign state. Maybe they should appoint a king of Whistler. Maybe that king should be the MLA for Whistler himself. It is a sorry thing indeed, Mr. Speaker, that a member of this chamber can be so pressured by his friends — unnamed so far — to push for this statute and bring it into this House to benefit those few friends at the expense of democracy and fair play.

We are told by some of the principals involved whose names we know that many land deals are now in process, and this bill has to be gotten through the procedures of this chamber as quickly as possible so that when the registration of those deals comes before the land registry, they will not have to deal with the ordinary laws of this province, but they can deal in the backroom fashion provided for under this statute.

MR. BARRETT: Switch, switch. Turn out the light.

MR. LAUK: Yes, the lights are going out, Mr. Speaker. A small municipality in this province in the Minister of Labour's constituency is now beyond the sovereign jurisdiction of this Legislature when this bill passes. And there has been press speculation that this bill was brought in the

[ Page 1011 ]

twilight hours at this session of the Legislature for the very reason that they had hoped to catch the opposition napping, that we would be here asleep as the member for Whistler and his willing servant bring the bill into the House. He's sort of a houseboy for the member for Whistler.

The serious aspects of this bill already mentioned in debate cannot be characterized in any other way than as a deliberate attempt on the part of this government — and particularly the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound — to slide through a bill that would defeat the democratic process at the municipal level. The appointment of the king and council of Whistler, as set out in this statute in secrecy, with the power to tax and penalize homeowners and residents in Whistler, is a travesty, Mr. Speaker, and it should be considered totally unconstitutional. It should be struck down by the courts of the land. This kind of attempt by this government — and particularly the MLA for Whistler — is a shabby performance indeed and cannot be condoned by the Legislature on this side of the House or the people of British Columbia.

MR. KING: I really felt that the Minister of Labour would get up and take his place in this debate. I believe, and I feel that the rest of the House knows, that the Minister of Labour is really the architect of this bill, that the Minister of Labour, with his Liberal confrères who have parachuted into that remnant of the Social Credit Party on that side of the House, has flexed his muscles, because there is a slim plurality for that government, and demanded as the price for their continued support of the coalition that this bill to benefit their developer friends be pushed through this session of the Legislature. The Minister of Labour apparently lacks the courage to get up and state his position on this bill, to defend it and to own up to the fact that he has been guilty of trampling over the interests and the point of view of quite a number of his colleagues within that group over there, that coalition over there.

One of my colleagues made the point that some of the ministers have gone to the press. They've gone to the media and said: "Look, we don't agree with this approach. This approach is all of the things which the opposition has characterized it as. It reverses and abandons the democratic principle of one person-one vote; it completely abandons the principle of one person-one vote." It provides instead that the rich, the developers who have the property and the money, will be in a position to dictate and control and set levies on all of the residents of that Whistler area.

Who are those people, Mr. Speaker? I believe they are people to whom the member for that particular constituency owes political debts. I believe that the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) and his seat mate both know better than to go this route. I believe that as remnants of the old Social Credit populist group they do not believe in this kind of oppressive treatment of small individuals, individual taxpayers. They are being put at the mercy of the large developers. But they have compromised themselves to the Minister of Labour and his Liberal friends. They must rely on them for their support in this chamber to retain power. The price of retaining power is to sell out principle and to deliver this absolutely scandulous power to a group of developers and millionaire foreigners. I don't think there is even a car dealer among them. It is bigger money than that. Much of it came from outside British Columbia and Canada. Were it not for the need of support to retain power in this institution, I don't believe that the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) and the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), who had some conscience as Social Crediters, would tolerate this bill at all. They would be opposing it. They would have used their influence in cabinet to ensure that those slick, Liberal downtown lawyers didn't run over their interests and didn't scandalize this Legislature with this kind of bill. It is an absolute insult to democracy in the province of British Columbia.

Where is the Minister of Labour? He's sitting back there silently, blushing, apparently not even deigning to give counsel to his poor confrère, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, who has the misfortune to be charged with the responsibility of piloting this bill through the Legislature. The Minister of Municipal Affairs is now a throwaway commodity on that side of the House. He is tarnished because he locked horns with the Minister of Human Resources. He was admonished and sanctioned by the Minister of Human Resources for his intemperate comments regarding ICBC. He was admonished and repudiated by the Premier in his office, and he is saddled with having to do the penance of piloting a bill which is the start of erosion of democracy in the province of British Columbia. What is going to be next, Mr. Speaker? What community is going to be next? The rich landowners and the large, corporate businesses that control the economic destiny of the community receive weighted votes and use that muscle, granted to them by their friends in the Social Credit government, to dictate to the majority. It is no longer one person one vote. How can anyone in 1979 defend that archaic, retrogressive approach to democracy in the province of British Columbia? It is a crime and a sham. I am just appalled that the Minister of Municipal Affairs would allow himself to become the pawn in this kind of game.

This is a bill which is purely and simply the repayment to the developers who put up the front money to get the Minister of Labour elected in West Vancouver–Howe Sound; that's the kind of bill it is. Why else would the government grant to a private group of developers the authority to not only run the affairs, set the rules, but to apply assessments on the people who happen to live in that designated community? This is the power to print money, Mr. Speaker. It is the power to write money that is being handed over to a private corporate group. It is a licence to write money, and if that is not a payoff, a repayment of Social Credit Party debt, rammed through this Legislature because of the obligation the Liberal members feel to the people who have supported them and provided them with succour in their spotted and checkered political careers, then I don't know what it can be characterized as. It is a ripoff of major proportions.

The thing that alarms me about it most is the principle and the precedent established with the passage of this bill. What and who are next? Which other MLA in this Legislature, on the government side, is going to find that there is no adequate way to pay back the debts he owes to those who, behind closed doors, have provided him with the front money to get elected? He will have to provide a private reserve so they can assess taxes, as it were, print money, control the community and decide who shall stay in business and who shall be out of business. Those are the implications, Mr. Speaker. It is easy to put a small enterpriser out of business. You simply adjust his assessment, and that is the power they are handing over. Which one is going to be next?

AN HON. MEMBER: How many votes does he get?

MR. KING: How many votes will they get under the weighted voting system? Is it going to be that the corporation that has a $50 million investment in that community has 1,000 votes to the 1 vote of the small developer? They are going to set their own bylaws. The principle of weighted voting is established by statutory authority in this legislation, and those people have the audacity to say that they stand for free enterprise, for competition, for private property rights. I say that this bill is a complete repudiation of private property rights. Individual landowners in the Whistler area will only be able to retain their property ownership by the sufferance of the large monopoly enterprises which set the assessments with their weighted voting control — and the groundrules and the bylaws that would be applicable in that community. That's what is being handed over, Mr. Speaker. I don't wonder that there is a lot of consultation going on that side of the House. This bill is a scandal.

I challenge the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) to get up and confess that he is the one who insisted that this bill be brought before the Legislature. I demand that he get up and identify where he stands on this issue. I demand that the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), who, I believe, has gone to the press and said, "Well, I don't really agree with this bill; I'm a nice person, and it flies in the face of everything I believe in as an old Socred," quit trying to play the nice girl. Get up and speak in this debate on this bill and tell us where you stand. Have the courage, you and your colleague from North Peace River.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Are you saying I'm not a nice girl?

MR. KING: No, I would leave that to the judgment of the Speaker, but not the Minister of Labour. Mr. Speaker, I think that the minister might suffer by that assessment.

I challenge the Minister of Labour particularly to get up and enter this debate. I believe that the Minister of Human Resources and her colleague from North Peace River oppose this bill. I believe it's a fact that they went to the media and said: "Look, we disagree with this, but we have to maintain cabinet solidarity." Now I suggest that no one can be a little bit pregnant. You have to stand for something. If you do not believe in this bill, then have the courage, have the commitment and the dedication, to stand up and say so. If that means that there is a show of disagreement and discord in that cabinet, I would say that they could at least walk away from that shambles with their heads held high saying that they stood for principle and stood for the interests of the citizens of British Columbia, rather than their own narrow political interests. That would be refreshing.

The other aspect, Mr. Speaker, is that if that kind of rift exists, that's nothing to be ashamed of. Everyone knows you're a coalition of varying brands of political philosophy, and in some cases none at all. You've come together as diverse elements for negative purposes. And if you're starting to create a shambles over there and fight with each other in public and in this Legisature, it would be far better that you protect the public interest than go to these lengths to hide the degree of disagreement fraught within that cabinet.

AN HON. MEMBER: Well, there's our next leader.

MR. KING: We have all kinds of leaders on this side, my friend. The problem is that on that side of the House they don't even have one leader. Where did Billy-boy run to? He should be in this House facing the music. All you have, Mr. Speaker, is a runaway Premier who, when confronted with something controversial, has consistently, ever since he assumed leadership of that party, run away from every issue and hid in his office.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Who does he leave to take the heat? Poor little Bill, because at one time he was viewed to be a bit of a challenge to the leadership of the Premier. Not any more; he's been repudiated to the extent that now he's made the whipping boy and the scapegoat for this kind of deplorable legislation. Shameful!

MR. SPEAKER Order, please. To the principle of the bill, please, hon. member.

MR. KING: All I'm asking is that minister pull the wings off this bill. Have the courage and the fortitude to say you're not going to carry the can for Mr. Clean, your Liberal colleague, who is the architect and the designer of this bill and who sits there serenely letting you take the heat for it. He wouldn't stand up and try to justify this kind of legislation when he has a colleague who is, I suppose, gullible enough to be charged with this seedy responsibility a very shameful performance.

It's not a laughing matter by any means. The people of British Columbia should be aware and they should be on notice that this is a very serious and profound precedent to establish in the year 1979. Weighted voting, indeed. We have the idea that the rich have more votes than the average homeowner. The corporate giant is able to flex his muscles by commanding more votes at the polls than the individual property owner in British Columbia. And these birds say they belong to free enterprise, that they believe in competition and in democracy. You've abandoned the whole concept. Some new lawyers in that group over there who should have more respect for the basic fundamental concepts of justice and democracy — they're all hiding back. Not a government member has spoken on this issue today, Mr. Speaker. They sit there, struck dumb, in sombre silence.

Only the poor minister who is in disgrace with the power echelon of that group is charged with the responsibility. He's going to be remembered as the man who refused to pull the wings off this bill. He's going to be the man charged, and remembered, because he brought back the basis of saying, "Every man for himself in a democracy," and by turning the elephants loose in the dance among the chickens. That's what the principle means. The big boys are going to dance around. They're going to exercise their muscles, and their votes, and all the little landowners are going to get flattened in the process. That is the Social Credit calibre and standard of democracy.

[ Page 1013 ]

To have the nerve and the colossal gall to make this kind of guarantee under the statutory power of this province to a group of your rich millionaire friends is a disgrace and an insult to your election, as well as the traditions of this parliament, Mr. Speaker. It's doubly scandalous to see a grown man, a minister of the Crown, an intelligent man with legal training and past political credentials that were pretty honourable, sit there with his head in his hands and sulk, rather than get up and enter this debate. That's a sad sight. That's a pitiful sight when you remember the traditions of a once useful Liberal Party in the province of British Columbia. And it's worse when we understand the significance of this, one of the most important debates that has faced this Legislature in the last five years. And where is the government leader? He's down hiding in his office again. Mr. Speaker, I think the Premier should be up here. He should tell the people of British Columbia through this Legislature, in debate, how he reconciles the powers granted to private institutions under this bill with his campaign slogans that he believed in free competitive enterprise, that he believed in the right to individual ownership of land when this bill, in fact, challenges that very fundamental right of British Columbians to own and control their own land.

It's a sorry day, Mr. Speaker. I feel really sad about it, and I wonder what the backbenchers are going to do. It's not only the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) who has used his political leverage to thrust and push this bill through this Legislature. I suspect some of the new boys on the back bench don't really appreciate the full implications of this tarnishing of their political career for the rest of their lives either. Get up and enter this debate. Try to find any rational ground of argument or reason to defend it, and I'd be most interested — and I would applaud you. Your silence, your embarrassment, your complete disarray, tell us not one person on that side of the House is pleased or proud of this legislation. Rather, it's a political repayment to friends who have provided service and favours for individuals on that side. And now they're coming back for repayment. Now they're coming back for the pound of flesh they demand in return for their backdoor favours. It's a sorry day in the political history of British Columbia, Mr. Speaker.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Speaker, as the applause dies down, and the innuendos and the insults are quickly forgotten, because they have no consequence, we forgive them for what they say because they know not what they say, because they have not read or understood the principles that are involved in this bill. They would give you the impression on that side of the House that some member of government.... And they refer so ridiculously to the hon. Minister of Labour. There's a man that would never sully himself with one speck of what he was saying. I think those words by the previous Minister of Labour (Mr. King) were certainly beneath his standard, and I regret that he found it necessary to tter such remarks in this House. The innuendoes are not called for in honourable debate.

I tell you here that there is nothing mysterious about this bill. [Laughter.] The mystery is that the opposition does not understand the purpose and the intent of the bill. There is nothing new about the bill.

Interjections.

MR. MUSSALLEM: You know, laughter and derision are an instrument used to confuse certain people, but they do not confuse me at all. The shining light intended in this bill is plain to be seen. Elements of this bill are found in the professional societies Acts at various times; they're found in the Strata Titles Act. Elements of this bill are in the strata councils' Act and....

AN HON. MEMBER: The Criminal Code?

MR. MUSSALLEM: And in the Criminal Code. [Laughter.] All of this, because from the mouth of babes the truth comes out. Certainly the elements are in the Criminal Code because they are subject to the Criminal Code; they are subject to the laws of British Columbia; they are subject to the laws and the edicts and the regulations of this Legislature. All these things are common. What we have here is simply an amalgamation of the municipal jurisdiction and corporate jurisdiction. That's a simple fact — amalgamation as necessary.

Now what is the purpose of this amalgamation? I will tell you what the purpose is. It is time that this province....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. Let's hear the man who has the floor.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your kind words on keeping order.

I will say this: what is the purpose? It is time that British Columbia had an area of world standing. We have the physical property in Whistler to engage this world standard operation. It takes large amounts of money, millions of dollars.

I read in the press that the council of Whistler asked for this bill and want this bill. This is not for the purpose of protecting the people's millions but for maintaining a status for this corporation that will have the high standard and status only found at this time in Europe and the United States. It will be a great ski resort that will bring in people from the world. We need this in British Columbia, but no one is going to invest $100 million so that at some time their assets will be diffused by some unthinking people. They have to have the right to protect their investment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BARRETT: Oh, special protection!

MR. MUSSALLEM: They have the right to protect their investment, and to bring people.... Airplanes by the score will be bringing people to Whistler from all over the world. People will flock to Whistler, and this will be a big centre. It's time we had a world centre of this status.

My words are misunderstood; what I say is not misunderstood. What I am, saying is that it is needed. We need this corporation. No one will gamble their money by chance. This is in an area....

Interjections.

[ Page 1014 ]

MR. MUSSALLEM: You have got to give some reasonable assurance that they have tenure, that they have responsibility, because this will bring millions in to the coffers of this province. It is time that we recognize that we've got to get into the big league. British Columbia has possibilities, but we have to have the vision, and that is what our opposition is lacking.

This bill is a good bill. They have no vision. They have to have the vision that this is a great prospect for the future, to bring people from all over the world to British Columbia.

MR. LAUK: Wenner-Gren, Cypress.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Wenner-Gren was a great project, but it didn't work out. This is a great idea; this is a bill that will make it so. It also may not work out; no one knows. It may not work out, but we must open the doors, we must create the possibility....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. The standing orders of our House provide that a member who stands in his place is recognized and makes his speech and is not to be interrupted. I say again that once or twice in an afternoon an occasional outburst perhaps could be condoned. But let us not interrupt the man who has the floor. Please proceed.

MR. MUSSALLEM: This project of a world standard that every British Columbian can be proud of, and the scores of millions of dollars that will be poured in there from people from all over the world, needs some protection, needs an Act, the same as the professional engineers need an Act, the same as chartered accountants need an Act. They need some protection. They're subject to the Societies Act. As we discuss the bill, clause by clause, this will come out. The regulations are all there, but we need to give assurance if we're going to produce a production of this magnitude. We cannot do it by skip and by chance. It's got to be put on a solid foundation. This is the door that opens the way. It may never come, but I hope it will, because British Columbia, as I say again, needs something of a world standard to attract people to our gates so they'll know this province, so they'll know Canada, not only in the United States, but in Europe and Asia and beyond — from Australia. There's nothing like Whistler in all the world. Would you let it sit there empty? Would you? I say no, we must open the gates, we must open the doors. We must make it possible for the corporation to build a great standard on Whistler so that we can bring in the people and the millions of dollars with them to the coffers of this government. It could be one of the biggest, this road we're on. The moving-picture industry is moving in here in a great........

Interjection.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Well, I just heard the other day that they will budget this year over $100 million for moving-picture production in British Columbia. This is just about a drop in the bucket. Now with Whistler added to all these things, tourism could be our biggest money maker. It could one day even be.... Is it possible it could be ahead of forests? Well, I hope so, because then we've got something greater than I thought. But it certainly will be our number two industry, It's the responsibility of this Legislature to see that the doors are open to make these things possible. Until the doors are open, it cannot be done by luck and by chance. I commend the minister in bringing forth this bill. It's a good bill, it's a right bill, and it opens a new door and creates a new vision for the future of tourism in British Columbia.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I think the House owes a debt of gratitude to the member for Dewdney for really relating to us in truth exactly what the bill is all about. I only wish that it had been the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) that stood up and explained that to us in his very clear and inimitable form.

But yes, the member for Dewdney is right. This bill will open the doors. It will open the gates. It will open the windows. It will open the whole house and the thieves and the robbers will be able to come in and take hold. That's exactly what it does. He talks about amalgamation between a corporation and a municipality. That's what he said. Under the Criminal Code that would be classified as prostitution. That's an illegal act, an improper act: amalgamation of a corporation and a municipality. The member for Shuswap Revelstoke (Mr. King) talked about the elephant dancing among the chickens. That's what the corporation's and the municipality's relationship will be. And who do you think will be the elephant? The one with the big trunk full of dough — that's who the elephant will be.

The government Whip — I've elevated him somewhat now from just being the ordinary member from Dewdney — tells us that this bill's purpose partly is to ensure that those who have put up the money should have the right to protect it.

AN HON. MEMBER: No risk.

MR. HOWARD: I heard that: "No risk." What happened to this pure form of capitalism and free enterprise that everybody embraced here not too long ago? Risk capital — when a corporation and when anybody else is given the right in law to protect their money that they have invested, the other phrase in a political sense for that is Facism. That's what the state does.

Interjections.

MR. HOWARD: Somebody opposite identified that as a cheap shot. It's a true shot, correct and accurate, and I stand by it, because that's the philosophy of the Facist movement. Let the state protect the moneyed class. Let the state protect the investment.

Now I'm not indicating that the government Whip has those philosophies within himself, nor that anybody in this House has those philosophies and those ideals. But that's the essence and the fundamental thing of what he was talking about.

I know that this province had a period in history when the Hudson's Bay Company had a system of private law unto itself, and was in fact government. I thought we had got away from that with the establishment of the Crown colonies, the merging of the Crown colonies into a democratic system and the movement of British Columbia

[ Page 1015 ]

into Confederation under a democratic constitution and the rule of law. I never thought that we would see the day when this Legislature would take steps to revert to a system of private law in this province. And this is what this does here.

The first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) properly said that, in terms of the rules of this House, it should have come in by way of a private bill. Well, it didn't; it's a public bill, handled on behalf of the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) by the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm). But I think there is an obligation and an opportunity for the government — and on the Premier who, I noticed, scurried out of the House as soon as the bill was called to get out of the way, to abandon his responsibility of leadership on this question — to come into the chamber and say to the House that they recognize that this is in essence a private bill, that the rules are such that the time for the introduction and petition of private bills has passed, that it had to be brought forward by a government member, but in that essence it's a private bill, and therefore declare it to be a free vote, so that members throughout the chamber can express their views about this particular bill in a free way, as free individuals in a free society, and so that the cabinet can vote as the conscience of each individual cabinet minister dictates and not as they have been almost ordered to vote.

AN HON. MEMBER: They can do it anyway if they want to.

MR. HOWARD: They can do it anyway if they want; but we know that there is a question of cabinet solidarity regardless of how many ministers in the cabinet disagree with this piece of legislation. We know that cabinets operate as a unit. We know that so long as this piece of legislation is looked upon as a government bill with the full force of cabinet solidarity behind it, every member of the cabinet, even though his heart will tear out of him when he does it, will stand up and vote for the bill. The only salvation they have, and hope for freedom of expression, is that the Premier shows the leadership that so far has been lacking on his part and says: "Yes, we'll have a free vote; people can vote as their conscience dictates." If that passes the Legislature on a free vote, it will have a much greater impact than appears to be the case now.

I look upon this as being partly an experimental piece of legislation, albeit a piece of legislation specific to an area, and specifically introduced in response to one member of cabinet. It's on experiment to discover a way in which government can move into a future which ensures a greater and greater authority over this province by foreigners, by people who don't live here, by people who have no political allegiance to the province, and by people whose moneyed interest is elsewhere. That's what this piece of legislation really is; it is not just a bill relating to a particular area of the province identified as Whistler Mountain.

Many members have within their constituencies recreational facilities of differing natures. In my own constituency — and I fear that this is where we are headed if this bill passes — we have some recreational facilities that will equal Whistler in terms of skiing. Maybe they're not of the same size and magnitude, and maybe there won't be 1,000 planes flying in there every day and 10,000 skiers going up to the mountain and so on — but are still, in terms of attraction, equal to Whistler. As of July I the Crown received some parcels of land surrounding the Lakelse Hot Springs just a few miles south of Terrace that at one time had been gradually given away to private ownership. The succession of private owners had reached the point where they couldn't make any profit, the facility declined and it was not used — they had a watchman there and that was all. An arrangement was worked out between the government and the owner of that particular land and those particular facilities whereby the owner would give them to the province as a gift. The gift, of course, was tax deductible. So, really, the person who gave it to the province was writing off about $1 million or $2 million. I've forgotten the figure. The person, or the corporation, who gave that land back to the Crown is in a 60 percent tax bracket. So whatever value was established for that piece of property, the person gets a direct gain of 60 percent of it. Otherwise he would have paid that in income tax. That's a minor part.

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: Someone said: "He's still paying 40 percent." I'm not arguing that point. If my friend would just curb his impatience I'11 tell him what I'm trying to say.

AN HON. MEMBER: It takes you so long to say something.

MR. HOWARD: Well, it may take me long to say something. It's because the gentlemen opposite are so dense it's necessary to take that length of time to get the point across. When there are those, as there are on the other side, who are unable to understand clear thought and clear logic, repetition is necessary. Even then, many times, it doesn't work.

We now have this recreational facility in the hands of the Crown. The Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) is embarking upon a program to examine what might be done to develop that particular recreational facility. The hope of everybody in the surrounding area is that it will be retained under public ownership. That seems to be the only serisible and amenable way to develop those facilities so they can be used in a multipurpose way. But as sure as I'm standing here, I fear very much that this experimental piece of legislation we now have running roughshod over the concept of public ownership, and running roughshod over the concept of democracy, is entirely preserved to enable private entrepreneurs to reap the profits off the top. I see Lakelse Hot Springs coming under the same type of legislation sometime in the future. I see the Smithers ski hill facing that possibility. I see recreational facilities all over this province facing the same possibilities so long as this government stays in office. Those possibilities are: have the general public put up all the funds, and have somebody else reap the profits.

I tend to agree with the declaration made by the Premier early this year, or late last year, and reiterated during the campaign, that B.C. is not for sale. I agree with the Premier there. This bill is living proof of that. It isn't for sale. It's to be given away.

MR. D'ARCY: It's a pleasure to join this debate. It's not a pleasure to see this bill before the House.

[ Page 1016 ]

I want to add a few words about the principle of public money going into a private development. Over the last few days we have heard the government and the minister tell us he assumes people are going to live longer than 99 years. He can't accept the principle of homeowner grants for leases even though they are 99 years long. We all know that the use of something over a period of time constitutes effective ownership. Surely we are not going to live that long that we're going to worry about what may happen to something we would like to get benefit from.

Here we see a situation where the government of B.C. is giving away a mountain; indeed, two mountains. For more than 100 years it has been the assumption of British Columbians in Canada that major recreational facilities — air, water, rivers, beaches — are public property. You can't own a beach. It has been the policy of several governments, Social Credit and New Democratic, to make sure that beach access and access to recreational facilities continue to be available to all the people all of the time. This is an abrogation of that principle.

We see the government not only giving away a mountain or two — and Lord knows what else down the road — but they also have been in the process over the past few years of effectively giving away $9 million to $12 million of public money to developers in the area, through the travel industry subsidiary agreement.

I think that is a good agreement. I congratulated the federal Liberal government and the provincial government of the day in consummating that agreement. More than two years ago, before negotiations properly commenced on that agreement, the cabinet of this province made a commitment that a large amount of public money was going into development at Whistler. As has been pointed out earlier, before the terms of reference or the regulations were established around that agreement, funds had already been committed to the Whistler area. In fact, even as we debate this bill today in the House, there has not been a single public application for money under the TIDS agreement for planning — let alone development — that has been approved by the travel industry subsidiary agreement technical committee. Not a single one.

There has been money released to private development, and in my opinion they were good developments and correct disbursements. But there has not been a single approval for public planning under this agreement. Yet we had this bill come before the House after the fact, after a commitment already has been made which is going to release millions of dollars of public funds for recreational facilities in what are effectively going to become private lands. Mr. Speaker, I don't believe in selling let alone giving away mountains, rivers, streams, beaches or anything else in this province. I want to add my deep and sincere opposition to the intent of this bill and everything that it stands for.

MR. BARRETT: I had anticipated that the alleged author of this bill, the Minister of Labour and the man who represents the area in question, would stand up and speak on this bill. I'm more than anxious to share my time available in this House in order to know whether the minister is going to speak when I give up the floor.

One of the strangest things about this debate is that the Minister of Loud Noise and General Diversions for Defence hasn't said a word. The member for South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips) — who is there with those general foghorn blandishments about all the opposition's wrongs — hasn't said a word. Don't encourage him. I was going to repeat some of his statements when the land bill was brought in by the New Democratic Party. He screamed: "Sweeping powers. Let the people at the local level have the vote. One man, one vote. "

We see in front of us for the first time in the history of British Columbia legislation that says that we are now changing democratic rights. If you're poor and you own a single lot in here, you have one vote. Goodo on you. But if you've got more money, you can buy as many votes as you can pile up and influence the direction of that particular area. It's based on how much money you have.

No one in this province should be surprised at this legislation. No one in this province or this chamber should be shocked that it's being brought in by the Social Credit Party. It is a government of millionaires, by millionaires, for millionaires. They intend to justify this legislation on the basis that those who have money know best.

Mr. Speaker, do you know of any jurisdiction in a democratic society that says we are now going to pass laws that state in terms of the development of property rights that if you've got more money, you're entitled to more votes? Free men and free women in a free society are being told by the Social Credit Party today that if they're in Whistler and have money, then they've got more votes than the guys without money.

I love to hear the other member, the government Whip, get up and throw himself in the breach to try and deflect the government's hostility. What did he get up to say? He said: "Well, when people are going to put up that kind of money, they need special protection." Who needs special protection in the province of British Columbia? You put up your money and you take your chance, Mr. Speaker. No one in the private sector should be given any leg up on anyone else, no matter how much money they've got.

Who determines who is going to get the advantage? If a millionaire comes in and says he once knew a socialist, what are his chances with this outfit? If a millionaire comes in and says he once knew a Liberal who didn't become a Socred, what are his chances? If a millionaire comes in and says he once knew a Liberal who was a Conservative who didn't become a Socred, what are his chances?

This bill is going to define who are friends of the government, and this bill, in my opinion, is a direct payoff to the speculative interests of landholders with money in that area. Somebody said Twentieth Century-Fox is a company. That's incorrect. It's Nineteenth Century-Fox, right over there.

Mr. Speaker, do you think that this was ever discussed during the election campaign? Do you think that during those great rhetorical outbursts by cabinet ministers and candidates for the Social Credit Party they said anywhere in the province of British Columbia: "Vote for Social Credit and we will ensure that the rich people have more power at the ballot box in the Whistler area than the ordinary people."? Did they say that during the campaign?

AN HON. MEMBER: Not publicly.

MR. BARRETT: Raise your hand any backbencher who publicly advocated this policy during the election campaign. Did you, George? Through you, Mr. Speaker, did the member who is out of his seat advising the minister —

[ Page 1017 ]

who needs all the help he can get in his silence — support this concept in the election campaign? Not on your life. He was running around saying: "Vote for freedom; one man, one vote." Then they got elected and what did they do? They brought in legislation in the dog days of July, looking for a fire hydrant, with this kind of legislation, to really let the people of British Columbia have it.

What was that stuff we had, Mr. Speaker, as soon as the election was over, and the Social Credit Party got a slap on the wrist? It was that ingenuous turn into the television camera, saying: "Oh, we've learned a lesson. Tut, tut, tut! The voters have spoken. We almost lost an election. We're going to be nice, We're going to be humble. We are going to cooperate and do things on behalf of all the people of British Columbia." What they forgot to mention is that there is a priority when they do things on behalf of all the people of British Columbia, and the priority is: millionaires first; everybody else scramble for a place in line.

My very good personal friend, somewhat older, somewhat less wise because of his lack of accumulation through the years of wisdom of the rights of each individual in Dewdney, stood up in this House and said: "We have to have special protection." Then the new member back there from somewhere up north said: "Special protection for special deals. " Special protection for special deals, Mr. Speaker, is what he said. You're agreeing with that. He's actually nodding his head and saying that's what this bill is about.

Wasn't it the Premier of this province who went around saying: "We're not making special deals with anybody; all the legislation is the same for everybody."? It was even during this very session, when he had some critical comments about my statements on mining, that he said no special deals with anybody. Where is he now? Is he within the reach of the many microphones that go through the offices and the chambers of this building? If you're down there, Bill, come on up and face the heat in changing legislation. I really was surprised that so far it has only been one Socred that has been sent up to take the flak.

AN HON. MEMBER: Poor old George.

MR. BARRETT: Why not good old George?

AN HON. MEMBER: Let George do it.

MR. BARRETT: He is not the Whip, Mr. Speaker. He is the whipping boy. But the worst thing is that in putting him up to do the flak, he makes it even worse rather than better.

Now let's deal with my very long-time fellow-member of this Legislature, the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Hon. Mr. Williams), once a Liberal and now a Socred — politically reborn, having seen the light of A plus B, and now the Minister of Labour — sanctimonious to the nth degree, and who is, in my opinion, the real author of this bill.

I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that among the many great things done by the New Democratic Party was the establishment of a verbatim record of the debates. known as Hansard. Lo and behold, somebody, who is obviously a masochist, has actually been collecting old copies of Hansard. Buried there in an old copy of Hansard is the very interesting debate, Mr. Speaker, on Bill 42, the land bill.

Do you remember the land bill — when we were bringing in that legislation that is to this day still on the books of the province of British Columbia, not repealed by the Social Credit government? It may be in danger, but not yet repealed. What do we find but the sage words of the then-Liberal member before he crossed to join the ship of the Social Credit Party on the way to power. Why, he said, things that were threatened in this bill, in a bill that applied equally to every citizen in the province of British Columbia, every municipality, every village and every hamlet — no special deals, no special direction for any city town or village, a bill that applied to everyone.... This is what he said, Mr. Speaker. I'd like my good friends, especially the lawyers in the House, to remember these sage words. I quote from March 30, 1973, what the minister said about Bill 42, the effort to preserve farmland equally — not for millionaires, not for poor people, but for all the citizens of British Columbia equally in front of the law. This is what he said:

I know that the legislative powers of this government, of this province, are sufficient to support Bill 42. But when you look at the British North America Act, it's interesting to note that the provinces can legislate for property and civil rights. I urge you, Mr. Speaker, to recognize the significance of the conjunctive word in property and civil rights. I suggest that it is morally wrong for the government to use property legislation to destroy civil rights.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR, BARRETT: I quote again. In speaking to a bill that applied equally to every citizen of the province of British Columbia, the member was attempting to make an abstract argument that civil rights were inherent in the ownership of a piece of property relative to value based on changes in zoning, and when the government was bringing in, in effect, a massive piece of equalized zoning on farmland, it should not forget civil rights. It was an obtuse point, but the member made it and made it firmly, and we answered by saying the legislation applied to all equally.

I want to read the conjunctive phrase again, because after all it's not often we get to use words like that. Not all of us went to law school.

I urge you, Mr. Speaker, to recognize the significance of the conjunctive word in property and civil rights. I suggest that it is morally wrong for the government to use property legislation to destroy civil rights.

Mr. Speaker, here is example number one. This legislation is specific legislation destroying civil rights of citizens in the province of British Columbia to vote equally.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Mr. Member, because you sanctimoniously got up and gave a misinterpretation of the land bill, tell me in this House that I'm wrong when I say this legislation will allow the rich to have more votes than the average or the poor. Mr. Speaker, I ask that member to stand up and tell me why he said that it was morally wrong to affect civil rights when a piece of legislation affected all people of British Columbia equally, but it's okay for him to offer legislation that destroys civil rights in a specific area of the province of British Columbia right here in this bill, A class system of voting, the civil rights of equal voting of every citizen, free men and free women....

[ Page 1018 ]

I read the sections of this bill, and I know, Mr. Speaker, that in your vast experience there is a rule in this House against speaking to specific sections. Because of that rule, I will not refer to section 19. I won't do it because there's a rule against it. But in a particular section which I will not refer to by number, there is, and I read as follows, my friend....

Oh, look at this, Mr. Speaker. I want to bring this to the attention of the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem). The first line in the unnamed section 18: "The Companies Act does not apply to the association." There's a law for anybody who has a company, but it doesn't apply to these people. Just wipe it out; that's number one. Just a stroke of the pen, and it doesn't apply. Whatever the rules are for everybody else, you put up your money, Twentieth Century-Fox, and the laws don't apply to you. That's number one.

Number two is: "The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may order that specified provisions of the Companies Act and Societies Act apply to the association." Why, do you know what that means? When they get together in the cabinet and close the green door, they roll the dice out on the table and say: "Whatever numbers come up, we'll pick out the sections of the Companies Act that may apply." Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, what they would have done if the socialists had brought in legislation saying that from now on we will determine in cabinet what sections of the Companies Act apply to a certain company? Oh, they would have screamed; they would have hollered; they would have had a fit. They would have called it "sweeping discretionary powers."

There is an unnamed member over on that side of the House who came from the extensive background of selling used cars, who was the greatest freedom fighter this House has ever known, according to himself, who, upon seeing that kind of legislation, would have been the first to have a 14-hour filibuster....

MR. MACDONALD: A Phillips-buster.

MR. BARRETT: That's correct. There has been not a peep, not a murmur, not a sound, because he's embarrassed by this legislation brought in by his colleague the Minister of Labour.

Listen to this one; this is really a dandy. All you folks out there who want to set up something that's just a little bit smelly — not quite stinking yet, but just a little bit smelly.... You know how these things start. First they go a little bit bad, then they smell, then they get a little rotten, then they really stink. This is just a little bit smelly but it's on the way to going rotten.

Listen to this one. "The first bylaws of the association shall be those recommended by the municipality and approved by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council and shall be filed under the Societies Act." Do you know any village, city, town, municipality that is protected by the Societies Act? Can you see the mayor of Vancouver in trouble over the multiplex saying now: "From now on, we're going to call the mayor the head of the society and we're going under the Societies Act and we're not going for elections anymore."

Who's going to write the first bylaws? The politicians who are already in power are being asked to write the bylaws that change them into a society. I bet you the Socred backbenchers would lack that kind of power. Why, they'd write the bylaws to suit them.

MR. KING: A bloodless coup.

MR. BARRETT: A bloodless coup? Not on your life.

Listen to this one, Mr. Speaker, the one that follows. "The bylaws may only be added to, amended or repealed in accordance with their provisions and with the approval of the municipality and the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council." How do you like that? There is my good old commie-pinko friend from Yale-Lillooet. He's working on some chips he's been chewing, Mr. Speaker, and he just made a strange noise. I'm glad to see him in the House; strange noises come from strange people.

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk to you about this one more than anything else — this subsection and this paragraph brought in by the Social Credit true-blue founder of Major Douglas' A plus B theorem. The secret closet Socred who nurtured his whole political career in the Liberal Party waiting to burst forth as a butterfly in the Social Credit cabinet is none other than the Minister of Labour, and this is what he's endorsing. Listen to this one. "The association may make bylaws that include provisions for classes of membership." They want to structure the class society up there, and who is in the head of the class, Mr. Speaker? The friends of Social Credit and the millionaires.

Mr. Speaker, that's the same member who said: "I ask the Speaker to recognize the significance of the conjunctive word in property and civil rights. I suggest that it is morally wrong for the government to use property legislation to destroy civil rights." I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the author of that very statement is the author of this bill today that is going to destroy civil rights in the province of British Columbia.

Even an editorial in the Vancouver Sun is critical of the government, and you've got to go a long way as a Socred to get an editorial against you by the Vancouver Sun. It stinks, Mr. Speaker. It smells a little bit and it's beginning to stink. Who are the people that you're favouring in this particular specific legislation, saying that whatever goes in any other municipality doesn't go here? "You can make your own laws, protect yourselves, your own taxation." Is there a single homeowner in the province of British Columbia who wouldn't like their own authority to set their own assessment?

I'll bet you there are people in the gallery who are going to go away today and say that if a company and a group of big shots are allowed to set their own assessment on their property, why can't I have the right to go home and write in and tell the government what I think my assessment should be? And I would bet citizens would go even further. They'd write the government and say: "If you give me the same rights to assess my property you're giving the millionaires, I promise not to tell my neighbours how much I assess my property at, if you promise not to tell them either."

It's incredible, Mr. Speaker. In this day and age we've got legislation in front of us that is going to allow a group of property owners to have more votes than other members in the same group, simply because they have more money. They're going to allow a group of property owners to set their own assessment and determine their own taxes, and if one member of the group so much as peeps in complaint, his only avenue of complaint is to go to the supreme court.

[ Page 1019 ]

And what can the supreme court rule on? Why, guess what — Catch-22, Mr. Speaker — it can rule only on the bylaws established by the big boys in the first place.

MR. BARBER: Some protection!

MR. BARRETT: Some protection; that's hanging you before you even get to court. To say that this piddly little statement about going to the supreme court is some form of appeal is blatant nonsense. The supreme court would have to rule on the fact that the group set their own bylaws, and if that poor little jerk doesn't want to live by the bylaws, well, he can sell his property to the big boys. Oh, well, can't someone else buy this property? Who's going to buy this property if he's squeezed in the middle and his business is being pressured and his taxes are going up? If he goes to sell his property, who is he going to sell it to? Well, guess who's going to come along, Mr. Speaker? Simon Legree. He'll come right along and say: "How did you get into this misery?" And he's going to say: "You gave me this misery." "I did? I'll tell you what. I'm going to buy you out to save you from yourself." And what happens? A gradual absorption of the power of property ownership into fewer and fewer hands.

The only other time that I participated in something close to this in this House was Cypress Bowl. For three years I argued, for three years I was insulted and called names, for three years I took abuse from the government, and for three years I fought, until it became obvious that everything I predicted would come true. And it did come true. Towards the end, when the facts became more and more clear, who came on my side, Mr. Speaker? None other than the Liberal MLA for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Hon. Mr. Williams).

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Late? It was an almost deathbed repentance. After all the logging was done, after all the ripoff had taken place, after that area had been desecrated, he then came in and said: "No big corporation should be given special favours in any jurisdiction of the province of British Columbia." He appeared at a West Vancouver council meeting three years after what I warned would take place did take place. Who was it on a white horse, charging into the fray saying: "We must never allow this to happen again in the province of British Columbia"? It was that member over there, who today is the author of this bill. Haunted by his sanctimonious speeches in opposition, haunted by his political opportunism on Cypress Bowl, haunted by the wistful memory of how nice it used to be to be a nine-to-five, four-day-a-week MLA here, in an obscure little Liberal group, he wishes that he had that chance again, Mr. Speaker, rather than wrap himself in that crowd. You can wash your hands, Mr. Member, but you can't wash your record. What have they driven you to now, Mr. Member, that you would offer such a bill, support such a bill and sit there in silence, not offering a word of explanation to the people of this province as to why you've turned your back on the very pure and classical statements you made in this House, and outside, about destroying civil rights through property legislation?

I've seen it all, Mr. Speaker. I've seen people walk from one side of the House, shed their principles and end up on the other side of the House. I've seen people walk from one side of the House, do a whirling dervish, and go through three parties before they got over there. But I never thought I'd see this kind of legislation brought in, destroying civil rights because of property legislation in a specific area, favouring millionaires in access to land in British Columbia, in the constituency represented by that MLA, who used to be a Liberal; and he sits there in silence, not saying one word. I look forward to seeing how he defends this bill.

Some say that this is a throwaway session. Some say it's just after the election and we don't have too much work to do. That's partly correct, Mr. Speaker. Usually there's a psychological downer after an election. There's been a cleanup budget debate, we've gone into the summer and people want to get out of here. Anybody who has spent half an hour in the gallery wonders why we spend as much time in here in the first place. But here we are, in the dog-days of July, dealing with the most important bill brought in this session, and it is a bill authored by that MLA to destroy civil rights — based on inequality, on money — in the province of British Columbia.

There is nothing more I can say or add except, Mr. Speaker, to say that when the government brings the weight of its majority down and supports this bill, let there be a reminder in the depth of everybody who witnessed this debate, or who may read it in Hansard some day, or who may get glimpses of it from radio and television, that throughout all the debate the Premier of this province has spent not one minute in this House defending this piece of legislation. Let it go recorded, Mr. Speaker, that in their silence they know the shame of this legislation. Their silence condemns them.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, during his commentary the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) referred to the member for Yale-Lillooet (Hon. Mr. Waterland) as a "commie-pinko. " I find it very offensive to be referred to as any kind of a socialist, and I'd ask him to withdraw those comments.

MR. BARRETT: On behalf of all socialists, I withdraw the remark, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I was hoping the Leader of the Opposition would have continued his remarks for the balance of the time available to him. Perhaps the members of this chamber — and others within hearing of his voice — would have recognized what an abysmal Leader of the Opposition he is, and his inability to understand the legislation we currently have before this House.

The member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) is to be congratulated. He identified the bill as extraordinary. Yes, it is. What is extraordinary about the bill, however, has been the abysmal ignorance displayed by each of the speakers on the opposition side, who obviously had not addressed themselves to the legislation, or taken the care to understand the clear meaning of the words therein.

AN HON. MEMBER: They haven't read it yet.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: They, and in particular the member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Lorimer), who was a

[ Page 1020 ]

member of the government when the Whistler municipality legislation was first introduced, haven't read the legislation. To hear him criticize this legislation without even having read it indicates he hasn't got the slightest comprehension of what he did when he was a minister of government. He hasn't improved since those days.

The truth of what I say — that members of the opposition have not understood this legislation or even read it — is borne out by their usual vicious personal attacks upon members of the government which have characterized debates in this House in the past when they have not been able to mount cogent arguments against legislation. They therefore cover up their incompetence with personal attack. What is most distressing about the opposition's debate on this legislation, however, is the way they have twisted the words to make it appear as if this legislation affects the homeowners who happen to reside in the municipality of Whistler; that it takes away their rights to vote in that municipality; that it interferes with the rights given to them under the legislation which they, in turn, introduced. They have unfailingly missed in every attempt to cast doubts about the propriety of this legislation. We've offered the concept of weighted voting. Thank goodness, if they don't read the bill, they at least read the newspapers. Then they have something to say. It appears in one newspaper there was a suggestion about weighted voting — which does not appear in this legislation in any place — and what a terrible thing weighted voting is and how it destroys civil rights and takes away the rights of people in the province of British Columbia, and no member of the opposition would support such a proposition.

AN HON. MEMBER: The former Minister of Municipal Affairs would.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Would the former Minister of Municipal Affairs support that proposition?

AN HON. MEMBER: He said he wouldn't.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: He said he wouldn't, but he hasn't had time to look at the regional district legislation which provides for something other than one man, one vote.

There won't be any weighted voting with respect to the association under consideration here. But just while we're dealing with the purity of the members of the opposition, may I remind you that when they were in government they introduced, and passed through this House, a bill called The Strata Titles Act. It really pains me to have to read it. section 3(1)(h) says:

"...in respect of a strata plan that is a non-residential or partially residential, have endorsed upon it a schedule specifying the number of votes allocated to each strata lot, and that, in the opinion of the superintendent of insurance, provides an equal relationship between individual nonresidential strata lots and the non-residential strata lots as a group."

MR. LAUK: This is not a strata title. It is not a condominium.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: You obviously haven't read the legislation. The first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), who is becoming so incensed, Mr. Speaker, makes it clear in his remarks across the House that he hasn't read the legislation. You are just a travesty in this House. You haven't read the bill.

With respect to the same legislation and the corporation that they permitted to be established under that legislation, I am startled to read what that corporation can do — its powers. Why, such a corporation has powers to do all things necessary for the enforcement of the bylaws and the rules and regulations of the strata corporation, and for the control, management and administration of the common property, common facilities or other assets of the corporation generally, including removing privileges in the use of certain facilities, or fixing and collecting fines for contravention of the bylaws.

The legislation which they introduced provided that subject to the Act the corporation had powers to determine a levy that it could make which "shall not be less than 5 percent of the total budget." You know, Mr. Speaker, they have made a man of straw out of this legislation, because not understanding it and not having the ability to address themselves to the circumstances in the bill in debate — and they had the member who was instrumental in the incorporation of this municipality to advise them — they had to embark upon an excursion which took them so far from the legislation and the principles therein as to make their debates absolutely worthless to anyone who should hear them.

While we are dealing with the emotional remarks of the Leader of the Opposition, what a terrible thing it would be that under this section of the bill the Lieutenant-Governorin-Council might have something to do with the Companies Act in the provisions which would apply to this association. What a terrible thing.

May I refer, Mr. Speaker, to a piece of legislation which was introduced on November 26, 1974, called the Timber Products Stabilization Act. It provided for a corporation to be established, just as this bill provides for a corporation to be established. I think the member who introduced this legislation used to sit right about here someplace, and he had the same name that I have. I almost changed my name.

It says in section 6 of this legislation: "Except as provided in this Act, the Companies Act does not apply to the board, but the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may by order declare that the Companies Act, or any provision thereof, applies." What a terrible thing we're doing in copying this legislation which was introduced by the New Democratic Party in this province.

Perhaps we should deal with the facts surrounding this association and not concern ourselves further with the arrant nonsense which has been offered from the other side of the debate.

There's another extraordinary thing about this bill. It deals with an extraordinary area in our province, one which for years has been recognized as being capable of development into a winter resort of international calibre. It was so recognized by those men and women who live in the vicinity of that community and who were instrumental in opening up Whistler prior to 1965.

MR. LAUK: They all lost money.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Some lost money.

MR. LAUK: But not all, my friend.

[ Page 1021 ]

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: They invested their moneys in ski-lift development, in commercial operations and in the provision of ski lodges, and they attracted international attention to the ski slopes which were served by that community. Indeed it was this prospect that encouraged the member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Lorimer), when he was Minister of Municipal Affairs, to create a special resort municipality of Whistler, so that the people who resided in that community and who wished to see it developed, could do so, rather than dealing throgh the unwieldy structure of the regional district. He's to be congratulated for that kind of foresight.

Those same people who were given an opportunity formed a municipal council. Their municipal council decided that, in the full development of Whistler as an international-destination ski resort, they should stop the proliferation of commercial development and bring it into a complex within the core of that municipality. That was the decision of the elected representatives of the people who reside at Whistler. They made those decisions, and as a result of those decisions, they determined where that core should be. But they weren't prepared to risk the opportunity on what their own decisions might be. They took the trouble to go around this world to determine how international calibre ski resorts are organized and managed, and they got that advice. They then came back, and with the Whistler Land Development Company, which owns the property — referred to as "resort land" in this bill, with the exception of the two lift-company lands....

Interjections.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Just 325 acres out of the whole municipality belongs to the Whistler Land Development Company, which is a wholly owned corporation of the Whistler municipality. We're talking about only 325 acres.

MR. BARBER: Read section 17(3).

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Well, we'll come to 17(3) in a minute, if the member would just like to wait and understand what's taking place. Once he understands, perhaps he will withdraw the idiotic statements he made in debate. They were absolutely idiotic! I have heard you make irresponsible statements in this House before, Mr. Member, but never any as idiotic as you made today.

At any rate, 325 acres of land belonging to the municipality were to be developed as the central core commercial complex.

MR. LAUK: We all know the history of this bill.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Very well. The municipality's land company then invited developers to come in and develop the core.

MR. LAUK: Who invited whom?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The Whistler corporation.

MR. LAUK: And who's on the Whistler corporation? Are more of them involved in the land development?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: None of them are involved in the land development. It all belongs to the municipality.

MR. LAUK: Will you resign if that's not true?

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I would ask the hon. first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) not to interrupt the member who has the floor. I would also ask the hon. minister to address the Chair. It would assist me greatly in maintaining order.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The Whistler Land Development Company, which is the municipality's land development company in the development of this core, then sought proposals from people who were prepared to come up with the necessary knowledge and capital to develop this commercial core complex. The Whistler Land Development Company, based upon the knowledge it had gained as to the way in which one manages such commercial complexes in international-destination ski resorts, advised each of the proposed developers in the development proposal that a resort association would be established, and that developers would be obliged to be members. Therefore each individual who has come to take the opportunity extended by Whistler Land Development Company, came with the full knowledge that this was the way it was to function. It was not to be a burden on the municipality.

With regard to the promotion of Whistler as an international-destination ski resort, the responsibility for all of the promotional work and the advertising was to be dealt with by the developers in the core. They were to handle all of those responsibilities in addition to normal maintenance, snow removal, security provisions, et cetera. These responsibilities are associated with modern commercial complexes, with which the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) is intimately familiar.

Interjection.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: They've been repeated over and over again.

AN HON. MEMBER: A company town!

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: There are no special deals. It's not a town. It's 325 acres of privately owned land. They will still have their right to vote as taxpayers in that municipality, and they will pay their taxes like anybody else. They will still have one man, one vote, insofar as the municipality is concerned. They will not be a burden on the rest of the municipality, because they have agreed to develop their association and promote their commercial facilities in that way. They will save the other taxpayers of that municipality from having to shoulder the burdens that would have resulted if the municipality had done it on its own.

[ Page 1022 ]

MR. LAUK: Will you table the names of all the developers before this bill passes?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I'm sure that the mayor of Whistler would be delighted to provide you with the names of all of the developers. The mayor of Whistler would be delighted to give you all of these details. They have been available. They have been discussed at public hearings and at public council meetings in Whistler. Ever since this whole concept developed, it has been developed by the mayor and council of the municipality of Whistler. Every taxpayer in that muicipality has been made aware of their development potentials.

In the full development of complexes such as this in other jurisdictions, the laws already permit — as you did in 1974 with strata corporations — groups of landowners to come together and manage their affairs in that particular way.

MR. BARRETT: Use that law.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: It doesn't work in this particular case, Mr. Member.

MR. BARRETT: Why not?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Of course it doesn't.

MR. BARRETT: Why not?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: It doesn't work in this case.

MR. BARRETT: Why not?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I would ask the hon. Leader of the Opposition to please restrain himself.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I just have to say to the members that the reason the legislation is here is because the provincial laws do not apply and cannot work in this particular set of circumstances that involve the municipality of Whistler. Therefore they are being extended in those circumstances. They are the rights to run their own affairs that are extended to everybody else in the strata corporation. It is no different whatsoever.

You know, in other jurisdictions such activities as these are carried on. Their land title systems permit the registration of restrictive covenants. British Columbia does not. This is not a strata title corporation in the general sense of the word, but it functions exactly the same way for a group of people who own the land and join together and say: "We want to have a continued existence, a common corporate base. " This legislation permits this.

MR. LAUK: Who owns the land?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Presently the land belongs to the municipality of Whistler, through the Whistler Land Development Company. It is for that reason that the government is proud to bring this legislation forward, because it will enable that municipality to finally achieve its goal of many years ago, the one that was recognized by the member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Lorimer). It is going to achieve that goal by cooperative action between the municipality and its commercial core developers.

The province of British Columbia is continuing through its control over bylaws and bylaw amendment a measure of control of this corporation, and why? The reason is that the governments of Canada and British Columbia have a significant investment in this particular development and in this municipality. All of British Columbia and all the citizens have an interest in ensuring that this international calibre ski resort potential is in fact realized. In the interests of tourism and the economic development of this province we support this legislation.

But let it be abundantly clear to every member in this chamber and to the citizens of this province that nothing in this bill takes away their democratic right to vote in that municipality or interferes with their rights as landowners. It doesn't take away any voting rights in that municipality which are enjoyed by any other property owner or occupier in any part of this province, in spite of what the opposition may try to suggest is the case. Those commercial operators who are involved in the core development, in the commercial complex at Whistler, will, however, bear their own rated assessments with regard to the work of that association, which is to promote Whistler and to look after that complex. They will not be a burden upon the rest of the taxpayers of that municipality. That's a decision made by the mayor and council of that municipality for the benefit of their residents and their taxpayers, and is a position which every member on this side of the House should support.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to be the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound, and to have watched this development progress in all the years that I've been in this House. It will be my pleasure to continue to be the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound when this development has been successfully completed. The mayor and council and the citizens of the municipality of Whistler can then invite and host the people from throughout this world in the most exciting ski resort anywhere. And I again say that when that occurs, the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) will drive his Mercedes up there with his skis, and he'll say: "My, how beautiful it is."

MR. LAUK: "...but too bad, the Americans own it all."

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Isn't it wonderful that the member for Burnaby-Willingdon started this idea? He'll stay in those expensive hotels which have been erected in this commercial core, and he'll say how great it is. I just say that when that day comes, Mr. Speaker, I hope that the member, who will by that time be the past member for Vancouver Centre, will remember what he said in debate today, and remember the shame that he felt as his colleagues in the opposition spouted nonsense and ignorance and showed their incompetence as members of this House.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, when the minister finally got up he made some remarks about the Leader of the Opposition, but we were very fortunate that we had the Leader of the Opposition speaking, because he finally got

[ Page 1023 ]

the minister up. I got the distinct impression that minister was going to sit there and sit there and sit there and not do anything.

The minister would have had us believe, when he was telling the story about Whistler, that somehow all the ideas of the development that are about to take place took place over the last two or three years. He knows better than that; he knows that for years that kind of resource up there has been looked at by innumerable people. He knows that the former Social Credit government spent a lot of money and effort trying to make that area a candidate for the 1976 Winter Games. That was all examined; experts were brought in. It was known a long time ago what the potential of that area was.

That area, for 15 years, became a little bit of an adjunct of Howe Street. There were innumerable companies going in there, some of them flogging genuine stock, some flogging all sorts of stocks. Companies like Kleiner Bell, Driver Developments and the Garibaldi Developments Ltd., which went broke, were involved. There are lots of them that were in there to make a quick buck and to get out. There were even people that were charged with offences in relation to that. Everybody knew the possibilities of that.

Now the former minister in the Social Credit government, Dan Campbell, was aware of what was going on up there. He was concerned about who was going to be able to get in there and what was going to take place when he got in there. In 1969 the Minister of Lands was also concerned when he enunciated something of a land policy in respect to that kind of development area. We're not just dealing now with the core. We also have to deal with the total area because that's where the money is going to be made. That's where Warnock Hersey and the people from Aspen are going to make their money. We have to ask ourselves where are all the great risk-takers in Canada in respect to that kind of resource which has been proved over and over again as something that's viable and something that's possible.

In 1969 it was the former Minister of Lands and Forests, when he was under the gun under the whole question of Cypress Bowl, who said: "It is common policy in these kinds of things that we do not allow any type of club development or situation where people can gain control over the basic public resource." We have to connect the public resource with this bill because this government and the previous government have a record of giving away things. Since they've been the government, they've given away ferries, they've given away plants and shares that were owned by the taxpayers, and resources that were owned by the taxpayers. Now, as my colleague from Rossland-Trail was saying, they want to give away some mountains, and that's happened before.

In 1976 the new Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Mair) put out a press release. He talked about Blackcomb Mountain and said the proposed ski facilities would be developed on Blackcomb Mountain immediately north of Whistler. The potential ski slopes have been assessed by Snow Engineering of Colorado. The ski slopes were assessed years ago. Even Al Raine was in there when he was appointed by the previous government to look at the potential. They brought in Snow Engineering of Colorado. The firm concluded that the Blackcomb mountainside offered excellent ski development potential. He described what the advantages were to the skiing. He talked about the total development. Then he went on to say: "Mr. Nielsen said it's the intention of his department to attract privatesector investment to develop the recreation potential of Crown land. With the addition of ski lifts on the Blackcomb Mountain, the Whistler-Blackcomb complex will become one of north America's finest ski facilities."

No question about it, the potential has always been there. In 1974, the NDP government had the ELUC committee look at that whole area. They made a report in particular about the potential as a recreation resource. They also said in the report about how the townsite was to be developed. The recommendation was to put the centre on Crown land as opposed to private. The study said this meant greater control and a chance for the public to share in the commercial revenues as a means of partially upsetting public costs and avoiding a potentially exploitive quasimonopolistic situation.

The government recognized that here was a multimillion dollar operation, and the revenue earned from that would accrue to the Crown, to the people. They made recommendations. But the developers were very unhappy about that. They were concerned about the NDP-type first resort municipality. So they presumably went to the Social Credit government, and they said: "We need something different. We can't go with the socialist idea of making the townsite in the way that they want to be able to make it. "

What we deal with here is a difference in philosophy. That's really what the Minister of Labour was talking about. It is a difference of philosophy. It's got nothing to do with the commas and the dots in the Act. It's got to do with the intent. The people over there, the way they see things, believe you take Crown resources and give them to the private developers. After the history of what we've seen happen in that area, they are quite willing to turn that kind of thing over. They bring in this kind of a bill because the Minister of Labour said that we couldn't do it under the strata titles because it wasn't appropriate. Then he talked about the regional district, which also wasn't appropriate. They are going this route in order to fulfil what is obviously some promises that have been made in terms of the development of that.

We don't know what the hidden agenda of that government is, because the mayor of Vancouver is talking about them going after getting the 1986 Winter Games. You know where we stand in terms of that kind of financing in terms of the Olympic Games. We don't want another Quebec here. If you're going to invest that kind of money, you invest in the kind of money that benefits a great deal of people and not just a small group of people who are going to make a lot of money out of a development. But that's what that whole area's been all about for the last 20 years — people coming in and looking at the exploitive possibilities of making a great deal of money.

Obviously when we talk about this bill we have to go beyond just the principle of the bill and talk about the resource up there. That's important. It's important because we see it as a basic difference of philosophy, and you don't. When the minister got up, he said that the opposition attacks people personally and behaves in an outrageous fashion. Then, a minute later, he proceeds to behave in exactly the same way. In fact, he repeated one thing about four times and then fortunately, Mr. Speaker, you had the good sense to intervene and everything cooled down.

But he didn't really say very much. He didn't answer the charges that have been made by this side in respect to

[ Page 1024 ]

what is happening over there with that piece of legislation. There is a lot of talk around these buildings about the differences and the divisions in respect to this legislation as it affects that government and that cabinet. You know what we should have? We should have some input from the backbenchers into this. They should get involved in this. They should ask some questions. But obviously the word is out. "Keep quiet. We want to get it through."

We've made a point of examining the bill. It's nonsense for the minister to keep saying: "You haven't read the bill." Of course we've read the bill. We read the bill and we look at it in terms of legislation and we look at it in terms of philosophy, and there's a great gap between the way we see this legislation and the way the people over there see it. Both have very distinct opinions. Our job over here is to point out to the people over on the other side that there's something seriously wrong with this bill. It's a bad precedent. You should not be creating this kind of a special, "extraordinary" situation, and that's a word that's been used this afternoon. It's been used by the member for Nelson; it's been used by the minister.

I don't know whether you can legislate by extraordinary measures, because that's when you start setting bad precedents. We don't know because there hasn't been the availability of that kind of information as to what exactly they wanted up in the Whistler area. We do know that there is a serious interlocking of individuals who are involved with the council, who are involved with the development companies — if not now, they have been in the last year or two or three. Obviously we have to be suspicious about that. We have to be suspicious about what's coming down the road in terms of people who are going to represent that council.

Nobody's going to convince me that little council of well-meaning individuals up there is going to be able to push away the kind of incredible pressure that large corporations like Warnock Hersey and people from Aspen, Colorado, who are in this thing to make a lot of money.... They'll be able to push and shove and get their way, because they're not going to put a $50 million investment in here just to have a small council not give them the kind of flexibility they want. And that kind of flexibility is built into the bill — that's what we're critical of. But again they can't see that because there's a difference in approach.

If we argue in terms of the civil liberties issue, the answer from the Minister of Labour is: "Look at the regional district legislation. Look at the strata titles legislation." We are not dealing here with other forms of government which do not involve the possibility of making multimillions of dollars out of a resource. That's what's immensely different about Whistler. There is a lot of money to be made up there, and the people who are presumably going to be the investors, and are the investors, want as clear a field as possible, and this kind of legislation gives them that kind of clear field with no possibility of control. As long as that government sits there, those people will be able to do what they want, simply by passing their own bylaws, and that is an incredible situation.

There really is no accountability in respect to that resource, which is a public resource — not just for British Columbia but for the whole of Canada. It was envisioned as such years ago when the discussions took place between the then Minister of Northern Affairs, Art Laing, and the Premier about the possibility of getting investments from the federal government to promote this Canadian resource. What we've done is to refine it all down to a small council in Whistler that is going to be in the position of calling the shots on that. Who is really going to call the shots?

There seems to be no concern by the government that they have a role to play, that they could do some investment in this area. Where is the Ministry of Economic Development? The Canadian development bank is involved, and then they go find the Aspen people. It is not a question of expertise; we have some experts in this province. We can hire experts and still put the money to it to make it work. After all, what more are they talking about than what they've got now in terms of chairlifts? The major part of it doesn't relate to the equipment and the skis; the major part relates to the development of all sorts of hotels and that kind of thing.

That's the kind of thing that concerns us. They would have us believe this bill is really an enabling bill for that little council to operate in a real way. Then we try to point out to them that the rules are different to the Municipal Act, that there are people who do not want to go along with the particular issues and ideas of that council who will simply have to go along. That's what it says in the legislation. If you want to get along, you go along. If you don't, you get out. Is that the kind of pressure that's desirable in this day and age? That's the kind of decision people have to make. After all, they didn't make that kind of investment and then expect to come up against this kind of legislation. Nevertheless, that's what it's all about, Mr. Speaker. That's the kind of thing that's happening in this legislation. We will go into some detail in the committee stage of the bill where we will expect answers from the minister. If he wants to make his case in a really sincere way, then he'll make available as much information as has been requested during this debate. Let them table the information regarding the developers. Let's take a look at some of the proposals and see whether he can convince us that everything is all right and that we don't have to be as concerned as we are. I doubt that will come down, Mr. Speaker. But we'll wait and see.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, since first having had a look at this bill the other day I've been trying to make clear in my own mind how I could describe, in a phrase, if people were to ask me what the bill does. I think the simplest way is to say that within the community of Whistler there is a parcel of land that, because of decisions about locations of ski lifts, decisions about ski villages, becomes the most critical part and the most valuable part of the community. It's generally referred to as "the garbage dump" area. That's the area the Minister of Labour was referring to, Mr. Speaker, when he talked about the 320 acres. What the bill does, in effect, is to say that chunk of land in the Whistler community becomes a private, corporate fiefdom. It is carved out from within the community, and the decisions relating to the development of that particular chunk of Whistler community — the public land, the garbage-dump site, the key land — will be made by private corporations who invest money in that particular part of the Whistler area. That, in effect, is what the bill does in an overall sense.

There's no argument, the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) notwithstanding, about the potential of the Whistler area. All members of this House and most

[ Page 1025 ]

residents of British Columbia recognize the potential of that area as a resort area — not only for the international jet set, but also for residents of this province who view that area as one of the prime ski destinations. And when we make public policy, we should keep in mind that our first responsibility is to the residents of this province. We should be providing ski areas that suit the needs of British Columbians. But this ski area will have its development created and controlled in its most vulnerable part — the base of the lifts from both Blackcomb and the north face of Whistler — by corporations who do not reflect public policy, not only in the community of Whistler, but in this province. That concerns me, and it should concern all members of the House.

When a government — theirs or ours, Mr. Speaker — looks at a problem such as we have at Whistler, and asks how to develop the area, it looks to other parts of the world for models. Despite the investment by a corporation that has investment in Aspen, despite the fact that an Aspen corporation will benefit from this proposal, the government has chosen a model that, as best I can determine, anyway, was used in Vail, Colorado. They could have looked at models in Europe, at Chamonix and many of the Austrian and Swiss resort towns as well, where public decisions were made by the public, not by private individuals operating behind closed doors. The decision to go the American route rather than the European route demonstrates very clearly the difference between the two sides of this House. We believe in public policy made by the public; they believe in public policy made by the private sector.

We all know, Mr. Speaker, that the money to be made in ski developments is not made on the lift tickets. If ski development corporations had to rely on the revenue from the sale of lift tickets, they could not operate ski facilities in a proper way. I'm convinced of that simple fact. They make their money on the land around the bottom of the ski lift, in hotels, in restaurants, in bars and in a variety of other ways.

Ski companies must be given some assurance that they can make some money down at the base of the mountain before they'll develop up the mountain. The thing that has happened in this situation, Mr. Speaker, is that Fortress, the 50-percent American-owned corporation, has said to the government they won't develop that mountain unless they can make some money at the bottom of the mountain, Why else would Fortress be given an option on 200 acres of public land in this area, which comes due in 1982, if they complete their lifts up the hill? That's a 200-acre payoff to Fortress for building lifts. What are they going to do with that? If I'm wrong I would like the minister, when he closes this debate, to tell me that I'm wrong, that Fortress does not, in fact, have an option on 200 acres effective 1982, should they complete their side of the bargain concerning lifts.

MR. BARBER: He wouldn't deny that, would he?

MR. GABELMANN: Knowing that minister, he might do anything.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I wouldn't use the Russians; I prefer the Americans.

MR. GABELMANN: Well, I would prefer the Europeans.

Mr. Speaker, if we're going to have that debate over what kind of public policy we would like to have in this province.... When I go to resorts in Europe or in the United States, I make it very clear that I would prefer the Swiss and Austrian models, not the American.

MRS. JORDAN: Why are you so anti-American?

MR. GABELMANN: I'm pro-public decision-making, when it comes to....

AN HON. MEMBER: You want the government to have it all.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The member for North Island has the floor.

MR. GABELMANN: I believe that governments should not give away Crown land or Crown assets, or the potential for money-making on those assets, to foreign corporations so that they can develop those things and make profits. If we were to say that our parks in this country should be developed by private corporations, that would be the same. Would we say that Banff and Jasper should be developed by private corporations? No. we wouldn't. We believe that government should be making those kinds of public decisions, and so we believe in this case.

Now I want to know, Mr. Speaker, when the minister is responding in the debate, why we haven't got the bylaws completed. I understand they are just short of completion. This debate would have been a lot more useful to the public who, in the final analysis, this debate is for, if we had those bylaws.

I want to ask, Mr. Speaker, whether or not those bylaws will say that there will be on the board of directors of this corporation seven individuals, three of whom will be chosen by the members of this association at large, one of whom will be chosen by those companies who provide catering and food services, one of whom will be chosen by those companies who provide beds — hotels, in other words — and another two who will, in fact, come from Fortress and Garibaldi Lifts. Why don't we have that information in front of us when we are debating a giveaway bill like this?

Mr. Speaker, I don't intend to say much more at this stage. I believe we will have an opportunity in committee to zero in a great deal more on some of these questions. I would hope that prior to going to committee the minister will table with the House the bylaws that are almost ready, that are being prepared by the counsel in that area. If they are not quite ready we can certainly table the draft that is so far completed. Certainly the important parts of it are completed.

I think the impression that's important for us to leave in this debate, Mr. Speaker, is that there is a clear division in this Legislature; there's a clear expression of different philosophies. There is one side of the House that is prepared to take a public asset — the mountain — and another public asset — the Crown land and the garbage site — and turn it over to private developers for private speculation and private profit. We do not share that view.

[ Page 1026 ]

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem). He said it all when he said "special protection," and then he had some assistance from across the floor — "for special people." That's all this bill is about — special protection for special people. It's a minuscule area that we're dealing with, but what a precedent it sets. Once you start giving special people special protection, special powers and special authority, it's the beginning of the kind of society that, I believe, any thoughtful person would try to circumvent.

I was very interested in the hallowed words from that hallowed member, that saintly creature from West Vancouver–Howe Sound, that person who got up and talked about abysmal this and abysmal.... He discovered a new word today, Mr. Speaker. Everything was abysmal. When I refer to that member Methinks the lady proclaims too much — or protests too much.

AN HON. MEMBER: Get your Shakespeare together.

MR. COCKE: My Shakespeare isn't good enough today.

The one thing I've noted in this House for the ten years I've been sitting across from that member — thank heavens, I've been sitting across from that member — is that when he's ashamed he hollers, when he's ashamed he screams. He was so defensive today that it was incredible. Defensive he should have been.

He talked about weighted votes.

MR. BARBER: He said there wouldn't be any.

MR. COCKE: He said there would be no weighted votes. When he said that, he didn't really refer to the minister's words on that subject. I'd like to quote from a newspaper article what the minster said about weighted votes: "Earlier, Socred Municipal Affairs Minister Bill Vander Zalm conceded that the legislation contravenes fundamental principles in other provincial statutes." That's so, because the statute takes itself out of the purview of the Companies Act and the Societies Act.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Are you reading from the paper?

MR. COCKE: I'm reading from the paper. I've often read your quotes from the paper. I read them on ICBC too, Mr. Minister, accurate as they were.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The people from New Westminster should hear from you once in a while.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Let's not interrupt the member who has the floor. If the member who has the floor would address the Chair....

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I keep addressing the Chair.

Mr. Speaker, he admitted the bill ostensibly aimed at creating a special association of landowners to promote the area will give owners of major holdings a weighted vote over those smaller holdings. Said Vander Zalm: "You can't expect that guy with a barber shop will tell a fellow with $20 million investments what to do, or not just telling him, but perhaps keeping him from acting." Now if the minister did not say that, let him stand up in this House and say he did not say that.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Well, why don't you sit down?

MR. COCKE: Because you'd like to stand up now and close debate and you're not going to until I'm through.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: That minister, who's been misquoted so often — all through his life he's been misquoted — I pray someday will be quoted properly.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Where are you? You're on the other side, aren't you?

MR. COCKE: Yes, I'm on the other side, and proud to be, and will always be on the other side of the House from that minister, Mr. Speaker, regardless of whether it's right or left.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: You'll always be on the other side, if you're so lucky as to get elected again.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, if I'm lucky enough to get elected again.... You were just a squeaker. When you get 60 percent, come and talk to me.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I would ask the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs, after having requested for the third time that he not interrupt the member who has the floor, to please cease and desist. I would ask the hon. member who has the floor to address the Chair and to address himself to the principle of the bill. Please proceed.

MR. COCKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. One of the things we see is that there is no support for the bill in the back bench over there, except for that honest member who stood up and said it was special protection. The rest of the Munchkins on the back bench have stayed very quiet about this bill. I don't blame them. The Premier has been out all day, and now he comes back into the House at the hour of adjournment, hopefully, Mr. Speaker, to listen to these last few words of debate on this famous bill that they dropped during the dog-days in August.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's July.

MR. COCKE: It's August, believe me! Mr. Speaker, one of the things....

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Yes, I can move adjournment if you like.

Mr. Cocke moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I'd ask leave of the House to proceed to Motion 8.

[ Page 1027 ]

Leave not granted.

Introduction of Bills

CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1979

Hon. Mr. Curtis presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Constitution Amendment Act, 1979.

Bill 35 introduced, read a first time, and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. Mr. Curtis tabled documents referred to in Committee of Supply yesterday.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy filed answers to questions 11 and 28 standing on the order paper.

Presenting Reports

Mr. Hall, from the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts and Economic Affairs, presented the committee's first report, which was read as follows and received:

"Mr. Speaker, your Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts and Economic Affairs begs leave to report as follows:

"Your committee, chaired by Ernest Hall, has held three meetings. Officials of the comptroller general's office, the auditor-general and B.C. Systems Corporation, as well as various ministry officials assisting the comptroller-general, appeared before the committee. There were opportunities to examine vouchers supplied by the office of the comptroller-general. Upon the request of Mr. Allan R. Turner, chairman of the public documents committee, it was resolved that in accordance with the Public Documents Disposal Act, approval be given to the destruction of various public documents as listed in the submission to the public accounts committee for 1979, insofar as the following ministries are concerned: Ministry of the Attorney General, Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Health, Ministry of the Provincial Secretary and Government Services and Ministry of Transportation, Communications and Highways.

"All of which is respectfully submitted. Ernest Hall, Chairman, Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts and Economic Affairs. "

MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, I move the rules be suspended and the report adopted.

MR. SPEAKER: This will require leave. Shall leave be granted?

Leave not granted.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:04 p.m.

[ Page 1028 ]

APPENDIX

11 Mr. Cocke asked the Hon. the Minister of Human Resources the following questions:

1. Do the Directors of I.C.B.C. receive any form of remuneration and/or expenses or per diem rates?

2. If the answer to No. 1 is yes, (a) in what form and in what amount and (b) in the case of each director what is their name and the total amount paid them in 1976, 1977, and 1978?

The Hon. Grace McCarthy replied as follows:

"1. Yes.

"2. (a) Actual travelling and other out-of-pocket expenses necessarily incurred in discharging their duties. With the exception of Cabinet Ministers, $200 per board meeting and $250 per day for services rendered other than attendance at board meetings.

(b)

28 Mr. Cocke asked the Hon. the Minister of Human Resources the following questions:

With reference to private insurance companies licensed to sell automobile insurance in British Columbia—

1. How many companies are licensed?

2. In the case of each company, what is the name of the company and in what country is the controlling interest held?

The Hon. Grace McCarthy replied as follows:

"The information does not come within the official knowledge or duty of the Minister of Human Resources and Minister responsible for the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia."