1975 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, MARCH 10, 1975

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

491 ]

CONTENTS

Franchise Dealers Protection Act, 1975 (Bill 35). Mr. Bennett.

Introduction and first reading — 491

Royal Roads Military College Degrees Act (Bill 12). Mr.

Gorst.

Introduction and first reading — 491

Oral Questions

Payment of ICBC agents' fees. Mr. Bennett — 491

Errors in ICBC vendor cheques. Hon. Mr. Strachan answers — 492

ICBC error on renewal form. Mr. Curtis — 493

Education department dismissals. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 493

Effect of CUPE strike on schools. Mr. Wallace — 494

Vehicular damage to farm property. Mrs. Jordan — 494

Purchase of Minnekhada stock farm. Mr. McGeer — 494

Advertisements supporting budget. Mr. Gibson — 494

Budget debate (continued)

Petitions

Residents' petition. Mr. Wallace — 524

Speaker's ruling

Accuracy of Members' statements during question period —

MONDAY, MARCH 10, 1975

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, it's with

a great deal of pleasure today that I introduce the new

director of cancer for the Province of British Columbia. We've

been most fortunate in this province to attract one of the top

oncologists, one of the top cancer people in all of North

America, and his name is Dr. Tom Hall. He's sitting right

behind me in the House, Mr. Speaker. He's from the medical

campus of the University of Southern California, and we're very

fortunate indeed.

Along with Dr. Hall is Dr. Don Williams, who was the

chairman of the cancer ways and means committee that set up a

cancer agency some time ago. Mr. Gardner, now the chairman of

the cancer control agency of the Province of B.C., is also

here. Right behind me is Dr. Julia Levy from the BCMC and also

from UBC. Mrs. Hall is accompanying Dr. Hall. I would ask the

House to join me in welcoming Dr. Hall and the rest of the

group to B.C.

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, in

the gallery today are all of the presidents representing the 48

constituencies and the 55 seats representing the Social Credit

Party of British Columbia. I would ask the House to welcome

these concerned British Columbians. (Laughter.)

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): That explains why great space is

available in the galleries today.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Mr. Speaker, it's not often that

I have people here from the colourful Cariboo in your gallery,

the Speaker's gallery. Today I'd like the House to welcome the

chairman of the Cariboo Regional District, Mr. Harry Moffat.

Two of his directors are with him, Dr. Testimao and Director

Russ Jones, as well as a lifelong resident of Anahim Lake, Mr.

Andy Christensen.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, seated on the floor

of the House today we have the pleasure of welcoming one of our

federal colleagues. He has stated that he is a contender for

one of the Conservative leaderships — I don't think it's mine,

but you never know. The Member I'm about to introduce is

travelling through the province and through the country in

search of…. (Laughter.) If it's in search of support, he

comes to the strong source first, Mr. Minister.

I would like the House to welcome Mr. Heward Grafftey, who

is the Member for Brome-Missisquoi in our federal House.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to add a personal

welcome to the Member. He has made a national reputation beyond

his own party — which, of course, we all identify in terms of

our bias. But I want to recognize the Member's excellent work

some years ago in terms of automobile safety. It was a great

service he provided the Canadian people by bringing automobile

standards to the Canadian public. I appreciate that very

much.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Seated in the Speaker's

gallery this afternoon is a principal from North Peace

Secondary High School, Mr. Austin Raham. He's in Victoria on

business for the school and I would like the assembly to

welcome him.

Hon. Mr. King presented the annual report of the Labour

Relations Board, 1974.

Introduction of bills.

FRANCHISE DEALERS

On a motion by Mr. Bennett, Bill 35, Franchise Dealers

Protection Act, 1975, 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.

ROYAL ROADS MILITARY

COLLEGE DEGREES ACT

On a motion by Mr. Gorst, Bill 12, Royal Roads Military

College Degrees Act, 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.

Oral questions.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the Hon. Member for Victoria wanted to

ask about this question he had raised on Thursday.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): I just want to confirm, Mr.

Speaker, that we will at 6 p.m. today be getting a judgment on

the question of privilege which I raised last week.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, indeed — at the end of the day.

PAYMENT OF ICBC AGENTS' FEES

MR. BENNETT: To the Minister of Transport and Communications. Have commissions

for independent insurance agents writing Autoplan policies in 1974

[ Page

492 ]

been paid in full?

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): I presume

so, but I would have to take that question as notice.

ERRORS IN ICBC VENDOR CHEQUES

HON. MR. STRACHAN: While I'm on my feet, Mr. Speaker, I

would like to answer a question that was raised by the Hon.

First Member for Victoria (Mr. Morrison) on Friday. He asked

about a cheque which he had received upon which he had no

claim. He asked a number of questions: first, how did his name

get on the list of vendors for the Insurance Corp. of British

Columbia?

First of all, the list was supplied to ICBC by the

Automotive Retailers Association of British Columbia. The

minute the list was received a number was allocated to each

name on the list.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Got friends there, eh?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: In December, 1974, a cheque for $254 was

sent to the Morrison Chev-Olds in Victoria. Subsequently, Mr.

Morrison phoned the Victoria claims centre and spoke to the

manager, indicating that the cheque had been sent to him in

error. On checking, Mr. Bell discovered that this money was

owed to National Motors. National Motors advised us that they,

in error, had written the Morrison Chev-Olds vendor No. 3072 on

the estimate instead of their own number, which is No.

In other words, there was a mistake by the private company…

HON. MR. BARRETT: Private enterprise — they're always messing

up everything.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: …thereby indicating to the computer

that the cheque should be issued to vendor 3072, Morrison

Chev-Olds.

The other question that was raised — he said he had three on

his file — was that on March 5, 1975, Mr. McKenna of the claims

division was called by Mr. J. Chabot, MLA. Mr. Chabot said he

discovered — that was March 5 — that ICBC had sent a cheque to

Reid's Towing and Auto Wrecking, Golden, B.C., and this company

had not been in business for two years. He asked Mr. McKenna to

confirm this.

An examination showed that the estimate sheets had been

completed by Jim Jones Towing in Lac La Hache, and they had

correctly entered their vendor No. 4687. This was incorrectly

keypunched in data processing to 4637, and a cheque issued to

the vendor. This cheque was recovered and the proper party paid

in June, 1974…

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: …nine months before the Member asked

the question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I want to tell the House that there have

been 16,000 cheques issued to vendors and there have been two

wrong. I don't expect perfection from any human organization. I

think that two out of 16,000, when one of them was certainly

the fault of the vendor, is a pretty good record, and I'm not

ashamed of it.

Interjections.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): I'd also like to thank the

Minister for his explanation, because I resigned from the

automobile company and the business in 1969. I was not a member

of that association after that date.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You should resign your seat.

MR. MORRISON: My question is: do you not bother checking the

information which is given you? In other words, you just took a

list and didn't bother any more about it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Would the Hon. Member pursue his

question, if he has one?

MR. MORRISON: I am inquiring as to what his procedure is for

checking people such as this.

The second one which I brought up was for a lady who is

driving a vehicle in Sooke. She is still driving the vehicle in

Sooke, and yet was paid a cheque by ICBC to pay off that

vehicle as a wreck. It was a wreck that she paid for, and she

paid $11, Mr. Minister. I'd like to find out how many other

people are like those.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: We believe in giving people a choice as

to whether they get the car fixed or take the money. She chose

the money.

MR. MORRISON: She did not choose to take the money.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You asked what is being done about it.

Let me tell you. We accepted this list from the Automotive

Retailers Association in good faith as they presented it, but

because we discovered this we are checking and we have since

checked right

[ Page 493 ]

down the lists to be sure that every one is in order. We've

added to the number of letters related to the firms so that

even if the firm makes a mistake we can catch it. There is

something else — I forget what it is now — in order to make

sure that Morrison Chev-Olds never again gets a cheque they are

not entitled to, or anything else.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on!

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): On the same question, the

Minister made a statement here that this matter I had raised

with ICBC had been settled in the month of June, and that a

firm, I believe by the name of Jim Jones, had been paid in

June, 1974. I wish the Minister would check the accuracy of

this information because the cheque, which is in my possession,

was issued since that time. So it appears that your information

is erroneous.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The information I have is that the cheque

was paid to the correct party in June of 1974. I'll check it

out.

ICBC ERROR ON RENEWAL FORM

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): On the same

subject, to the same Minister with respect to ICBC: in view of

the fact that he is very proud of two errors out of 16,000

individual transactions, has the Minister encountered many

instances such as the one I can file with him or with the House

of a new driver who purchased an automobile in the summer of

1974 and received her Autoplan renewal form just a few weeks

ago containing no premium amount shown on the insurance form —

no dollars whatever — and an automobile which she has never

heard of, never owned and never been near? In other words, the

only thing correct on the renewal form was her name and

address. Are there many instances of this, to the Minister,

through you, Mr. Speaker?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'll find that one out of the 1,150,000

vehicle registrations that we have. I'll find it. You send it

over to me so I can check it out.

EDUCATION DEPARTMENT DISMISSALS

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: To the Minister of Education. In recent

weeks the two terminated members of the former research and

development division have expressed fears about a B.C.

educational blacklist. I wonder whether the Minister could

assure the House that there is no such blacklist in the

Department of Education or in British Columbia.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Mr. Member, I would never,

as Minister, condone any blacklist in the department.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I take it, Mr. Speaker, from her answer

that there is no such blacklist, and I thank her. Could I ask

the Minister whether she has ordered or conducted an inquiry

into the allegations of harassment by employees of the

department who formerly served in the research and development

division?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I am satisfied that there was no such

harassment.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Was any inquiry started or entered

into?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Member, the people who made those

allegations publicly chose the opportunity to go public; they

have had the right to go through the proper procedures as they

chose. I said earlier when I spoke in this House that I do not

intend to indulge in a public debate on this issue when there

is a proper route which could have been taken.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, they

were probably following the example set by the Premier in

announcing the dismissal of Mr. Bremer.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. That is not a question.

MR. McGEER: I have a question, though. I couldn't refrain

from that comment since he was prompting the Minister.

I would like to ask the Minister of Education: if these

dismissed members followed the procedures suggested by the

Minister and are successful in their appeals, will they be

reinstated in the research and development division of the

Department of Education?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Member, I'm sure you know, if you have

studied the Public Service Act and the present collective

bargaining agreement, that that decision and recommendation

would come forward following the due process. You asked me to

comment on something that hasn't even reached that point.

MR. SPEAKER: I would point out that it is also a matter of

law, not a question of

interpretation.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: As a supplementary on that, I would like

to ask the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) when he is

going to appoint people to the public service grievance board

so that due process of law can be followed.

[ Page 494 ]

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): The Member was referred

to this before, but if he cares to read the Act carefully,

particularly the repeal and transitional sections of the Act,

he will find out that due process of law is being carried.

EFFECT OF CUPE STRIKE

ON SCHOOLS

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister

of Education a question on another subject. In view of the

continuing fact that the children in district 61 are not

receiving adequate education, and as it's quite clear,

depending on the length of the strike, that children will be

failing grades later on, could the Minister tell the House what

attempts she is making to provide alternatives to prevent this

sorry outcome?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: First of all, Mr. Speaker, the assumption

that the students will fail grades, I think, is basically an

assumption of the individual Member.

MR. WALLACE: It's the assumption of a lot of parents.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: It is concern. If you follow past history

I don't think you would find that this is always what happens;

but I said before in this House that I am concerned also when

there is any stoppage of the service to school children.

I shouldn't be asking the Hon. Member a question, but I must

in some way use a question to answer you. I wonder if you have

discussed with the Greater Victoria School Board their concern

and what they are planning to do. I think the Member who asked

me espouses the local autonomy principle under which our system

works, and to date I have not been asked by the Greater

Victoria School Board to interfere. I would suggest that the

Member take his direct concerns to the school board.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. WALLACE: A supplementary, if we have to have this kind

of discussion. I've talked with the chairman and the

vice-chairman of the board. I would ask the Minister if it is

her attitude, then, that regardless of what happens, she will

take no initiative whatever so that if the school board doesn't

approach her, she won't approach them. This is the point.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: You completely misinterpreted my answer. I said that

until the local school board comes to me…. The fact that they have discussed

it with you is most interesting, but they have not come to me as Minister and

asked for any specific assistance, or even to discuss it.

VEHICULAR DAMAGE TO

FARM PROPERTY

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): I would like to address

my question to the Minister of Transport and Communications and

ask if the Minister would confirm that hit-and-run accidents to

farmers' property, such as broken fences and the killing of

cattle, are not claimable through ICBC unless the offending

driver files the claim, even though that offending driver is

identified.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'll have to check that one out. I would

doubt if that's the case.

MRS. JORDAN: While the Minister is taking this question as

notice, would he be prepared to make available the number of

incidents like this which have taken place and have not been

settled by ICBC?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I can't possibly have that information

anywhere within the records, either at the motor vehicle branch

or ICBC. We don't know how many happen.

MRS. JORDAN: I can give you some examples.

PURCHASE OF MINNEKHADA STOCK FARM

MR. McGEER: With regard to the purchase by the government of

the Minnekhada stock farm in Coquitlam, announced by the

Premier, could the Premier tell us the price paid by the

provincial government to Daon Development Corp. and what price

Daon Development paid to the former owner, Mr. Clarence

Wallace?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I will take that as notice

and file the answer for the Member.

AN HON. MEMBER: Whose riding is that in?

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, would the Premier also file the

agreement of sale?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, I will take the question as

notice.

ADVERTISEMENTS SUPPORTING

BUDGET

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, to

the Premier and Minister of Finance with respect to the ads

placed by the Premier with public funds promoting the budget

from the government's point of view. I want to ask the

Premier

[ Page 495 ]

if he will be fair and pay for ads for the opposition

parties to express their view on that budget in the same

way.

HON. MR. BARRETT: They already have the editorial pages in

The Vancouver Sun for the Liberal Party.

MR. GIBSON: Nonsense!

HON. MR. BARRETT: And they have the editorial pages of

The Province for the Socreds. I am only carrying on the

very good practice of the former Minister of Finance (Hon.

W.A.C. Bennett).

MR. GIBSON: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, is the Minister

of Finance endorsing the tactics of the former Minister of

Finance in all these respects?

HON. MR. BARRETT: There are things that the former Premier

did that were good and one of them was buying ads on a budget.

(Laughter.)

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

Orders of the day.

ON THE BUDGET

MR. F.A. CALDER (Atlin): Mr. Speaker, now that the first

stage of the honeymoon is over, I wish to return to the affairs

of my constituency and those of the province.

It is my pleasure once again to take my place in a sessional

debate on behalf of the people of the historic riding of Atlin,

but in particular to participate in this budget debate in terms

of how it affects or benefits the people of the Atlin

constituency and what it means to northern development.

In speaking about northern development, I do not wish to

include the Prince Rupert, Terrace, Hazelton, Smithers,

Vanderhoof, Prince George and Jasper lines. Such lines have

already been developed, or are still under development, since

the days of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway. Of course, this

railway was completed in 1914 and taken over by the CNR in

1921, but the economic development has continued from those

dates. In those days the term "northern development" was

baptized; the people took the term "northern development"

during the development from those dates. I don't wish to talk

about northern development north of the Yukon boundary or north

of the boundary of the North West Territories.

I would prefer this afternoon to talk briefly on northern development between

the Prince Rupert–Jasper line and the boundaries of the Yukon and the North

West Territories. In between these two lines is a distance of 300 miles. I am

briefly relating my statements to this particular area because in the budget

I do not see too much earmarked for this particular area. This, of course, concerns

me, and no doubt concerns the rest of the northern Members. I cannot speak too

much on the North Peace or the South Peace because they have been developing

for quite a number of years. But the North West Territories has not developed

as much and as rapidly as perhaps the interior, southern British Columbia or

the Peace River area.

We had a night sitting on March 5, so none of the Members

saw the programme on Channels 2 and 6 under the "PacifiCanada"

programme.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): My wife saw it.

MR. CALDER: The Hon. Minister of Mines and Petroleum

Resources (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) and myself appeared on that

programme for half an hour. It was a coast-to-coast hookup. The

name of the film was "Baby, This Is for You."

Interjection.

MR. CALDER: It wasn't his statement; it was my statement

over a year ago. Since then there have been one or two cartoons

circulating in my constituency, done by one of the editors of

the three little papers published in my constituency, in which

there is a whole page with a little peanut in the middle. On

top it says "Northern Development," with the Little

Chief's statement underneath: "Baby, This Is for You." I don't

quite like the idea. I am stating this because the budget is a

beautiful budget. But if I have the opportunity to plead, I

will do so in terms of what is in it for the Atlin

constituency.

When I spoke in that programme, I spoke as a Member of the

government, and I was so enthused at that time that I was just

saying: "Anything you want, boys, you can have." So, at the end

of my remarks, I said: "Baby, this is for you." So this is the

title of the show.

I wish you people had seen that because I think the National

Film Board may have used it to ridicule the north in terms of

my statement. I really don't know what the purpose was. I still

have every hope that this budget is going to be of some benefit

to the people in the far north.

The No. 1 item, of course, is housing. As we all know,

housing is one of the most outstanding problems anywhere in

North America. I believe it is critical enough to warrant daily

debates even in our own front yard. The question is: what are

we going to do about it? What is the government doing about

it?

I think the answer was given in 1973 in the fall session

when the government took a major step in

[ Page 496 ]

establishing the Department of Housing. Last year, as we all

know, there was a $50 million budget. This year, of course, we

have pretty close to $70 million earmarked for housing.

I'm hopeful that quite a bit of this money would be

earmarked in a programme which I hope to see. In a study of the

throne speech and in looking over the estimates, I don't find

very much in the way of a programme for housing in remote areas

or in unorganized territories, and I think this is a serious

matter. I do hope when the Minister's estimates come up for

consideration, that a programme will be placed before the

Members and the House to let us know just what plans are for

the far north or in the 300-mile gap that I'm talking

about.

I am a little concerned, though, about the criticism on

housing. As I say, it's just only about a year and four months

ago that this department was established and there has been a

sizeable budget in each year, but it seems that we're expecting

a little bit too much. This expectation is before us; this

housing expectation is in the north also, particularly in my

riding.

The northerners, Mr. Speaker, actually believe that the

concentration of housing plans, as we see today, in the lower

mainland, in the metropolitan areas and in other large

municipalities, particularly in southern British Columbia….

To the northerners, again, it is not fair. We believe there has

to be some equality throughout the province because the

northerners believe housing is part of northern development. I

have so stated on several occasions on the floor of this House

that housing is definitely a part of northern development —

again, particularly in the gap that is receiving very little

attention.

In this request I am hopeful that the government and the

northern people will commence consultations with respect to

locations for housing, the type of homes, and to consider the

areas where housing is in need and in a critical state.

There have been one or two occasions on which housing has

been brought to the attention of the government from the Atlin

constituency and from the B.C. northwest. The government has

taken emergency substitutes such as used house trailers.

Mr. Speaker, I don't believe that this is the answer to the

housing problem in the north. The introduction of trailers may

alleviate certain individual situations but certainly does not

answer the housing problem in the north. In this respect,

again, there have to be consultations with the north.

Consultation, again I must say, is part of northern

development. I think that in any plans whatever, consultation

with the northern people is necessary.

So I'm asking the question: what does the budget have in store for housing

in the B.C. northwest, in such places as the town of Atlin and the communities

bordering the Stewart–Watson Lake highway? What are the plans for senior citizens?

It was senior citizen homes that first started the criticism in the north. I've

never heard since what the government has done, and I'm very much concerned

about this. Again, I'm very hopeful that the Minister will lay the plans before

us during the discussion of his estimates and just let us know what is in store

for senior citizens in the B.C. northwest.

We've had many task forces operating in the province. I do

hope that in this particular instance we add another task force

to study housing in the remote and unorganized areas. In

considering northern housing, I would also request that the

Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson) work closely with the

Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A.

Williams), because we also have the problem of the high cost of

land in the north such as you have in municipalities. The new

townsites, particularly those earmarked along the

Stewart–Watson Lake highway, the Stewart-Terrace highway and

the Stewart-Kitwanga highway, are definite parts of northern

development as well.

We have witnessed the development of two so far — namely, at

Dease Lake and also Meziadin Lake. No doubt there'll be other

little communities springing up along these three new

highways.

I believe that the government plans in all of these should

be constructive in terms of meeting the needs of the northern

people. It is on their behalf that I am on my feet at this time — in terms of their housing needs. Favourable and inviting

townsite property prices should be made available to the

northern people and the cost of lots should be set up to their

means.

In the townsite of Dease Lake, about 10 years ago when the

subdivision took place, the land value then was about $400 to

$500 per lot, and the commercial lots ranged, say, from $1,000

to $1,500. I'll admit that land values have increased in the

last 10 years. Today, after a rehash from the Department of

Lands in that subdivision, we now find that the residential

lots are $2,000. Nothing has been said about the commercial

lots. We find now that to lease one of these lots it will cost

you $100 annually, and you must build on it within one year. If

not, you lose the lot.

This $2,000 mark to the people in the south sounds quite

favourable, but to the northern people it is quite a steep

price. Don't forget that there isn't too much employment up in

that northern part of the riding. Ever since mining exploration

has declined and the big game guides are hiring fewer people in

that profession, the only employment available is with road

maintenance and road construction. Most of the road

construction is sometimes under contract and the contractor

usually brings in his own men, all union members. The local

people, who are very concerned about taking

part in northern

development

[ Page 497 ]

and securing a job so that they can pay for lots or

whatever, find that they cannot find placement. The only time

they can find placement under the contract projects is when

both parties to the contract say that there is room available

and, by their agreement, a local person may be hired.

How do these people fit into this programme? They just don't

at the current time, and it concerns them. I've seen some

letters going to the department that are quite hot. I do hope

that the Ministers, when they read such letters, don't just say

that the authors are fanatics. They're not. These people in the

communities are not fanatics; these people are very serious

about this thing. They just find that they cannot get into the

programme. To them, the $2,000 mark is quite a steep thing.

How about the development of this community? The programme

now says — in terms of who buys the lot — that it's only for

local people. If David Anderson, for instance, wanted to buy a

lot at Dease Lake, he will not be considered unless he is

employed in some project in that area. So they are barring the

outsider, and the local guy can't afford it because he can't

get work. He hasn't got the money to pay this high cost. So the

development of a townsite, which, as I just said, is part of

northern development, is at a stalemate.

I do hope that the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) would consider the local people

when it comes to setting prices. It was okay to go up there

with the department. The officials went up and talked to the

people about the size of the lots. But when it came to setting

out prices it was just laid before the people. I think that in

all phases of northern development local people will have to be

consulted, even to setting prices. If the department had some

definite reason as to why X thousands of dollars was picked and

laid the cards on the table, the people might see and accept.

But when you just throw a price before them, then there is

bound to be a criticism. They say: "Why didn't you consult us?"

They want to tell the government how they can fit in and how

they cannot fit in. So this situation is quite serious at the

moment.

I have always maintained in northern development that it's

not so much road development or railway development; it's

people development as well. People making decisions is all part

of this northern development, the result of which will be

people benefit.

Housing, then, is a critical problem in the north. We would

like to see programmes; we would like to know how much of the

budget is earmarked for programmes, if any, in northern

areas.

In poverty areas and housing for the senior citizens we've yet to see a programme.

I do hope that I will be able to go back after the prorogation of this House

and outline to the local people just what we have for them this year.

I'd like to say a little bit about mining. The Atlin

constituency is in a mineral belt — we all know that. That

constituency is well established in the history of mining

development in this province. It was all part of the Klondike —

when someone yelled "gold" and people streamed into the north.

It was not long afterward that the Atlin constituency was

considered a historic riding.

Mind you, the constituency has seen many ups and downs. If

markets are bad, of course, business declines; if markets are

good the business becomes profitable. Right at the moment there

are doldrums in this 300-mile gap I am speaking about.

Of course, everyone blames the government. But I am happy to

say that quite a number of the well-thinking people whom I have

met in the constituency, particularly in the mining area, have

considered the high cost of operation, considered the high

salaries that exist, considered the low market value,

considered the high cost of construction, considered the

government tax levies — and all this had added to what has

happened today.

In the Granduc, which I visited just a few days ago, I found

at least 500 people have been laid off and about 380 remain.

They are hopeful of continuing right on until fall. There is a

great possibility that they will continue to operate. Like

anybody else, we are hopeful that the market value will

increase so that perhaps Granduc would increase again in its

operation.

In any event, in talking about employment in the riding, we

find for the first time that Atlin has no mineral exploration

in this past year. It's nil. Of course, this is the one area in

which the local people took part; they joined the many

exploration teams each year. Now it's no more. It all relates

to a number of things which I have said have caused a decline

everywhere, not only in British Columbia but also in other

parts of the world. The whole thing has just declined. Looking

at the situation in copper in South America and Chile, you can

see that they are in a most unfavourable situation there. It's

a world problem.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): You're being too

kind.

MR. CALDER: I noticed the other day a newspaper account of

several delegates meeting with the cabinet. Then we see: "B.C.

Mining Men See New Ray of Hope." This is great; I do hope they

keep coming over. I do hope the government door is open because

consultations mean a lot to the mining people.

I'm very much concerned about this, because I can remember

when my colleague, the Minister of Mines, and I sat together on

that side. The two of us used to

[ Page 498 ]

take turns in leading off the debate on mining. Leo was

always getting the headlines because he asked for a royal

commission on mining every year that I can remember.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): He's not asking for one

now.

MR. CALDER: My good colleague is now on this side and I

don't hear anything about a royal commission. Yet I believe

that when any industry is in trouble, the government's duty is

to listen to that industry.

Mining made this province. Everybody knows the history

books, and I think we should give some little priority and

listen to these people. We agree that some of the laws didn't

look too good. I'm one of the guys who used to be critical

because there hasn't been too much going into the revenue and

into the people's coffers down here in Victoria. I've been

critical because services, or something in kind, does not go

back to the north. But just the same, I have my heart out for

the mining industry.

If this is going to lead to something — which I hope, just

by looking at this…. No doubt they felt quite good just

after they left the Premier's office or the Minister of Mines

and Petroleum Resources' office — whatever office they were in — that they would consider the long run. I know that this year,

it says, they have been requested to jot down some of the

things they don't approve of. That is fine; that is great.

When these briefs come back in, say within a year, I'm quite

sure that most of these mining people will say that they do

approve of the principle of royalties. I think they will. I

think you will find that quite a number of them will

approve.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): No way!

MR. CALDER: I think, though, that almost 100 per cent will

disapprove of the super-royalty. So if we are going to work

together on this, I wouldn't mind seeing my colleague again

asking for a royal commission — or at least opening up the

standing committee on mining — and giving these mining

companies a chance to tell the elected Members just how to go

about alleviating the situation. This is all I ask on behalf of

my people. This is not Frank Calder talking. When I was in

Stewart they said to just say it. And, you know, I like to say

it.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Give them hell. Don't be

so soft.

MR. CALDER: I look at highways and what the budget is doing in terms

of highways in this gap I am talking about. Just the other day my neighbour,

the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Dent), remarked about the increased traffic

on the Stewart–Watson Lake highway. He mentioned the tourist trade; he mentioned

it being the shortcut to the State of Washington. He didn't say "the State of

Washington" but I think we can read the message. You heard me time and time

again predict before the opening that we should concentrate on the completion

of that highway because it meant a route 1,000 miles shorter to the States from

the Alaska Highway, and that one day it will take away 50 per cent of the business

from the Alaska Highway. This is what is happening.

Those of you who have gone through that highway will find

that it is a good highway. We have had some pretty good road

builders on that programme. Some of those sections are just

absolutely ready for paving. It is just too bad that if there

is no paving we are going to start spending money, money and

more money repairing the roads that are going to be damaged. If

they were actually paved I think we would save money, because

this is going to be a major highway.

I am a little concerned about the bridges, the hundreds and

hundreds of bridges that span the many streams and rivers. They

are not much to look at. I think that if we are going to

concentrate some of our efforts on maintaining a good road on

the Stewart-Cassiar road, we should spend money from this

budget improving all those bridges.

I am also concerned about extra money being allocated

towards keeping the Stewart-Terrace highway and the

Stewart-Kitwanga highway open all year round. They haven't

been. I remember that we promised this when I invited the

Premier to be my guest speaker at the last election. He

promised that they would be all-weather roads. I am glad the

Premier is hearing this. I hope he whispers into the Hon.

Minister of Highways' (Hon. Mr. Lea'

s) ear about that promise

and keeps that road an all-weather road.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): He didn't say

when.

MR. CALDER: In relation to that highway connection between

the Stewart–Watson Lake highway and Highway 16, I would like to

say something about the B.C. Ferries. Again, my constituents

have asked me to say this on the floor of the House: they would

like to see the British Columbia coastal ferry system extended

to Stewart. Prince Rupert, of course, would be just one of the

stops. The ferries would continue on to Stewart to join with

this major highway to connect Stewart with Watson Lake and the

Yukon and the State of Alaska.

I have met quite a number of tourists who would rather get

off at Stewart than wait and go all the way

[ Page 499 ]

to Haynes and take their cars on and off. They would like to

see a beautiful

section of the country and take off from

Stewart and move northward. It is the same thing moving

south.

I wish that people down here behind their fancy desks would

see the advantage of this and extend that. I wrote a letter to

the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr.

Strachan) last year. He did say that he was going to look at it

this year. After my speech I am going to be dictating to my

secretary another letter to remind him that he is supposed to

be studying this possibility of extension to Stewart this

year.

The Stewart–Watson Lake highway has been kept more of a

logging road. Like the company, I suppose the government

doesn't like to see the public too much on the logging road. I

would imagine that the attitude of the operators of Can-Cel now

would be the same as the private company: they don't want to

see the public on a logging road. So this is one of the reasons

why I bring it to the attention of the government to consider

this ferry connection.

I suppose that if there ever was a connection to Highway 16,

it will be going through Kitwanga, where a bridge is under

construction and a road is nearing completion — that is, from

Stewart to Kitwanga. So I would request the government to

consider the extension of this ferry system.

I'm very lucky with the Premier.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Somebody has to stay over on that side of

the House. I'm very lucky with the….

MR. CALDER: Again, we're talking about the B.C. Railway and,

again, the people in Stewart in my recent visits told me to

remind the government and the Premier that when the Premier was

in Stewart he did say that they'd look into the possibility of

serving Stewart as a terminus of the B.C. Railway.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Frank, they can't run it

anyway.

MR. CALDER: It's a great responsibility. I remember I got

the Premier, and we stood on the high level of the road that

was previously used and indicated to him a road down at the

base of the pass which would be suitable for a railway due to

the fact that the Bear River glacier is now in recession quite

rapidly.

It is a great possibility. We see great hopes for the

seaport of Stewart so far as the railway is concerned. All

we're asking is that the government provide a feasibility

study. I don't think it will involve too much in public funds

to spend money and find out whether or not the extension of

that to the seaport of Stewart is possible. That's all we're

asking.

MR. FRASER: Make your mine speech again. The Minister (Hon.

Mr. Nimsick) just came in.

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): I heard

it.

MR. CALDER: I was going to say something about the proposed

dam on the Atlintoo River near Atlin. I understand that the

power company in Whitehorse is planning to dam up this river by

the Atlin lakes. Apparently, they're dealing with the federal

government, and the provincial government is standing by to see

what may happen. I and the people up north are quite anxious to

know what will be done in this particular respect, but I will

wait until the estimates of the Minister of Lands, Forests and

Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) and bring this to his

attention.

I notice I'm just about going on to 35 minutes. I would just

like to use up the remainder of the time to say something on

behalf of the Indian organizations…

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Take your time, Frank.

MR. FRASER: Lots of time, Frank.

MR. CALDER: …in their request for some provincial

government action on the land claims.

The provincial government is not deaf to this request. As a

Member on this side, I am really hopeful that one day soon, I

hope, the government will announce some participation. I just

cannot see for the life of me how the provincial government can

stay out of negotiations. As one of the negotiators with the

Nishga case, I found out after at least four meetings that

these negotiations cannot be successful, or cannot reach any

conclusions, until the provincial government has come into the

picture.

I think the province should realize the fact that the major

portion of the Indian lands claimed is outside the bounds of

the reservation system, and that these lands are Crown

lands.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Cutoff land.

MR. CALDER: No, no. Cutoffs are a different question

altogether, These are land claims — the Indian people are

claiming all of British Columbia.

The word "reservation" is not in the dictionary of an Indian

who lays claims.

Interjection.

MR. CALDER: Anyway, under the British North America Act, the

province has jurisdiction over these major portions of the

lands that are under claim. It seems to me that any time one of

the present

[ Page 500 ]

Ministers would say: "Well, look. If it involves your

reserves, cutoffs, additions or what not, we'd like to hear

about it."

But those are parochial statements. We're not talking about

reserves or cutoffs — cutoffs are just a side issue completely.

The land claim is the aboriginal title: who owns it, you or

me?

I think that three-three split decision answered that

question because there is no appeal in the highest court, and

so it is a victory. It has been quoted in other parts of the

world. It just so happens that we find out now that it's the

only case that went before the courts. Africa may be quoting

it, and we understand that the Hawaiians may be quoting it as

evidence in asking the United States to pay for the islands. So

it was a great decision.

We understand the federal government's position. Before the

formation of the provinces, naturally, they were in charge of

the native question, lands and what-have-you. But then the

provinces entered the picture after they were formed and became

part of Confederation. They became involved in this because

they were given jurisdiction over the land. Why they've been

using this whole question as a football I can't understand.

Perhaps they are afraid that it'll cost them money.

I think if the three parties sit down and discuss these

things, they will find that they can come up with an

answer.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: They tried that, Frank.

MR. CALDER: The precedents have already been set by the

federal government and the Province of Quebec in that James Bay

case, with the involvement of both levels of government — and

it's a happy situation. At least I'm happy about it because the

precedent has been set. I don't know if sufficient money was

paid to those people, but at least the principle was set for

the participation of the province, and I think it would be a

real feather in the hat if the provincial government would

announce that they would take part. I certainly hope so.

I also was glad to see the Indian people asking for

independence. I see where Musqueam, Sechelt and North Vancouver

are asking for a certain amount of autonomy and to have a say

in practically everything in their communities. Good for

them.

A lot of these communities are just beginning to realize the

recommendations I've been making all these years. I'll repeat again,

for the third time on the floor of this House, that the provincial

government should automatically recognize that the Indian communities

are municipalities. This is almost word for word what I said last

session. The Conservative government recognized them as such in

Ontario. The United States has given that recognition also, with no

strings attached and no conditions — just an automatic recognition.

MR. SPEAKER: I hate to interrupt the Hon. Member, but I note

that his time has expired.

MR. CALDER: I'm just about finished.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

MR. SPEAKER: Proceed.

MR. CALDER: The wife says I talk too much — I told her I was

going to go over 40 minutes. (Laughter.)

So in any event — just give me five minutes — this

unconditional recognition is a great thing. Eventually it is

going to come about. I can see it. What the governments are

afraid of is that, if you give this recognition, the money

matters would be in the hands of the reserves.

This is my recommendation. If they ever read the

Stanbury-Fields report, it recommends this. They can lease out

and receive money. As of now the province gets that money.

Maybe they don't want to see the Indian people get that money

to use in improving their lot, I don't know. If that's the way

they are looking at it, I think it is a stupid outlook really.

But this has been my recommendation.

That recognition would give two things. They could handle

all their land situations and taxation and everything. Let them

handle it. The municipalities handle it. Also by this

recognition the road will have been provided by which the

provincial public services could go aboard. Of course, if the

native people don't want it they can just say so and they won't

get it.

This is how Ontario handles it. In Ontario, the Indian

communities use the Indian resolution forms. If they want a

water supply system or a sewage disposal system in their

community, they use this form and, instead of sending it to

Ottawa, they send it to the Government of Ontario and they get

that public service. They are taxpayers; they are entitled to

it. Why not?

Thank you very much.

MR. D.T. KELLY (Omineca): I rise to take my place here today

and support this budget introduced by our Minister of

Finance.

I was surprised — indeed I was — at the volume of it. In

fact, as I looked over to the benches of the Social Credit

Party, I noticed smiles on their faces. I think they were

actually quite pleased at first. The only thing is that they

are told to resist or fight back.

For example, a budget of that proportion had so much more

than anyone had ever dreamed of that, indeed, they couldn't

really believe it at first. I think

[ Page 501 ]

the Liberals were in the same boat.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: We still don't believe it.

MR. KELLY: Of course, ever since that time the opposition

have been talking about inflation and how inflationary the

budget is. Well, it doesn't matter what you look at today — and

every one of you is involved — the cost of consumer goods, no

matter what they are, has gone up. I think that is just as much

reason to explain why the budget had to be higher — to

accommodate the demands of the people for the things they want.

They want a better life, and it's going to cost money to give

that life the way they want it, including the wages they're

going to demand. In fact, a few years ago I can remember when I

was being criticized on the floor here by opposition Members

about how much money I was making. I said at that time: "If any

of you have any left over, please pass it down this way because

I'm telling you, right now, I'm a little short."

Companies in my riding have found things inflationary. In

fact, do you know what they're doing? They're laying off men.

You know how they're doing it? They buy big machinery. Where

there used to be 20-ton trucks and 30-ton trucks, there are now 100-ton trucks. So for every truck that has a 100-ton

carrying capacity, that was either three or four trucks, each

having a man driving that truck. They are out of production now

because they now have these giant machines. Although they cost

a lot of money originally, they save in the overall term of

paying wages because they produce more and cost less overall to

operate.

They do this to cut down on their costs — not altogether

unreasonable in some instances. But I suggest that when they

try to do these things they do, in fact, create

unemployment.

The same with their shovels: they used to have five or six

very large shovels in Endako Mines, which is only five miles

from where I live. Each one of those shovels had an operator

and an oiler on it — that's 10 men working. Doesn't sound like

very much, but when you take different units of an operating

open-pit mine, and you take these people and then introduce

very large machinery…. For example, the last two shovels

that went in were at a cost of $1.25 million and almost $1.5

million for the next one. There's only one man working on

either of those shovels now — they're radio-controlled. There

are eight more people who were put out of work. In fact, it's

going that way all the way down the line — automation. In any

part of the mechanical operation, if they can get something

bigger, faster and better, they'll introduce it because it cuts

down on their costs.

In some cases I think they're defeating the very purpose they're here for in

the first place: to create an industry which will, in turn, serve the community,

will give a payroll and at the same time earn a profit. I think for all their

scientific knowledge, they're sometimes defeating the whole theory of the thing.

My riding, you know, is the north-central riding. I can

hardly believe that I live in the same part of the province as

some of the other Members because, basically speaking, there is

a general shortage of manpower in my riding — especially the

trades. If you want a tradesman to come and do a job for you,

you better order that man a couple of months ahead of time or

you're just not going to get him. It might be a plumber or an

electrician or a masonry man. In fact, sometimes you can wait

several months for a man to come, but he won't come to the more

isolated areas because he needs half a dozen orders at one

time. If he's going to do six houses, fine, he'll come. But if

you're building a new home or a building, you may have to hire

a contractor from one of the main centres — maybe from out of

Vancouver or, at least, out of Prince George — and most of the

contractors there are rushed right off their feet.

Even as far as the working people in the sawmills and

what-have-you, there has been a very high turnover because

people will stay long enough to get themselves a bit of a

grubstake. I mean by that that they might get a couple of

thousand dollars in the bank and then they're away because, of

course, not everybody likes to work in a sawmill nowadays, even

though they're a lot easier than they were years ago. I worked

in a sawmill 25 or 30 years ago when it was strictly all bull

work, and nothing like that happens today. A man isn't required

to lift heavy weights or develop any blisters any more. Well,

just about, anyway.

We have sawmills under construction now or designed to go

into construction within the next month or two. May will see

the start of the addition to the Plateau sawmill. There are

about another 350 men going to be hired and required in that

operation. I just hope that we can find the men to operate it.

You talk about all the unemployment, but we just don't seem to

get people up there. The fact is that people don't want to work

too hard any more. The other thing is that they may not want to

go to the rural areas of the province.

Housing has been a part of it; there has been a lack of

accommodation. Not many years ago, as long as a man could get a

job, he would do anything. He would live in a tent if

necessary. That's ridiculous in this day and age; I realize

that. The fact is that the average fellow who wanted a job

would make out somehow or another. He'd live in some

accommodation even if he had to haul a trailer in on site, or

something like that, to live in until at least he could get

himself a house going.

There is a complete shortage of different services up in my

riding right now. For example, the town I

[ Page 502 ]

live in has 1,500 people and we can't get a barber. If you

want a haircut, go to Prince George, 100 miles away. A

shoemaker is practically unheard of in the north. If you have a

$40 pair of shoes on and you have a hole on the sole or a crack

in the top or something, you throw them away, They're no good

to you any more. You will have to buy a new pair because there

isn't a shoemaker in the country to repair your shoes. There

are all kinds of opportunities for small business people, but

do you think we can get them up there? Not on your life. There

are openings for just about everybody. In fact, even the

vocational schools have been going full swing to try to provide

the people who are required in the local scene as it stands

right now.

As you know, the Babine Forest Products mill near Burns Lake

is practically ready to open and go into production. Once

again, although there has been a tremendous effort to get all

the local people around Burns Lake trained to work in this mill

and to be the servicemen, journeymen mechanics, operators of

equipment and what-have-you, I am kind of confident that there

is going to be a shortage. Once again there will be long lists

sent in to Canada Manpower and to other areas to try to get men

in to accommodate the jobs that will be there.

Certainly this government has had a lot to do with it. After

all, if it hadn't been for planning by our forest branch and by

other departments of government — Municipal Affairs, Housing —

these things would not have come about. But, you see, my riding

was a prime riding for such an experiment as this because no

riding in this province was in as bad condition as mine was

under that former regime. There just wasn't a job in the

country, There were very few sawmills left. The ones that did

go in there were poorly managed, and many millions of dollars

were lost by the private sector in trying to operate mills in

that part of the country. Certainly this government is to be

given all the credit in the world for having had the foresight

and having seen the opportunities that were there and the

people who needed jobs.

If you could have seen the people, especially the native

people, and the problems that were there in terms of numbers of

people and numbers on welfare, it was certainly the place for a

programme like this to be instituted. When you can see 50, 60

and, in some cases, 70 per cent of the residents of those local

reserves who were on welfare, with no chance in this world of

getting started on a job anywhere, the programmes that we have

going there now are a real blessing.

I would like to say a word or two about the mines. I heard my comrade here

from Atlin (Mr. Calder) speaking just a minute ago, and he was quite concerned

about what is happening in the mines in his riding. I have had an association

with the mines for quite a few years. I used to prospect in placer gold when

I was a young fellow and I worked in a couple of mines, the last one for five

years. I have been a driller, I have worked in the mill and I have done all

kinds of things. But these were big mines and are quite boring jobs when you

have been on them for a while. It really was not experience that would let me

know what really is going on in the mining field, I would admit that.

But I have a couple of hundred acres of land where I am

living, and there are claim stakes all over. I go up and try to

read these claim stakes. In fact, year after year the claim

jumpers will come along and put their tag on top of the

original claim stake or the tag that was on the previous year.

I've been hearing about how the staking of claims has declined

in the province.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right.

MR. KELLY: Well, I'll tell you something, Mr. Member. You

could put a million claims in the province if you wanted to,

and there is nothing productive about that. There are people

running around the country, waiting until February 28 with

their Skidoos. Here they go scooting out in the middle of the

night — they're parked right in my driveway. As soon as the

last year's claims run out, they are running around the country

slapping tags on top of the other fellow's claim stake.

This goes on year after year, Because there's an operating

mine within five miles of my place where I reside, the whole

country is staked. It's an unproductive thing. I wouldn't get

very excited about somebody saying: "Well, you know that we

don't have nearly as many claims staked this year as we did

last year."

Interjection.

MR. KELLY: But they're not finding anything, Mr. Member.

They're walking around the country, putting their original

stakes up, and all they are waiting for is some company that

might jump at the bait and come around someday with their drill

rigs to run some test holes down.

MR. GIBSON: It costs them money every year to keep those

holes open.

MR. KELLY: Well, that's right, it does cost them. But it

doesn't cost them very much, really, because if you're near an

existing mine the chances are that you might have something

there. It's a bit of a gamble.

What I am suggesting is this: because the claims have gone

down in 1974 to 10,000 claims from a high in 1972 of 53,000

claims…. A very good friend of mine was a very large

contractor for one of the

[ Page 503 ]

biggest mining companies in Canada, and he had a couple of

million dollars worth of heavy-duty equipment that he did

exploration work with — Cats for trenching, and all kinds of

other equipment — and had large mobile camps that he moved

right out into the hinterland.

The start of the decline of actual mining exploration in

British Columbia, was 1969. Since 1969, the dollars have

decreased in numbers per year invested in mining exploration in

British Columbia. So it's not a new thing that mining

exploration has decreased. In fact, some of those major

companies haven't done any exploration in the province for the

past two or three years, except in a very minimal way.

MR. GIBSON: Two or three years?

MR. KELLY: That's right, two or three years. Well, it's been

advantageous to them to decline their exploration because,

after all, you can only explore a piece of ground for so long.

If it has been tested out with all the modern methods of

checking for ores and if there's nothing there, there's not

much use going back over it again. Let's face it, for 100 years

now men have been prodding this Province of British Columbia

looking for mines. The ones that are known are pretty well

discovered now, even though we know that there are large

reserves of copper and other minerals in certain areas of the

province. Even if they aren't being developed, they will be

when the time comes that communication and transportation is

available to these existing ore bodies.

I do take exception to the opposition Members referring to

how these number of claims tell just exactly what the story is

in the mining industry. I could easily go out and stake 10

claims a night, and so could everybody in this room, and it

wouldn't mean a thing. It's quite unproductive.

Last year the mining industry did have a record year. Gross

sales were $1.256 billion, up another $140 million over 1973. 1

think the January issue of the Northern Miner tells you:

the headline was "A Record Year." Yet on the opposite side of

the page they're suspecting this and they're suspecting that,

and God knows what else, So they've decided that they're going

to cut back.

I don't really believe that the mines are being all that

truthful. In some instances, we do have mines…. There are

good mining companies, and I have them right in my riding —

excellent corporate citizens. I don't think they mind one bit —

oh, it might hurt a little bit. But, after all, out of all this

profit last year, we received approximately $13 million in

royalties. I don't think that's an excessive amount out of

those kind of sales. So that's about all I wanted to say about

the mining

section at this time, Mr. Speaker.

I'd like to speak to my Minister of Recreation and

Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford). I don't know whether he's in

the House. No, that's not him over there; that's another big

man.

You know, of course, that he took over that portfolio when

we became government, although it was several months after

before he actually was appointed. His portfolio was in a pretty

rugged mess. There had been no real money spent in recreation

or conservation in this province for many years. So I must give

him credit for what he has done up until now. It has been an

excellent job.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Spend-a-million Radford!

MR. KELLY: Well, at least I can say this: I spoke harshly to

the Minister last year on something that was happening in my

riding, and that was, of course, the open season on cow moose

and doe deer. Lo and behold, what happened? The season was

closed last year for about 170 miles along Yellowhead 16. You

bet it was terrific, Mr. Member, because I'll tell you: there

weren't 200 moose out of that whole country this last fall

when, previously, they would have shot them off till there

wasn't a thing left. And because of the excellent winter we've

just gone through, the signs are, I believe, that they have

survived the winter well — and because of the restriction on

hunting — which has been a blessing.

I would have gone even further. I would admit that I only

asked that the cows be closed and that only the bulls be open.

I think, after seeing what happened this last winter,

especially in the breeding season, it probably wouldn't have

been a bad idea if we had also closed the bulls for a couple of

years at least until we get those numbers built back up to

where we're really safe. The railroads, for example, a year ago

in a heavy winter with snow killed off a lot of moose on the

railroad. Several were killed on the highways. They were killed

this winter too. I just felt that for the few moose they kill

this fall, if we had saved them, too, they would have had just

that much better a time to stand off all the elements they're

up against. Those elements include, of course, the poachers,

the bad weather, highways and railroads, and also the

predators.

We didn't have a lot of complaints about predators this

fall. I think that I'm a disciple of Mr. Jack Miner, the famous

conservationist. I really believe, as he said, that every time

you take an animal you should also take one of every one of the

predators that expect to live on that animal. That isn't being

done in this province. I know that that's a pretty broad

statement to make because you just can't go out and destroy one

wolf and one fox and one of whatever other predator they might

be. But at least if the game laws were such that more of these

predators could be taken, then there wouldn't be so much

pressure on

[ Page 504 ]

the few moose that we do have left.

Also, Mr. Minister, I think that the biologists in your

northern region made a mistake this fall in not allowing the

season on grouse to be closed. There wasn't a grouse within

miles of my home and, in talking to other hunters throughout

the riding, there was a real shortage this year. What it could

be blamed on I don't know. We did have two very serious, heavy

snowfalls in two preceding years, and this could have been part

of the responsibility. It seems incredible to me, when a hunter

can go out and hunt all day and not see one grouse and people

complain throughout the area that there are no grouse, that the

season is still left open. If there were a pocket of grouse in

one particular area or another that could easily be shot off,

this would only make it all the harder for the grouse to

multiply back into the areas that are uninhabited with grouse

in the first place.

I think that any species that for some reason — even an

emergency situation — is in shortage for that particular year,

then the local director should have the authority to go out and

say that the season is closed. And that's it.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Right on!

MR. KELLY: I have discussed the situation about the

sustenance permits before, and in most cases, although I know

that a good percentage of those permits go to the native people

of the province, they're basically handed out to people on

welfare. I don't believe that we should be supporting our

welfare branch with game. It's a known fact that if you kill an

animal and have to start eating it — especially in the middle of

winter when it will freeze in a matter of hours and can't

possibly age properly — what do you wind up with? You've got a

hunk of tough meat. And we've put considerable value on our

moose. The guides' association values a moose at $1,000.

I would suggest, seeing that there is a tough time in the

cattle industry, that we should have the welfare branch supply

the needy person with a quarter of beef, and let's save our

moose. I don't think we should be allowing the moose and the

deer to be shot off just to support the welfare bunch.

In fact, the moose is having a tough enough time as it is trying to survive

without issuing permits — although I believe they've been cut back this year.

For example: last year 1,200 of these sustenance permits were issued in the

name of food for needy people. I don't know whether 1,200 moose were shot, but

in some instances more than one moose was shot on one permit because there's

nothing on that permit to say that after you've finished killing an animal you

have to punch the permit or do like you on a regular hunting licence where you

have to notch out the day and the month on which you killed your animal.

The native people have been supporting me on this issue.

Everybody says: "Oh no, you're taking their rights away from

them." But I don't believe that they really, truly

believe themselves that, the first thing you know, there's

going to be no moose left. Even they agree with this.

I had two meetings last year, and at both meetings natives

got up and said that this is what should be happening.

I would only agree to this too — that if there is an area in

the province where there is an abundance of animals, certainly

make those animals available to the people who need them. But

to go into an area that's been over hunted, such as along

Highway 16, I would say: "Let's stop it, and stop it now."

I also spoke last year on the leghold trap. I know that the

Minister has been doing considerable work on the leghold trap,

but because of the lack of positive things in the press….

Sure, there are committees around, but you don't really hear

much of them. Rather than let this thing go into dormancy of a

sort, I would just like to say a few words about it.

I think we've got to keep on top of this situation,

practically on a daily basis. Two years ago the association

that was pressing this issue were attracting the attention of

all the MLAs, both opposition and government, and the

Ministers, in attempting to have the leghold removed as a trap

and have a humane trap instituted. I think one thing that

everybody should understand is that they are not trying to stop

trapping — no way. They know that it's a very necessary way of

life for some of our people, especially in the far north.

Trapping is a way of life, and economically we do need it.

But the fact is that a humane trap hasn't been designed.

There are several quite humane traps on the market, but either

they're so awkward or so heavy or so costly that nobody will

buy them. There has been money provided by the government and

by other agencies for research, but there doesn't seem to be

too much being done.

I was told the other day that there are 20 traps available

right now for testing, but they've been waiting for eight

months to be tested by someone. So we've just lost another

season because the trapping season is soon drawing to a close.

I would urge the Minister to really get his committee going on

this issue because it certainly is a motherhood issue if I ever

heard of one.

People have been trying for years to have a humane trap

introduced. I think that if we are capable of flying to the

moon or building a bomb that can blow this country apart in

seconds but can't develop a humane trap, then, indeed, there's

something really wrong with us.

I see the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) isn't

in this afternoon, and I wish he had

[ Page 505 ]

been here. I am, of course, very pleased with what has

happened with agriculture in this province. Just listen to the

reports out of the Department of Agriculture or out of the

federation, and talk to farmer groups, the institutes —

basically, they're happy. They're happy with Bill 42; they know

what it means. They're happy with the farm income assurance

plan and other money that was made available to them to make

their lives a little happier and, certainly, a little more

productive. This last year, income in British Columbia was up

about 25 per cent for farmers, and that's a pretty good

average. Certainly, they're the ones who really needed it.

The people I would like to refer to are the beef people —

the cattle ranchers. My riding has quite a few of them. I think

there are about between 10,000 and 15,000 head of cattle in

Omineca, and all the ranches are small — 150, 180 or 200

animals. So they are all family farm units. If you go and shake

hands with one of these fellows, they've got hands on them like

hunks of iron. They have worked so hard all their lives that

they are just like rawhide, most of these fellows. In fact the

ages of them are getting higher and higher; there just aren't

young ranchers moving in, as there should be, to accommodate

that industry. If beef were to go out of existence we would be

a pretty unhappy population because, boy, I love my steak and

roast and what-have-you.

I would urge that the farm income assurance programme be

made available to them. In fact, there is a committee right now

negotiating with the cattlemen, attempting to find out what the

cost of production is.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): It was negotiated and

cut in half.

MR. KELLY: No, they're negotiating right today, Mr. Member.

I have some figures here on what the cost of production is.

MR. PHILLIPS: For chickens.

MR. KELLY: No, this is for beef.

If the people in this province were being realistic, we

could see a 50-cent-a-pound increase to the farmer right today

for his beef. He really requires that today to be at a level

where he could consider that what he was working for was paying

off.

History has shown that cattlemen have worked like the blazes

to make a dollar. They work five times harder than the average

working man.

MR. PHILLIPS: It's a lot harder to lift a cow than a

chicken.

MR. KELLY: I'm anxious that this committee that is working on this cost

of production programme for a cow-calf or any other type of a cattle ranch look

at some of the costs that ranchers are running into.

For example, I have news item here. I haven't got a date on

it, but Mr. Whelan is the man who is making the quotation, and

I would like to quote from this. It is from Ottawa:

"Agricultural Minister Eugene Whelan blasted fertilizer

manufacturers Thursday for more than doubling their prices in

the past two years." I only wanted to quote that little bit

because it shows you that, for example, in the last couple of

years the price of fertilizer has doubled, and cattle ranchers

use a lot of fertilizer. They all order it by the carload. They

usually do it on a cooperative basis so that they can afford

to get it in as cheaply as possible.

When costs are going up, doubling within a couple of years,

it is no wonder that these people are being driven right into

the ground with inflationary costs that they just can't match.

They are getting less for their beef today than they were 10

years ago, when there was no inflation such as we see

today.

I think these are some of the things cattlemen are going to

have to do. Cattlemen are going to have to band together and

they are going to have to sell their beef through one agency so

that they will have control. That's about the only way they are

going to do it because today every little town….

They had a sale, I believe, in Kamloops just a couple of

days ago, and they said it was tragic to see what was going on

there. You see, they are at the mercy of whoever wants to buy.

If the prices aren't any good, they either have to give them

away or take them back home and suffer the cost of

transportation, the charges that are put on them by the

stockyard and what else. So it is a real bad deal.

I'm anxious that this committee will be sure to look at all

the costs involved. Seed costs have gone up — skyrocketed — so

if you are going to do some seeding, it doesn't matter. There

are a lot of other costs that people don't understand, as far

as I'm concerned. The public at large sometimes criticize

farmers and say: "Oh, look, they want more than the animals are

worth." They don't understand that every man loses about 2 per

cent of his cattle a year just through mortality, through one

means or another. Hay which was $30 a ton two years ago or so

is now $60 and $70 in my area. Grain is $110 a ton.

There is no doubt that the cattlemen have to have their cost

of production. They're only charging their own labour in at $4

per hour. Really, they're not asking for very much.

Other things that people don't understand is that, like any

other business, there are maintenance and repairs, bookkeeping,

insurance, taxes. Then they have to have operating capital that

they pay interest on, and trucks — all that kind of machinery — building fences…. The average farmer, I see here, has about

15 miles of fence at $2,000 a mile. When you think of the

depreciation on that, it certainly

[ Page 506 ]

amounts to a lot. Yet people are not too fussy about paying

any more for their beef than they are right today.

When I said that the farmer needs another 50 cents a pound,

I don't say that because the farmer got 50 cents the packing

house shouldn't add their share on. I think the packing houses

are getting their fair share. At least, they seem to be in good

order.

Anyway, I'm anxious that we should see that the cattle

ranchers all over this province are well looked after in terms

of their industry. If we don't have these cattle ranchers,

we're in trouble. If they go out of business, the price of beef

will skyrocket, and then we'll really have something to be

sorry about.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to

be able to participate in the budget debate today representing

the great riding of Cariboo.

Before I get into it, I just want to make a remark or two

following the Member for Omineca (Mr. Kelly). I'm sure that up

in his riding they will be happy to find out that, prior to the

coming of the NDP government, all the sawmill operators in that

riding were inefficient. I can't follow him in that criticism

due to the fact that his government bought out Plateau Mills.

At the time, they said they bought it because it was an

efficient operation, and I'm sure it was. So I'm sure that the

people of Omineca will be pleased to hear they were all

inefficient operators up there.

As far as his remarks on the beef industry are concerned,

Mr. Speaker, I think you know that the Cariboo is probably the

largest shipper of beef in the Province of British Columbia. I

might say, in reference to the Member for Omineca, that they

have been negotiating for a long time and they haven't arrived

at any agreement. But they should have, because the

negotiations should have been long over, and the beef farmers

should have been put into the assurance programme before now.

It is my information that it probably won't happen because the

government hasn't provided the funds for it to happen — which

is very unfortunate.

MR. KELLY: They're still negotiating.

MR. FRASER: As I said I'm happy to take

part in the budget

debate today. I've been listening with intent all through the

budget debate and the amendment on it. One thing that becomes

crystal clear to me is the touchiness of all the government

Members regarding participation in the budget debate and the

amendment. We've had, oh, a dozen cabinet Ministers up here

and, believe me, I've never seen, since I've been here, so many

irritated people. They're certainly on the defensive.

The thing I got the biggest kick out of was that the Minister of Transport

and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) here Thursday night had to resort to

a criticism of the press. He was really incensed about that. I just have a message

for him, Mr. Speaker. Most all of the press — the Fourth Estate — see things

and report them as they see them. Of course, the Minister of Transport doesn't

like to see the facts of life before him. The facts are that the press are changing

and finally coming around; they smell a little change in public opinion in British

Columbia which causes them to show the bigness and the arrogance of this government

and bring it out to the light for the listening public and the reading public.

I want to assure you that the Minister of Transport and Communications shouldn't

get too excited about that. This government was elected in 1972 with a 39 per

cent majority of the people who voted. I would say that should an election be

called now, they'd be lucky to get 25 per cent of the popular vote.

MR, PHILLIPS: The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett)

doesn't even stay in the House to listen to his own debate.

MR. FRASER: This government will never learn by their

errors. They keep on repeating them and, of course, because the

press relates these instances, why, they're all touchy and

jumpy and twitchy.

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: As a matter of fact, they're so big and so

arrogant now that they have an average attendance in this House

out of 38 Members of about one-third that amount — not more

than about 12 They always make sure they just have enough to

cover the opposition Members. I think it's about time that we

went to the people and cut them down to the size they operate

at in this House.

MR. PHILLIPS: Where's the Minister of Finance?

MR. FRASER: We've been on the budget debate now for 10 days.

The Minister of Finance, who, I will say, up to this session

has been a pretty good attendance, hasn't been here to listen

to the budget debate any more than half the time this budget

debate and the amendment to it have been going on.

MR. PHILLIPS: Shocking, shocking! Where is the Minister of

Finance?

MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, leading into the budget, last year

this time we had a phony budget put in front of us. It turned

out to be so because we now know that budget was underestimated

for revenues by around a half million and overspent on

expenditures by March 31, 1975, of another half million.

There's a half million either side, so it adds

[ Page 507 ]

up to a $1 million error they made last year. That's why I

look as skeptically as I do on this budget before us in the

amount of $3.2 billion.

I wonder how much authenticity there is in this budget to

provide funds for the public service for the year 1975-76,

starting on April 1, and to look after the public service until

March 31, 1976.

I say, Mr. Speaker, that this budget is, of course, the

largest in the history of the province at $3.2 billion, and I

want to now point out a few things that I see about this

budget.

The income from resources has dropped — I will go into the

details — but the taxation from people has greatly increased.

To be specific on a few instances: in this budget there are

salary contingencies in excess of $80 million. I repeat: salary

contingencies in the 1975-76 budget. In other words, there are

already salary provisions for the public service in here, but a

contingency item of about $80 million over and above that is in

this budget. I want to repeat that because it is a staggering

amount of money….

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): You can't

read a budget.

MR. FRASER: I would say to this Minister of rubber hammers

over here that if he could read what is going on in his

department, we wouldn't have so much trouble in the question

period with him.

Interjections.

MR. FRASER: The Member behind has mentioned that he can't

read or write one, so he has a lot to be talking about.

In this budget, on the revenue side, the gasoline tax is up

2 cents a gallon to provide a further $60 million. Mr. Speaker,

this 2 cents a gallon tax increase is not political talk; it's

a fact. It went into effect the day the Minister of Finance

brought in the budget. As one Member said here recently: "I say

to the citizens of this province, particularly the motorists,

when they drive into a gas station they should be asking for so

many gallons of collision insurance." In effect, that is what

is happening. ICBC, or Moscow Mutual — whatever you care to call

it — this year is being subsidized by the gas tax by 10 cents a

gallon.

MR. PHILLIPS: Give me five gallons of collision

insurance.

MR. FRASER: So it is definitely a good saying that you

should order collision insurance rather than gasoline when you

go into a service station.

The end result of this, what caused the increase of the 2 cents a gallon, is

to reimburse the general revenue where ICBC has raided it to the tune, this

year, of $100 million. They are now going to replace it by an increase of

2 cents and replace in the general revenue $60 million which will be derived

from that.

The people of this province are going to pay $175 million

extra in personal income tax this year because of the

inflationary part of this budget. As a matter of fact, people's

taxes are up in this budget in the amount of $445 million.

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I wish you would call that Minister

to order. He has lots to say now, but during question period he

can't answer any questions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You just don't like the answers, that's

all.

MR. FRASER: I mention an increase of people taxes of $445

million. The breakdown on that is approximately this: property

taxes, $5 million; sales taxes are estimated up at $155

million; personal income tax up S172 million; gas taxes, as I

mentioned, up $60 million; hotel taxes up $3 million (that is

the tax on rooms); and liquor income is budgeted to be up $50

million.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

It appears that the citizens of the province can't stand it;

the government is anticipating that they will drink themselves

to death. The more they drink, the more the government makes.

That is a great, sad state of affairs.

I would like to deal with the resource side of this

government. When they campaigned in 1972, they said they would

get more out of the resources of this province and there would

be less for the people to pay in the form of taxes. In this

budget before us, we find now that the forest resource taxes

are budgeted at $135 million, and I am going to have something

more to say on that shortly. They are down $125 million in the

estimates of the taxes from that resource.

Mining, of course, is down $6 million. We all know the

reason for that. The mining taxes are down. Mr. Speaker, in

this budget, in people's taxes alone there is $1.525 billion,

or an increase, as I mentioned earlier, of $445 million over

last year.

I say to you and to this House, does job security — as the

Premier and Minister of Finance called it in introducing this

budget — mean a real effort to have everyone in this province

work for the government? Is that what the Premier means when he

calls this a job-security budget? Provincial employees have

increased from 29,000 in 1972 to approximately 44,000 today,

and more keep on coming in to the

[ Page 508 ]

service.

This budget does nothing to provide immediate relief to the

average British Columbian from inflation. Why didn't the

government take a look at another option that was open to them

in drafting the budget? That is, why didn't they give a

personal income tax deduction to all our citizens in this

province? Our citizens are caught between taxes and inflation,

and nothing is left of their pay cheques. Let the individual

have more to spend this year. They should do this rather than

have the provincial government do it. We believe the government

already has too much to spend. The individual British Columbian

would do a better job of spending the extra revenue, through

tax cuts, than the provincial government would do in spending

this money. This approach would also assist employment through

the increase in consumer spending by the citizens of the

province.

As the representative for Cariboo, all I can see in this

budget is higher taxes for the people that I represent and all

the rest of the people in the province through increased

property taxes, income taxes, gasoline taxes, sales taxes,

hotel room taxes, cigarette taxes and liquor profits. This

government, in other words, will take more from the people than

they will receive in return.

The economy of the Cariboo riding depends mainly on the

forest industry, the beef cattle industry, the mines industry,

and the travel and tourist industry, Because of this, the

economy is not as good as it has been in the past. The market

for the products I have mentioned has declined sharply. I might

say that a great deal of that is caused by world markets.

Dealing with the forest industry, which is the largest industry

in the Cariboo, because of world markets being down, and mainly

the U.S. market, it is difficult for the forest operators to

continue to operate. However, to maintain payrolls most

operators have been able to continue operations, but under very

difficult conditions.

One of the greatest difficulties for the forest operations is the very unreliable

transportation they have to depend on. I refer, of course, to the provincial

government's British Columbia Railway. Mr. Speaker, this railroad is unreliable.

It did not operate for seven weeks because of a work stoppage. It is operating

again since the work stoppage but it cannot supply the necessary cars to move

lumber, plywood and chips. This government has been aware of this. We have been

talking about this for over a year, but things get no better. Even though it

is owned by the people of this province, and the Premier as the president is

the big boss, and the vice-president of the railroad is the Minister of Labour

(Hon. Mr. King), and the Minister Without Portfolio in charge of northern affairs

(Hon. Mr. Nunweiler) is a director, I don't know why they can't find out what

is really wrong with the operation of this railroad.

The Hon. Member for Atlin (Mr. Calder) mentioned here

earlier today something about hoping that this railroad would

get extended to Stewart. I say to him not to hold his hopes up

too high. Even if they do get the money and get it built there,

it is another job to see any trains running on it after it is

built.

This railroad, in my opinion, due to its operating problems

in 1974, will have an operating deficit for the year 1974 of at

least $10 million. That is one thing. That deficit comes out of

the pockets of all the people of the province. But far more

than that amount of money has been lost because of the

inefficient operation of this railroad.

I refer to all the shippers on this railroad who are

continually confronted with the fact that they can't get cars

to move their products to market. They, in turn, have to pay

high interest charges — 10, 11 and 12 per cent — on the

inventory that they can't get out. They must continue to

operate to maintain their payrolls, so they have to go and

borrow money. I am repeating, Mr. Speaker, that they are

borrowing money in the millions, right today, to maintain their

inventories and maintain their payrolls because this railroad

doesn't seem to be able to get around to operating in the way a

railroad should operate.

Another thing this government did late last fall at two

different times, if I recall, was that they reduced the price

of stumpage — in the interior, at least, I am talking about —

to $1.10 per 100 cubic feet for Crown timber.

This, by the way, reduces the statutory minimum and

definitely has been a help to maintain the operations in some

shape or fashion up to this point. Then the price of chips was

set at $35. That came later, if I recall, around the end of the

year. Anyway, that is the situation today, Mr. Speaker. When

these announcements were made by the government, they said that

this arrangement would expire on March 31. There are millions

of dollars involved here in investment and payroll.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the government to determine what is going

to be the price for stumpage and chips at April 1, 1975,

because this arrangement is only good until March 31. I think

that, in all fairness to the industry affected, the Minister of

Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) should

be telling them now so they can do their planning.

I'm very surprised that the Minister of Lands, Forests and

Water Resources hasn't given them more notice than he has

because he understands planning — he's a planner himself. Here

he is with a $100 million, $200 million, $300 million, $400

million industry, with three weeks expiring on an agreement

that will affect their future operation dramatically, and he

hasn't had the decency, I'll say, to tell them what is

[ Page 509 ]

going to happen then. I think it's about time that he did.

Some planner!

MR. CHABOT: Where is he now?

MR. FRASER: Something else I think will come as quite a

shock to citizens of the province, Mr. Speaker, and to this

House, again regarding the interior forest operations: because

of juggling done by the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources, and with all the hardships the interior operators

have had with market conditions, shortage of railcars and so

on, the Government of British Columbia owes the interior forest

industry $90 million as of today. They have owed it to them

since 1974.

I want to read a few excerpts. I'm sure, Mr. Speaker, you'll

be shocked to hear this and I'd certainly love to hear the

Minister's opinion on this. After all the struggle they've had — and they're still struggling, borrowing money — here is the

Government of British Columbia…. I know it came up last fall

that they weren't paying the $1,000 or $2,000 bills, but I

didn't realize they had bills outstanding at this time of $90

million.

At the present time, the government owes between $80 million

and $95 million to logging companies, mainly in the interior,

for roads already built. It's $80 million to $95 million; I

averaged it out at $90 million. The exact figure is not known

because the Forest Service is still trying to catch up to a

runaway expenditure. I don't know whether that was by the road

builders in the private sector or by the Forest Service but,

knowing how they do things, it would probably be both

sectors.

The point that I want to make here, Mr. Speaker, is the debt

that is owed these interior operators for road building

probably exceeds the stumpage available to the Crown for the

year 1975-76. The money owing to the operators, unless paid

promptly, denies them funds urgently required to build roads

for log production in 1975-76, which, if not produced, will

create massive unemployment in this year, 1975-76.

The government says they're coming out with an employment

programme in the Forest Service. I guess so! I guess they have

to. I believe the programme announced was $15 million or $20

million. Well, I can see why they have to come out with that.

It's because $90 million that the operators should have so they

can re-spend on roads in 1975 has not been paid by the

government, while the government, I guess, feels they owe some

obligation to take up the slack.

I understand, Mr. Speaker, that this situation results from political tinkering

with resource policies, which in turn is aggravated by administrative bungling.

Any statement of stumpage revenues and Barrett's budget must be reconciled to

this stumpage offset. Mr. Speaker, in this budget the revenue

section for stumpage

shows up at $135 million. I say to you that the Forest Service owes these

operators $90 million and I suggest to you that that should be subtracted from

this budget of anticipated revenues. We then come to $45 million that will come

in from stumpage from the interior in 1975-76, and that isn't even going to

come in because of the low rate of stumpage that has existed and will exist

at $ 1.10 per 100 cubic feet.

The point of all this — the reason I'm mentioning this in

the budget debate — is the fact that the $135 million in

revenues that this government has in these estimates and turns

around and spends will not exist this time next year. If they

pay, it has to be debited against the anticipated revenues. If

the government doesn't pay, well, there's no end of

troubles.

I really think this is a disgraceful situation, particularly

in reference to the operators the money is owed to, who are

struggling so hard. I understand that when they go to their

bankers for advances on inventory and show as an asset

outstanding debts from the Forest Service, instead of borrowing

collateral that they had under prior years, the bankers say:

"That's no collateral for borrowing; that's a bad debt you've

got." They can't get any advance on that. I think that's a very

shocking thing to happen.

I am sure that the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources, who is so fast making public statements outside of

this Legislature, will come into the Legislature and answer

this. I'm sure that he'll have an answer. I can tell you that

the operators and the citizens of the interior and the north

would like to know when they can expect their money.

In this same department, Mr. Minister, I have raised in the

House residential Crown leases in past times. This government

decided to increase by seven or eight times the fees per year

charged for rental. I've had personal experience with the

rentals going up nine times.

I will say that last fall the Minister of Lands, Forests and

Water Resources agreed to reduce these exorbitant increases in

rental fees. If they had gone more than double what they had

had in the prior five years then he ordered his department to

make refunds back to double from the five, six, seven, eight or

nine times they had gone up.

MR. LEWIS: That's a fair government.

MR. FRASER: That satisfied the complainants. They realized

they have to go up, but double was a rational figure.

But lo and behold, Mr. Speaker, he's come in with a new

wrinkle. Where these people have paid $400 and $500 in advance

rental fees last year so that they wouldn't lose their lease,

he has calculated the revenue…. One that I saw was a refund

of $276,

[ Page 510 ]

but it should have been $400 and something, and the

difference was made of advance rental fees till October, 1976.

What kind of way is that to treat the citizens? He has no right

taking advance rental fees ahead till October, 1976, he should

be satisfied with that and refund any money paid ahead of that

date. The least he should do is pay interest on the money that

he has withheld from these worthy people.

I heard the Member for Omineca (Mr. Kelly) and the Member

for Atlin (Mr. Calder) talking about mining. I want to tell you

that B.C. started when they hit gold in the Cariboo. I know

you're aware of that, Mr. Speaker. So it's certainly historic

there. But there's not much history left to mining in the

Cariboo now, thanks to Bill 31 passed in this Legislature.

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: Somebody has just mentioned here that the only

mining going on up there is the government mining the

people.

AN HON. MEMBER: Undermining.

MR. FRASER: To this Minister responsible sitting across from

me here, do you know what they're saying all through the

Cariboo now? They're saying that they're afflicted with

"Nimsickitis." They're pretty mad at Bill 31.

We have 5,000 people out of work — I'll take the B.C.-Yukon

Chamber of Mines figures on that. We have another 10,000

predicted that will be out of work, so we're well aware of

everything that's going on in mining.

I might tell you that there would be another gold rush today

in Barkerville, where gold was originally discovered in the

1850s, if it weren't for that Minister and that government.

There's loads of gold up there. You should go up there, Mr.

Speaker, sometime. I'll go with you and show you how to pan for

it.

AN HON. MEMBER: He used to be there — they ran him out.

MR. FRASER: There's all kinds of gold but nobody will touch

it because they know that under Bill 31 and this government's

policies, they'll take it all away from them. And gold is $175

an ounce.

I can remember when they worked day and night and were glad

to mine gold for $25 an ounce. Today it's $175 an ounce.

Because of Bill 31, there is no activity at all.

We have a ghost town up there. I think you're aware of it —

Wells. Barkerville has been restored for historic reasons, but

Wells is a ghost town. It wouldn't be today if it weren't for

Bill 31. Go up there and ask and see.

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: You certainly haven't done anything to

rejuvenate it, Mr. Minister.

I'd like to tell you about another thing. There was talk of

a copper smelter in this province during the last provincial

election. These old smokescreen boys over on this side went

running all around and said: "Oh, they just want to pull out

and it's going to do this." Mr. Speaker, they were looking at a

spot in the southern Cariboo for a copper smelter. They counted

all the votes — and you know how shocked the people of the

province were when they did that and we got a new government.

But we haven't heard anything about a copper smelter.

I realize the Minister has set up a task force to look into

a copper smelter, but again this Minister is wrong, He's

wasting public money doing these things because nobody is going

to invest in a copper smelter in this province under the

conditions that exist here today. I can assure you of that.

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Economic Development): Would you

resign?

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order. Order!

MR. FRASER: Oh, we're going to hear from the little guy, the

Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Lauk). There'll

never be a smelter under this government, and you won't be here

to ask me to resign because you will be long gone.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

MR. FRASER: You're a one-time shot. You'll never be

back.

HON. MR. LAUK: You're just a big talker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I would remind the Hon.

Members that they are….

HON. MR. LAUK: A big talker from the Cariboo.

MR. FRASER: Another basic industry in the riding of Cariboo

that really made history — made this province in the first

place — is all chaos up there.

Gibraltar mine is an operating mine. Go up there and find

out. I hear, by the way, that the Premier is going there on

Friday. I'm glad he's going up there to Williams Lake and

Quesnel. He'll find out the facts. Instead of calling us the

doom-and-gloom boys, I'm sure he'll come back here and say:

"Fellows, those fellows were right." There have been over 100

people already laid off in Gibraltar of a 400-man payroll,

and

[ Page 511 ]

more to come. Believe me, they would have kept them on the

payroll if it hadn't been for looking at that Bill 31 in the

future.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): What happened to

Gibraltar in '66?

Interjections.

MR. FRASER: I haven't time, Mr. Speaker, to….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Cariboo

has the floor.

MR. FRASER: Thanks very much, Mr. Speaker. I very much

appreciate it. You'd never know it.

HON. MR. LAUK: Well, he's misusing it.

MR. FRASER: That cabinet Minister is all twitchy — and I

love doing that, you know.

HON. MR. LAUK: Well, you're beyond twitching.

MR. FRASER: I want to discuss for a minute the beef cattle

industry as it applies to the riding of Cariboo. As I have

said, we ship more beef to market than any other place in the

Province of British Columbia. We're known as the biggest

bull-shippers in British Columbia. Last year there were 35,000

or so head of cattle shipped to market from the Cariboo.

HON. MR. LAUK: That's a lot of bull!

MR. FRASER: Again, because of world and international and

national events, the beef cattle industry is in bad shape. They

are selling their cattle at below cost of production, and I, of

course, was disturbed the other day to hear that there's a good

likelihood, because of lack of money, that they won't get into

the farm assurance programme.

But what I want to say, Mr. Speaker, is that a grazing

report was commissioned by the Minister of Lands, Forests and

Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) over a year ago — 1973 —

and it was brought in late last year or early this year by a

Mr. McLean, I believe his name is. I want to comment on that. I

consider that an excellent report, and I think the beef cattle

industry considers it an excellent report.

The only disappointment I have in it is the fact that the Minister has now

received the report and sent it out for public discussion. I suggest that he

should act on most of the report now, because it has had the public discussion,

and we certainly need a new grazing policy. This gives 10-year tenure, in this

report with review every five years. That's all I want to say about that, although

I now expect, in view of the Minister's actions, that we won't see any changes

in the grazing for at leas another 12 months.

But I would say to the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources and to this House that I think that this year, rather

than charge the beef industry a grazing fee per month as you

always do, because of the depressed state of this industry they

should give it to them for free for 1975 — that is, grazing on

public land.

I want to refer to another…task force, I guess we'll

call it. This government has got so many task forces that

nobody will ever be able to keep track of them. But this is a

task force looking for a marketing area for cattle. It was

publicized in the Vancouver Province on February 27.

They said that they wanted to locate stockyards and so on — I

believe they came out with a report — in the Kamloops–Cache

Creek area to serve the Cariboo and, of course, the

Merritt–Nicola Valley area and so on.

I just want to say here that I think they haven't found the

location. I don't think that it should be anywhere near

Kamloops. They've got lots of economic activity there. I

understand the stockyards there have got to get out anyway, so

I would like to see them look in the Clinton–Cache Creek area

of Cariboo for this stockyard. I realize that no decision has

been made.

I also want to emphasize again, Mr. Speaker, that I'm not

advocating that government do this but only that government

finance this. The cattlemen of this province are independent

people. They probably need some long-term financing, but they

want to operate this thing and eventually own it. That is the

only

part I'm saying here today. I congratulate the government

for looking at this problem, but I hope they are looking at the

problem in a way that they will do the capital investment and

be repaid back by the industry as cattle sales and feeding and

so on go on. There are definitely places available.

Again we're back to British Columbia Rail. This government

announced the northwest agreement in 1973. Somebody criticized

me the other day for shooting in on that. In that agreement,

which this government has done nothing about, is the extension

of the BCR from Clinton to Ashcroft, which is very important

not only to the BCR but also to the mainline railroads. If they

can get this alternate, it's an alternate route other than the

Fraser Canyon for the mainline railroads. Again, nothing has

been done; not one spike has been driven, and I don't know

when it is going to be driven. So, as I say, it's tied into

that, and somebody has to go on certain subjects.

I realize that I'm running out of time, Mr. Speaker, but I

just want to touch on one of my old favourite subjects for

awhile — municipal affairs and property taxation in

general.

I assure you that with this budget we have in front

[ Page 512 ]

of us property taxation is going to advance to the municipal

taxpayer a minimum, of 30 per cent this year. It won't advance

if the municipal councils take the other option and cut

services 30 per cent. Otherwise, because of lack of support by

this government this will happen.

Another thing I'd like to mention, which really disturbed

me, is that the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr.

Lorimer), as mentioned the other day, is going to take the big

provincial club to the municipalities that oppose impost fees.

This is the government that was going to look after local

government. Now he says he's going to bring in legislation,

probably, to nullify impost fees.

The only reason they're there in the first place is to

generate revenue, and they have to do this to get revenue

because of the lack of fiscal support from this provincial

government. It's very disturbing, to say the least.

Before I close, and in view of the fact that some regional

district people are here, this government has practically

nullified their role. I refer to their main role of zoning and

planning. They can't get by the land commissioner; they can't

get by the Highways department or somebody. But, believe it or

not, Mr. Speaker, it's not the Municipal Affairs department

where they have the trouble — it's in the Highways department

or the Land Commission.

You know, I'm getting fed up with the Highways department,

just like all municipal and regional people and all citizens.

Their role is to build roads. But do you know, Mr. Speaker,

the chief role they're taking today? They are the department in

charge of birth control in this province. That's what they are

because they don't want anybody to live anywhere near any

highway in this province because it might add a Volkswagen, or

some little vehicle like that, to their traffic. It's

ridiculous!

Our people have to live somewhere. They keep coming in here.

It's not our fault that we have an increase in population,

either by immigration or locally managed. (Laughter.) The fact

is, we have an increased population and they all must live

somewhere — and the Highways department says that they can't

live.

All I want to say in closing…. I know you're going to

love to ring that bell on me, Mr. Speaker. I never voted for

that bell, by the way, when that legislation was put through. I

voted against that closure bell — and that's all it is.

Anyway, in closing now, Mr. Speaker, I want to say on behalf

of municipal and regional government in this province: take the

highway control away from those people and put it in municipal

affairs where it belongs. Then maybe we'll get some highways

built where they won't be so concerned with zoning and

planning, and that Minister over there will have time to build

some roads instead of just singing fancy songs. Thank you.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker,

it's a pleasure to take my place in this debate after some very

fine and enjoyable speeches from Members of the opposition and

the government this afternoon.

This is a very interesting budget and debate. It's a $3.2

billion-budget — roughly $1,300 expenditure and taxation for

every man, woman and child in this province. There are some

very good parts in this budget, and I commend those parts.

But in the debate in this House we're trying among us all to

gather a perspective as presented by the government spokesman

so far has tended to overlook some of the unfortunate parts of

this budget.

Right at the beginning the Premier gave his perspective of

British Columbia. I'm suggesting that the government is not

being honest with itself in giving this economic perspective; I

suggest it's misleading the people of British Columbia and,

indeed, misleading their own backbenchers; and painting a

picture that's not real.

In the past year we've had inflation of somewhere around 12

per cent. In this past year we've had growth in this province

of somewhere around 3.5 per cent. Keep those two figures in

mind, Mr. Speaker, as we go through the various figures given

by the Premier.

The Premier suggested that growth would be somewhere around

3 per cent in 1974 — that's economic growth I'm speaking of

now. If population growth were 3.5 per cent that means we have

slipped backwards in economic growth in this province per

capita. The Premier suggested that average weekly earnings were

up. If you adjust that for inflation, average weekly earnings

were down, and that's before the tremendous taxes that this

Premier is taking out of the employment earnings of this

province.

The Premier suggested that mineral production rose 12.8 per

cent in this province last year. That certainly doesn't apply

to mines. The production of every mineral in this province,

with the single exception of coal, was down in 1974. The

Premier didn't mention that.

Capital investment. The Premier made great mention of that —

capital investment up 18.5 per cent in the province. He

neglected to mention that the material index for construction

inputs for non-residential construction was up 23 per cent in

the year, and construction wages were up for the year. So I

wouldn't be surprised — I don't have the exact figures for this — if capital investment overall, on a real basis, was down. It

certainly wasn't up very much.

Now we have some confirmation of these worrisome thoughts.

We have a press release by the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs.

Dailly) who was

[ Page 513 ]

referring to the amounts of money available for, I believe,

it was the pupil/teacher ratio programme; I'm not sure. That

press release mentioned that money was scarce because British

Columbia is in a recession with rampaging inflation. The

Premier didn't mention that in his budget address. He didn't

mention the word "recession."

We've had Members of this opposition repeatedly say in this

debate that unemployment in this province at the moment exceeds

100,000. The Premier didn't mention that. In January, 9.6 per

cent unemployment. That wasn't mentioned.

Mining investment is down in this province. That wasn't

mentioned.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: How much is it down in this province? I'm going

to have a few words about Ottawa later, Mr. Member, because

this government hasn't been doing its duty in getting what we

need out of Ottawa either.

No new mines have started up since 1972, Mr. Speaker. I

think you know that from the riding you're in. Claim staking

dropped 80 per cent.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: The Hon. Member for Omineca (Mr. Kelly), earlier

on in this debate, told us that it doesn't matter that claim

staking has dropped because, after all, what good does it do to

put a few posts in the ground. Mr. Speaker, if you don't find

it, you can't mine it. That's the difference it makes.

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: Development expenditures on new mines — not on

existing mines but on what's called declared mines in the

statistics of the annual report of the Minister of Mines and

Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) — dropped 98 per cent

from 1972. In other words, people are just not doing

development work on those many properties in this province that

could be brought into production. That's the kind of economic

perspective that, if the Premier were trying to paint a factual

picture to this House and to the people of British Columbia, he

would have mentioned in his address in those ads that he took

at our expense all around this province to puff up the budget.

He didn't mention those figures, Mr. Speaker.

In the forecast section, the Premier was equally vague. He

said: "The pulp and paper sector of the provincial economy will

continue to expand." What does he mean: "continue to expand"?

I'm quoting now from an official of the Council of Forest

Industries, The Province of February 28:

"British Columbia, with half of Canada's softwood reserves,

has only $168 million committed to expanding production in the pulp and paper

industry in the three-year period up to 1977, as against comparable spending

of $1.35 billion in Quebec and Ontario during the same period."

Sixteen per cent of the Quebec and Ontario expenditures here

in British Columbia, and we have an equal amount of softwood. I

don't really call that a very satisfactory continued

expansion.

The Premier predicted that real growth again would be around

3 per cent in our province for the coming year, and, once

again, that is falling behind our population growth of 3.5 per

cent. This means that, on the average, with this budget as

proposed now, British Columbians are going to be again a little

poorer in 1975 than they were in 1974.

Then the Premier moved on to another section, on

federal-provincial relations, and he had this to say. He spoke

of the grand agreement he made with Ottawa — and I'll get to

that agreement later — but he said: "As a result of this

agreement, the producers commenced exploration, drilling and

development in accordance with their previously-announced

expansion plans."

Well now, what are the facts? Nickle's Daily Oil

Bulletin , March 7: There have been two gas wells in British

Columbia so far this year. That compares with six discoveries

in January and February, 1974. Oilweek of February 17:

There were 43 drilling rigs active in B.C. on February 9, 1974.

That compares with only 15 drilling rigs active on February 8,

1975, Surely that wasn't the programme of the oil and gas

companies — they were going to cut back to about a third of

their performance last year. Is the Premier proud of that?

Look at the wells completed up until March 3 or 5 in the Oil

Bulletin of March 3 or 5, since 1972, 1973, 1974, 1975 —

67 wells completed in that period in 1972; 46 in 1973; 130 in

1974; 35 in 1975.

The footage drilled shows the same kind of picture. In 1975

to date, there were 177,000 feet drilled versus 370,000 in

1972. That doesn't seem to gibe with what the Premier had to

say. I would say, in short, that the assessment we were given

of the British Columbia economy hasn't exactly been a frank

one.

The Premier went on from there to speak of various what he

called "policy" items in the budget. He said: "We are

aggressively seeking to ensure that more of our resources are

processed in British Columbia." Mr. Speaker, where is that

happening? I invite the Minister of Economic Development (Hon.

Mr. Lauk) to take his place in this debate later on and tell us

exactly where that is happening. I hope he can give us some

cause for cheer, because it is so important in this province

that we upgrade our resource products more before we ship them

out of this province.

[ Page 514 ]

The Premier later on in the policy

section says that steps

have been taken to increase the supply of housing. That is a

cruel joke, Mr. Speaker, when the number of new houses being

built in this province each year has been going down for the

last two years and is continuing to go down in 1975.

The Minister says: "This job security budget provides for

further relief from school taxes." That is another cruel

joke.

HON. MR. COCKE: Oh, come on.

MR. GIBSON: Forty dollars per home. The average increase in

school taxes on homes in my riding is going to run from $120 to

$140. Forty dollars doesn't begin to keep up with it.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: What is the average worth of a home in

your riding?

MR. GIBSON: You'll see by a GVRD report, Mr. Minister, that

it is not that much above the Greater Victoria average.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: What is the average home worth?

MR. GIBSON: I'll find that figure and send it across to you.

Forty dollars doesn't begin to keep pace.

We have this statement: "Housing continues to be a high

priority." How can we tell that housing continues to be a high

priority? It is very easy to tell, Mr. Speaker. We can tell

because 1974 housing starts were down by 8,000 from 1973; 1975

starts look like they are going to be even further down. We can

tell because there is a vacancy rate of 0.4 per cent in rental

accommodation in this