1973 Legislative Session: 2nd 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)

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 1973

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 623 ]

CONTENTS

Point of order

Mr. Chabot. Notice of motion on proposed amendment — 623

Routine proceedings

An Act to Amend the Infants Act (Bill No. 11). Hon. Mr.

Macdonald.

Introduction and first reading — 623

An Act to Amend the Equal Guardianship of Infants Act (Bill

No. 41).

Hon. Mr. Macdonald. Introduction and first reading — 623

An Act to Amend the Adoption Act (Bill No. 40). Hon. Mr.

Levi.

Introduction and first reading — 624

The Cattle Industry Development Act (Bill No. 32). Hon. Mr.

Stupich.

Introduction and first reading — 624

An Act to Amend the Farmers Land Clearing Assistance Act

(Bill No. 36).

Hon. Mr. Stupich. Introduction and first reading — 624

Land Commission Act (Bill No. 42). Hon. Mr. Stupich.

Introduction and first

reading — 625

Point of order

Mr. Williams. Introduction of bills — 625

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 625

Ruling by Mr. Speaker — 625

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 626

Mr. Speaker — 626

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 626

Mr. Speaker — 626

Privilege

Mr. Williams. Distribution of bills — 627

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 627

Mr. Speaker — 627

Mr. Williams — 627

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 628

Mr. Speaker — 628

Routine proceedings

Budget debate (continued)

Hon. Mr. Williams — 628

Mr. Smith — 634

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 641

Mr. Gardom — 653

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Langley.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Speaker, I'd like the

House to join with me in welcoming a group of students from

Cloverdale Secondary School today, and their teachers Mr.

Cocker and Mr. Johnson.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver

Centre.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, I have the

honour to introduce to the House a group of students from

Templeton Secondary School from Vancouver Centre, with their

distinguished teacher and friend of mine Cliff Greer.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe

Sound.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker,

it is a pleasure to report that you have in your gallery this

afternoon some distinguished visitors — namely the mother of

the Member for Dewdney (Mr. Rolston), who sits to the left of

me. Also my wife and my daughter.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Columbia River.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a

point of order. It appears that there is an error in the Votes

and Proceedings, and in the orders of the day.

Yesterday, the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips)

moved, seconded by the Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith)

a proposed amendment to a motion. And it appears today as a

notice of motion. However, it was in fact a proposed amendment

to a motion and should rightfully have appeared on the orders

of the day as a proposed amendment to motion. Because it really

is physically impossible to have a sub-amendment to an

amendment because of the time lapse given as notice on the

votes….

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member you don't need to proceed further

on it.

The rule of course, provides that in effect there has to be one clear day's

notice, on a notice of motion. But in this case the first motion that's on the

order paper to which the notice of motion for an amendment to that is added,

could not possibly be physically available on one clear day. Therefore what

will happen undoubtedly is that when the notice of motion is called, the amendment

will be accepted — I would assume by the House in any event, to that notice

of motion that was one clear day. So that the one that could not physically

be done in one clear day would still be accepted by the House, and I see no

difficulty in that. But I could not put it down as a proper notice of motion

within one day. At least I'm so advised by the Clerks.

MR. CHABOT: Very good then, if it will be accepted as a

sub-amendment at the time which is relevant. But I was just

going on the past procedures as it appeared in the orders of

the day on February 10, 1972, in which a proposed amendment was

made to an amendment to the main motion which did not, the

prior day, appear on the Votes and Proceedings, but moved

directly to the orders of the day on February 10, 1972.

MR. SPEAKER: At any rate, it's in the Votes and Proceedings

that apparently Mr. Phillips to move — is that one you're

referring to?

MR. CHABOT: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: The number is 31….

MR. CHABOT: He will have the opportunity of moving it at the

appropriate time?

MR. SPEAKER: That's my understanding. It will not be barred

by the House, I would assume, unless they have suddenly taken

leave of all fairness.

MR. CHABOT: Thank you very much.

Introduction of bills.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE INFANTS ACT

Hon. Mr. Macdonald moves introduction and first reading of

Bill No. 11 intituled

An Act to Amend the Infants

Act.

Motion approved.

Bill No. 11 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.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE EQUAL

GUARDIANSHIP OF INFANTS ACT

Hon. Mr. Macdonald moves introduction and first reading of

Bill No. 41 intituled

An Act to Amend the Equal Guardianship

of Infants Act .

[ Page 624 ]

Motion approved.

Bill No. 41 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.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE ADOPTION ACT

Hon. Mr. Levi moves introduction and first reading of Bill

No. 40 intituled

An Act to Amend the Adoption Act.

Motion approved.

Bill No. 40 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.

THE CATTLE INDUSTRY

DEVELOPMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Stupich moves introduction and first reading of

Bill No. 32 intituled The Cattle Industry Development

Act.

Motion approved.

Bill No. 32 read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the

House after today.

HON. MR. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Mr.

Speaker, I have the honour to present a message from His Honour

the Lieutenant-Governor.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE FARMERS

LAND CLEARING ASSISTANCE ACT

MR. SPEAKER: His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor transmits

herewith a bill intituled

An Act to Amend the Farmers Land

Clearing Assistance Act and recommends the same to the

Legislative Assembly.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I move the said message and

the bill accompanying the same be referred to the Committee of

the Whole House forthwith.

Motion approved.

House in committee on Bill No. 36; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise

recommending the introduction of the bill.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Chairman,

I wonder if in the course of this debate in committee whether

the Hon. Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) intends to

make any statements to the House as to the purpose of the bill

which is accompanying this message. The reason I pose this

question is that there is some suggestion that there has

already been some release of information concerning this

legislation and I think that the Members of this House are

entitled to the courtesy of hearing from the Minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister of

Agriculture.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, there was some release, yes.

When I spoke in the debate on the budget I did speak about this

bill and told the House at that time something of what we

intended with this legislation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You've heard the motion. I would point out

that no debate is permitted on the introduction of a message

bill in committee.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): What we're really

interested in knowing, Mr. Chairman, is whether any statements

have been made to the Press regarding this specific piece of

legislation today.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, the statement was made in

the House. And there have been questions asked about that

legislation from time to time including today.

MR. McGEER: Would he repeat a statement that he made to the

Press today regarding that specific piece of legislation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member is out of order. Would he be

seated, please.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): How can that man possibly be

out of order in committee stage, when we're simply inquiring of

the Minister a very straightforward piece of information? The

committee stage, we understand, is for discussion of this

nature. We in no way want to impede first reading of this bill.

We'd simply like to….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Members be seated, please. I

would point out to the House, after consulting authorities,

that it is the time-honoured

[ Page 625 ]

tradition that in the introduction of a money bill, there is

no debate at this point of the introduction of the bill. Would

you be seated, please.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 36 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be

placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present

a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

LAND COMMISSION ACT

MR. SPEAKER: His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor transmits

herewith a bill intituled Land Commission Act and

recommends the same to the Legislative Assembly. Government

House, February 22, 1973.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I move that the said message

and the bill accompanying the same be referred to the Committee

of the Whole House forthwith.

Motion approved.

House in committee on Bill No. 42; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee

rise recommending the introduction of the bill.

MR. WILLIAMS: The motion is for this committee to recommend

to the House that this bill be introduced. Before this motion

is passed by this committee, I suggest that we're entitled to

have from the Minister some clear statement as to the purpose

of this bill, or else how can we determine whether or not it

should be so reported?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member be seated, please.

MR. WILLIAMS: Why?

MR. CHAIRMAN: You're out of order. Would you be seated,

please.

I would ask the Hon. Member to be seated. If he doesn't

accept my ruling, he may appeal it. We will continue to consult

authorities and advise you privately.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

HON. MR. STUPICH : Mr. Speaker, I move that the report be

adopted.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: …at the committee stage made, we

think, reasonable requests for information which is required by

us or at least we would desire to have prior to voting on this

particular motion.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, I think what you're taking up is a

point of order. It has been ruled in this House on a number of

occasions, on the formal introduction of a bill, it is not

debated. It may be different in Ottawa, but we do not follow

the rules in Ottawa. We follow the rules of May as set out in

standing order No. 1 of our rules.

The point is and what I wish to explain to the Hon. Member

is that the time-honoured tradition of which he speaks on the

introduction of a bill by message from His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor is debated in time-honoured tradition in

the House of Commons at Westminster, on the basis that a bill

has yet to be formalized or devised by the House in Committee

of the Whole House. For that reason, where a message comes down

without a bill accompanying it, there may be debate at that

stage. But that happens on most extraordinary occasions

only.

But not where a bill comes down with the message because

obviously it would be unfair to the Members to debate a bill

that is not yet in their hands. But where there is no bill with

the message and a bill is sought by message, then the House in

Committee of the Whole House may resolve to devise a bill to

comply with the request from Her Majesty.

This being the situation, it would not be under our

tradition in this House to debate in Committee of the Whole

House on the introduction of a message accompanied by a bill.

For that reason, I suggest it would be out of order under our

tradition to debate the introduction of a bill. If that were

so, this House would be filled with debate on the introduction

of many bills of Hon. Members such as yourself, which bills are

manifestly out of order and would be demolished at first

reading.

If you want it that way, you're inviting the whole House to

debate your introduction of a bill. Your bills, I note on the

order paper, at first blush appear to be out of order. But it's

also been the tradition….

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Now, please. If you've read our standing orders

you will know and observe the bills that are on the order

paper. They're out of order. But

[ Page 626 ]

I have always made a practice, and so have other Speakers,

of permitting the introduction of bills that are out of order,

so that you have the opportunity with the leave of the House to

have your bills before the House.

But if you're going to ask the other Members to debate the introduction of

bills, you're asking for retaliation which I would not like to see in this House.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I think there is some misunderstanding as to what

actually we wish to debate. We wish to debate the motion to report the bill,

not the motion to introduce the bill. There is a distinction.

The second point, Sir, of course, I believe that a great

deal of your very interesting comments are perhaps a little off

point in that they were discussing private Members' bills from

the Opposition parties. We are here in a situation where we

have a special circumstance of a request for information

dealing with revealing knowledge about this bill prior….

MR. SPEAKER: There's a stage in every bill when you can

request information. That's when you come to Committee of the

Whole House to discuss the bill itself.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: We're not, Mr. Speaker, asking for

information on the bill. We're asking….

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order, Hon. Member, has been raised.

What is your point of order?

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Highways): The point of

order is this: the bill is not before the House. We cannot

debate a bill until it is before the House. The motion is that

the committee report be adopted. The committee recommended

introduction of the bill. We cannot debate that bill until it

is before the House.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: We're not debating the bill.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You're trying to debate the bill. Yes,

you are.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. Hon. Members, I think what we'd better

do on this question, because it's an interesting point and I

don't want to jump on a decision of this kind. I would

therefore recommend that I reserve my opinion on the matter and

give a report to the House on this particular question and,

with the leave of the House, the question of these motions be

discussed after I have investigated and given a report to the

Members on my findings. Is that satisfactory?

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Either we operate on the rules of

this House, governed by previous rulings, or we are going into

chaos. Now I suggest to you that the remedy that you're

suggesting is that when a point is asked about an

already-existing rule and tradition, the point takes precedence

over the already-existing rule in practice.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if we're going to go that route, I suggest

to you that we won't be able to get any business done. If you

want to review it and have a recess now and come right back

with an answer, fine. That's acceptable. But let's not go any

further now in terms of that kind of approach and have every

question of standing rule and practice hold up normal business

of this House. If you want a recess, let's have a recess and

have a ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: In that case, Hon. Members, I declare a recess

because I'm certainly going to research the point. I don't feel

that it's justified to just make a decision right from the lip,

as it were. So I'll declare a short recess on this point.

The House took recess.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. SPEAKER: In the short space of time available, we can

find nothing to disturb my decision on the question of debating

the report from the committee on the ground that this is a pro

forma proceeding that is recorded in three stages which really

relate to the introduction of a bill on message.

The message was presented with the bill; the Members do not

have a copy of the bill and they have nothing, therefore, to

debate except the advisability of something they know nothing

about. Until that stage, there's really no subject matter of

which they can have knowledge.

If they were debating the message, and the message asked for

the introduction of a bill on a certain subject, they would

then, in Committee of the Whole House, have something to

debate.

Looking at our standing order 45(

l) you will note those

matters which are the subject of debate. They do not include a

report coming from Committee of the Whole House on the

introduction of a bill. Under the circumstances, I can see

nothing to disturb my ruling, up to this moment, of my

research. If any Members have any information that they wish to

present to me at a later time, I would be very glad to welcome

and study it.

In the meantime I must rule, as I did formerly, on the basis

of the present material before us, that long usage in this

House has determined the course that I am following; that is

that there is no debate either in the Committee of the Whole

House or in the stage of report from Committee of the Whole

House. I now

[ Page 627 ]

wish to proceed with the question on report from the

committee.

Report adopted.

Bill No. 42 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be

placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe

Sound.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, on a matter of privilege. Last

evening you explained in great detail the procedures that were

adopted with respect to the availability of bills when they are

printed in this House. It is in that respect that I raise this

matter of privilege.

I am sure that we cannot do indirectly what we cannot do

directly. The question is — and I hope you will take this into

consideration and advise the House — whether or not it is a

breach of privilege for a Minster of the Crown to answer

questions with respect to a bill which is to be presented by

message in advance of it coming before this House and going

through the procedures we have just passed in this House. It is

in this respect that I raised questions in committee a few

moments ago. I think that this is a very serious matter.

Obviously, if one is able to ask enough questions of a

Minister and get enough answers then he has the entire bill in

his possession. The Minister said in committee today that he

mentioned the bill in his remarks in this debate earlier and

that since that time, including today, he has been asked

questions about this legislation. If he has answered those

questions, then people have knowledge in advance of Members of

this House.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Premier on a point of order.

HON. MR. BARRETT: On the same point of privilege, I would

ask the Speaker on behalf of the Government if indeed we could

have a ruling in this regard because there has been a practice

in this House for Leaders of the Opposition, cabinet Ministers,

leaders of other parties, to make pre-recorded statements on

television with a release time.

For instance, on budget day I did ask three leaders to come

to my office — only two came, unfortunately — to accept the

budget and, of course, respect the deadline. They do make

themselves available to questions. I meet with the Press at any

hour.

The former leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. McGeer) adopted the same practice,

as well as the new Opposition. I want this clarified for all Members of this

House because they all find themselves in the situation where the electronic

media perhaps want a pre-taping for television and they give their word that

the pre-taping will not be released until the time specified by the Minister.

If that is no longer permitted, then I would ask the

Speaker to rule on that for all Members of the House. That

practice has not been abused to my knowledge in any single

instance — the pre-recording of those particular things with a

time deadline.

If, however, it has been abused, I would suggest that's a

problem in the Press gallery rather than a problem of the

Member.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, I just want to observe that the

question that you propose is also governed by the fact that I

presume you are talking about message bills which are not the

property of the House and of which the House had no knowledge

until they are first introduced in the House.

Therefore, it's slightly different from where you have put a

motion on the order paper to introduce a Member's bill where

the House has then, in effect, got possession of a bill which

you've intituled on notice of motion.

I would assume I have to consider both aspects of it: where

the House has some property interest in a bill that you are

bringing in, or where there is a message bill of which the

House has absolutely no knowledge at the time and is certainly

not yet the property of the House. These are problems I'll be

prepared to grapple with.

It covers also, I would assume, matters such as disclosure

of the budget speech prior to its introduction at a certain

time in the day to members of the Press on their guarantee that

they will not disclose it. All the matters I will look into if

the House wishes me to do so. But I will only do it if the

House so agrees.

MR. WILLIAMS: I am in accord with the comments of the Hon.

Premier in this regard. All Members are aware that the throne

speech and the budget speech are made available in advance. All

Members are also aware that the Press gallery at that time is

specifically marked to be out of bounds, save with your

permission, Sir.

I think we should look into this matter as it affects

message bills as well because when you consider that message

bills invariably deal with the financial expenditures of the

Crown, then any advance word that might reach the outside

through some incautious action on the part of the person who is

committed with the responsibility of having advance knowledge

is very serious indeed. I am certain that the Hon. Premier

would be the first to be concerned about any such thing

happening.

I am not suggesting that in this instance it has occurred;

but events have occurred which have raised

[ Page 628 ]

this and I think it's a matter that all Members of the House

should concern themselves with now. I am not sure what is

required from the House, Mr. Speaker, in order to place this

matter firmly before you as a matter of a request for your

considered opinion, but I think it should be done now.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I can't leave the comments

without adding some concern. If the Member is suggesting that

there has been no incident and then relating it to events that

are unstated in this House, you leave the instruction with the

Speaker vague no matter which method we follow around something

that may or may not have happened around this bill.

I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, to be fair to this House,

that if the Member is suggesting that someone has indeed broken

a practice in the Press gallery — which is a very serious breach — that should be stated clearly with the facts now or to a

committee of the House. But to leave the Speaker with the

impression that there are facts related to "events around this

bill," to quote your words, that the Member is not

disclosing to the House, leaves a pall over the Press gallery

that I don't want to see sustained.

Now if the Member has specific charges around this bill,

then I suggest, to protect all the Members of this House, that

a substantive motion be put forward by that group or that

Member pointing out the situation, the events and the

allegation. Otherwise, we are placing the Press in a very

precarious position.

Now if these events are there, Mr. Member, and you have

facts, you owe it to all the Members of this House to lay a

substantive motion in front of this House. But if we're dealing

with something else that's going on that we don't know about

and you're not prepared to say to us exactly what it is you're

concerned about, then I suggest you're leaving too many

questions up in the air.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, on the point of privilege. It is

customary on a point of privilege for a Member who raises the

point of privilege to be prepared to make a motion to the House

relating to the point of privilege. In other words, it doesn't

occur in a vacuum. If there is any breach of privilege of which

the Member has knowledge that he is prepared to reduce to

writing in the form of a motion, I would be much happier to

deal with it in that fashion.

If the Hon. Member has some information upon which he bases a complaint on

a factual basis, then he should commit that to paper. The rule is generally

that a breach of privilege is followed by a motion. Whether it's to go to a

committee on privileges to deal with the question and resolve it, the Speaker

first has to determine whether it is a prima facie breach of privilege that

should be considered by a committee of privileges, to determine the facts.

He merely sees where there may be facts. If there may be facts, the committee

then comes back with a report.

I would suggest in this particular instance that I don't

want to find myself making decisions in a vacuum. Therefore I

would ask that if the Hon. Member will give consideration to

this question today, and report his decision to the House as to

whether he says there's a breach of privilege by the Press or

by anyone, he should put it in writing in the form of a motion

asking a committee of privileges to deal with it.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, a short time ago we received

a very good suggestion from the Premier that there be a

consideration by you of a number of practices and he gave a

very general scope to this.

MR. SPEAKER: Then I suggest that that be in a form of a

motion to the Speaker, to deal with that question and report to

the House and let them decide there what they think….

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: If the Premier would like me to put his

words in a form of a motion I would certainly do that. I would

feel though, Mr. Speaker, that the whole matter could be

cleaned up and cleared up very quickly if unanimous consent is

given at this time for one of the Opposition to pose a question

directly to the Minister of Agriculture on this point.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order. Order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Order. If you have notice of a

breach of privilege then present it in a motion.

AN HON. MEMBER: Put it in writing.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Put up or shut up.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Orders of the day.

ON THE BUDGET

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver East.

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

of Recreation and Conservation): After that, Mr. Speaker, I don't know if

I should be bothered to make a speech. My

[ Page 629 ]

secretary, however, advised me that today was visitors day

and I decided that I should attend.

I would like to say, however, that I regard this speech as a

rather difficult one, because I've been used to being on the

Opposition side, and I've been used to having the job, along

with several of my colleagues, of attacking the government. And

I can't help feeling a bit like Pavlov's dog. (Laughter).

The problem is, when I look at the Government and see all

these beautiful people here, I just can't do it all. But I

can't help but think that there's still a Pavlovian thing

remaining with the Liberal Party. There's been talk about the

"old school tie routine" in the Liberal ranks. And I'm

beginning to feel that it's simply the "tie that binds,"

and it's binding this Legislature right now.

I can't help but suspect, Mr. Speaker, that this long

harangue over the rules with a Government that has been so

generous in relation to developing proper rules in this

chamber, that this long harangue really had another purpose.

And that's tied to the non-confidence motion and the desire of

the Opposition to talk until the late hours this evening.

I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, that it's a great pleasure

to share with so many people in this province a kind of elation

over the change that's come about in British Columbia with the

establishment of a new government. I think there's a feeling

amongst the people of this province that the doors have at last

been opened in Victoria, that we've got a government that's

willing to be bold and a Government that is willing to do

difficult things if they're necessary.

I think at long last the Vancouver Club, and the Union Club,

and the special clubs of this province are on the outside

looking in.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I might point out, Mr. Speaker, that the

majority of our group are more discriminating than the

minority. But I'd like to make it clear that the forest

policies, the mineral policies and the resource policies of

this province are now determined here with this Government, and

not in the special clubs of the province.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: We'll be dealing with that my friend.

I want to talk about my own riding of Vancouver East, Mr. Speaker. It's an

area that I personally care a great deal about. And it's an area that this province

and the city in the past have too frequently forgotten. It's especially rewarding

for me as a person that has spent all my life in that area to know that the

Premier is a person who grew up in the area, that the Attorney General (Hon.

Mr. Macdonald) of this province represents the riding as well, and that I have

the opportunity to represent the riding in this capacity as well.

This kind of "east side power" is something that I think is

really a pleasure that's shared with the people in the riding.

They've been waiting a long time. The faithful people of

Vancouver East through thick and thin supported this movement.

So I make no apologies. I want to talk about my home base

because it's important to this party, it's important to me,

it's important to this province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I think there are many things that can be

done in my riding, which I consider a great place in which to

live. But there's many things that can be done to make it a far

better place to live. I think, Mr. Speaker, that the place we

can start, on the east side of the city, is on the

waterfront.

Unlike the westerly part of the city which has mile upon

mile of open shoreline, the east side of the city is limited to

one small park at New Brighton, which is right at the Pacific

National Exhibition. Much has been done in recent years to

improve the situation in terms of park acreage on the east side

of the city. But nothing has been done in terms of the

waterfront. The concentration has essentially been in the

Point-Grey area and in the Jericho Beach area. I'm sorry that

there hasn't been the concern with respect to the east side of

town where the need has been far greater.

But now we do have a new civic administration in the City of

Vancouver, Mr. Speaker. I'm sure it's an administration that

this Government can work with and that there should be an

opportunity of changing things, provided there is some

cooperation with the National Harbours Board with respect to

possible provincial and civic goals, but one can't help but

keep in mind that the man who gave us all block 4252 and

Pacific Centre is now the man who's presently in charge of the

National Harbours Board.

Unfortunately, there's no evidence yet of change on the part

of the former mayor of Vancouver, Mr. Rathie with respect to

the city's concern about the harbour and the waterfront. And

the filling….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I'm afraid so, it's worse. But there's

filling taking place at the foot of Main. The city council

isn't told what it's for or what the purpose will be. There's

filling taking place on Commissioner Street, the city isn't

told until there's a fait accompli on their doorstep. Local

people in the neighbourhoods that are concerned about what's

happening in the harbour are simply not informed by this

chairman who represents the NHB on the west

[ Page 630 ]

coast.

But I'm convinced that now is the time to begin, Mr.

Speaker. I think I should note that a small start was made

earlier this month by myself with respect to a small grant to

the City of Vancouver Parks Board. It was to prepare a plan for

the waterfront area near the Pacific National Exhibition, and

near the Columbia grain elevator site on Commissioner Street.

Those of you who may know the area may realize that New

Brighton is one of those kinds of pockets with very little

outlook,

whereas the headland where the old elevator site is

located is a magnificent headland that gives an open view of

the whole harbour and the North Shore mountains and the

downtown. It is an area that I would like to see preserved.

There's another one of the fill areas that the Harbour Board

has been playing around with. The decisions made to date by the

NHB people in Vancouver, essentially Mr. Rathie, put that land

in jeopardy. There have been various agreements made prior to

informing the city council, with respect to the agreements, Mr.

Speaker. The city is now under pressure to approve an

industrial proposal in the area that I'm concerned about. I

think the mistake, in terms of establishing contracts and

arrangements with private industrial developers in the area,

was essentially Mr. Rathies's and that of the National Harbours

Board. And I think the problem should be theirs.

It may seem that this is a rather small matter for the new

city administration or for the province. But I regard it as a

rather significant one, because I see it as a genuine challenge

in terms of the kind of approach that should be taken in the

city in the future. I would urge the city to see it as a

challenge, and I would urge the NHB to see it as a challenge,

Mr. Speaker, because it is a major question in the east side of

the city. I would urge the city, and challenge the city to

continue with their present stance and not approve the

industrial development on the site. I'd urge them to go one

step further and to zone the land as parkland, because this is

the chance for the new civic administration to show clearly

that the city's priorities are changing and that the harbour

has a different role in relation to the people that live in the

town.

It is not just an industrial base, and it is time to

recognize that the east side of the city has been abused in

terms of adequate space and access to the waterfront. I know we

can't have Jericho and Locarno solutions on the east side, but

we can give people access to the waterfront in an interesting

and delightful way that could make the entire city a better

place to live in.

I challenge the city to zone the land for parkland purposes. If they will,

I would like to assure them that the province will provide considerable aid

with respect to the acquisition of the land in that area. I suggest, Mr. Speaker,

that this is a challenge for Mr. Rathie and the question is whether he is prepared,

if the city is prepared to go along with the province with respect to these

areas, to counter the wishes of the democratically elected city council in the

City of Vancouver and the democratically elected government in Victoria. This

is a challenge to the NHB, the Ottawa administration and Mr. Rathie on behalf

of the people of the east side of the city.

There is another key area east of Main, Mr. Speaker, and

that is at the foot of Rogers Avenue, and most people may not

know that, right by the B.C. Sugar refinery. There is a great

opportunity there for waterfront open space on the east side of

town in an area that desperately needs it. Rogers Street is

right near the Raymer public housing project, a project that

desperately lacks amenities and that carries with it inherent social problems simply because

of its design and poor decisions by the previous government. I

sincerely hope that work will be done with respect to parkland

in that area on the waterfront as well, Mr. Speaker.

But there is another underdeveloped asset on the east side

of the city. It is a major one and it is a major land area, and

that is the Pacific National Exhibition. The PNE board of

directors has once more proven that it can make news, and the

latest controversy with respect to hockey for the kids in that

part of the city is simply just that. It is the latest

controversy. It is one of a string of controversies that have

surrounded the Pacific National Exhibition. I think the latest

thing is a reflection of an attitude that has continuously

prevailed at the Pacific National Exhibition for as long as I

can remember. I grew up in that area, Mr. Speaker.

We could make the exhibition grounds more significant for

the province and more worthwhile for the people of the east

side of the city.

Too often the PNE is simply a burden on the people of the

east side of town. They have to live with the traffic problems

almost daily as a result of that development. They have to deal

daily with the mammoth invasion or intrusion into their

residential neighbourhoods. I know that that can't be washed

away, but it would be easier for the people of that area to

take if the PNE were more responsive to their own needs right

in the community.

The board of directors has continued to destroy the amenity

qualities of the lands in the Pacific National Exhibition

grounds. They used to be a pleasant place to be. They are no

longer. We lost the golf course when there was a golf course in

the ravine. We lost Calister Park for a long time to drag

racing on what was the most important soccer pitch in the city

for many years. All of that is really just part of the pattern

of abuse that, as I see it, has taken place in that part of the

city. It is something that people in that residential area have

grudgingly grown up with.

[ Page 631 ]

Surely, Mr. Speaker, it is not too much to expect that in

this day and age we should have a board of directors of the PNE

that is responsive to the community that it lives within, and

surely it is possible to have a board that is responsive to the

community and to the province.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: It is not what we are suggesting. The

Hon. Member isn't quite aware yet of what we are

suggesting.

Surely, Mr. Speaker, rather than a blacktop wasteland that

the present board has allowed to develop in the exhibition

grounds, something more can be done. Surely it could become

more like Tivoli Gardens in Copenhagen, or like some of the

great parks of Europe. There is no reason why those grounds

couldn't be one of the greatest assets of the city. They are

presently a rather narrow commercial money-making facility and

it can be much more than that.

The response of the Opposition with respect to the PNE

question….

AN HON, MEMBER: They listened to the hot line show.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The Hon. Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) said

in a release the other day, "Good heavens! The Minister of Resources and the

Attorney General want to turn the PNE into a giant community centre. Wouldn't

that be a disaster?" You bet your sweet bippy we want to change it into a giant

community centre.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: We want to make that area responsive to

the community that it is within and more responsive to the

province at large.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Then take all the provincial

directors off.

AN HON. MEMBER: Turn it into a used car lot. (Laughter).

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: We do want more neighbourhood involvement in decisions

that are made on the PNE grounds, and it is really the only way, Mr. Speaker,

as I see it in a broad sense, to avoid the kind of urban wreckage and anarchy

that has developed in the United States in recent years. There has to be community

involvement in the decisions that are made — in the decisions that affect them.

We are going to go the disastrous way that our neighbours to the south have,

unless we take this kind of approach with agencies like Pacific National Exhibition.

I take it, Mr. Speaker, that the official Opposition

endorses the present system, one that ignores the community to

a very great extent. It is the system, as I see it, Mr.

Speaker, that in some ways is almost a country club for a middle-management elite that is

frequently self-appointed. The Member for Langley (Mr.

McClelland) will be given a chance within the next few days to

decide which system will be better, ours or theirs — the one

that his government was willing to live with for 20 years.

There will be a new board of directors for the Pacific

National Exhibition, Mr. Speaker. I might note that the

legislation was drafted long before the present controversy.

The pattern was there for those with eyes to see. The

legislation was drawn in early January before this matter came

to public attention.

The following members will be appointed under proposed

legislation to the PNE board of directors. The board shall

consist of 16 directors who shall be 9 persons appointed by

order of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council who shall be, in

the opinion of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, one person

who is representative of the agricultural interests or

community of the province, the industrial community of the

province, the business or commercial community in the province,

a person representative of the cultural and ethnic communities

of the province, a person representative of the artistic

community of the province, a person representative of the

sports and recreational community in the province, a person who

is representative of the trades union movement of this province

and, Mr. Speaker, three persons who are residents of and

representative of the interests of other residents of land

situated within a radius of one mile of the lands owned by or

on behalf of the Pacific National Exhibition.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, there will be five members of the

city council who they may choose, one member of the city parks

board who they may choose — all to be the board of the

directors of the new Pacific National Exhibition.

I think that in this way we can have a truly representative

governing body for the Pacific National Exhibition and we can

have an exhibition that will continue to grow and improve with

the province. At the same time, Mr. Speaker, we can have an

exhibition that will provide a new heart for the east side of

the city.

I make no apologies for dealing with these problems in my

riding, Mr. Speaker, because I regard them as significant. I

would hope that once the city decides on the question of

neighbourhood representation that the representation could be

tied to a neighbourhood government within the City of

Vancouver. In the interim, however, we don't have neighbourhood

representation on the city council. I would hope that would be

the way the city would

[ Page 632 ]

move and we could in turn move that way with respect to the

Pacific National Exhibition.

I would like to talk about our major provincial parks, Mr.

Speaker, but I think it would be worthwhile to give a little

bit of perspective with respect to the growth of parks and

parklands in British Columbia under the last government.

I suspect, looking over the figures and the information that

is available to us all, that we probably had the greatest

retardation of park preservation anywhere in the world during

the last 20 years in British Columbia. At a time of great

population growth and growing concern over the preservation of

the natural environment, what did that former mammoth group

over there do? What happened to our parklands in the last two

decades in British Columbia? In 1952, here's the acreage,

9,015,867 acres. Remember 1952? The year that you used to tie

everything to?

Then there were deletions in the park system — at Crescent,

at Nakusp, at Seymour, Keremeos, at Tweedsmuir — and by 1955 we

had 7,997,618 acres, Mr. Speaker. Then there were further

deletions; deletions at Mara, Jim Smith, Hamber, Garibaldi and

others. By 1962, during that decade of growth in British

Columbia, how much parkland did we have after ten years?

6,356,720 acres. The loss in a decade under that

administration, Mr. Speaker, was over 2.5 million acres. In the

following decade there was a modest improvement. By 1971, there

were only 6,497,467 acres; still a loss of over 2.5 million

acres.

During those two decades, Mr. Speaker, the provincial

population in 1952 was 1,205,000 — in 1972 — 2,185,000. A 100

per cent increase in the population of the province, and yet a

loss of parkland exceeding 2.5 million acres.

The

summary of all this was prepared, during the last

administration's tenure, in July of 1972, and that's available

to all. That's why, Mr. Speaker, this Government will be

placing a major parks preservation statute before this House

shortly. One which will preserve numerous major new parks

throughout the Province of British Columbia. We'll be

establishing major new parks on the Yukon Border, on the

frontier. We'll be establishing major new parks in the

magnificent shoreline areas of the Queen Charlottes, which have

been so often ignored. We'll be establishing at least three

parks in the east Kootenays.

We will be preserving some of that magnificent landscape of

this province that for two decades that administration

continuously refused to consider. For two decades they cut down

on parkland by millions and millions of acres and continuously

refused to preserve some of the most magnificent landscape yet

untouched on this planet. For two decades the Parks Branch

suffered the frustration of that inadequate administration, and

this is only the beginning of righting the wrongs in that

particular territory.

The parks that will be established under that new statute,

Mr. Speaker, will be established by statute, not by

order-in-council. The parks will only be changed by statute,

not by order-in-council. If any of this 1 1/2 million-plus acres

that we establish is going to be changed in the future by this,

or any other administration, it can only and will only be done

after full debate in the Legislature itself.

We'll never again have the situation, Mr. Speaker, where two

and a half million acres can be removed from park status by

order-in-council, as was done by the previous

administration.

I think we should talk a little about some of the policies

with respect to these major parks that we do have in the

province. Probably the classic one, and it's hard to choose, is

Strathcona. Certainly all those files are ready and available

for anybody that wants to review them.

We'll talk about Western Mines and we'll talk about the kind

of attitude that prevailed under the former administration with

respect to the landscape of this province. We'll talk about it

all.

1911 is when Strathcona Park was established, Mr. Speaker,

and the main reason it was established was because of the

alpine lands and the then magnificent Buttle Lake and the

shoreline of Buttle Lake. It wasn't until 1923 that the

statutes were changed and it was possible to prospect in areas

like Strathcona Park. That statute was changed in 1923. Minor

exploration work continued through the years since that time.

But it's interesting to note that just prior to the more

intense activity in the Myra Creek area, there was a request by

the staff of the Parks Branch to start dealing with the claims

problems within the provincial parks. It was a rather prophetic

request for consideration in view of what happened afterward.

Numerous claims have been established.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Oh yes, numerous claims established under

your administration. Numerous claims in these parks all during

the years of controversy. The Hon. Minister of Highways (Hon.

Mr. Strachan) on numerous occasions during previous debates in

this House, made it abundantly clear that it wasn't just the

question of the old crown grants, that the former

administration was willing to live with the same stuff

throughout the decades of the Fifties, the Sixties and the

Seventies.

All the various park-use permits were put together in the

Myra Creek area, into one, in 1965, Mr. Speaker — park-use

permit no. 477, which is Western Mines. The terms of that

particular park-use permit, like the terms of several other

difficult park-use permits, were essentially established by the

politicians. There was not full involvement of the parks

administration staff. We continued to live with

[ Page 633 ]

difficult commercial exploitations within the provincial

parks that are a result of park-use permits virtually written

by the former politicians in charge of the department.

The Western Mines situation in Strathcona Park was often

referred to by the proponents as simply "a 10-acre hole in the

bush" — in the park, But what happened once those rights were

established, and once approval was granted and the park-use

permit was given? Why they had to get the concentrates out.

They had to get bunkhouses built. They had to build some roads.

They had to have water supply. They had to have barge movement

on Buttle Lake, and so on.

Then they decided they wanted a townsite. They wanted a special park-use permit

for a townsite at Ralph River, and then because they had a townsite, they had

to have a highway. They said they'd pay $2 million for a highway into the townsite

— into Myra Creek and the workings. The cost of the highway was double that

and the provincial Crown paid the cost — the additional cost of the destruction

of the park.

Then they needed power, and so they used lakes in the alpine

area for their development in Myra Creek. So we intruded into

the alpine area of the park to provide power for the mining

operation. Now just this fall they said they needed more power,

and so they wanted to dam creeks in the alpine area, and divert

lakes in the alpine area for their development in Myra Creek.

Those requests were refused in October of this fall, Mr.

Speaker. They will not be allowed to affect any more of the

environment in Strathcona Park for that purpose.

Then there was the whole sad history of the tailings being

dumped into the lake. Then you had to have a pipeline to get

the tailings into the lake; then you needed another pipeline;

then you had to have a right-of-way established; then you had

to log the right-of-way; then you had to go into the logging

business as well. That's been the pattern with Western Mines

within that particular park.

In fact, the former administration even went further. They

changed the Park Act to remove water out of the jurisdiction of

the Department of Recreation and Conservation so that Buttle

Lake would not be regulated by the Parks Branch. Buttle Lake

would then be a handy dumping ground for tailings. In 1965, the

statute was changed. I'd like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that

it is our intent to change the statute again. All of the water

courses, all of the waterways in the provincial parks of

British Columbia will come under the jurisdiction of the Parks

Branch.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hang your heads.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Buy it out!

HON. MR. WILLIAMS : Once the camel gets in the tent, he destroys the

tent entirely. Everything from garbage dumping — we've had to move in and get

them to move the garbage dumping to outside the provincial park, to the community

dumping area further to the north.

AN HON. MEMBER: I'm familiar with that topic.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: It just goes on and on, Mr. Speaker. It

should have been clear to the former Minister that once the

camel is in the tent, the whole area is destroyed. The 10-acre

hole in the bush has become a major industrial operation in

Strathcona Park.

Now in Strathcona Park we're in the mining business; we're

in the power business; we're in the housing business; we're in

the garbage business; we're in the transportation business;

we're in the dumping business. Only barely are we in the parks

business.

AN HON. MEMBER: Well, the philosophy was they should build

their parks elsewhere.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: That's right. The only multiple-use areas

we had in British Columbia under Social Credit were in the

provincial parks. (Laughter). We're therefore doing the

following things with respect to this particular problem — one

that we acknowledge we have to live with because of the

commitments that have been made.

Western Mines has already been given notice that the Park

Branch's approval is required before any timber removal takes

place in the park. I might say that that's been ignored in the

past under the former administration. From here on in, Mr.

Speaker, we will charge triple stumpage for timber out within

the park. That policy will prevail with respect to all similar

situations that we have to slowly extricate ourselves from. We

will cancel park-use permit No. 507, which authorizes the Ralph

River townsite. Detailing disposal plans for the foreseeable

future will have to be provided to us in considerable detail,

and that hasn't been done in the past.

Beyond this particular mining operation of Western Mines

Ltd., which is an established fact, we will terminate the

staking and recording of mineral claims within Strathcona Park.

I'd like to also read a statement of policy which reverses the

previous statement of policy of the former Minister with

respect to park use permits in provincial parks. It reads as

follows:

(1) In my estimation, the intent of the Park Act , sections 8

and 9, to set provincial parks apart from other Crown land and

to preserve them and their resources for public recreational

use is perfectly clear.

(2) It is my opinion that private ownership, occupation or

development of lands within public parks is seldom necessary to

the preservation of the recreational values involved and is, in

fact, usually

[ Page 634 ]

detrimental to those values.

(3) Similarly, I am of the opinion that the exploitation of

the natural resources of a park is seldom necessary to the

preservation or maintenance of its recreational values and is,

in fact almost always detrimental to those values.

(4) Under these circumstances, it is a policy of the

Department of Recreation and Conservation to minimize

industrial occupancies and exploitations within provincial

parks.

(5) Normally, no exploitation of any resource within a

provincial park shall be authorized, except as is incidental to

the development of the recreational resource to facilitate the

planned public recreational use of the area involved.

(6) While the Park Act

section IX(1)b, Statutes of

British Columbia, 1965, provides that utilization of natural

resources in a provincial park of class B status may be

authorized under a park-use permit, provided this utilization

is not detrimental to the recreational values of the park

involved, the only activities thus permitted will be those

which seem necessary to the planned recreational use of the

park or those which are clearly demonstrated as not detrimental

to the recreational values of the park or those which cover a

social service demonstrated as vital to the public

interest.

(7) When it is determined by the director of the Parks

Branch that the exploitation of a resource is necessary to the

preservation or maintenance of the recreational values of the

park involved, an exploitation to the extent necessary to that

preservation or maintenance may be authorized by a park-use

permit.

(8) The applicant for a park-use permit whose necessity has

not been determined by the director of the Parks Branch shall

be required to provide the director with conclusive evidence

that the proposed exploitation is necessary or not detrimental,

as the case may be, to the preservation or maintenance of

recreational values as required by the Park Act ,

section

IX, before a permit is issued.

I think those are the main points. There are some minor ones

in addition, Mr. Speaker. That is a major change in policy with

respect to the parks of British Columbia, and a change that I'm

considerably proud of.

I'd like to say, Mr. Speaker, that the pending claims that

are currently under departmental review with respect to

Strathcona Park, Muncho Lake Park, Stone Mountain Park, Kokanee

Glacier Park, Wells Gray Park, will not receive the clearance

they've requested.

There are many areas that I might cover, Mr. Speaker, from Oak Hills to Skagit

Valley to a range of other things, but I think I might cover them on another

occasion. I really want to talk about my home base, my neighbourhood, and the

city that I love and some of the things that we're beginning to do to preserve

the great, magnificent natural landscape of this province.

In closing, I'd like to say that the real joy in doing our

work here in this Government is when we go back to our

constituencies, and when we meet the many people who have

devoted their lives to this party and its goals. It's such a

great thing to meet these people that built this party and see

that they're as pleased as they are with our achievements in

the short time we've been in office. It's on times when I get

back to the constituencies that I must admit to a genuine

feeling of joy and thankfulness that we in this group should

have this chance at this time in this place to reflect their

hopes and dreams.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North Peace River.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's a pleasure once again to stand in this House and take

part

in the budget debate.

I listened with interest to the remarks of the previous

speaker, the Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests, Water Resources,

Recreation and Conservation. One of the first remarks that I

must disagree with is the fact that he said that there's a

feeling of elation among the people of this province, having

now elected an NDP Government. I'd just like to know where he

has been lately, because it hasn't been in the same parts of

the province that I have.

I'll tell you this: where I go, the feeling is not elation,

Mr. Minister. The feeling is dejection. It's becoming more

widespread all the time. We'll see just how true those remarks

are a year or two down the road.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): Were you in the

Union Club? (Laughter).

MR. SMITH: No, I haven't been there. I understand they have

a new member in the Union Club these days. Perhaps I should

introduce him to the House.

Anyway, after listening to the Minister of Lands, Forests

and Water Resources, to the contribution he made to this

debate, and reviewing in my own mind the things that I am about

to say this afternoon, I am more convinced than ever that what

I have to say as representing the views of the official

Opposition, is dead on. There is certainly a demarcation.

There's a distinct difference between the policies and the

hopes and the aspirations of the Opposition in this House and

those of the NDP and their philosophy.

I think that over the years, this is going to be borne out

more and more and that we will show the people of the Province

of British Columbia, in a greater fashion than we were ever

able to do before, just what the differences are between a

socialist state

[ Page 635 ]

and a state in which we feel the freedom of the individual

is paramount.

Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Premier in his opening remarks, when

presenting this budget to the House, stated:

"This budget heralds a new era for the people of our

province, an era where the rights of the individual are

supreme. We are committed to making this a just and open era in

the governing of this province."

High-sounding remarks. And to those remarks I answer, "Horse

feathers. Hollow words. Shallow statements."

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SMITH: There's no such thing as horse feathers?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. SMITH: For the uninformed a horse feather is a

colloquial expression to explain the jet-like stream left by

Pegasus as he flew through the air.

Actions speak louder than words. So let's take a look at the

actions, not the words.

The only major legislation in the House so far, with the

exception of the bills that came in this afternoon, is the

Insurance Corporation of British Columbia Act and a

totally monopolistic car insurance plan. With two bills the NDP

have completely emasculated the rights of several thousand

British Columbians.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to infringe upon the rules of the

House. I'll have more to say on the matter of these bills when

they come up for debate in second reading.

Since the opening day of this session, the Government party

has systematically floated trial balloons by assisting their

backbench Members in developing the material for their

speeches, just to test the winds of public opinion. Wake up,

backbench. You are being used. You're prostituting yourselves.

You're being sacrificed on the altar of political

expediency.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. Would the Hon. Member withdraw that

expression. It implies that they are in effect selling

themselves, and that would be unworthy of them. Anything that's

unworthy should not be repeated in this House.

MR. SMITH: I'll accept your statement, Mr. Speaker, and withdraw the

suggestion that they were being used in an unnatural manner. They have been

perhaps sacrificed on the altar of political expediency; sacrificed so the Members

of your cabinet, who all have a fair measure of political experience behind

them, can test public reaction without exposing themselves on the firing line.

You probably thought the cabinet wanted to be helpful.

Helpful, my foot. They were playing political chess, using you

as the pawns. This is supposed to be a Government that cares

about people.

MR. SPEAKER: I would ask you to refrain from any accusation

that any Member of this assembly is a pawn of anyone else.

Because they are here freely elected to do their own duty. If

it causes any ill feeling between Members, it should be

withdrawn.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I didn't say that they were

knowingly being used as pawns. I just said that in my

opinion, Sir, it appears that the cabinet has been

playing political chess games with them. Can I say that,

Sir?

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I think you can accuse the cabinet of

playing chess, if they are.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is supposed to be a Government that cares about people.

I hope you agree with that.

MR. SPEAKER: I have no opinions in this House.

(Laughter).

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let's take a look. Who do they care about most? I think it's

pretty obvious. Number one position — Mr. Premier, who

apparently has left the chamber. Between salary adjustments and

increased expense allowances, we all must admit that he tops

the list.

Number two position: with all deference, Mr. Speaker — yourself — providing we have two sessions a year. Not far

behind you in number three position — the rest of the cabinet.

The mutual admiration society looked after themselves quite

well by any yardstick you care to use.

Number four: in that position I'd have to say that place

belonged to those people who had party loyalties to the NDP — I'd say political hacks, but I'd probably be called

unparliamentary for saying that; so I'll just say that they had

loyalties to the NDP — and very suddenly ended up with

surprisingly fat salaries, and jobs like executive assistants,

Press secretaries, special assistants, special consultants, and

on and on and on, ad infinitum, right down the line.

If anyone would question that, I'll suggest that I have a list of a few people.

While I do not wish to name them in this chamber, we see that a person who is

now employed in the Department of Labour was campaign manager for the Minister

of Labour, the Hon. Mr. King — the Minister of Labour; I shouldn't use his name,

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): On a point

[ Page 636 ]

of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Labour.

HON. MR. KING: The statement which the Member has made

concerning a member of my department is completely untrue.

There is no one employed in the Department of Labour who was my

campaign manager.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of privilege at this

stage.

MR. SMITH: The procedure in the House, if you have a point

of privilege, is to rise on the point of privilege at the end

of the speech of the person who is on his feet.

MR. SPEAKER: I just pointed this out, that it was not a

point of privilege at this point.

MR. SMITH: We'll forgive him this time.

MR. SPEAKER: That doesn't entitle you to repeat what he has

denied. (Laughter).

MR. SMITH: I won't, sir. You're helping me today.

We do have a number of examples and the public are aware of

them….

Interruption.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Before the lights went

out I was speaking about the matter of the care the NDP has

shown for people. I listed a few people that I thought were

well looked after. I'd like to continue in that vein.

We get down to position number five. There we find the

rookie Members who comprise the backbench.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hooray!

MR. SMITH: Hooray! True, the increase that they will receive

must by law be paid to Opposition as well, but, backbenchers,

don't become impatient. Just sit tight. Take it cool.

You've already heard about such things as special

committees, Crown corporations, maybe, with directors appointed

by cabinet, new parks boards and the PNE board — now we've

heard about it today. Perhaps even parliamentary assistant's

jobs to help the Press secretary, help the executive assistant,

help the special consultants, help the cabinet Ministers to

make a decision on how to overcome unemployment. Then, before

approving a decision, refer it back to a special committee for

further study.

While I am on the matter of cabinet Ministers and assorted

assistants, look at the increased expenditure under the heading

of "travel expenses." I agree that the cabinet Ministers are

not responsible for all of the travel expenses.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance):

You're not kidding.

MR. SMITH: But let's take a look at it. The one-year

increase in travel expenditures for all departments of the

Government — almost 30 per cent — it was up by $1,218,000 from

1972. In four years this would be nearly $5 million of

taxpayers' money. Some people might label that a "Vancouver

East rip-off." We've heard that term in this chamber before,

particularly from the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver East

(Hon. Mr. Williams), the former self-appointed Opposition

specialist on rip-offs.

There was a specialist in the Ottawa House who liked to talk

about "corporate rip-offs." We all recall him. He's still there

— the federal leader of the NDP. He's not talking so much about

"corporate rip-offs" these days, particularly since it's known

that he's going to support the federal budget and that in order

to stay in office he had to do a 180 degree turn.

Mr. Speaker, I say this, that a 30 per cent increase in one

year — that's on an average; and if the cabinet Ministers would

like to know what their average increase is percentage-wise,

it's more than 30 per cent. As a matter of fact it's 46 per

cent. But I say this — the one-year increase is totally

unjustified, particularly when the greatest increase percentage

wise is for the cabinet Ministers themselves. A one-year

average of 46 per cent increase.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame!

MR. SMITH: And that in my opinion, Mr. Speaker, is a

non-taxable, socialist rip-off, if there ever was one.

AN HON. MEMBER: You know how to twist and twist….

MR. SMITH: No twist about that. Would you like me to read

the list?

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Read the list.

MR. SMITH: All I'll say is this, Mr. Speaker, that….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: Oh, did you have a good time in England saying

hello to mommy? At the taxpayers'

[ Page 637 ]

expense.

MR. SMITH: Some of the cabinet Ministers have no increase in

travel expenses. Others have a percentage increase of over 100

per cent.

AN HON. MEMBER: Dear, oh dear!

MR. SMITH: The thing is this, Mr. Speaker. When the

Government talks about the "little people" of British Columbia,

I just don't believe it.

Now let's get on to someone else. The person I think in

number six position as far as my analysis is concerned — do you

know who that person is? That's the unofficial member of the

NDP caucus. He's not in the House at the moment. The Oak Bay

socialist who masquerades as the House Leader of the

Conservative Party. Some House Leader.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think it would be a good time

to point out to the Members that because this is a new House,

we have been fairly free of personalities and personal

attacks.

I want to read to you, Hon. Member, if you wouldn't mind

sitting down for just a second, on a point of order I am

raising — Beauchesne at p. 115:

"A personal attack by one member upon another is an offence

against the House, in the person of one of its members, which,

on account of the respect due from every member to the

character and dignity of the House, as well as the importance

of preserving regularity in the debates, calls for the prompt

interference of the Speaker, in order that any irregularity

into which a member may have been betrayed in the warmth of

debate may be rectified, and that any expressions, which may be

disrespectful to the House, or painful to the feelings of

individual members, may be explained, apologized for, or

retracted.

"The difficulty which often occurs, of obtaining an apology

for words spoken in debate, especially when the offending person thinks he had

sufficient provocation for using the expressions objected to, ought to be a

warning to the House," and I stress this, "and particularly to the Chair to interfere at first; and not

to permit any expressions to pass from any member unnoticed which, being applied

by any other member as personally offensive to himself, may draw forth further

words of heat and contumely till, at last, confusion arises — different Members

take a warm and eager

part in the dispute — and besides the time that is lost

in composing the differences, the House exhibits a scene of indecency and disorder."

I mention that because, if I don't draw it to your attention immediately, then

somebody gets himself into a position of heat and disorder and they respond

in kind. Then you get feuds going in the House between persons, when we're supposed

to be objective and impersonal towards each other. I therefore urge the Member

not to deal offensively or personally against another Member of the House in

your debate.

I'm not saying that you are any greater offender than anyone

else.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, if I may — the words

must be offensive and the description given by the Member is

certainly not offensive — as a matter of fact most

complimentary as far as I am concerned.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, it still has a meaning that is offensive

to the Member concerned.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MRS. JORDAN: He doesn't want to be known as the socialist

Speaker.

MR. SMITH: Well perhaps I won't continue in that vein. I'll

take your ruling into advisement, Mr. Speaker.

All I will say is this — and these words will be directed,

not to the leader of the party that I just mentioned, the House

Leader of the Conservative Party in this House. I'll direct

these words to the Members of the Government backbenches. Keep

your eyes on him, backbench. Don't go to sleep, or you might

wake up to find that one of the Hon. Members in this House — who I shall not now name — has pole vaulted from the Opposition

benches to the cabinet benches in one leap.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SMITH: That, I hope, is not unparliamentary.

But surely the Hon. Premier, who is in his place now,

wouldn't stoop to playing political games like that, would he?

He wouldn't bypass one of his own backbench in the cabinet

shuffle just to gain some political advantage, would he? Would

he? Watch it. Keep a sharp watch, backbench. There is more in

this game than just watching each other. You'd better watch

some other Members on the Opposition benches. One I could name

in particular — and it doesn't happen to be myself. I'll go on

record to say that.

Now let's get to number seven on the list. I almost forgot

that number, but it's a good number I think. That's the NDP

faithful; the ones who worked hard in the hope that something

would be left on the table for them.

Well, hordes, don't despair. At this particular moment

you're not really a high priority, if I may borrow the

favourite saying of the Premier — not a

[ Page 638 ]

high priority. In fact, if you agree with my calculations,

"Big Daddy" may have something in mind, even if he's not

prepared to say what it is today.

I did want to speak for a few moments on agricultural

matters but I see the Minister is out of the House so I will

save those until he returns.

MRS. JORDAN: He may be quite a long time.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about one of the most

important departments of government and the fact that it must

be operated presently by a part-time Minister. I refer to the

Department of Recreation and Conservation. We realize its

importance because the budget shows a $3 million increase and

I'll applaud that, although why the Hon. Premier dumped this

additional portfolio into the lap of the Minister of Lands,

Forests, and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams) is a mystery

to me.

Certainly all of us who have been in this House for any

length of time know that the Ministry of Lands, Forests, and

Water Resources is a very heavy portfolio in itself. Some

people would say it is almost three major portfolios in one.

Why the Recreation and Conservation portfolio was placed in the

hands of that Minister to add another burden on him is

something that I question as an unwise decision. It makes one

wonder if the Hon. Premier in setting up his cabinet had some

negative attitudes with respect to recreation and

conservation.

I know that sportsmen and fishermen and conservationists will applaud the budget

increase but I suggest to the Government that they will not long remain silent

if they do not receive a full-time cabinet Minister in that portfolio in a short

period of time,

MR. CHABOT: He's against it. The Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan)

is against it.

MR. SMITH: Are you against that, Hon. Minister of

Highways?

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Highways): I'll speak

tomorrow.

MR. SMITH: Do not and I repeat do not underestimate the

importance of this department, particularly when you equate the

responsibility for the preservation of our flora and fauna with

this department. Today high salaries, more free time and good

methods of transportation allow ever increasing numbers of

people to participate in outdoor activities. The department

will have to run just to keep even with the demand for its

services. I believe that before long when the changes are made

in the cabinet the Minister responsible, the Hon. Premier, will

see that the Department of Recreation and Conservation does

receive the services of a full-time cabinet Minister.

If I may, I would like to turn to a matter concerning

highways. The increased allocation for highways is welcome

news, particularly as we have a large number of unresolved

highway problems in the Peace-Liard region. I am hopeful,

therefore, that the Minister will have a little chat with his

colleague who is sitting behind him, the Hon. Minister without

Portfolio (Hon. Mr. Calder) and ask the Hon. Minister without

Portfolio not to be quite so parochial in his approach these

days. That Hon. Minister, who has spoken strongly in support of

the Alaska Highway and the upgrading of it — not knocking

it.

Over the years, the Hon. Minister without Portfolio has

consistently advocated northern development in this House, not

only for his own riding but for all northern B.C. Certainly the

Alaska Highway is part of northern B.C. He mentioned, when he

was speaking in debate in this House, that the Stewart-Cassiar

road was finished and that perhaps we should forget about

paving the Alaska Highway.

I would hope that the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr.

Strachan) is neither floating a balloon or listening to that

advice. Just this year, after 20 years of fighting with the

federal authorities and almost everyone else, a bill was

introduced in the House of Commons on January 15 — a bill

called C-18,

An Act to provide for the Establishment of the

Alaska-Yukon Highway Authority .

I would like to quote just a few passages from this bill

because it is important to all of us in British Columbia. It is

important to all of Canada. It is important to the United

States. It's important to Alaska and the Yukon.

"Under the

definitions, 'highway' means that part of the

Alaska-Yukon Highway prior to this enactment known as the

Alaska Highway, and described as extending from mile 83

in the province of British Columbia to Whitehorse in the Yukon

Territory."

I would like now to turn to the objects and duties outlined

in the bill:

"The objects of the Authority are to construct, reconstruct,

improve, extend and maintain the highway. The Authority has the

management, regulation and control of the highway. The highway

is hereby declared to be for the general advantage of Canada,

and any work or undertaking necessary or incidental to an

object of the Authority is a work or undertaking for the

general advantage of Canada."

I say "amen" to that, because for many, many years those of

us in the north and even the British Columbia and the Canadian

Chamber of Commerce have backed the idea that the Alaska

Highway should be upgraded, improved and paved.

I sometimes wonder when I hear a statement concerning

northern development, if the statement is being made to try to

get a message across to the

[ Page 639 ]

Members of the Opposition, and if it's perhaps a little

kite-flying to suggest a change in policy, a change in

direction with regard to northern development.

Frankly, Mr. Speaker, it worries me but time will tell,

particularly, Mr. Speaker, if and when I see an answer on the

order paper to question number 179 that stands in my name with

respect to the construction of a highway from Fort Nelson to

connect with the Fort Simpson road at the northern boundary of

British Columbia, generally referred to as the Fort Nelson–Fort

Simpson road. When that question is answered by the Minister of

Highways, I think that will be a good indication to all of us — we will all know what the position of the socialist Government

really is on northern development.

One thing is positive in my mind. The present socialist

Government in less than six months has managed to retard if not

outright scuttle almost all of the northern development

programmes initiated by the former administration.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SMITH: It's read into the record now, Mr. Minister. I

think if you wish to look at the record beyond today, you will

find it.

Certainly what we have heard in the way of policy

announcements from the Ministers of the Crown, and the things

that we have read in the Press and newspapers in releases that

have been made by Ministers of the Crown, gives us all reason

to be very apprehensive as to what really is the plan for the

future of British Columbia.

I see the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) has

returned, and therefore I would like to deal with a few

problems that come under his jurisdiction.

Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder)

while addressing this chamber referred to the fact that there

was apprehension on the flood plains of Chilliwack. Well, Mr.

Speaker, it is not apprehension in the Peace River country, it

is a four bell fire alarm — an alarm brought on by a

combination of circumstances which to a large degree the

present Government chooses to ignore, perhaps in the hope that

the problems will go away. Well, they won't go away, Mr.

Minister, and I have no intention of allowing the socialist

Government to push them under a rug.

Both the Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips)

and myself have spoken on the devastating 1972 crop losses. The

provincial and federal governments made token contributions to

farmers, but that's all it was — a token.

Somebody down the line says very faintly, "$1 million." There are 1,600 farm

units in danger of being wiped out, and what kind of assistance was forthcoming?

An average payment of $800 per farm unit. Nothing at all for cattle ranchers.

Nothing at all for the vegetable farmers who lost everything in the Taylor area

through a disastrous hail storm.

It is very clear that in the eyes of this Government, what

happens to a farmer in the Peace River country is

an act of

God, therefore his tough luck; but what happens to a farmer in

Surrey in a provincial disaster, therefore the person involved

should be compensated accordingly.

The Premier is not here…I see, I'm sorry; he is

here.

As Minister of Finance, he clearly demonstrated, when

answering question 180 on the order paper, how well the

Government is prepared to look after their own.

Let's take a look at the answer to that question — it refers

to crop losses in the Surrey Area:

Total compensation paid to farmers who suffered crop damage

in that particular area through flood: $413,662.29. Average

compensation paid per acre: $277.44.

Average compensation paid per acre to farmers in the Peace

River country who suffered an equally devastating loss,

including both provincial and federal contributions: $3.75 per

acre. To the farmers in the Peace River country: $3.75 per

acre.

Let me bring to the attention of the Minister a few excerpts

from letters I have received from people in that area. This

farmer says: "In my opinion, this has been a major disaster and

should be treated as such by your government."

This was a letter to the Hon. Premier and to the Hon.

Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) with copies to

myself:

"Speaking as one of the farmers involved, I think that the

proposed payments come very close to being an insult to Canadian farmers in

general. This impression is heightened when we consider the millions in aid

that our country justifiably sends in other parts of the world. I believe that

you must consider this a much greater and massive programme because there will

be no money to plant the 1973 crop. To leave these thousands of acres unplanted

will not only be a great hardship to our own people but would be almost a criminal

offense to all others considering the shortage of food in the world."

I have a number of other letters. As a matter of fact, I

have a basket full of letters, but I'd like to go to one letter

in particular because I think this best exemplifies the

position of people who are in the farming industry who are no

longer young in years:

"Referring to crop loss and assistance, I would like to

supply you with the following info: Due to crop damage failure

of 100 per cent and very poor prices of past years, I have

reached the end of the line. We don't know how to carry on. For

last year's crop I borrowed $1,150 at the bank; at the

[ Page 640 ]

wheat pool, $800 for fertilizer adding 10 per cent interest;

at the Co-op for fuel and miscellaneous, $400 adding 12 per cent interest. As

you see, I have exhausted all my credit. With no seed at hand, what is a man

going to do next year? I am 51 years old and have arthritis in both legs, so

work for me would be very hard to find with none around anyway. A man can't

just walk away from it with no future to go to."

That man is a gentleman that has farmed in the Cecil Lake area for many, many

years. I have another letter from a farmer in the Farmington area who lists

his outstanding indebtedness to the farm corporation for land payments, for

fuel oil and repairs, for taxes, for fertilizer and so on. He has $9,600 of

current liabilities on last year's crop and he never harvested a bushel. Never

harvested a bushel.

Another letter:

"I am now overdue on my farm credit payment which is $980.

I owe $300 for fertilizer and about $800 for fuel. Part of my 1972 land tax

has not yet been paid. In addition, I have a machinery payment for $2,500 due

at the beginning of June. Land taxes for 1973 will be due before I can expect

any income from my 1973 crop. In order to seed and harvest this crop, I'm going

to need at least $500 for fuel, $300 for fertilizer, $200 or more for seed,

as well as some money for miscellaneous repairs and something to live on for

myself and my family."

These people, Mr. Speaker, are putting their case to the

government of this province as plainly as they can. They have

said, if they were the type of people to say so, that they've

received tin cup treatment in the settlement of a disaster.

We've heard that statement before in this House and I don't

think that it's unparliamentary. "Tin Cup treatment,"

when their losses run somewhere in the neighbourhood of $15

million.

Mr. Speaker, the farmers of the Peace country would want me

to say to the Hon. Premier, "We are hard working people,

unaccustomed to asking for help. But today a crisis is upon us

and we need help. Don't discount the situation or think that

Peace River farmers will accept being treated as second class

citizens. We look at the crop losses in Surrey — payments of

$277.44 per acre out of the disaster fund; $3.75 per acre for a

similar disaster in the Peace River country; none for the

vegetable farmers in Taylor; nothing for the cattle

ranchers."

It would be different, Mr. Speaker, if the province did not

have at their disposal funds to draw on. But they have a

disaster fund that was set up to help people in these types of

emergencies. Certainly it's not bankrupt.

If the Hon. Premier is having trouble finding funds, perhaps

he would give consideration to using a few of the 24 millions of dollars he's going to put in his

hip pocket as a result of federal raise in old age pensions. If

that $24 million is not going to be passed on to the old age

pensioners, at least provide enough financial assistance to

the farmers of the Peace River country so that they can get

back into the business of farming on a basis that they can work

out themselves. All they need at this time, if they get fair conditions in

1973, is someone to bankroll them between now and the time

their crops come off in the fall of 1973, partly as a grant and

maybe partly as a loan, as long as there was no interest

involved or very low interest.

But they need that support and they need it now. They can't

wait for the government to play with the problem for the next

six months, two months, eight months or a year. Their situation

has never been worse, and I'm appealing on the floor of this

House to the Hon. Premier who is in charge of the disaster

fund, and to the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) to

get their heads together and help overcome a disaster the like

of which we have never seen in the Peace River country in the

past and, hopefully, we will never see again in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that the NDP are embarked upon a

socialistic programme — and they'll applaud that I would think — which, if allowed, will destroy this province. Regardless of

how long or how hard the Hon. Premier, the Hon. Provincial

Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) or any other cabinet Minister try to

suggest differently, try to whitewash the issues, try to throw

up smoke screens, the facts speak for themselves.

I call today on all people who do not subscribe to total

state control, who do not wish to be engulfed by the red tide

of state socialism, to take heed of what I am about to say. I

was never more convinced of what I am about to say than after

listening to the Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams) this afternoon. So far, all we

are able to detect is the tip of the iceberg. But let no one

forget the Titanic, one of the worst ocean disasters in

history. Yet the experts said it could never happen.

This budget — supposedly a people's budget, with great

emphasis on the rights of the individual — is purposely

designed, in my opinion, to overestimate expenditures and

underestimate revenues…

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Well, that's never

happened before!

MR. SMITH: …as a first step in the socialist doctrine of

government monopoly and control.

The idea of creating surpluses is not new, my friend. In many respects, it

was perfected by the former Hon. Premier of this province, but with one basic

and fundamental difference. The surpluses of the former Minister of Finance

had a two-fold

[ Page 641 ]

purpose: first, to be used to stimulate employment through government-sponsored

projects in times of high unemployment — and we're in that particular position

today, with the highest rate of unemployment in Canada — over 10 per cent…

MR. LAUK: Say that with a straight face.

MR. SMITH: I do say it with a straight face, my friend.

… and secondly, to create perpetual funds from which the

annual interest earnings could be used to financially assist

worthwhile community projects. Funds were set up so that the

benefits would accrue annually in perpetuity, the capital to be

invested in schools and hospital bonds. This was the policy of

the former administration. Where could you find a more

worthwhile objective?

I am convinced that the objective of the present Government

that will intentionally create surplus revenue is far more

subtle and far more dangerous. That revenue will be intercepted

and diverted to finance a series of Crown corporations and

agencies — a socialist ploy that will effectively eliminate

individual enterprise in the Province of British Columbia.

You have a right to ask on what evidence do I base my

opinion. Let's look at it: creation this session of the largest

insurance monopoly in Canada, with a captive market at the

Government's beck and call — and that's being applauded by the

Members of the Government benches; the announced policy through

your backbench to enter into almost every type of business

included in the Manitoba Manifesto. And for the uninformed who

have forgotten the game plan, let me refresh your memories:

establishment of a banking system owned by the Crown; a Crown

holding corporation which would own the bank and would own a

large number of Crown corporations.

HON. MR. COCKE: The Socreds tried that one.

MR. SMITH: A development corporation to loan funds to new

Crown corporations. The Crown holding corporation would set up

Crown corporations in every kind of business where profits can

be earned. The greater the profit, the more justification for

the corporation. Are you beginning to see the light?

In the primary sector, top priority includes mining, logging

and the petroleum business. Are the public beginning to see the

light? In the manufacturing sector, reference is made to canned

foods, pharmaceuticals, drug sundries, glass and automotive

windshields, even laundry detergents and baby foods. Are you

beginning to see the light, my friends? In the service

industry; life insurance; fire and casualty insurance;

retailing of all kinds; the tourist business; the hunting,

fishing, guiding business; the hotel business; the used car

business.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SMITH: I would hope the people of British Columbia have

begun to see the light.

Mr. Speaker, before taking my place, I wish to make one

final point. I wish to make it perfectly clear I do not support

this budget. Those of us in the official Opposition are not

socialists. Neither are we capitalists. But we are a group of

people dedicated to preserving a way of life that includes

respect for individual rights and the dignity of man. Let no

one be deceived, in this chamber or outside it. We will go to

the gates of Hell and back to preserve that way of life.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr.

Speaker, we've had almost a month debating either the budget or

the throne speech. Tomorrow, presumably, we'll be voting on it.

Perhaps it's best to sum up where we are and what we've

done.

The budget, as mentioned by my Hon. friend, the First Member

for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer), falls into two parts.

The first part goes up to page 7, and it's basically a throne

speech. It's throne speech material, probably put in there

because of the lack of content of the real throne speech, which

allegedly was read on January 25. It's interesting.

The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett), Mr. Speaker,

read out, "The budget is a vital document and it reflects the

Government's policies and allows citizens an opportunity to

judge the success or failure of the Government in carrying

through the programmes upon which it was elected." Not on

whether or not it was good at following previous budgetary

practices, but on whether it is good at following its own

policies upon which it was elected.

I have here a policy platform. It's called the

Democrat , actually the September issue although I

understand it was printed up prior to the election. It is the

NDP platform. It talks first of the need for employment, new

developments for British Columbians. Well, we've seen what's

happened to employment in this province in the last four or

five months.

It goes on to talk about an economy for people and the need

for secondary industry. Yet to date, Mr. Speaker, we haven't

had much on that line either. It goes on to say that the NDP

will also establish a department of economic development,

establish a British Columbia development corporation, examine

the best means of assisting small businessmen, establish a

provincial transportation authority, and on it goes.

It talks about a new deal for farmers. Well, they've

[ Page 642 ]

had a new deal. I'm wondering whether they like it very

much. We will, of course, be discussing the legislation on farm

takeover at a later date. It talks about the need to take

school taxes off the family farm, the need to take succession

duties off farmland, to establish a farm machinery depot and

encourage consumers to buy B.C. products. Well, I don't think,

Mr. Speaker, that the farmers are altogether happy at the

moment with the over-all impact of NDP policies.

Next page, there's an end to the labour-management crisis.

There's a picture of three chairs — empty. The NDP believes that

conflict in industrial relations can be reduced and that labour

and management representatives can be brought back to the

bargaining table. Well, we've recently had a three-man

commission established, excellent people no doubt. But I wonder

whether they really do cover management, labour and presumably

Government as a third party.

AN HON. MEMBER: Labour's chair is still in.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I question whether or not there has been

success in that area, where you have excellent gentlemen no

doubt. But are they representative of the three parties to any

labour conflict or controversy?

It goes on under the same heading to say that an NDP

Government will immediately raise the minimum wage to $2.50 an

hour. That, of course has been abandoned already and we can

leave it.

We next come to equal opportunity for women. Of course, I'll

pass over this quickly because of the splendid tribute paid

yesterday to the Premier when he won the male chauvinist piglet

award. I think it might be embarrassing if we spoke at length

on this. He does look embarrassed. "Equal opportunity for

women" is the headline. It's all great stuff but yesterday,

apparently, or the day before — I forget which it was — he won

the award as the male chauvinist of the year in the political

arena.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): He's come a long way.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Perhaps it's backwards, I believe, Ms.

Brown.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The Hon. Second Member for

Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) mentions that the Premier has

come a long way. Indeed he has. I only suspect that it's

backwards at the moment. He must, I think, again start checking

his campaign propaganda and compare it to performance.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, the Premier asks whether

someone will instruct him. I think that in actual fact, if I

can depart from my speech for a moment, I will say he's had

better advice from the ladies of the backbench, the Ms.'s and

the Mrs.'s, than he's had from the males. We genuinely feel

that the Hon. Member….

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I'd better stop while I am ahead. Right.

O.K., but we have — just as an aside we would like to say that

the speech of the Hon. lady Member was very interesting.

MR. LAUK: Where are the women in your province?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: We come next to a new deal for cities.

Well, the budget came out, and one unanimous view of the

municipal leaders was one of disappointment; disappointment

because the increases were slight and did not take into account

the inflation that had taken place over the last few years — although they were pleased by taking off the restrictions on

where the money could be spent.

But they did feel that the increases should have been a

great deal better. Under the NDP Government it went on to say

only services to property will be paid from taxes on property.

It is the very point upon which of course the municipal

leaders, including the Hon. Member for Saanich and the Islands

(Mr. Curtis), at the moment, set up such a howl because they

were expecting better on the basis of the NDP policy.

It goes on to say that land is a basic natural resource, not

a commodity to be bought and sold. Despite activities of

Members of, no doubt, all sides of the House prior to the

election, currently only the farmers have been caught in the

bind at the moment.

Establish a rental review board — again not done. Immediate

steps: the NDP Government will establish a provincial

department of environmental quality and planning. Months have

gone by, we are waiting for it.

Develop a comprehensive programme for recycling of waste

products: where, Mr. Speaker, is that?

Establish a migratory salmon river authority to manage

resources along our rivers: we would be interested to see

it. Education crisis is talked about and it talked about the

homeowners' already heavy taxes. Well of course the result of

taking off the 6.5 per cent freeze, whether or not that was

desirable, will be to increase the tax revenue that the

municipalities must try and raise from their own homeowners in

their own community. Again a campaign promise unfulfilled.

We are waiting as well for the commission on higher

education. We go on to other areas —

[ Page 643 ]

protection for the individual, citizens' rights, appointment

of a provincial ombudsman, pass a Crown proceedings Act,

develop comprehensive legal aid. None of these things I feel,

Mr. Speaker, have been attempted.

It goes on to say under consumer protection that the

Consumer Affairs Branch of the provincial government will be

strengthened by increasing its staff and by establishing

regional Consumer Affairs Branches throughout the province.

There is to be a prices review board.

That is a cursory examination of the NDP political policy

statement during the election. I think that perhaps the Premier

is right in the second paragraph of his budget speech to

suggest that that is the thing that his budget should be judged

against. I think when that is the case it will be judged by

many people who supported the NDP — perhaps some indeed in this

room — and found to be wanting.

I read on from the budget speech, third paragraph: "the

rights of the individual are supreme." Well that is an

interesting statement. I wonder whether our consistent use of

order-in-council legislation; whether our farm policies this

House has been considering; whether this type of thing is

really defending the rights of the individual and making them

supreme.

Perhaps it is better if we assume there is a need to

preserve farmland. But it seems to fly in the face of making

the rights of individuals supreme. Perhaps society has other

views, but the rights of individuals apparently are not supreme

by this Government.

We go on from there: favouring partnership arrangements

between industry, government and employees rather than

subsidies and loans to industry. I raise that, and I will speak

if the Premier is in the room — and I thank him for his

courtesy in attending. I will just discuss this for a

moment.

We have here a statement that subsidies are not the vehicle

the provincial Government thinks should be used to subsidize

industries and therefore presumably employment. Yet a short

time ago in this House we were debating the question of

unemployment in the province which has reached shocking

proportions — proportions which I think, and other members of

the Opposition felt, were really of crisis nature.

Since then of course it has gone up again. At that time we

were looking at figures which put B.C. up 16,000 in a month

while the other region of the country, the one other region of

the country that had an increase, the Prairies — of course it

has two NDP governments as well — went up 5,000.

Quebec went down, Ontario went down, the Maritimes went down. But B.C. goes

up 16,000 — a shocking figure. We had a debate by the Premier, or at least we

tried to have a debate, on the question of unemployment. The Premier simply

came in and announced that shipbuilding was the clue and ship subsidies were

the answer and the federal government, of course, was entirely responsible.

Well, at this stage, if I can find the bits and pieces of my

speech, I would like to quote from the report on business of

the Toronto Globe and Mail of Thursday, February 15. It

is by Albert Sigurdson. "Shipping. Recent prosperity is

continuing for most British Columbia shipbuilders and prospects

are good for at least the next year, according to a survey of

operators."

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: No, it's not Hacking's column. It is

Albert Sigurdson's column from the Globe and Mail

business page.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, if you wish I will deal with one or

the other. Burrard Yarrow sales, he goes on to say, were about

$16 million last year, projected to reach about $40

million.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, but Burrard Yarrows, it says here,

are $16 million and projected to reach about $40 million in

1973, "according to J.W. Hudson." It may be that he has been

misquoted as the Premier suggests. I don't know.

But perhaps then if that is the case, Mr. Speaker, if that

particular example…there may be some question of some

dollars here or some dollars there. I will quote from other

shipyards in British Columbia.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, Mr. Hudson may well have been, Mr.

Premier. I was not aware of that but it does….

HON. MR. BARRETT: You could have phoned.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: If I am to phone every company listed in

this….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please. Would you address the Chair?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, I will go on as the

Premier evidently finds this….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yarrows is completing two deep sea tugs

and an $8.6 million order from

[ Page 644 ]

Amerada-Hess Corporation of New York, overseas buyers under

the federal subsidy.

The two yards are sharing a $10 million order from Northern

Transportation Company Ltd. Employment at the two locations

total 1,750 — quote, "triple what it was a few months ago."

Then we go on: "I am sort of optimistic" — this is a quote

from Mr. Hudson. Perhaps he changed his mind when he spoke to

the Premier. "We are making surveys of our situation now for

the various improvements to the yards." We go on: North

Vancouver…there is the Allied Shipbuilders, building for a

London firm, a London firm by the name of International

Offshore Services…which I believe is a subsidiary of P

& O.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order please.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. McLaren, the president of Allied

Shipbuilders said, "we are employing twice the number we did a

year ago. We are at 300 now and we have been working three

shifts since the first of the year."

Vancouver Shipyards, a subsidiary…et cetera. Mr. Gadsby

says they are making a laboratory for the department of the

environment. "We are particularly short of skilled tradesmen,

particularly platers. But all the local shipyards are feeling

the same thing."

Bel-Air Shipyards of North Vancouver is working on a $5

million order. The order is for Christiansen Canadian

Enterprises of Halifax. Apparently we are capable now of

selling in the east. We are also completing work on tugs for

Northern Transportation on the Mackenzie River.

B.C. Maritime Shipbuilders of Vancouver, the yard now

employing 150, "double a year ago," is working on a — unfortunately the Minister is not here — working on a $700,000

order from the British Columbia Department of Highways. "In the

wind is a $1.5 million order from an Edmonton based company for

a 102-ft. tug for use on the Mackenzie River.

"In New Westminster, Associated John Manly Ltd. is working

on about $2 million in orders — three tugs and two barges."

Affiliated Western Propeller, which shares New Westminster

quarters with Westminster Tug — quote, "is very busy because of

the general high level of work in B.C. shipyards. We are making

most of the propellers."

Another New Westminster Shipyard got its share of work but

didn't fare so well. Starr Shipyards went into receivership in

December and the reason given here is inexperienced management.

But owners have taken over and, you know, that company is

building for a Quebec outfit, known as Quebec Cartier Mining

Company. This is interesting again that we are capable of

selling and competing in Quebec.

Well, that's a list of how the shipyards are faring in B.C.

I agree that there is a possibility of increasing shipyard

construction and also, of course, increasing shipping in B.C. I

don't deny the Premier the suggestion which is a good one.

But it did nothing, Mr. Speaker, in terms of improving the

job situation between November and December. It did nothing to

explain 16,000 extra people unemployed — that jump there, or

the subsequent one. It did nothing at all. It was simply a red

herring which was dragged across into this debate and I feel it

is most unfortunate.

The

article to which the Premier referred, is by Norman

Hacking of a couple of days ago in the Vancouver

Province . Norman Hacking is generally a very reliable

reporter. I obviously have been reading a great deal of

shipping columns and I found him to be very good. He goes on to

describe why it would take a subsidy of approximately $1

million a job to create jobs in the shipping industry.

He talks of the difficulty of getting people to man these

ships. He said most British ships now have Chinese crews or

Indian crews. Dutch ships recruit their crews in Indonesia.

He goes on to say: "Few of our boys want to go to sea any

more."

Well, it's easy enough for the Premier to simply say he has

found one person of all these companies listed and, let's face

it, I have heard an awful lot from the same chap over the years

when I was a federal Member. He is just not exactly a man who

see the bright side of any picture.

Perhaps it is possible for the Premier to find one of these

people to indicate that Mr. Hacking wasn't 100 per cent

accurate or that Mr. Sigurdson misquoted him. But that's pretty

thin when we deal with the list of orders that are in there and

the fact that there is substantial activity.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to go on and say that I

received a copy of a letter from Vancouver shipyards. The

letter was dated February 16, sent to the Premier, copies to

myself, Mr. Derril Warren and Mr. W.A.C. Bennett. It goes on to

say, after endorsing the Premier's view, "I must point out that

the direct effect of your proposed change, as outlined in Bill

No. 69, of the Social Services Tax Act will be to reduce

the present federal subsidy from 17 per cent to 12 per cent on

all barges, derricks, dredges or, in fact, any type of

non-self-propelled vessel over 500 tons."

So on the one hand we have shipping and shipbuilding listed

as the great cure for unemployment, and the debate was on

unemployment or should have been on unemployment. Then we have

actions by the Government to reduce the effectiveness of

federal measures already taken to stimulate shipping in this

province. That type of contradiction, I think, is most

unfortunate and I suggest that in

[ Page 645 ]

future we are going to have a great deal more precision by

the Premier when discussing issues such as unemployment or

anything else.

It is easy, and let us admit it here — we all know it — it

is easy for him to drag a red herring across the trail and to

turn a debate on to any subject of his choosing. What he says

is news and, therefore, a realistic debate on unemployment

naturally fails to succeed. We don't think it is the right

thing to do and we think it is a type of device which is going

to have to be abandoned by the Hon. Premier, Mr. Speaker, if he

really intends to take his job seriously.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Is he saying, "Naughty, naughty"?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I'll go on to another subject which is

much the same, in terms of action by this Premier.

I refer to the actions of the Premier, Mr. Speaker, who

after visiting his friend in Washington State 13 months ago,

comes back the first time and states that there is no chance of

stopping the Alaska pipeline or the tankers along our coast — the decision is irrevocable, the decision is made. That was 13

months ago.

He has another occasion to see his friend, Mr. Evans, and

Mr. Evans again persuades the Premier that it is inevitable. So

we have another statement damaging to the efforts of people who

are opposing this line, damaging to our fund-raising efforts,

damaging to our efforts to keep the spark of hope alive that

we, through legal means, could do things. He comes back again

from Olympia and makes the same statement.

I am glad the Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) is in

the room because he also fell into the same error of assuming

that those of us who didn't have as much money as our opponents

would be unable to win in the American courts.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: We've won, Mr. Attorney General; in the

courts we have done extremely well.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: When I need a lesson from the Attorney

General on real politics in Washington, I'll ask him for

it.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): His record in court

is better than yours….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: In any event, we now have a complete reversal of

policy and, unfortunately, I was unable to comment upon this last week when

the statement came out that the Premier intended to visit Washington, D.C. We

had a complete reversal of policy.

What was inevitable before suddenly became something which

the Premier wished to associate his office with and his person

with. So then he decides he is going to rush off to Washington.

He phones and claims that 24 hours later the call will come

back. Well, we waited for a week and we are still waiting for

the call. We have in today's paper the report of the Prime

Minister's telegram indicating that to straighten out the phone

lines and things the Canadian embassy has been requested to

arrange a meeting.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: True, that may well be,

MR. McGEER: What about the President's assistant. Couldn't he call back?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. D. A. ANDERSON: I was unaware of a phone call….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member please address the Chair.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, we have now this reversal of

policy. If the Premier wishes to comment upon conversations he

has had with federal cabinet Ministers, of which I know nothing — I am not a Member of this Government of the Province of

British Columbia.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You're the one that's supposed to clue me

on what's happening. Now you know nothing. Make up your

mind.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (Vancouver–Howe Sound): Go out in the

corridor and have a Press conference.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: We have had this reversal of policy

whereby the Premier has turned around and decided that, no, he

was wrong for 13 months. It is not inevitable, there may be

something I can do. So his intention is, apparently, to go off

to Washington and register the protest of the British Columbia

government.

Well, that's fine, except the time for that has long since

passed. We have had protests from the Canadian government, from

Sharp. We have had discussions between Nixon and Trudeau. We

have had many indications, Mr. Speaker, that they have heard

our views and rejected our views.

[ Page 646 ]

They even take us to court. I have here the decision of the

United States Court of Appeals. On the one side we have

ourselves, the people trying to obstruct this pipeline or

prevent its construction; on the other we have two U.S. cabinet

Ministers, Rogers Morton and Earl Butz, Secretary of the

Interior and Secretary of Agriculture, and we have the State of

Alaska, another of the friends of our Premier.

Now, I will send a copy of this over to him; I don't have

very many of them, but here is the decision of the Court of

Appeals. It runs to many pages and I think it might be useful

to read it.

It might be useful to read it because when our Premier goes

to Washington, Mr. Speaker, he is going to have a few rough

decisions and I think he should know about them. As I have

requested a meeting with him over a month ago and have failed

to get a response or a time to have that meeting, I will tell

him now as he happens to be in the room.

If our Premier goes to Washington and is told, "Well, thank

you for your views," and he is shown the door, you can

be quite sure that is pro forma and of little value except to

the Americans who will use it to indicate division between

federal and provincial governments.

If he goes, however, and they take him at all seriously, he

is going to be faced with questions because the time has passed

simply to record objections. That has been done — more than six

months ago, more than a year ago. This is why we have found

ourselves for more than a year in the courts. The time for

objections was basically in January of 1971 when the testimony

was taken by the Interior department and then later by the

federal government at the diplomatic level. So assume, Mr.

Speaker, that they take him seriously and they are going to ask

him questions.

The question is going to be: "Mr. Premier, what are you

going to give in return for us not having oil tankers down your

coasts?"

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, the level of the flippant remarks

on the other side indicate that they haven't spent much time

thinking about it.

The question is going to be: "Do you, or do you not, support

a Mackenzie Valley pipeline?"

The question is going to be: "Do you, or do you not, wish to

have that Mackenzie Valley pipeline, as the federal government

would like, 51 per cent Canadian-owned?"

The questions are going to be along the lines of, "How about

control of that pipeline?"

They are going to be questions such as, "In the interim, before that pipeline

is built, will you be willing to allow, or will you lend your support to the

concept of having Canadian resources — oil, gas, electricity — go south so the

Americans have time in which to build a Canadian pipeline?"

These are fairly decisive questions; I mention them in all

seriousness. It is easy for some of your Ministers, Mr.

Premier, through you, Mr. Speaker, to be flippant about this,

but that is the type of deal we are at now. Basically, you play

your cards that you've got, you are willing to trade, you are

willing to gamble, you are willing to play poker. Or you might

as well just go home.

HON. MR. BARRETT: This issue is far too serious to play

poker….

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, it suddenly becomes serious a week

ago. The Premier didn't even think that there was any point in

doing anything about it — it was inevitable.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. McGEER: You help him. He's the one that needs help.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. McGEER: He's the one that's trying to turn a political

show into….

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I have followed this for

some time and I know what level we're at now. We are no longer

at the level where protests are registered and that's that.

We are now at the level where, if we want to prevent those

tankers, we are going to have to offer something in return. It

may be simple for us here and for stupid remarks to be made by

backbenchers when I bring this matter up, but it is a real fact

of life.

If they take you seriously, Mr. Speaker, and through you to

the Premier, they are going to ask what are you willing to do.

I don't know what the answers will be but there had better be

some answers otherwise the chances of putting off a west coast

line are forever gone.

In the judgment, which I will send to the Premier, there is

a dissenting view on one aspect of the case — a dissenting view

which is very interesting. It indicates some of the problems we

are faced with in the United States. I urge the Pre