1975 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 12, 1975

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

565 ]

CONTENTS

Water Facilities Assistance Act (Bill 36). Mr. D'Arcy.

Introduction and first reading — 566

Oral Questions

Provincial unemployment figures. Mr. Bennett — 566

Education department blacklist. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 567

Proposed steel mill location. Mrs. Jordan — 567

Replacement of Mr. Hempsall on steel committee. Mr. Chabot — 568

Priority areas for industrial growth. Mr. Phillips — 568

Ferry workers' pay differential. Mr. Gibson — 568

Details of industrial development. Mr. Smith — 568

Legality of Daon Corp. ad. Hon. Ms. Young answers — 569

Surrey refinery and/or petrochemical complex. Mr. McClelland — 569

Budget debate Hon

Mr. Stupich — 569

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 12, 1975

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, we have

with us today Bernice Wong, this year's Easter Seal Tammy for

Vancouver Island. She's an old hospital veteran at the age of

12. She was born with a disability called spina bifida which

paralyzes her from the waist down. In her few short years she

has had approximately 10 operations. She has been at the G.R.

Pearkes Clinic since 1967 and prior to that at Queen Alexandra

Solarium. She is a grade 6 student.

Tammy is the symbolic name used for all crippled children.

Her mother and father are Mr. and Mrs. Bill Wong, who own and

operate a grocery store in Victoria. She is the youngest of

four children.

Accompanying Tammy are her mother, Mrs. Bernice Wong, and

Mr. Al Hayman, who has been a member of the Victoria Empress

Lions Club for the past six years. He acted as president of

this club for three years. He has been Easter Seal chairman for

the past two years. He is affiliated with the Pollution Control

Board. Also along with that group is Mr. Jack Smith of the

Esquimalt Lions.

I'd ask the House to welcome with me Tammy and those

accompanying her.

Mr. Speaker, while I'm on my feet I'd also like to welcome

53 people from New Westminster, who come on a yearly jaunt to

Victoria to monitor what happens in the House that should have

been their House, rightfully, they feel. It is their House from

a distance, but they feel that it should have been there. Mr.

Speaker, would you welcome 53 people from New Westminster?

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

welcome some students who have even a prior claim on this

House: Charles Larson, student association president, and David

Adams, sophomore class president, along with Linda Bergen, Mike

Wuflestad, Fran Stevens, John Terpstra and Wes Giesbrecht, all

of the political science class at Trinity Western College,

located in B.C.'s first capital, Fort Langley.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Please be assured, Mr.

Speaker, that I speak on behalf of the present capital.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I think I just recognized the Hon. Member

for Vancouver South.

MRS. D. WEBSTER (Vancouver South): This is one time when the women have

priority. Thank you, Mr. Second Member for Victoria.

Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate it if this assembly would

welcome 30 grade 11 and 12 students from Sir Winston Churchill

Secondary School in Vancouver South. They're here with their

teacher, Mr. Ian Harrison. At present they are not in the

gallery because the gallery is too crowded, but they will be

here later on this afternoon.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: On behalf of the capital city of British

Columbia, which will remain the capital city of British

Columbia, I'd like to undertake the pleasant duty of

introducing Gus MacFarlane, Member of Parliament for Hamilton

Mountain. He has been involved in teaching in Canada and, as a

sports coach, took the British Columbia basketball team to

Yugoslavia in 1970. He was the dean of men at McMaster, and is

now the chairman of the liaison group with the youth wing of

the Liberal caucus in Ottawa.

I should add, Mr. Speaker, that in his early years he was a

close friend of Mr. M.J. Coldwell who roomed at his parents'

home in Ottawa. He says he became a Liberal because M.J.

Coldwell used to take the tops off the Shredded Wheat boxes to

stick in his shoes to cover the holes, thus Gus didn't get the

Buck Rogers stickers which he should have got. Thus he was

unable to get promoted from pilot to space commander in the

Buck Rogers' space odyssey, and that made him a confirmed

Liberal because he knew at once that he couldn't trust a

socialist. (Laughter.)

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Mr. Speaker, I also would like to

extend a welcome to Bernice Wong, her parents and the people

who are with her. Bernice is a personal friend of my daughter,

who is also handicapped, and Bernice and Brenda are continually

phoning back and forth.

I would like to ask all the people in the gallery and in the

House to remember that tonight is telethon night in Victoria,

and that this organization and these young people can certainly

use their support. Thank you.

MR. FX RICHTER (Boundary-Similkameen): I would like to raise

a point of privilege.

MR. SPEAKER: Would you state it, please?

MR. RICHTER: The point of privilege is a mistake in identity

of myself.

MR. SPEAKER: I find that hard to believe. (Laughter.)

MR. RICHTER: I did too, Mr. Speaker. This morning I received

a document...but I think I should preface that remark by

saying that I know

[ Page 566 ]

that I was ill back in November, and I want to thank you for

the very lovely bouquet you sent to me in the hospital on

behalf of the Legislature. It was much more than I thought I

deserved. I have been pondering in my mind since that time

really why I deserved such a beautiful bouquet.

MR. SPEAKER: Did they send you the bill?

MR. RICHTER: No, you didn't, and I thank you for not sending

it along. I wouldn't have been able to pay it anyway. But it

was such a lovely bouquet.

I received a memorandum from your office this morning,

addressed to myself, and containing two pictures. Now the two

pictures have my name on the back of them, and it is rather

confusing to me because, really, I didn't think I was that ill

in November when these pictures were taken. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: I want to find out why you are so

indignant.

MR. RICHTER: I'll send them up to you, Mr. Speaker. They

really make me feel that I was ill, if these are my pictures.

But they look unmistakably like the present Minister of

Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich). (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: I think in question period we all have to ask

the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) what is happening at

the photo branch.

MR. RICHTER: Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Your office, too!

MR. SPEAKER: And my office too, I'm afraid. I apologize to

the Hon. Member, and I apologize to the Minister of

Agriculture, too. (Laughter.)

Introduction of bills .

WATER FACILITIES ASSISTANCE ACT

On a motion by Mr. D'Arcy, Bill 36, Water Facilities

Assistance Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be

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

sitting of the House after today.

Oral questions.

MR. SPEAKER: I may point out to Hon. Members that we terminated our

question period yesterday afternoon with six minutes left. In the evening when

we returned I asked leave of the House if they wished to proceed with that six

minutes. Leave was granted but no questions were asked. Now the question is:

do we proceed on a 15-minute question period or shall leave be granted? I have

been asked by Members from the opposition whether they would be entitled to

that six minutes.

So I should put the question in any event: shall leave be

granted?

Leave not granted.

MR. SPEAKER: I hear some "noes," so we will start

with an ordinary 15-minute question period.

PROVINCIAL

UNEMPLOYMENT FIGURES

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

yesterday I asked the Minister of Economic Development if he

could give this House any information on areas of the province

that suffer a greater rate of unemployment than the present

provincial average, which is up to 107,000 people. The Minister

mentioned that he would bring these crisis areas to the House.

We'd like to ask if he has that information available

today.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): That's

your department — the Department of Doom and Gloom.

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Economic Development): I refer

the Hon. Member to the answer that I gave yesterday.

MR. BENNETT: The first answer was that you would provide the

information to the House; latterly to another question you

mentioned that you do cover it in your speech, but not this

one.

Supplementary, dealing with the same subject: in view of the

fact that there are many regions of British Columbia which are

presently suffering an unemployment rate in excess of the

provincial average, can the Minister tell the House if he has

correlated this information with studies now underway to

establish a steel mill in British Columbia?

HON. MR. LAUK: These factors, I understand, are being taken

into consideration but are not a priority in the establishment

of a steel mill, Mr. Speaker.

MR. BENNETT: A further supplemental: could the Minister then

identify those areas that are under study for a steel mill at

the present time?

HON. MR. LAUK: There are many sites throughout the province,

Mr. Speaker — in excess of 10 or 11.

[ Page 567 ]

EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

BLACKLIST

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: To the Minister of Education, Mr.

Speaker. I regret her absence last night in our continued

question period, but I would like to know, Mr. Speaker, when

the Minister first learned of the practice of the apparent

blacklist and when she ordered it to be stopped.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): I ordered the

blacklist, if you want to call it a blacklist — and I think the

terminology is questionable — the apparent list that was put

before me, to be stopped immediately it was presented to me.

That was approximately a year ago. If you want to give me

notice, I can give you the specific date.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: No, that's perfectly all right, Mr.

Speaker. Since then has the Minister had any indication of this

practice of an apparent blacklist or something similar

continuing?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: No, not after the instructions were given

through my department to all the field superintendents that we

did not condone this. There was evidence of one memo, which

could have been considered somewhat in the same light, but that

apparently was issued before the members of my department had

the opportunity to discuss the whole matter of the issuance of

such memos by field staff.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, I could ask the

Minister who indeed had the power to put a name on such a

blacklist, whether or not the name of the person who had

proposed a teacher or any other person for blacklisting was

actually on the list that she saw, and whether it's possible

for steps to be taken so that those who have been injured by

the fact that they've been unable, to obtain employment over

the years because of this blacklist could somehow get some sort

of redress, or have their names cleared, or something of that

nature, through the department at the present time.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I think you're aware that this procedure

obviously had been going on for many years before I became

Minister. As soon as it came to my attention as Minister, I had

it stopped.

As far as the actual names on the list are concerned, I think something should

be made clear here. The terminology of a "blacklist" is rather unfortunate.

Some of the names on that list, the B.C. Teachers Federation agrees, were legitimate

names that should be placed with reference to teachers who had been in breach

of contract. I think we would all acknowledge that there is a responsibility

to have certain information relative to the protection of school districts and

students extended throughout the field staff. So the so-called blacklist did

have on it the names of some people when the B.C. Teachers Federation would

not object to.

In discussions with the BCTF this morning, we have agreed

cooperatively to work out the proper guidelines for the areas

in which any written memo on any teacher should be based. I

hope that answers your question.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has indicated

it's necessary to have some sort of control relative to the

protection of school districts. How now does the field

superintendent obtain information regarding prospective

employees?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I would presume that he would do it the way any employer

would. The teacher who wants to apply for a position in the district obviously

has to give references. I'm sure that you in your own work, if you were employing

someone, would ask for those references and would inform that person that you

were checking through those references.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask a

supplementary because I have been on this subject of the so-called list. Could the Minister tell the House, in light of

the fact that two highly qualified educators are unable to

obtain employment in this province, if, when she was made aware

of the list, the names of either James Young or John Bremer

were on that list?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: No, they were not.

PROPOSED STEEL MILL LOCATION

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, this is

really a supplementary to the former question to the Minister

of Economic Development. He mentioned that there were many

sites under study for the possible steel mill in British

Columbia.

I would like to ask him if he could explain to this House

how, under his jurisdiction, he could allow at least half of

these proposed sites — vital recreational and ecological areas

in this province, and particularly the Qualicum Beach area — to

be even considered as possible sites for a steel mill in

British Columbia.

HON. MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, when the feasibility study was

announced, it was a full disclosure of the agreement; and the

technical committee established, a joint committee between the

provincial side and Nippon Kokan of Japan, was told that they

had a free hand to examine all sites that could support a steel

complex of varying sizes. That means that they use as study

examples every site

[ Page 568 ]

that could be available — but as study examples only. I have

not received a report from that committee, nor has the

government. The government is allowing them a free hand to

examine all of the sites and to obtain all of the information

so that the government can make a decision based on

information, not on guesswork.

The substantive part of the Member's question was strictly

opinion on her part with respect to the 10 or 11 or more sites

that are being examined.

MR. SPEAKER: I think it is a rule of questions that you must

not ask what advice a Minister proposes to give to the Crown,

or the government's opinion on matters of policy which have not

yet been reached.

MR. JORDAN: Is the Minister, on the basis of his statement

made just now, willing to assure this House today that he will

not allow a steel mill to go into the Qualicum area or into a

vital recreational area in this province?

HON. MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, when the information from this

committee is in, the government will analyse it and make

announcements.

MR. SPEAKER: I hope we will get away from hypothetical

questions on this subject, please.

REPLACEMENT OF MR. HEMPSALL

ON STEEL COMMITTEE

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Minister, a

supplementary regarding the steel committee. In view of the

short-notice dismissal of Mr. Hempsall, Associate Deputy

Minister of Economic Development and also an active member on

the steel study committee, what steps has the Minister taken to

replace Mr. Hempsall on this vital committee?

HON. MR. LAUK: The Deputy Minister is now actively involved

with the committee. Mr. Hempsall resigned from office in an

amicable way. The letter is on my desk. We are friends.

Further to that, Mr. Member, I think it is reprehensible

that you would say that he was dismissed in the face of what

public statements have been made.

MR. CHABOT: He was fired, and you know it.

PRIORITY AREAS FOR INDUSTRIAL GROWTH

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): The Minister has advised the

House that high unemployment will have no bearing on the location of the steel

mill. Would the Minister identify those areas of the province which have high

unemployment and would receive priority for other industries?

HON. MR. LAUK: I am not prepared to make a statement in that

regard, Mr. Speaker. We are still analyzing material as it is

coming in.

FERRY WORKERS' PAY

DIFFERENTIAL

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Speaker, a

question for the Minister of Transport and Communications. I

would ask the Minister if it is correct that under the most

recent B.C. Ferries master contract there is one category known

as "cleaner, vessels — female" with a base rate of $733 a month

and another known as "cleaner, vessels — male" with a base rate

of $778 a month. If so, what is the reason for this

discrepancy?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to

thank the Member for giving me notice of this question in

writing just before the House opened. It gave me a brief

opportunity to check for the answer to the question. I think

this is a custom which could be followed in this House with

great benefit to both sides of the House.

Yes, Mr. Member, that is correct. There is that difference

in categories. On inquiring, I am told it is due to a

difference in duties, that the duties of the female cleaners

are less onerous and less heavy than the others.

DETAILS OF

INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): My question is to the

Minister of Economic Development. I must preface it with a few

brief comments. The July 28 issue of the Daily Colonist quotes

as follows:

"Industrial development Minister Gary Lauk announced Friday

that the B.C. government is extending the thrust of northern

development to the northeastern sector of the province and will

concentrate on expanding and diversifying economic activity in

the peace River area."

Then again on February 19, 1974, speaking in debate, the

Minister said:

...the primary emphasis for industrial development will be on

three regional areas: the great northwest of this province, the Peace River–Liard,

and the Kootenay regions. In those regions, every effort will be made to provide

industrial growth on a planned and stable basis. This will be done and projects

relating to those areas will be undertaken by the development corporation and

by other agencies of government.

[ Page 569 ]

In view of the Minister's statements and the current

critical unemployment situation in the Province of British

Columbia, will, the Minister provide the House with details of

all industrial programmes presently on stream respecting the

three areas referred to on February 19, 1974, which will

provide employment opportunities?

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out that that seems to be too large

for the subject at question period. You're asking a statement

of departmental policy in question period, and that's certainly

out of order.

MR. SMITH: On what basis?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: The rule is at page 148 of Beauchesne ,

which says you must not raise a matter of policy too large to

be dealt with in the limits of an answer to a question. You're

asking for an essay.

LEGALITY OF DAON CORP. AD

HON. P.F. YOUNG (Minister of Consumer Services): Mr.

Speaker, I took as notice some days ago a question from the

Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) relative to an

advertisement placed in the newspaper by Daon Development. I

told him at that time that in my opinion the advertisement and

the offer therein contained did not come within the purview of

the Trade Practices Act. I have so confirmed that. The Act

specifically exempts real estate, securities and insurance.

MR. WALLACE: Is there any intention of the Minister to

increase legislation to encompass these areas that she has just

said are not covered by the Act?

HON. MS. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, these areas are covered by

legislation that comes within the jurisdiction of the

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald).

SURREY REFINERY AND

PETROCHEMICAL COMPLEX

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of

Mines and Petroleum Resources. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether

the Minister could tell us whether or not the government has

decided to locate a refinery or a petrochemical complex, or

both, in the Surrey area.

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): I'll

take the question as notice.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, while he's taking that question

as notice, could he tell us whether or not the government has

made up its mind yet to establish a refinery complex in British

Columbia, period?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: There is definitely no decision made in

regard to that at all yet.

MR. McCLELLAND: In a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if

the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources could tell us

whether or not studies have been started, when they'll be

tabled in this House, whether there are environmental studies,

economical studies, feasibility studies for that area, and

whether or not the government has the intention, Mr. Speaker,

of eliminating the existing refineries in the lower mainland.

If so, when will those jobs be...?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, as you know, you must ask one

question at a time.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: If I had been able to answer all those

questions I wouldn't have answered the first one the way I

did.

Orders of the day.

ON THE BUDGET

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Agriculture.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you sure you're not the Member for

Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Richter)?

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker,

that's a very interesting question to ask me at this point. I

was up in that area for a couple of days at the weekend, and a

lot of people out there are asking just who is the Member for

Boundary-Similkameen. Apparently they're rather desperate to

find somebody to represent them, with the many questions that

were put to me. But I suggested that they write to Mr. Frank

Richter and try to find out from him just who is the MLA for

Boundary- Similkameen.

Mr. Speaker, if there's any message that's clear to me and

should be clear even to the opposition and certainly clear to

the public of British Columbia about the budget that was

presented by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett), it

should be the often recurring phrase that is not included in

the budget speech itself but was often included by the Minister

in presenting his speech: "It could have been done years ago."

Minister after Minister, and issue after

[ Page 570 ]

issue, the Minister of Finance in talking about the

accomplishments of this government in its short two and a half

years, talking about the programmes that had been introduced on

behalf of the people of British Columbia, kept saying: "These

things could have been done years ago had the administration of

the day only chosen to do them." Mind you, there was some

repentance in August of 1972, just prior to August 30, when

many of these things were promised. Nevertheless, they could

have been done years ago.

Some time ago a list was prepared of some of the

accomplishments of the government. While I don't really want to

upset the opposition, I think it's worthwhile reminding

ourselves at this time as to just what some of these were.

Right at the head of the list is Autoplan. That could have

been done years ago. It has already been said in the House that

it is Canada's largest general insurance company. It has

already been said that drivers get better service, with none of

the usual February 28 lineups. But one thing, I think, that has

not been said in this particular session is that the previous

administration promised year after year — or perhaps I should

say threatened — that if the private companies in the business

of auto insurance in the province didn't provide better service

and didn't provide service at cheaper rates, then they'd face

the risk of government auto insurance.

Two Attorneys-General served while I was in the opposition —

Mr. Bonner and Mr. Peterson. And in my six years both of them,

year after year, threatened the private insurance companies

with government competition or government action. Mr. Peterson,

for example, was a Member of this House for 17 years; I'm not

sure, just now, how long he was Attorney-General.

Although he's an ex-Member and, perhaps, one of the old

guard, I'm rather disappointed that the official opposition

didn't ask the House Members to join in welcoming him today in

the gallery. I'd like to ask them to join me now in welcoming

Mr. Peterson.

Year after year he threatened private companies that if they

didn't do something better in the way of service and rate, they

would be faced with government takeover. Nothing better was

done: service got worse; rates got higher.

The public threats were there. What was said privately I

don't know, but I do know the private companies kept on in

business. They didn't improve themselves at all in any way as

far as the customers were concerned, with the inevitable result

that that administration was thrown out and a new

administration was given the opportunity of making these

threats good and of bringing into being an auto insurance plan — as I previously said, the largest general insurance

corporation in Canada — that has given better service and done

away with the usual

February 28 lineup that used to be a feature year after year

after year.

It could have been done years before.

B.C. Development Corp. The doom-and-gloom people say that

we've done nothing to create jobs. What did they do? We

established a B.C....

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Economic Development): That's my

speech.

HON. MR. STUPICH: The Minister behind me says that's his

speech; I'm just giving him the opening.

The previous administration could have done something, but

when they were there they chose not to do anything. We

established a B.C. Development Corp. They chose only to

criticize it, but it is a corporation that has been provided

with $100 million to stimulate and assist industrial

enterprises of economic benefit to B.C. And all we get from

over there is criticism; not one positive suggestion as to what

the B.C. Development Corp. should be doing, not one positive

suggestion from the whole opposition.

Can-Cel. You say we've done nothing for jobs, nothing for

development in the Province of British Columbia. Even Can-Cel

could have been done years before. Had we not been elected

August 30, 1972, there would have been no Can-Cel. The Prince

Rupert pulp mill would have shut down; the whole northwestern

timber industry would have shut down. Instead of that — new

stability, job security, long-range planning for vital sections

of B.C.'s No. 1 industry in a very important area of the

province. It could have been done year; before.

Consumer Services. We talked about consumer services when we

were in the opposition. The government of the day responded by

listening, perhaps, sometimes — although they never heard and

never did anything. But a Consumer Services department, a new

department to assist consumers, to investigate complaints, a

debtor assistance office, Trade Practices Act — all of these

things could have been done years before.

As the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) said in

presenting these one by one — nothing brand new, all things

that have been tried in other jurisdictions, but all things

that an administration, a tired administration in the Province

of British Columbia, was not prepared to do for the people of

British Columbia. That is why that administration was thrown

out.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Shame, shame.

HON. MR. STUPICH: The disclosure Act that they supported:

they talked against it but they supported it finally. It could

have been done years before.

[ Page 571 ]

A Hansard . I recall once, at a very historic occasion

in New Westminster when we gave them an opportunity on opening

day to accept the idea of an official Hansard . Even on

that historic occasion they turned down the invitation — turned

down every invitation — to establish a B.C. Hansard ,

although they're quite fond of reading it now, quoting from it

and reading back some of our own speeches to us, sometimes to

our own discomfiture.

Human rights. Nothing new about human rights. I remember

when John Diefenbaker introduced it — something new on the

federal level. It had been done in Canada before, but not in

British Columbia. The government in British Columbia wasn't

prepared to do it. It could have been done years before but the

government was tired, was not interested in people and wasn't

prepared to do anything, so the people took it into their own

hands and threw out that tired administration.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Tell the truth.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mincome. Remember Mincome? The old

government got interested in Mincome late in August of 1972 —

fortunately for the people of British Columbia, too late to

stop the rolling tide that went on to throw them out. Now there

is a Mincome system, Mincome that is unequalled in the whole of

Canada, Minimum wage. It's hard to remember now, but just two and a

half years ago when we took office, the minimum wage in the

Province of British Columbia was $1.50 an hour. Now it's $2.50,

and that's in only two and a half years.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Not for women, I'm told. Well, they were

second-class citizens then.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Not for the farmers, no — for the old-age

pensioners, the ones who found it increasingly difficult to get

the drugs they needed to stay alive.

I remember one of my constituents telling me that she

required something in the way of $30 a month for medication for

her heart, and there was just no way she could afford to do it

other than by going without many other things she should have,

and other than by getting help from her own family. Pharmacare

could have been done years before.

I recall the Leader of the Opposition at that time, Mr.

Speaker, when he represented Cowichan-Malahat, as part of the

election programme, in two election campaigns at least, telling

the people of British

Columbia how much it would cost to bring in a Pharmacare

programme. But the tired government of the day was not prepared

to do anything, and the tired government, in 1972, was thrown

out by the people of British Columbia.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): The best thing that ever

happened.

HON. MR. STUPICH: I recall my very first campaign, Mr.

Speaker — 1949 is a long time ago now. We campaigned together —

you federally and I provincially.

I was called in by a representative of the government

employees' association — riot a union — in Nanaimo, and asked

what my personal attitude was and what the party's attitude was

towards collective bargaining for civil servants. That was back

in 1949, even before the Social Credit administration took

office, and that's a long time ago.

Of course the coalition were not interested. There was 20

years of Social Credit inaction in there when the government of

the day preferred to be paternalistic with their civil

servants, not to talk with them or to them, rather to simply

tell them what conditions they were going to have, what

salaries they were going to have, what fringe benefits they

were going to have, without any kind of discussion at all.

There was 20 years of that under the previous tired

administration till finally even the civil servants of the

province, who traditionally support the government in office,

had enough of that tired administration and threw them out of

office.

The recreational facilities fund, about which a lot has been

said in this session and a report tabled, could have been done

years before.

The right to sue the Crown — this was not a new idea, Mr.

Speaker. Year after year the Member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Mr.

Dowding) used to raise this in debate. Other Members raised it

as well — the right to sue the Crown — but it was only after

the people of British Columbia were successful in throwing out

of office that tired administration that they finally got the

right to sue the Crown.

The sewage treatment assistance Act: remember in the last

year of the previous administration when they spent the grand

sum to assist the municipalities in sewage treatment plants —

$8,000? In one year of this administration — $4 million. We

talked about it; we did something. I'm told that the figure is

$5.5 million and my figures are out of date.

That tired administration is fond now of accusing us of not

doing enough about pollution control and not doing enough to

assist the municipalities. They forget, Mr. Speaker. They have

very short memories. They forget that they thought that $8,000

was enough to spend in one year, and they criticize us for not

spending more than $5.5 million.

[ Page 572 ]

Transit services, all of these things — and I have read only

a few of them — could have been done years before if the

government of the day had not been too tired and if the

government of the day was prepared to take this action on

behalf of the people of British Columbia.

Now we introduce a budget that shows we're going to continue

to do these kinds of things — not new services, really, but

we're going to continue providing the services we have lined up

in the last two and a half years and improve them in many

directions. We're told now that we're irresponsible, that our

budgeting is irresponsible.

The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) — and I'm not

sure whether this is something he said or whether it has been

said about him.... There was a reference to 12 advisers giving

him some....

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): You didn't

listen to my speech.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Not what you said? Okay, then, I saw it in

the paper — a good source of information sometimes.

He had 12 advisers. Now I know that one of his advisers was

not his father, because he would have had much better advice

had he listened to his father, rather than the 12 people who

told him that this might be a deficit budget.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STUPICH: I was here when you spoke and listened to

it. In any case, the Leader of the Opposition has been saying

over and over that it might be a deficit budget. Even there

he's not even sure. Even with the 12 advisers he's still not

sure. If he had listened to his father, I'm sure his father

would have told him that the revenue figures we have projected

are real figures as to what will be the revenue in the Province

of British Columbia. It really will happen.

With no evidence at all you challenge our revenue estimates,

but you don't go over them one by one and say: "You're too high

on item A or item B or item C." You just suggest that in total

the figures are too high — no evidence.

One of the remarks that you did make — and this is not a

direct quotation, but to paraphrase at least — was that capital

is flowing from the province. Mr. Speaker, I'll tell you one

area where capital is not flowing from the province, and that's

$210 million in ICBC premiums that are available for

investment in the province.

He had no evidence that any of the other money was fleeing

from the province either, any more evidence than he had to say.... He said: "You all know the story about the $30,000 cabinet

table."

Well, nobody did. Nobody heard about it that I know of. He

said no more about it and he's said nothing about it since. He

just dreamed it up on the spur of the moment and threw it in,

hoping that the papers would pick it up and that any denial

would never be observed.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STUPICH: At least the Hon. Member for Chilliwack

(Mr. Schroeder), when he made a mistake because of insufficient

research, had the decency to apologize and say that he was in

error.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Harvey for leader.

HON. MR. STUPICH: That is something that the Hon. Leader of

the Opposition has not found time to do yet on that, and on

another issue about which he will be reminded later on. And the

Hon. Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) several times during

question period has based his questions on completely

inaccurate information that he didn't check out, and not once

has he stood up and apologized to the House for trying to

mislead the House. However, we don't really expect any better

from that particular Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Some of them, some of them.

HON. MR. STUPICH: From that particular Member I don't expect

any better.

Money for municipalities: Mr. Speaker, I have a word of

advice for the municipalities. When the Minister of Finance

first announced his revenue-sharing plan.... Don't forget that

the municipalities have been talking about sharing revenues.

They want a share of income tax revenue; they want some kind of

a share of direct revenue rather than depending upon property

tax. For many years they've been talking along those lines.

When the Minister of Finance first suggested that there

would be this revenue-sharing plan, many of the municipalities

said that this was a great idea. "Let's help the Province of

British Columbia convince the government in Ottawa that this

should happen."

Since the budget has come out, they seem to be more

concerned about attacking the budget and attacking the Minister

of Finance. I would suggest to them, Mr. Speaker, that it is

time they started talking constructively as to how that revenue

should be shared; none of this doom-and-gloom business about

"if we get it, if we don't."

The revenue is going to come, and I think the municipalities

would be much more gainfully employed by considering ways in

which that money should be rationed out among the

municipalities

[ Page 573 ]

because there is nothing in the budget speech that says it

is going to follow the per capita grant method. There is

nothing that says it won't be, either. But there is nothing in

there that indicates the method of sharing this money, and I

would suggest that the municipalities take the advice that is

offered to them in the budget, which is to start talking to the

Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) about this

money rather than listening to the doom-and-gloom boys who say:

"Maybe it won't come." Well, Mr. Speaker, maybe — and even more

than maybe — it will come.

Mr. Speaker, there is a reference in the budget speech to

B.C. Hydro. I'm a bit reluctant to go into this B.C. Hydro

thing at this late stage, but I would just like to remind you,

Mr. Speaker — and I would also like to remind the Premier,

because he was very much involved in this back on February 25,

1966, when I first spoke on this issue of Columbia River

financing in the Legislature....

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's right.

HON. MR. STUPICH: I have an editorial from one of the

newspapers of the day:

"David Stupich, the NDP MLA for Nanaimo and the Islands, who

first raised the controversy in the Legislature, this week

renewed his charge that B.C. Hydro will have to pay $150

million more than Mr. Bennett has predicted for completing the

Mica Dam project — not all the extras that were referred to in

the budget, but for that one project alone.

"The rebuttals by B.C. Hydro, which insist Mr. Stupich, a

chartered accountant, has made a mistake in his arithmetic, do

not impress him."

Mr. Speaker, you were in on it as well. I recall talking

first to my roommate (now the Premier of the province, then the

Hon. Member for Dewdney) and said: "Look at these figures.

We're going to run out of money. This is really bad." I was a

bit afraid o them. To me, the figures added up. But, after all,

the financial wizard of the day, the Premier of the day said

differently, and I was just a bit reluctant as relatively new Member of the Legislature to use these

figures in debate. But I talked to my roommate. He said: "I

don't know anything about finance, but you've convinced me. Go

ahead, see what happens.'

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): He still doesn't!

HON. MR. STUPICH: Okay, he didn't know anything about finance, but back

in 1966 he backed me up and he's not only been proven right but it been proven

that he and I were both far wrong then for our figures were far too low. It

wasn't admitted by anybody on the government side of the House except one person.

One person did not deny what I was saying. That one person wasn't in the House

when I spoke because that one person was never in the House when anybody in

the opposition side of the House spoke. He was only here when cabinet Members

were speaking. But that one person said afterwards...he never denied I was

right when I first raised that issue in February of 1966.

HON. MR. BARRETT: He never said anything.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Even a year later the Hon. Minister of

Lands, Forests and Water Resources of the day (Mr. Williston) was still

accusing me of "misleading a whole NDP task force of lopsided

pseudo-accountants who specialize in creating negative headlines." A

year later. Even by then everyone knew, except him, that I was right —

that we were short of money. Unfortunately, we were right.

HON. MR. BARRETT: What did Williston say?

HON. MR. STUPICH: A whole task force of pseudo-economists trying to spread doom and gloom.

Now where is the doom and gloom coming from?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Were they covering up those costs?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, the question comes up as to whether

they were covering up the costs. I don't know, but I'll tell you what

they did do, Mr. Speaker. They came up with a Hydro development plan

that I said in 1966 — and nobody has contradicted me yet — was not the

best for B.C. It was one that was going to produce the minimum amount

of electrical power in B.C. because he had to go ahead with the Peace

River project to fulfil a political promise and we t didn't want too

much power coming out of the Columbia development. The McNaughton plan

would have produced a lot more power in British Columbia.

We sold downstream benefits and the Hon. Ray a Williston of the day said:

"Look, don't worry about it. Maybe it's not as good as we said it was, but

in 30 years you can renegotiate."

Mr. Speaker, what kind of a position are we going to be in in 30 years? What

do we do? Threaten to take the dams down if they don't give us what we I want?

Mr. Speaker, we'll be in no position to renegotiate when the time comes.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): You're going to talk yourself out of the Education portfolio if you're s not careful.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, with one eye

[ Page 574 ]

on the clock, perhaps I should leave B.C. Hydro for

I the time being and make some comment on agriculture, although I

expect there will be some opportunity during the handling of my

estimates.

Just a few brief comments, Mr. Speaker. I know the opposition will

be interested in this because I'm sure by now they are thinking about

how they are going to handle the Department of Agriculture when it

comes to estimates. What will they find to criticize?

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Give us some

hints.

HON. MR. STUPICH: I'll give you some hints. In two years of

my Ministry in Agriculture we have passed 19 bills. Mr.

Speaker, there probably isn't a voter and there certainly isn't

a farmer in the province who couldn't name several of those 19

bills. In the previous period of the previous administration

for the same length of time, there were three minor amendments

and nobody can remember what they were unless they look back in

the records.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No one can even remember the name of the

Minister.

HON. MR. STUPICH: It has been a year of real activity in the

Department of Agriculture.

If I could refer to one programme, the ALDA programme under

the Agricultural Land Development Act, formerly the land

clearing Act, in the period since I have been in office, 1,305

contracts have been issued for a total of $6,672,000. In the

same length of time under the previous administration it was a

little over half: only 879 for a total not of $6.5 million but

a total of $1,980,000.

Mr. Speaker, this is not just that the money is available

and that we've changed the programme. It's a vote of confidence

in the present administration in spite of what the

doom-and-gloom people are saying all over the province, a vote

of confidence on the part of the agricultural people in the

province as to what is going on.

The Farm Products Industry Improvement Act that was so

roundly criticized by the Members in the opposition.... They

didn't vote against it, but they did talk against it all the

way along the line. There are 111 projects either approved,

approved waiting cabinet consideration or still being

considered by staff.

But there's another one, Mr. Speaker, one that is being talked about clear

across the country. It is another one that was opposed by the opposition. I'm

speaking now about the farm income assurance programme, something that was opposed

by the Members of the opposition. In the second reading of this bill the Conservative

and Liberal Members voted for an amendment that would have killed the legislation.

They voted against second reading of the legislation. In committee stage all

Members of the opposition joined to vote against two different sections of the

legislation in the hope of killing it. When it came to third reading, all Members

of the opposition voted against the farm income assurance programme.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Shame!

HON. MR. STUPICH: Now I wonder if that's what they're

telling the people of the province today.

Funding. Mr. Speaker, it was a new programme. I was

criticized at the time for not being able to say how much it

was going to cost. Since then, other provinces are joining in.

The Province of Quebec came out to B.C. to talk about our farm

income assurance programme. As a result of their discussion,

they have gone back and have produced legislation that is very

similar to the legislation introduced in this House and passed

by this House, and similar even to the extent that they do not

say how much money. They use almost the same words in saying

that the Minister of Finance will provide the funding necessary

to establish an income assurance programme for the farmers in

the Province of British Columbia. In their first year this is

the only way to go, Mr. Speaker. How can you possibly estimate

how much these programmes are going to cost at that stage of

negotiations, before negotiations even start? That's the route

we went.

This year, it's in estimates where it belongs and where we

would have liked to have had it in previous years. But it is

there in estimates and there will be plenty of opportunity to

discuss the workings and the plans for the farm income

assurance programme as we get into discussion of estimates.

The prices for the time being, to say that Quebec is moving

in the same direction.... In Ontario, I've had word from the

Ontario Federation of Agriculture, who invited me to come back

there and speak. Well, it's a trip that I wouldn't make for

that purpose, but I happened to be back there for an

Agriculture Ministers' conference and I took time out to speak

at the annual convention of the Ontario Federation of

Agriculture.

I told them about our land preservation programme. I told

them about our income assurance programme. A note I have now

from a friend of mine who was not at the meeting but who has

been listening to the farmers of Ontario and to the federation

since then, says: "The seeds you sowed are germinating more

quickly than we thought possible. I understand that the Ontario

Minister is working on a plan now, undoubtedly for election

purposes. Again, many thanks for your help."

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): We need all the

[ Page 575 ]

help we can get in that election.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, it's the Conservative Party there

that's fighting for re-election, and I'm rather inclined to

agree with you that they need all the help they can get.

There have been some criticisms about our programme. The

Hon. Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) was critical of it

in general terms, and I'm sure that she will be later on more

specifically. But I think it's of interest to note that the

Province of Manitoba also is looking at a farm income assurance

programme for their dairy industry. This is the one we started

with in B.C. because the situation was most critical in the

dairy industry.

I think it's interesting, Mr. Speaker, when we're accused of

being so free and easy with our programmes, making it so

attractive to the dairymen, to find out that in the Province of

Manitoba they are being even freer and easier when they're

dealing with the dairymen. They are allowing the dairymen more

hours of work to produce the same kind of milk. They are

allowing them more feed to produce each hundredweight of milk.

In almost every instance the proposed plan for Manitoba is more

generous then what we feel is a very acceptable programme in

the Province of British Columbia. We haven't been that free and

easy with the taxpayers' money. We have been responsible.

MR. PHILLIPS: It's a different climate.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, we'll get into that in estimates,

Mr. Member. Is that why it takes more hours to produce a

hundredweight of milk, because the climate is different? We

will get into, I'm sure, a good deal more of that when we get

into the estimate discussion.

In any case, we know that legislation is in in Quebec and we

know that legislation is being contemplated in Ontario. As I

said from the very beginning of this programme: in the same way

that it happened for hospital insurance and Medicare, as soon

as any CCF or NDP province has prepared to start this and

showed an example for the rest of the country and produced a

plan that was attractive enough to the eastern provinces,

Quebec and Ontario, then the federal government would be

prepared to move. And the federal government has indeed tabled

legislation.

Now whether or not it will be legislation that will help us,

we just don't know at this point. However, we do know that they

are working on legislation presuming that it is going to help

us. What was the object of the game?

I have parts of a letter to read, from the B.C. Federation

of Agriculture, dated March 6. I won't read the whole letter,

but quite often the B.C.

Federation of Agriculture has been asked to what extent it

represents the farmers of this province, and at what rate are

farmers disappearing.

"In order to keep you posted, we are happy to report that the loss of producers at the rate of one per

day in the past 10 years (that was during the history of the

previous administration) has come to a halt."

MR. LEWIS: That was during the black days.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, we have statistics to show

that the number of dairy farmers in the interior of the

province has increased. The number of cattle has increased

throughout the industry; the production has increased

throughout the industry. Even the number of farms has been

increased,

"Our great concern previously had been the unwillingness of the younger generation to get involved.

Although we have no figures to substantiate our suspicion, we

do believe younger people are indeed becoming involved,

primarily because of the more stable conditions in

agriculture."

More stable, I suggest to you, since the last two

and a half years.

It could all have been done years before, but a tired

administration preferred not to do anything for the farmers of

British Columbia and preferred to let agriculture go down and

down in importance as an industry in this province.

The Land Commission. The latest word I have from the

official opposition.... It is not all that late; it is three

weeks old so their position may have changed. They change quite

frequently on this question of the Land Commission. This is

quoting the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) saying: "A

Social Credit government would return control over land zoning

to regional districts."

This is where we started two and a half years ago. The

regional districts had control; that is why we found it

necessary to move to save farmland in British Columbia.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): You made the real estate

salesmen rich.

HON. MR. STUPICH: The second leader of the opposition, the

one who is angling most actively for the job right now,

suggests that all we did was make the real estate people rich.

Perhaps some real estate people did get rich. But, if that is

the cost of saving farmland in the Province of British

Columbia, then I think that is a cost the people of British

Columbia are happy to pay. The people of British Columbia right

now support the Land Commission and support the concept of

saving agricultural land. If you go out

[ Page 576 ]

campaigning and threaten to do away with that policy — if

that is going to be your campaign — then I suggest that the

Hon. Member for Langley had better go back to his radio station

and newspaper because he certainly will not be representing

Langley in this House if he goes back to his area and says:

"Let's do away with saving farmland."

Mr. Speaker, in the first 12 regional districts that were

established, and these are the important ones, of a total area

of 14.25 million acres, only one million was saved — only 7.2

per cent. That was all of the good agricultural land we could

find in the 12 first regional districts. There isn't much of

this.

I don't really think I can get through to the Hon. Member

for Langley, but I think I can get through to the people of

this province on the need to save this agricultural land.

Remember the American humorist who said: "Agricultural land is

so important because they ain't making' any more of it." That is

the importance of it. Agricultural land is so important....

MRS. JORDAN: Tell the truth!

MR. McCLELLAND: What about the 2,000 acres in Surrey that

was turned over to an oil refinery? That was in the

agricultural land reserves.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Order!

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I get the impression of

interrupting a Social Credit caucus meeting over there. As I

say, Mr. Speaker, I hate to interrupt the Social Credit

meeting, but certainly the Land Commission has not turned over

one acre of land, let alone 2,000, to establish any oil

refinery or anything else.

The idea that agricultural land is so important because they

"ain't making any more of it".... I think it was an American

president who went on to say that even if they were making any

more of it, "there just ain't no place to put it."

I would like to quote a few words from William Jennings

Bryan in a book, Cross of Gold :

"Burn down your cities and leave our farms, and your

cities will spring up again as if by magic. But destroy your farms and

the grass will grow in the streets of every city in the country."

That is my attitude toward saving farmland. That is why I am so anxious to

proceed with that programme. That is why it distresses me so much when people,

apparently for political gain — I can't see any other reason for it — are threatening

to do away with the Land Commission and turn back to the regional districts

absolute control of what is happening to farmland in the Province of British

Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, a few words on estimates. There have been some

remarks about the extent to which estimates have increased, and

I am sure there will be remarks both ways before we are

finished.

In the year 1972-3, the last budget prepared by the previous

administration — and I say last, rather than most recent

because I certainly hope and expect that it will be the last

budget that that particular administration will ever have

prepared — provided for 376 employees in the Department of

Agriculture. In the current budget, we have 568, an increase

of 5 I per cent. And they talk about us overloading and hiring

too many employees.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STUPICH: What has happened to estimates in that

time? The estimates in 1972-73, $11,415,000; this year, $60

million. An increase of 426 per cent; a ratio of 8:1. But

estimates — they were only estimates — even at that, the

estimates for 1972-73 worked out to $30,000 per employee. The

current figure is $108,000 per employee. But those $11,415,000

were only estimates. The Department of Agriculture had an

historic record and habit, if you like, of not spending its

estimates. In that particular year, the spending was

$7,800,000, about three-quarters of the total amount allotted

in the vote.

The $60 million is not just a figure to present in

estimates. It is what we're going to spend in the Department of

Agriculture in the year ahead.

I think perhaps I can't close without saying just a couple

of credits, if you like....

Interjection.

HON. MR. STUPICH: It's been suggested I shouldn't close yet,

but I've been looking at my time and looking at the clock and I

have, I think, four minutes left. But I do want to say a couple

of things before I conclude.

MRS. JORDAN: That'll be a change.

HON. MR. STUPICH: That is that we, in all of our programmes,

contrary to the attitude and the record of the previous

administration who preferred not to discuss things with the

people involved in agriculture, who preferred to meet with them

on occasion when the precedent demanded it — not to listen to

anything that they wanted, not to do anything with them or for

them — our programmes have been worked out in consultation and

full cooperation with the B.C. Federation of Agriculture. We

continue to work with them and we continue to get their

support

[ Page

577 ]

in developing our programmes and in introducing our

programmes in the various commodity groups and in the various

parts of the province. There's an excellent relationship

between the Department of Agriculture and the B.C. Federation

of Agriculture.

One more credit that I would like to give, and that is to

staff members. I have shown the figures of staff members

working much harder than ever before to continue with the

programmes that we presently have in place. I don't think I can

perhaps describe the attitude any better than a quotation from

one of the columnists in the paper — he's not in the gallery

today — and I'm not picking him because he's sympathetic or in

opposition to the government. Frankly, I don't know, and I'm

not sure that he does. But I'd just like to read his remarks

about one of my staff members who was recently taken ill:

"Department of Agriculture marketing chief, Ed Pratt, is on

the mend from a heart attack suffered two weeks ago. The doctor

told him he'll have to work half days for a while. His response

was: 'You mean I'll have to cut down to 10 hours a day?'"

The

story goes on to say that the doctor was not amused.

I have had excellent and complete cooperation from the

Department of Agriculture staff in the province. Otherwise,

there's no possible way that a 60 per cent increase in staff

could deal with a 300 per cent increase in money. And it's not

just money, but money that is providing services for the

agricultural industry in the province.

In the agricultural industry, if the job we are doing is

simply to support farmers or to support an industry, it would

really not be worth talking about.

MR. McCLELLAND: How many farmers' sons have gone into

farming? Tell us that.

HON. MR. STUPICH: What we're doing is producing food for the

people of British Columbia. We're producing quality food. To

the extent that we're able, we produce food that is needed,

wanted, desired and purchased by the people in the Province of

British Columbia. And we've gone one step further. We have

brought in a programme to invite the people of British Columbia — and, to their discredit, not one Member of the opposition has

mentioned this yet — to participate with the government in a

programme of world food aid for needy people. Not one comment

about that in the whole debate to this point. Not one comment

in the press — $5 million to provide food for the needy people

of the world. We're inviting the public to participate and, as

I say, not one comment from the opposition about this part of

the programme and, to the best of my knowledge, not one comment

in the press.

I hope that is not the attitude of the people of British

Columbia. I think it isn't because I know I've received in the

last months several hundred letters from people urging us to do

more in this particular regard. It is my hope that those people

will, when they know this programme, respond by matching funds

so that we can do $9 million worth of work for the needy people

in the world.

Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that before this House does

adjourn, somebody on the opposition side of the House will

stand up and speak in favour of that particular programme even

though they can find nothing in the estimates to oppose.

MR. H. STEVES (Richmond): I'd like, before starting off this

debate, to pay my tribute to Ned DeBeck who is no longer with

us. Ned worked in my riding in the fish canneries from 1897 to

1900, and while I was in the Legislature I had many interesting

conversations with him and he told me many anecdotes of life in

Steveston and the fishing industry around that time. He worked

very closely with the Indian fishermen and spoke Chinook

fluently and passed on to me a lot of interesting anecdotes

from the turn of the century in our community.

I'd also like to pay tribute as well to Art Laing, also a

pioneer of my area. He was born on Sea Island from a pioneering

Richmond farm family and grew up there. Art himself, and his

family, made a major contribution to our community over the

years.

Well, Mr. Speaker, in this debate today I would like to

concern myself largely with housing. We've been attacked

vociferously by the opposition for our housing programme. I

would like to go over with the Members here today some of the

things we are doing in the Department of Housing and that we

are trying to provide here in British Columbia..

I think it's true that we are faced with a housing crisis in

British Columbia, but it is not just a crisis specific to

British Columbia. Actually, it's all across Canada — Canada, a

country of about 3.5 million square miles, with vast supplies

of lumber and raw materials, yet with a housing crisis from sea

to sea. It's the type of crisis where it becomes impossible for

middle-income Canadians to buy single-family homes or even to

rent an apartment.

Property values throughout Canada, on an average, have

surged ahead by about 22 per cent in the last year. The average

house in Toronto in 1966 — a three-bedroom home — was around

$22,000, and last year, 1974, $57,000. In Vancouver in 1970 the

same home would have been around $21,000, and last year it was

in the neighbourhood of $55,000.

In my area, actually, we've got brand new homes that are for

sale, but not selling, for around $69,000 — three-bedroom

homes. What has happened, of course, is that the workers in the

communities, the working people, even the middle-class working

people

[ Page 578 ]

cannot afford it. Who can afford to pay $600 a month on a

house to live in? We have in Richmond over 300 brand new homes

that are sitting vacant because the working people in my

community cannot afford to live there. What this proves to me

is not so much that the housing crisis is caused by government

but that the housing crisis is caused because people cannot

afford the accommodation that is being provided by the private

sector at the present time. There are lots of houses available,

but most people cannot afford to move into them.

It's similar in the United States. In the United States, I

understand, in spite of a need for about two million homes,

they have half-a-million vacant homes in the United States

today because people can't afford to move in and live

there.

Well, people haven't been buying houses in my riding, and I

don't think they've been buying houses elsewhere in the greater

Vancouver area that are brand new. They've been buying some of

the older homes. 'They haven't been able to afford to buy the

new homes that have been provided by the developers.

[Mr. G.H. Anderson in the chair.]

So there has been a significant slowdown in housing starts,

and, of course, this will actually help to send the prices

upwards, because the slowdown of housing starts creates a

shortage and will send the prices up again.

I would also like to comment briefly on rental

accommodation. In Ottawa, which is not noted for having a great

population pressure, the rental vacancy rate is down to 2 per

cent. Here in Vancouver it is less than that, around 0.1 per

cent to 0.3 per cent. But it's been this way now for 10 years.

If we look at statistics — which were actually provided to me

yesterday — by the British Columbia Rental Housing Association — by the landlords themselves — it indicates that in Vancouver

the crisis actually started in 1966 when the rental housing

vacancy rate dropped from 4.0 per cent in 1965 to 1.3 per cent

in 1966. So if there's any criticism of this government about

providing housing accommodation, I think it's unwarranted.

Their own statistics show us that we've had this crisis with us

for 10 years.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. STEVES: If we look further on in the statistics they've provided,

we will also find that the housing crisis that is here in Vancouver is also

prevalent in other major cities across Canada. In Calgary the rental accommodation

vacancy rate dropped last year from 5.9 per cent to 1.2 per cent — just in six

months between June and December. In Edmonton it dropped from 5.4 per cent to

0.8 per cent. Now this province has a Conservative government. Maybe it has

something to do with their policies, Maybe they're causing the housing crisis.

I haven't heard the Member of the Conservative Party (Mr. Wallace) suggesting

that here in this Legislature, but maybe that's what happened because they certainly

have the same crisis that we have.

In Winnipeg their housing crisis also started in 1967 when

the rate dropped from 4.1 per cent down to 1.5 per cent. In

Toronto it started in 1964 when it dropped from 4.0 to 2.6,

then down to 1.5 and then to 0.9 in a two- or three-year

period. In Montreal recently the housing crisis caught up to

them — just in the last couple of years — and it's now down to

a 1.2 vacancy rate. Quebec dropped last year from 4.3 to 1.6 in

a six-month period. St. John's, if we go further east, had a

vacancy rate of 20 per cent in 1970, and that has now dropped

down to 0.3 per cent. This is happening all across Canada.

While the landlords hope to show by providing these

statistics that it was all caused by rent controls and by the

government here in B.C., it's obvious from looking at these

statistics — which they provided themselves — that the rent

crisis and the housing crisis across Canada are not caused by

this government but are caused on a national scale by policies

both of the federal government and also of the policies of

migration of people across Canada to the industrial centres. If

you look at these statistics, you'll find that where the crisis

is occurring is in the areas where there's high

industrialization where people come looking for jobs, and, of

course, they're causing a stress on the housing market.

Well, Mr. Speaker, when the previous speaker, the Minister

of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) was up, somebody was heckling

that the Land Commission also caused some of the problems in

housing.

Actually, recently I was reading some material provided by

the Greater Vancouver Regional District, and they listed the

Land Commission, municipal zonings and provincial zonings and

so on as having a minor influence on the housing market. What

they did suggest was that the reasons for the housing crisis

were that houses over the past few years have been regarded as

a good investment in an inflationary economy. There has been

great demand, so people have put their money into houses.

Secondly, they suggested that people since 1971 had homes

exempted from the capital gains tax federally, so people felt

that if they invested in a home they could make a tax-free

profit on the home, which is fine.

Thirdly, they suggested that the World War II baby

population boom increased prices of building materials and so

on.

But they themselves — this was published by one of the

planners from the GVRD, I believe in the Urban Reader —

suggested that the Land Commission

[ Page 579 ]

actually played a very, very minor role and that all that

the Land Commission did do was delineate what areas would be

kept for agriculture and what areas could be developed for

housing. Of course, what happened is that the speculators have

moved into the housing areas and have tried to jack up the

prices through speculation on the land that is now available.

Many of them are sitting on the land and not even trying to

move it, hoping that the price will go up further.

I had one instance where a person from Hong Kong — actually

a buyer from a Hong Kong company — knocked on my door one day

last fall. He said he had $4 million he wanted to spend and

asked if I could suggest to him where he could find some land

that was available. He wanted some vast acreage of land that he

could invest the money in because the owner of that money in

Hong Kong wanted to get his money out of Hong Kong and get it

over to some place where he could speculate in an urban area

and hope to make a profit by the growth of Vancouver.

Of course, I wasn't able to help this fellow out. I don't

know what happened to his $4 million — he really had my

sympathy.

The housing crisis, as I see it, will be slowing up towards

the end of the year as the government does put on to the market

the housing that is presently planned. Over the past year the

government Housing department was able to initiate a number of

housing starts and I think the effect of these housing starts

or the planned housing will start to be felt towards the end of

It's interesting to note that the Employers Council of B.C.,

however, has suggested that the housing crisis won't come to an

end at the end of the year, Their reason for this was: "The

comparatively large inventories and large potential sales

cannot be converted to home ownership due to the high original

cost and high-cost financing." What they're saying then is that

the housing that the developers and the construction industry

have built is high-priced. They aren't willing to drop those

prices and they aren't going to build any more housing until

they can get the money out of it that they want to get out of

the housing they're developing. Therefore they're willing to

let B.C. flounder as far as the housing market is

concerned.

I think that with the actions that the government is

intending to take, this is an overly pessimistic attitude. With

the role of the government, B.C. housing will be proceeding

along at a pretty good pace by the end of the year.

I think that after one year of the housing industry under the Minister of Housing

(Hon. Mr. Nicolson) we have seen some fairly impressive results. In 1974, his

department assisted in the creation of 3,364 lots and housing units which, out

of a total of 30,000 built during 1974 by the industry in general, amounted

to about 10 per cent of the housing starts. In 1975, as I understand it now

— or at least by the end of 1974 — they've got around 18,000 units either in

the planning or construction stages or in lots, mobile home pads and so on.

So 18,000 units would add up to over 50 per cent of what's normally constructed

in the housing field by private industry. I'm sure that that's going to have

a very strong effect on the housing situation here in British Columbia.

Some people earlier in this debate suggested that Dunhill

Development Corp. has not built any houses. I was quite pleased

when the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) suggested that

we should have a Crown corporation constructing houses in

British Columbia. I think that's a very good suggestion, and

perhaps the Minister of Housing might like to take him up on

that.

MR. CHABOT: I never suggested that. No way!

MR. STEVES: I'm sure that he would support us if we did set

up a housing corporation.

Interjection.

MR. STEVES: Well, he was complaining that they hadn't built

a house, and I take that to indicate that he would be very

supportive if Dunhill Development did get out and started

building houses on their own, I'm sure he wouldn't

complain.

Perhaps that's something that the Minister might take under

consideration — that we would get support from that Member over

there.

MR. CHABOT: I'll have a talk with him.

MR. STEVES: I would like to say, however, that what Dunhill

has done is that they've got a lot of non-profit housing going,

they've got a lot of cooperative groups in operation. In B.C.,

before this government came in, I doubt if there was any co-op

housing at all in the province. I might be corrected, but I

don't think there was any. There's a tremendous amount of co-op

housing now underway.

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): In spite of

them.

MR. STEVES: The people involved in co-op housing are getting

money from the government to buy land. One development that's

going ahead in Richmond, Klahanie Co-op, received $600,000 from

this government to purchase land. They're getting the land from

the government on a lease basis.

I mentioned this the other day. These are the people who

were evicted from Sea Island by the Liberal government in

Ottawa. They're getting this land, and they are going to be

able to develop their

[ Page 580 ]

own community and retain the type of community atmosphere

they had in the community they were being forced out of by the

Liberal government.

I think that as more people see that they can get into very,

very reasonable housing through the co-op method, this probably

will become one of the more popular types of housing in British

Columbia in the next few years.

Obviously, people can't afford to go and buy their own homes

at $69,000 for a single-family home. They just can't afford it;

nobody can afford $600 a month to make those kind of payments.

So I think the co-op method is probably one which we will see

people asking for and demanding more in the future.

Of course, the housing problem does require a certain amount

of assistance at the local level. We've noticed a lot of the

home wreckers around in this Legislature who are opposing our

housing policies. We also have home wreckers in the local

ridings — I'll have more to say about them later — who oppose

the government when it tries to provide housing at the local

level. We find that municipal councils drag their heels and put

a lot of bureaucratic red tape in the way when we try to get

housing developments approved. We find that our plea to

councils a year ago to assist in allowing people to duplex

older homes and larger homes in various parts of the province

have fallen on deaf ears.

The home wreckers over here and the home wreckers over there

have all come out in opposition and, of course, this programme

has not been very successful. I think it is a programme that

could be successful if we got that kind of cooperation at the

local level.

However, what is happening is that people on the local

councils, for their own self-interest — and my council in

Richmond is no exception — don't really want to see the housing

programmes of this government proceed. I don't think that

Members of the opposition are too keen on it either. They would

like to be able to get up in the Legislature here next spring

and attack the government again for doing nothing in housing.

It is very opportunistic on their part and on the part of their

friends back in the ridings to try and drag their heels and

prevent us from succeeding.

Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to go into too much further

detail on housing, other than I think that we should continue

to try to get the local areas to consider duplexing and

recycling older homes.

Yesterday some members of the NDP caucus met with the landlords who came over

to protest rent control and so on. Some of the landlords said: "Well, we own

older homes in Vancouver and we would like to get out from under rent control,

then we'll bulldoze those homes down and we'll build some nice apartments."

I asked one of these landlords who was suggesting that: "What's going to happen

to the people who live there?" He suggested: "Well, the poor people, they should

be looked after by the government. We're going to build nice accommodation,

and those poor people should be looked after by the government. They should

be subsidized."

My question to the landlords of this province is: who is

really responsible for providing housing? Do they have the

right to take the cream? In other words, do they have the right

to be able to provide housing for the affluent, kick out the

dispossessed, send them elsewhere and say: "Okay, that's the

government's responsibility." If they are getting money from

the housing business in British Columbia, do they not have some

responsibility as well?

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. STEVES: I think the landlords have some responsibility.

I think the local city councils have some responsibility and

that poor people should not be sloughed off and expect to be

subsidized and have to go into subsidized housing. So I think

there is some need for serious consideration of the idea of

duplexing and recycling homes — that's repairing the old ones

rather than bulldozing them down — because poorer people can

afford to get into some of the older homes. They just need a

bit of repairing and fixing up; then they make very decent

accommodation.

I think too that we should be looking further — and I'm

pleased that the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson) is

doing this — into the use of modular housing, mobile homes and

the like. I know his department is also looking into the

economic means of energy use in those homes — solar heat,

better insulation methods, double panes of glass and so on — so

that people can not only live in an economical home but also in

a home that will operate economically as well, that will save

on energy, save on environmental degradation elsewhere, as we

have to provide energy to the homes throughout B.C. So in

effect they get cheap housing and cheap energy as well — cheap

to operate.

I would like to refer to specifics regarding landlord and

tenant matters which apply to my riding. I mentioned earlier

the housing vacancy rate — that the landlords themselves were

down to the 0.1 per cent level in British Columbia. In my

riding and elsewhere in the province we have some landlords who

are actually withholding suites from the market. The landlord

in particular that I am referring to is George Mulek of West

Park Investments. He has a couple of apartment blocks in

Richmond in which he has 20 or 30 vacant suites in out of 100,

and I think this is a disgrace. In fact, I think it is criminal

when people are trying to find housing in this province that

landlords

[ Page 581 ]

should be withholding housing from them.

This, I believe, is also occurring elsewhere through the

province, but I raise this specific case because I have

documented evidence of what has been happening. This same

landlord owns apartments here, I believe. I think it is Orchard

House in Victoria and some others throughout the province. Some

of the suites have been vacant for almost a year.

One other thing: he has also held suites vacant in

low-dividend housing which is provided by the federal

government, and where they have waiting lists of poor people

trying to get into the low-dividend housing. People have

actually been waiting on these lists for a long time, but he

has held vacant suites in the low-dividend housing in Richmond

in an attempt to convince the people in his other apartments to

move there because, basically, he wants more rent than what he

is able to get under the Landlord and Tenancy Act.

This particular landlord, only a year ago, on April 9, 1974,

made the following statement. He's a director of the Greater

Vancouver Apartment Owners Association. He said:

"In postwar years, I have built and operated several thousand good rental housing units in B.C. and

Alberta, all of them in the low and medium-price range, and my

tenants have been satisfied."

I might say they're not satisfied

now.

"In the present legal and political climate I've absolutely

no plans for any further construction of rental apartment

buildings in B.C. I've talked to other builders and they feel

the same way."

Actually he's not only not building but he is withholding

suites. He's converting suites to 99-year lease accommodation

in order to avoid the rent controls brought in by this

government a year ago. The apartment blocks that he has

converted to 99-year lease are on Buswell Road in Richmond.

Under Bill 155, it's illegal to evict a tenant for refusing to

sign a 99-year lease. But the tenants are being told that they

are not being evicted but that their apartment is going to be

sold to somebody else if they don't purchase the apartment

themselves. Then the person who purchases that apartment can

evict them.

The tenants first received letters indicating a rent

increase greater than 8 per cent on February 25 last year.

Later this was amended to be within the 8 per cent rent limit,

and on June 28 they received a notice that their apartments

were being converted to 99-year lease. On July 5, a further

explanation was slipped under their door and some tenants

received estimates of the cost to them under what is called the

"Blue Haven Individualized Purchase Plan." Some were told

verbally that they had one week to make up their minds if they

wished to purchase.

Here's what they were offered. Tenants who had been paying

rent in the neighbourhood of $195 a month in 1973, in February

were asked to pay $225 a month, which was over and above the 8

per cent. In July, in order to get around the 8 per cent

limitation, the landlord said: "Okay, your suites are now

99-year lease and the rents you will pay are in the

neighbourhood of $298 a month, plus $5,000 down payment." The

total would be them roughly $350 a month, or an increase in one

year from $195 to about $350 a month — an increase of around

between 75 to 80 per cent. This is what is happening to tenants

in my riding, and it's happening elsewhere in the province as

well.

The landlord was criticized by myself and by the tenants,

and we got a lawyer in the case. In fact he even advertised the

apartments as "Blue Haven Strata Apartments." He never had

permission to have them stratified but he advertised them as

such. He is now advertising them as 99-year lease

apartments.

The next thing he did was file a libel suit against the

lawyer that the tenants had and against the local newspaper

which was carrying the stories. That stifled the press, and the

press then was afraid to carry any further stories. We hear

that we have a free press in British Columbia. But when

somebody is able to slap a libel suit on them simply for

carrying a story about what is happening, I think that's pretty

despicable. That's what happened in Richmond.

Anyway, the landlord has deliberately, and I think quite

methodically, searched out loopholes to avoid the rent control

Act. We find that while the legislation was being drafted and

going through this Legislature last year to ban 99-year leases

without the consent of the local council, Mr. Mulek went and

transferred his property from property being owned by George

Mulek and Brian and Violet Hitchen to West Park Investments. He

did that last May, and the Act banning transfers under the

Landlord and Tenant Act was proclaimed on August 9. He did it

while the legislation was going through this Legislature but

before it was actually proclaimed by cabinet.

The interesting thing about this is that the landlord went

and leased the apartment block to himself. West Park

Investments Ltd., we find, belongs to George Mulek, Brian and

Violet Hitchen. In order to avoid the Landlord and Tenant Act

and the rent controls, he went and took his own apartment

building, owned by himself and the other two people I've

mentioned, and set up the name West Park Investments, which was

actually, the investment company which they had owned

previously. Under that name he went and transferred it from

them directly to the company that was owned by them. So he's

leasing the apartment block to himself on a 99-year lease

basis.

Recently he proceeded to give eviction notices to the

tenants, and I've asked the Attorney-General

[ Page 582 ]

(Hon. Mr. Macdonald) to carry out an investigation through

his department. This is presently proceeding. As it appears, he

has actually converted the apartments to 99-year lease and so

the tenants are very much concerned about what rights they

really have, because he has been able to, I think, somewhat

avoid the provisions of the Landlord and Tenant Act by leasing

the apartments to himself.

Now he's leasing the apartments out individually, one at a

time, to new people. The new people are coming in and then they

last week started sending eviction notices to the tenants. The

new tenants in effect are evicting the old tenants. People are

pretty upset about it in Richmond.

The reason I'm bringing this up is that this apartment owner

owns apartments elsewhere in B.C. and there are other apartment

owners, landlords as well, who thought they might get away with

converting to 99-year lease throughout the province. If this

one succeeds, I think we're going to be facing a major problem

in B.C. with suites where the landlords rushed in and changed

over the tenure of the apartments before the Act was

proclaimed.

Even while it might be legal, I think it wrong that a person

can lease a property to himself in order to avoid legislation.

I think it's wrong that he should be able to use new tenants to

try and evict the people he couldn't evict under the

legislation if he was following the legislation properly. I

think it's wrong that he should be able to use this system to

jack up the rents by 75 per cent. Ironically, the way the Act

reads right now, the old tenants who are being evicted by the

new tenants don't even get moving expenses to which they are

entitled under other terms of eviction.

What I would like to suggest, and the purpose for bringing

this to your attention today, is that until the housing crisis

is over — and I don't expect that will be too long — there

should be a freeze on 99-year leases here in B.C., leases that

are given out on an individual basis.

Presently, the 99-year lease conversion of an apartment

block has to be approved by the local council. But in cases

where this was avoided and a leased building is now being

leased out apartment by apartment, I think this type of leasing

should be frozen at least until the crisis is over. This may

take a year or two, but the question is: where do these people

go? As the conversions continue, these people are just thrown

right out on their own. Most of the ones in the apartments I

have been mentioning are old-age-pensioners. There's no place

for them to go.

I think it's also a crime that so many vacant suites are being kept in these

apartments. If the 99-year leases were frozen so that they cannot convert the

individual suites on a 99-year basis, then the landlord would have to rent his

suites out rather than having them sit there vacant while he waits for somebody

to come and buy them. I think this would also prevent other landlords from carrying

out the same kind of method that this particular landlord has tried to use to

hassle his tenants and get them to leave. A lot of the tenants did leave. As

I mentioned, about 30 of them just couldn't take the hassle to try to get them

to pay a 75 per cent increase in rent.

Before closing I would like to talk briefly on education and

the Education budget as it pertains to my riding. As it

presently stands, Richmond has about the worst situation of any

school district in the province as far as pupil/teacher ratio

is concerned. Among all the school districts we will have the

greatest increase in pupil/teacher ratio in the province in

1975. The increase as it now stands will be from 19.8 pupils to

one teacher in 1974 to 20.8 in 1975, an increase of 4.8 per

cent in the pupil/teacher ratio. This would put us in the

bracket of having the second highest pupil/teacher ratio in

B.C.

Due to the fact that the finance formula also includes

non-teaching staff, and enrolment in special classes is fixed —

special classes such as industrial education and so on; they

won't allow any increase in those classes — due to these

reasons some of the ordinary classroom teachers, such as

classroom teachers in the elementary school, could be faced

with an increase in September, 1975, of around three to five

pupils per class. Other school districts have been able to

maintain or improve the pupil/teacher ratio because their

actual school enrolment is down.

In our case, because we're a rapidly growing community, our

enrolment is also growing rapidly and will increase further

this year or next as the hundreds of homes which are nearing

completion are filled, and all the ones that are sitting vacant

- which I was talking about earlier — are filled.

In past years, because assessments went up, the local school

boards and the councils were able to say, okay, they'd cut the

mill rate down and taxes haven't gone up. But due to the fact

that the assessments are now frozen, the school board in

Richmond was faced with increasing the mill rate. In doing so,

they just increased the mill rate by 7 mills — just enough to

meet the normal inflated costs, but with no money at all to

reduce the pupil/teacher ratio, or even maintain it at the 19.8

level set in 1974. In fact, in reality, the Richmond school

board has budgeted for the 1973 level of educational quality in

Richmond.

As a teacher and a parent with children in the Richmond

school system, I find that most appalling. I still maintain

that we should be continuing our commitment to reduce the

pupil/teacher ratio as a priority. I recognize that this isn't

possible this year due to the present recession, but I hope

that we'll be able to continue that programme in the near

future.

I would like to ask the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs.

Dailly) to seriously consider the special grant

section 1n her

budget this year, and through

[ Page 583 ]

that

section to seriously consider a special grant to

Richmond so that the present pupil/teacher ratio can be

maintained. I would also like to suggest to the Minister that

perhaps she might nudge the Richmond school board a little bit

because I don't think they have been doing their job.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. STEVES: I think they've been really dragging their

heels, just like some of the people on the council in Richmond,

which I was referring to earlier, who have been dragging their

heels on housing.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The school district lost a lot of good

teachers.

MR. STEVES: Yes, they lost a lot of good teachers.

I'd also like to comment on something that seems to be

topical here today — blacklists. While I've never seen an

actual blacklist, I know that blacklists have existed in the

past.

Interjection.

MR. STEVES: The Hon. Member over there says that he's been

on one. Not an educational one, I think, but probably one

dealing with carpenters.

Well, actually, I've been on one dealing with teachers. It

may not have been written, but it certainly was verbal.

Usually it was used against teachers who are of different

political persuasions from the previous government, the Social

Credit Party, and it generally applied to teachers who were

trying to make educational changes in the education system.

How I happened to know that I was sort of on the list was

that my wife, who is probably even better qualified as a

teacher than I was, couldn't get a job in Richmond. She tried

for about three years. Finally one of these school supervisors

came around to the school and said to me after school one day:

"Look, your wife can't get a job in Richmond simply because of

her last name. You've been active in trying to get some

educational changes." Actually, I'd been campaigning for the

collegial system in the schools, and a lot of the principals

didn't like that very much. "Also you've been involved in the

NDP, and she can't get a job in Richmond. But if she goes and

applies in another area, I'll put in a word for her and she'll

get a job."

Interestingly enough, three years after she got out of

teacher training at UBC she finally got a job. That's the way

she got it. He said that that was just a fact of life. She was

not welcome in Richmond. She had to go elsewhere. Basically,

she was blacklisted in Richmond because she was married to

me.

I don't know whether I was blacklisted or not, but I had

tenure and they couldn't get rid of me. Some of them would have

liked to and some of them tried.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Who made that statement?

MR. STEVES: As I mentioned before, I did try to use the

collegial system. In fact, I even spoke in a public meeting at

one time. I made front-page headlines over the idea of teachers

working together, running the school together, working with

students, not having a hierarchical system where the principal

and vice-principal told you what to do.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Who made the statement that she would

have to move out of the Richmond district?

MR. STEVES: This was one of the supervisors in Richmond. I

haven't talked to him, so I'm not at liberty to give his name.

He is now retired. He mentioned that to me personally in the

hallway after school one day. This was about five years ago.

She went and applied in Delta, as he suggested, and she got a

job in Delta.

MR, D.A. ANDERSON: Did he give his reasons?

MR. STEVES: He said it was largely because she was married

to me. That's the way he put it. He inferred the other reasons.

I don't know about the changes I was trying to make as far as

the collegial system was concerned and my political activities, whether

that had some bearing on it. My feeling is basically that that

is what it was all about.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Did you speak to the Minister after you

were elected about that?

MR. STEVES: No, I never brought it to her attention. Perhaps

I should have. I really didn't expect that the blacklist would

continue. Perhaps it did.

Anyway, I shouldn't be going on with a personal private

conversation back and forth. I've got a couple of minutes

left.

I am pleased, as far as the recent firings are concerned, to

note that Ken Novakowski, one of the people who was fired, who

happens to be a personal friend of mine and also a close

political friend as well — we have similar ideas — has gone

back to where he was teaching before in Langley. He not only is

going to be back teaching in the school system in September,

but they took him on immediately in Langley. I think he started

about a week ago.

Interjections.

[ Page 584 ]

MR. STEVES: I'm not going to comment on harassment. I'm not

sure just what you are dealing with there. I would like to ask the

Minister, however, to continue with the commitment to the community

school and collegial system of education. This is one of our policies

that I have held for a long time. It is one of our party policies. I

hope, in light of the recent firings in her department, that this does

not mean that the programme will be scrapped. I've had a very strong

personal commitment to this programme for years. I hope that this

programme will be continued. I never want to see us go back to the

system we had under the old government that depended upon a system of

fear in the school system. This is what these blacklists and everything

mean. If teachers are afraid to speak out, if teachers are afraid to

try new ideas in the school system, it is a system of fear. That is

what we had under the old government. I have been happy to see this go.

I would never want to see those guys back in here again bringing that

system back into British Columbia.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: We lost the research division just last week.

MR. STEVES: In conclusion, I would like to say that we have

had the wrecking crew working in this Legislature. They are

presently working in my riding right now. I inferred this the

other day when I said that the local council had a number of

Socreds on it and they are all fighting for the Social Credit

nomination. They have actually passed the buck, as I mentioned

earlier, on housing programmes in Richmond. They have dragged

their feet in the neighbourhood improvement programme in the

Steveston area that some of us have been promoting. Strangely

enough, Ernie LeCours, the former MLA, has been supporting us

on this one and some of the others.

The Socreds in council were dragging their feet on accepting

recreation money from this government. We had an indoor pool

that they could get a third of a million dollars for. They have

been dragging their heels on that one. They have actually

opposed outright the establishment of a day-care centre into

which the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) was going

to put $20,000. We are trying to find some way now of building

that without the municipal approval.

They have rezoned a major farming area in Richmond for

industry contrary to the wishes of the community and a

9,000-name petition. This has been going on quite consistently

on the part of the Richmond council.

The home wreckers, the wrecking crews who are operating here in this Legislature

and back in my riding, are not too much interested in their own community as

much as who will be the Socred standard-bearer in Richmond. Fortunately, I hear

that hey are going to have the nomination and get it over with in the next week

or two. One of them is a carpetbagger from the Liberal Party; he's one of the

main contenders. Another one is a carpetbagger from the Conservative Party. They

are holding joint, dual memberships in both parties.

Fortunately, the people of Richmond are beginning to see

through their antics, are beginning to see that the Socreds are

no longer the populist group they try to pretend they are, are

beginning to see that hey are a wrecking crew, are beginning to

see that he people in Richmond who are running for the Socred

nomination are just like these people over here. They are

beginning to see that we have got a new breed of Socreds, no

longer the populists but people who are only interested in

power and their own opportunity to gain. They try to promote

doom and gloom; they try to promote fear. They jump from party

to party to try to maintain the old establishment in power in

this province. I think the people in my riding and the people

in this province elsewhere are going to see through this and

are going o reject that kind of nonsense.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Would you please

deduct the applause from my time? You know, since this

government brought in closure, they're very conscious of not

having anybody speak.

I want to say that it's certainly a great privilege and a

great honour for me to stand in this Legislature this afternoon

and take my

part in the budget debate. It's a great honour and

a privilege to represent that great constituency of South Peace

River, which is part of the greater land beyond the Rocky

Mountains, the area with the large, flowing oil wells and the

spurting gas wells which supply much of the energy for this

province, the area with the turning turbines generating

two-thirds of the power for this province...

MR. LEWIS: Hot air!

MR. PHILLIPS: ...the area with the flowing wheat fields,

and cattle standing knee-deep in grass. Mr. Speaker, you know

what it's like. You've been up there. That great land beyond

the Peace! And it's my pleasure to serve that great

constituency.

You know, Mr. Speaker, it's been an interesting session so

far. We had a throne speech which went back into the past

record of the present government. During the debate on the

throne speech we had cabinet Ministers standing in their place

in this Legislature desperately trying to protect the work they

have done in the last two and a half years. One would think

that either there's going to be a cabinet

[ Page 585 ]

shuffle or there's something else in the wind. But you know,

Mr. Speaker, as well as I know that some of the old cabinet

hinges are becoming a little rusty.

But I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, than when I look at

this budget which we have before us, this 1975 budget proves

beyond any doubt the unique ability of the doctor of welfare

from St. Louis' ability to completely tax the people of the

Province of British Columbia. The budget we have before us is

almost unique in distributing poverty not only in the year 1975

but an increasing amount of it in the years ahead. Although

it's supposed to be a job-security budget, there is not in this

budget one single proposal for long-range planning that will

provide the much-needed jobs that are going to be needed in

this province in five to six years from now. A job-security

budget, Mr. Speaker? It's just the entire opposite.

But I want, this afternoon, to commend the Premier. He's

trying desperately to change his image.

MR. FRASER: Where is he?

MR. PHILLIPS: I Want to commend him for going out and going

on a fishing trip and trying to learn what the life of a

fisherman is like. I understand that on Friday he's going to

work in a lumber mill — I commend him for this — on the end of

a green chain.

MR. FRASER: In the Cariboo.

MR. PHILLIPS: It's time the Premier of this province

understood what it is like to earn a week's wages by the sweat

of his brow, because he's never really done it in his life. Our

Minister of Finance has spent his life giving away money that

other people have earned.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): What an insulting

thing to say!

MR. PHILLIPS: He has never had a true appreciation of what

it's like to go out and earn a week's wages and have it taxed

away from you.

MR. LEWIS: Oh, shame!

HON. MR. COCKE: Shame! Shame!

MR. PHILLIPS: What the Premier should do is go out and sit

in the offices of some of the small businessmen in this

province, some of the small businessmen who are faced with

meeting their bankers at the end of the month; some of the

small businessmen who are faced with meeting a payroll; some of

the small businessmen who are seeing their assets eroded away

by inflation. And this budget is adding more fuel to the

fire.

No, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Premier going out and trying to find out

what it's like to do a good, honest, hard day's work.

MR. LEWIS: Are you saying that a social worker isn't

honest?

MR. PHILLIPS: But I'm saying that he should also try and put

himself in the offices of some of the many thousands of small

businessmen in this province today who, because of this

government's policies, are finding it increasingly difficult to

say in business.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair]

HON. MR. COCKE: An honest day's work — a used car salesman!

MR. PHILLIPS: But not only is he trying to learn what it's

like to do an honest day's work; he's trying to change his

image. He's trying to come up with a new, low-key, sincere,

high finance, executive type — clean-cut. But I want to tell

you, Mr. Speaker, that a blue suit from George Straith won't

fool the people of this province. He's trying to change his

image, Mr. Speaker, from being no more the court jester, the

stand-up comedian, the clown-comedian or the Henny Youngman of

the Legislature. He's really trying, and he's trying

desperately, to change his image not only in this Legislature

but in the province at large.

With this new image and with this new budget, we have a new

planner who has come to the forefront in the Province of

British Columbia. No more are the Minister of Lands, Forests

and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) and Dr. Gaffney

directing the planning of the province. No, unfortunately for

them, but fortunately for the taxpayers of this province, we

have a new man now directing the stage, a new stage producer to

direct and increase the receipts at the box office — in other

words, increase the taxation on the people of British

Columbia.

This budget which we have before us is the first programme

from this new director — Mr. Eliesen.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: The exodus from Manitoba, Yes, this is the

first new direction, and if it's the direction that we're going

to be heading by this new planner, the people of this province

can look for new and increased taxes next year and the year

following.

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: But still our Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr.

Barrett) is still the star performer. He's the magician who can

take away your pocketbook and give it back to you with the

other hand and make you

[ Page 586 ]

laugh.

Then we have another outfit in this province, an s advertising agency — I

believe the name is Dunsky — who have now been given the name of Minister of

deception. They're assisted by two men in the Premier's office by the name of

Twiggy and McNelly.

They're putting out full-page ads in the paper and they're putting

out government newsletters and releases to the press. All of them don't

tell the entire truth.

I was very interested to look at the picture on the front page of

the budget. It's a picture of two young children. I would suppose that

the picture would depict the future of these children in this province.

I wonder if these children, whose picture is on the front page of this

budget speech, really realize that their future is being eroded away by

inflation and the inflationary policies contained in the budget.

MR. LEWIS: Oh, garbage!

MR. PHILLIPS: I wonder if the children on the front page of

this budget realize there are incentive-killing taxation

policies contained within this budget. I wonder if these

children realize that the policies contained in this budget are

going to lead to mass unemployment by the time they come into

the picture. I wonder if they realize that by the time they get

old enough to buy their own home, their freedom of choosing

land and owning their own land in British Columbia is going to

be gone. I wonder if they realize that by the time they are

taxpayers, a vast majority of the taxes of British Columbia

will go to pay interest on huge debts which this government is

incurring. I wonder if they realize that in the lower mainland

there will be nothing but slum apartment buildings for them to

live in, a situation created by the policies of this

government. I wonder if they realize that they might have to

move out of the province to find employment. I wonder if they

realize that they may have to work on a state farm or in a

state henhouse or on a state cattle ranch or in a state sawmill...

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Don't talk nonsense.

MR. PHILLIPS: ...or that if they want to work for this

government they must carry a party card.

If they have a complaint against this government, they will

have to wallow and wade through the mire of bureaucracy to get

to the source of their problem. Their future will be deep in

the heart of taxes.

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines): Why don't you give us

the solution then?

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm going to give you.... Well, Mr. Speaker, there's

a man — the Minister of Mines — who, above all people in this House, should

ask for solutions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. PHILLIPS: We've preached to that man and preached to him

and given him solutions, and you might as well talk to the desk

that's sitting in front of him.

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: This budget is a dying final attempt to buy

the people of British Columbia with heir own money — a dying

final attempt on the part of this government. It's an attempt

by the Minister of Finance to keep the people of this province

from the realities of what is going on.

I want to speak for just a few moments on northern

development. It's mentioned very briefly in he budget speech.

In the budget speech, it says:

"Our government is developing policies for the northern

region of the province through consultation with those most

intimately affected by such policies, the northern

residents."

That's what it says here in the budget speech.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: It says:

"Government departments will expand the public consultation

programme, undertake studies on matters of particular interest

to the north, such as social problems, special community needs

and individual living requirements, and generally ensure

communication of northern affairs."

For $403,000, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LEWIS: Hear, hear!

MR. PHILLIPS: But I've listened to the Members from the

north speak in this debate. I listened to the Member for Atlin

(MT. Calder); I listened to the Member for Skeena (Mr. Dent); I

listened to the Member for Omineca (Mr. Kelly); and I listened

to the Member for Prince Rupert (Hon. Mr. Lea).

You know, Mr. Speaker, this is a new department that this

government brought in: a department of northern affairs. I'll

admit I was asking for a department of northern affairs. There

are four Members in this Legislature representing northern

Tidings. I listened very carefully to their speeches, Mr.

Speaker, and heard not one word from any one of them about the

department of northern affairs, the department that is supposed

to be the liaison between the people of the north, the Members

of the north

[ Page 587 ]

and the cabinet.

Mr. Speaker, I can understand very easily how Members from

the north can be embarrassed with this department because the

people who live in the north look on this department of

northern affairs as a complete farce, and they laugh at it. So

I can understand why the Members, including the Minister of

Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea), didn't mention it in their

speeches.

I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, that for all the good that this

department of northern affairs is doing, it would be far better

if they took that $403,000 and spent it on roads in the area.

I'm telling you the people would be a lot happier.

The Minister of northern affairs (Hon. Mr. Nunweiler) does

not know what is going on in the cabinet, he is not accepted in

the cabinet and he is not told what the future plans are going

to be. So how is he going to live up to what it says in the

budget speech? How is he going to consult with the people in

the north? He is not in harmony with the Minister of Economic

Development (Hon. Mr. Lauk). The Minister of Lands, Forests and

Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) hasn't got time for the

little Minister of northern affairs. But the Premier consults

with him. He takes him along on his trips, Mr. Speaker, to

carry the bags.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. PHILLIPS: The Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources

(Hon. Mr. Nimsick) doesn't even know he exists, and the

Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) won't even tell him what's

going on. So how do you expect that poor Minister of northern

affairs to consult with the people in the north?

Mr. Speaker, this portfolio was handed out to pacify the

voters of Prince George, and it backfired. It's a complete

geographical and political appointment; that's all it is. He's

a Minister of northern affairs in tokenism only.

HON. MR, STRACHAN: You should be ashamed of yourself. You're

against the north.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I'm not against the north. I

asked for a Minister of northern affairs, but I wanted a

Minister of northern affairs who would be accepted into the

cabinet and who would know what the future plans of this

government are so that he could go out and consult.

Mr. Speaker, all this Minister of northern affairs has done

is hold meetings in the north and frustrate the very people at

those meetings because he doesn't know what's going on. When

asked questions lie can't give them any information. But he

sure set up a good bureaucracy. What is it? He's got 12 people

in his department?

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Fourteen.

MR. PHILLIPS: Fourteen people in his department. And what

has he accomplished, Mr. Speaker? He's accomplished absolutely

nothing.

AN HON. MEMBER: He takes minutes of meetings.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, it is very important that we have

a strong and solid liaison between the people of the north and

the rest of the cabinet because, if you cut a line from Prince

Rupert through to the Peace River area, you're looking at a

land mass which is almost 50 per cent of the Province of

British Columbia and which probably contains over 80 per cent

of the natural resources.

I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, the promise to consult with the

people in that area has been a complete farce — just so many

words. This is not happening. The people of the north have no

idea whatsoever of what this government's intentions are. In

the northwestern part of the province, where the government

came out and said they had great plans to create 24,000 jobs,

the people of that area have no idea what is going on. They see

surveys being done for roads; they know that other surveys are

being done. But the Minister of northern affairs has not told

those people what is going on.

Had it not been for a leaked provincial government document

dated February 18, 1974, the people in the northwest would

still be in the dark. This leaked government document, Mr.

Speaker, instead of alleviating their fears, enhanced their

fears. This document, which is a document which was supposed to

be an agreement between the federal government and the

provincial government, tells them that it is going to create

22,000 new jobs over the next 20 years. It's going to be the

promotion of the northwest autonomy by (

a) localizing services

and market facilities, and (

b) developing a transportation

network. But they don't know where. They haven't been

consulted. It mentions creation of an urban centre, probably

Terrace, but they don't know whether it's going to be in

Terrace, Smithers, Vanderhoof, or Prince Rupert, and they

haven't been asked.

Mr. Speaker, just listen to this: British Columbia Railway, Fort St. James

to Dease Lake by 1975; BCR from Klappan to Telegraph Creek; CNR from Terrace

to Groundhog; BCR from Dease Lake to Lower Post. It goes on to list the roads

and part facilities.

Why has not the Minister of northern affairs consulted with

the people in that area? We're looking not only at roads and

railroads and super ports, we're looking at sawmill expansion,

we're looking at a copper smelter, we're looking at hydro power

development for an influx of 22,000 workers, an

[ Page 588 ]

increase in the population in that area of some 75,000

people.

I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, if this government is sincere

about their development of the northwest portion of this

province, the Minister of northern affairs owes it to those

people to go up there and consult with them. Even the Member

for Atlin (Mr. Calder) doesn't know what's going on. The

Members from those ridings — the Member for Skeena (Mr. Dent),

the Member for Omineca (Mr. Kelly) and, indeed, the Member for

Prince Rupert (Hon. Mr. Lea) should be consulted on the future

plans of the government.

Because of the unemployment in that area, the Minister of

Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Lauk) should quit dragging his

feet...

MR. CHABOT: Through the mud.

MR. PHILLIPS: ...and he should get down to Ottawa and get

these three agreements signed. Mr. Speaker, we're sick and

tired of hearing in this Legislature: "Blame it on Ottawa."

The people of that area were promised that they would be

consulted. They haven't been consulted, They were promised

development to alleviate some of their unemployment problems

and absolutely nothing has happened except, Mr. Speaker, that

the first irrevocable step towards the northwest development

occurred when the Burns Lake timber sale allotment was awarded

to a 74 per cent foreign-owned consortium...and I think it's

the Burns Lake timber sale also. Those are irrevocable steps,

and the people of those areas were not consulted.

Had it not been for this document, which was not obtained

from the Minister of northern affairs — I don't know how it was

leaked out — these people wouldn't have an idea at all. We've

had the Premier go up there, we've had the Minister of Economic

Development go up there and we've had the federal Minister in

charge of DREE (Hon. Mr. Jamieson) go up there, but the people

are none the wiser. They want some answers. They're sick and

tired of the Minister of Economic Development dragging his

feet.

The Premier went up there, Mr. Speaker, and he didn't

consult. He didn't even consult with the local civic council,

let alone the people. They had to pass resolutions and urge the

Premier to do something.

Now I'd like to deal for just a moment, Mr. Speaker, with

the northeastern

section of the province.

HON. MR. COCKE: Where is that?

MR. PHILLIPS: That's a typical question — the Minister of Health asking

where the northeastern

section of the province is. He has probably never gone

up there. He probably doesn't even know that it exists.

HON. MR. COCKE: I went up there and they told me all about

you.

MR. PHILLIPS: But you know, Mr. Speaker, we were going to

have great action from this government. We were going to have

from this government some action on the Fort Nelson–Port

Simpson highway. What do we get from the Minister of Highways

(Hon. Mr. Lea)? Nothing. Blame it on Ottawa. When Ottawa gets

to the border, so will we.

In the conferences being held by Mr. Justice Berger in the

North West Territories, it has been brought out that British

Columbia stands to gain as the prime supplier for the MacKenzie

pipeline, if and when it's ever built. It will be built, Mr.

Speaker, but how will British Columbia ever reap any of the

much-needed tax dollars supplying all the social programmes

that this government has brought in if we don't do some

economic development?

Mr. Speaker, the Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith)

and myself stood in this Legislature many times and warned the

Minister o