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)

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 1975

Night Sitting

[ Page

165 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Throne speech debate

Mr. Schroeder —

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 167

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 170

Mr. McClelland — 174

Mr. Gibson — 182

Appendix — 188

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

Orders of the day.

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued debate)

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): When we stopped for the

break, Mr. Speaker, I was just complimenting the Minister of

Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) for the fact that she was long on

idealism. It seems to me I remember saying, just as she was

interrupting me, that it was a good thing she was idealistic

because without idealism society would be stagnant. So it's a

welcome asset.

Nonetheless, I had to follow up that statement by saying

idealism, in itself, seldom brings a satisfactory answer; there

must be decision, there must be action and, indeed, there must

be continuity. If you embark on a project and abandon it before

you even reach the conclusion of phase one, you frustrate not

just yourself, not just those in your department, but you

frustrate those with whom you must work in society.

I would have to reiterate that if there was a shortcoming of

the Minister in working with the school districts, particularly

as it pertains to budgeting, it would have to be this:

promising three years of continuity in one programme, five

years of continuity in another programme, and cutting both

programmes short at the conclusion of the first year. The

three-year programme was the one in which she guaranteed that

we would be reducing the student average, 1.5 each year for a

period of three years for a total of 4.5 reduction to a level

of 17. That programme has been abandoned after one year.

The second programme upon which we embarked was the

reduction of taxation on property for education purposes, which

was given a five-year lifespan, over which period property

taxes for education purposes were to be removed altogether.

Let's take a look to see what happened. A $30 reduction was offered in the

first year. It came very much like a homeowner's grant — you could deduct it

from your cheque when you made out your tax cheque. However, this year, in my

constituency, because of an abandonment of a programme somewhere down the road

and a programme already in progress, the mill rate is going to increase in my

constituency by 10 mills. This means that there is a variable as to the amount

of extra taxation that is going to be paid, but all for education purposes,

depending on whether or not your assessment is high or low. Let's take an assessment

on my own home, which is assessed at $17,000, a 10-mill increase for education

purposes. I haven't confirmed this, but it looks like my tax increase could

be as high as $170. It could be.

This is the result of the kind of a programme which begins

well, begins on an idealistic basis, falls into hard times in

its very first year, and is thrown back, and subjects us to a

taxation heavier than the one we originated with. Why? It seems

to me it is because we're long on idealism, short on

continuity, and have not enough regard for projected costs.

All of this has happened after one of British Columbia's

best years. As a matter of fact, I listened to the Provincial

Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) say: "B.C. has never been in better

shape." Ha! Ha! Ha! I want you to know, Mr. Attorney-General

(Hon. Mr. Macdonald), through you, Mr. Speaker, that's pretty

tough to swallow out on the flood plains.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SCHROEDER: That's pretty tough to swallow! We had a $30

reduction and then a $120 increase, or a $170 increase,

depending on what your assessment is. It is a pretty tough pill

to swallow.

The next area I want to ask about is: what is the new role

of the research and development department? It was in December

that Hon. Mrs. Dailly, the Minister of Education, it says here,

released this news clip:

"The R&D, as it is known, will concentrate on functional

literacy, the right to education, and equality of education

opportunity. In announcing the completion of the organization

of the new section, Mrs. Dailly said: 'We want to examine the

strengths of the school system as well as the weaknesses. Local

school boards will be invited, but not obliged, to join

research and development programmes.' "

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mumbo jumbo!

MR. SCHROEDER: It's under the caption: "R&D is ready to

go." That was on December 10.

Now we're on January 21...

AN HON. MEMBER: Sounds like the Member for Dewdney (Mr.

Rolston).

MR. SCHROEDER: ...and the entire R&D programme

collapses with the firing of the director.

AN HON. MEMBER: He wasn't fired.

MR. SCHROEDER: What do you mean, he wasn't fired? Mr.

Speaker, it says right here: "Mrs. Dailly said he had no tenure

with her department and his firing was a routine Public Service

Commission matter." He was fired, make no mistake about it. He

was fired.

[ Page 166 ]

But I want you to know, Mr. Speaker, the foresight, the

continuity which I've been talking about tonight, that went

into this decision, because the night before Mr. Knight learned

of his firing, he had a special assignment.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): He was

on approval and he didn't shape up.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Who are you, the

Minister of defence?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Interjections.

MR. D.T. KELLY (Omineca): Have you ever been on

probation?

MR. SCHROEDER: The answer is no.

MR. PHILLIPS: The whole crew over there is on probation.

Interjections.

MR. SCHROEDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for putting the House

in order.

The day before he was informed that his services were no

longer required — can I put it in that language — Mr. Knight

was asked by Mr. Fleming to work with the Washington state

education officials to organize an international conference on

education, scheduled for the fall. The day before — and they

all sat in the room. Everyone knew he was going to get the sack

the next day; they knew — and what happened? According to Mr.

Knight, at least, they sat and smiled while the assignment was

given.

I want you to know, Mr. Speaker, that this department is

long on idealism but short on continuity.

What is going to be the new rule — the new rule of the

research and development department? It seems to me that when

Mr. Bremer came — bless his heart, wherever he is — this entire

business of research was going to get a facelift. We were going

to get a new look at education. We were now ready for a change

because we had the right government.

The minute research and development began to take shape —

collapse, no continuity. Along comes Mr. Knight. He heads up

the research and development department, and he does what he is

asked to do — supposedly not too much because the minute he got

involved, he was released.

Now I understand that we are going to go into the new phase, phase three of

research and development, and it's simply this — here it is — Mr. Fleming's statement:

"The purpose of this research and development department is to develop the necessary research

and development capability in order that the department can

respond effectively and efficiently to the government's wish to

have a number of major areas of the education system in this

province analyzed."

Some more research; some more studies. But the minute any

directive comes out, any suggestion comes out of the research

development, we hear things like: "They talk too much and don't

listen enough." I wonder what's going to be the new rule of the

research and development department.

MR. PHILLIPS: Just get the strap out.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Does the Hon. Member want this

chorus or do you want me to stop it?

MR. SCHROEDER: As long as it's in harmony, Sir, it's all

right. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It sounds better than the speech you're

making.

MR. SCHROEDER: I notice, as I look at the 6 1/2 lines devoted

to education in the throne speech, that if you put them

together the way they're supposed to be...Take a look again;

there are about 6 1/2 lines of actual material there — the rest

of it's in the margin.

I don't see any suggestion here that we can better education

by training teachers how to teach. I think that good teachers

are more than the lowest possible number of students in a

classroom: good teaching is more than an adequate salary; good

teaching is more than facilities; and good teaching is more

than just a set of ideals.

But you have to know how to teach. I think the kind of a

person who is going to do a good job in the classroom as a

teacher is one in whom we are going to have to instil some

confidence in their own abilities. We are going to have to

impart some leadership to that person in the classroom. We are

going to have to encourage creativity. We are going to have to

establish a dignity of profession, which used to be there. It

used to be there. When the teacher walked the streets of his

little town or his big city....

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Hers.

MR. SCHROEDER: Hers. Yes, ma'am. They held their shoulders back and

held their heads high because they were a profession. They were equal with the

lawyers and they were equal with the doctors and

[ Page

167 ]

they were equal with the ministers of the area. They were a

profession. I think we need to re-establish this dignity again.

More than that, they've got to be given not only the

responsibility of the classroom but they've got to be given the

authority in that classroom to carry out that responsibility.

Without that, the result is frustration.

I think the teachers need to be heard when they say what

this government has been saying for a long time: "Trust us. Why

can't you trust us? Why do you put us into a classroom and

impose a whole lot of restrictions on us? After all, we are the

ones who have listened to you as you have taught us how to

teach. Why don't you let us be in our classrooms and let us be

the teachers? Trust us in the classroom."

I also notice no reference to local autonomy. This party,

for one, stands strong on a policy of local autonomy. We

believe that local autonomy should be exercised in regards to

curriculum. It should be exercised as regards innovation; it

should be exercised as regards staff; it should be exercised as

regards tenure.

What I've just said about teachers can also be said about

trustees. Why not make their job a worthwhile job? Give them

the responsibility of their job and then give them the

authority to carry out their responsibility. Why water it down

by a centralist concept, the kind that we are getting under

this government?

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): Be more specific.

MR. SCHROEDER: I can be very specific when it comes to

Dewdney, very specific. I was just with your crew over there on

Saturday night. I don't think you would want me to be that

specific.

I see no mention in the Speech from the Throne with

reference to standards or competition. I can feel with the

child who came to her teacher just this past week and said

"How do I know if I am doing well?" With the absence of

grading, with only pass or failure, the student feels the same

frustration that any person would feel in any society if they

don't really know how well they're doing. I hail the return of

standards; I hail the return of competition, both in the

classroom and outside the classroom. I think that the sooner we

have it the better. Without this competition, without the

standards, they don't know until too late.

By the way, Mr. Speaker, I'm not saying, as I'm saying these

words, that this administration is to blame for what I'm

talking about. I'm just saying that the problem exists and that

we should be doing something about it. Those who were in power

before us need to take as much blame as the ones seated in the

places of responsibility now.

Forty per cent of students failed a simple examination at UBC, and why? It

was unnecessary. It wasn't that the exam was difficult, Mr. Premier; it wasn't

that they didn't have time to prepare. It was that all during those last years

of their preparation competition was waning. They didn't have the standards

that they needed to know: "Are we doing well or are we not doing well?" I'm

with the lady who says: "Let's bring back the standards into our classroom."

If this department has one asset, it has to be that they are

long on idealism. If they have one liability, it has to be that

they are short on continuity.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): How do you spell it?

MR. SCHROEDER: Continuity?

AN HON. MEMBER: B-R-A-I-N-S. (Laughter.)

MR. SCHROEDER: As we have observed the progress, or lack of

progress, in this department over the past six or eight months

particularly, I think it would be safe to say that the Minister

has had to have been an embarrassment to her department. Very

certainly she has been an embarrassment to her own government.

Now, on an increasing basis, apparently she is an embarrassment

to her own party. Some of them applaud, as reported yesterday,

the demands for her release.

I personally like the Minister. We disagree philosophically,

and that's understandable. But please, please, Mr. Speaker,

don't make her subject herself to an expanding barrage of

public criticism when she has been victimized by her own

indecision. Give her some relief.

Interjections.

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Economic Development): I didn't

get that reaction in caucus today.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased not only to receive such a

welcome from all sides of the House, which I might say is

well-deserved.... (Laughter.) But I'm very pleased to take

my place in the throne speech debate.

MR. PHILLIPS: Hark! What tale is this we hear?

(Laughter.)

HON. MR. LAUK: That's what we get, Mr. Speaker, when we have

longer than usual supper hours. The Member for South Peace

River gets a little frisky. He's eating his own steak tartar.

But, as I say, Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take my place

in this debate, and congratulate the Lieutenant-Governor on a

very fine throne speech. Now there are some cynics in this

House who may

[ Page 168 ]

consider that speech a partisan speech.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No, no.

HON. MR. LAUK: But that speech, Mr. Speaker, demonstrated

clearly, by stating the simple facts, the tremendous record of

this little government in a short period of time.

MR. PHILLIPS: No wonder you're blushing.

HON. MR. LAUK: I'm blushing because I'm embarrassed for you,

Mr. Member. (Laughter.)

I would like to speak longer on the speech itself, Mr.

Speaker, but I wish to raise what I consider a very important

issue that's facing all British Columbians today. That is the

issue of women's rights.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Yea! (Laughter.)

HON. MR. LAUK: There are many women's rights groups in this

province and across the country that are arguing that they have

a just cause and that there is inequality between the sexes

and, in particular, between the sexes in the institutions of

society: the economy, the political structure, our schools and

hospitals.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LAUK: When all the snide remarks and all the little

jokes and the nervous giggles are over, Mr. Speaker, there is a

basic issue in this province that is not to be laughed at. It

is a reality that we all have to face, but it is only the

immature among we men who think it's funny, who crack the snide

little sexist jokes and try to waive off a very tremendous

injustice to half the population of this province.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LAUK: I don't consider it funny and I don't

consider it to be a matter joked about all the time. I like a

good joke as well as you do, Mr. Member, but, you know, there

is a time when we all have to face the facts and realize that

as mature people we have to cope with a situation and try and

solve the problem.

It is not that women wish to become men. They wish to become human beings with

equal opportunity. I suggest to you that the women's liberation movement will

not go away. I suggest to you that its cause, in large measure, is just, and

that it will inevitably be successful. The concept that women are not as capable

as men is mediaeval. Their relegation by society to a subservient role is feudal.

If a woman chooses to enter business, law, medicine, or as a homemaker, or a

nurse, or a plumber or a carpenter, she should have, in the clearest possible

terms, equal opportunity with men. I think we can all start from the common

ground that discrimination against women, denying or limiting as it does their

equality of rights with men, is fundamentally unjust and constitutes an offence

against human dignity.

When women try to put this principle into practice and push

for equal pay for equal work, equal opportunities for

promotion, a place in the power structure of institutions in

society, their demands are met with disbelief, resistance, and

sometimes outright rejection. Because of this attitude, we have

to work towards creating a new climate within which to plan for

the economic status of the women of this province.

Traditionally, British Columbia is a province where men

filled the pioneering jobs in mining, logging, transportation

and construction, while women had a much more limited

participation in the labour force, taking the primary

responsibility for the household. Whatever we have come to

believe about role differences and role differentiation, these

beliefs, I suggest to you, are no longer functional in the

light of present social and economic change.

Much of the recent tension regarding sex roles arises from

the laggardly adjustment of law, customs and institutions to

these changes. This role of women in the family has been viewed

as a role of consumption rather than productivity. In a society

where money determines value, homemakers are a group who work

outside the money economy. This assumption about the role of

women in our culture relegates them to low-paying jobs, both

full- and part-time, an absence from almost all power

structures, and therefore an inability in planning their

economic future and their quality of life in this province.

It also discourages women from investing in higher education

or advanced training. It leads to discrepancies in pension

plans, mortgage and credit availability and financial

protection. It throws most of the responsibility for raising

and socializing children on the woman rather than on the total

family.

Above all, this assumption about the role of women in our

society discourages women from thinking in terms of their own

economic security and planning for their economic future on the

basis of their own rights and their own ability.

There are many women's groups throughout the province

working to change the picture. Change is also taking place

through both the development of educational material on women

and by the increasing involvement of women in the political

process. It is now up to all institutions, both in the

government and the private sector, to meet this challenge.

I'm not suggesting for a moment, Mr. Speaker, that there are

not exceptions to the rule. There are a

[ Page 169 ]

great many. There are the distinguished Members of this

Legislative Assembly: the Member for North Okanagan (Mrs.

Jordan); the Member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown); the

Member for Vancouver South (Mrs. Webster); the distinguished

Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Ms. Young). But these are

exceptions to the rule.

AN HON. MEMBER: You forgot Comox.

HON. MR. LAUK: The Member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) — have I

left anybody out? — and the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs.

Dailly). These are distinguished exceptions to the rule. There

always can be exceptions, but that is no answer to the

argument.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. LAUK: I think we can all agree that there is not

equal opportunity. That these people have achieved success

politically and other women have achieved success in medicine

and in law and in the economy is because they are very

exceptional people and they had to be twice as good as the men

in those fields to overcome the roadblocks that are put up for

them because of their sex.

Now all this is leading me to this announcement: that we

have instituted in the Department of Economic Development a new

branch, the women's economic rights branch. The director is

Eileen Caner.

Let me tell you a little story — an interesting story. When

I took this portfolio I interviewed a great many people in the

department — all of them, as a matter of fact. There were only

about 14 professionals. One of them was a person with a great

many years of service in British Columbia public service. Her

background in education and in private industry, with

universities and so on, was a most impressive background. But

this lady was in a corner someplace, at the lowest level, as a

research assistant and with no opportunity for advancement. She

was passed over year after year.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Who did

that?

HON. MR. LAUK: I guess the predecessor of my

predecessor.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, his predecessor

was the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald).

HON. MR. BARRETT: He said the predecessor of his

predecessor. Open your ears. Listen.

HON. MR. LAUK: The Second Member for Victoria is wrong again, and this

is because we do leave too much time between our afternoon break and the evening

session for the Member to go to the Union Club...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, Oh!

HON. MR. LAUK: ...and eat too many wheat cakes and it plugs

up his ears.

In any event, the research assistant whom I interviewed had

very many interesting concepts and ideas. She had obviously

been passed over time after time again, and I don't think we

should examine who or why, or why the previous administration

had this very mediaeval attitude. But this person was soon

appointed director of economic analysis and planning within the

department, with her own staff. She's done good work for us,

and I've asked her to be director of this new branch, and she

has accepted it enthusiastically, and by large measure the

design and the mandate of the branch is from her own research

and on her own suggestion.

The mandate of this branch, Mr. Speaker, will be to examine,

plan and recommend on all issues affecting the economic rights,

economic development and socio-economic status of women in the

province. The branch will report directly to the Deputy

Minister and will work under his direction.

The branch will be headed by Mrs. Eileen Caner, as I said

earlier, a regular career public servant. Mrs. Caner worked

formerly as a research officer, trade development officer and

director of economic policies and is therefore completely

familiar with the programme policies of the department.

The branch will be staffed by a skilled team with

backgrounds in economics, statistics, sociology, commerce or

related fields. All its members will have a history of

involvement in or awareness of the women's movement in the

province.

Its programmes: the women's economics rights branch will be

offering input to all programmes and projects of the department

in order to constructively suggest how these programmes and

projects can be developed to offer equivalent benefits to women

and men. Special emphasis will be placed on ensuring that the

viewpoint of women forms an integral

part in the economic

development programmes and studies of the department. Women now

have a base from which to influence the economic planning and

the quality of life in this province. In this connection the

branch will be periodically evaluating consultation procedures

and will welcome suggestions for ways to improve the

process.

In the business development field, the branch will receive

available programmes with the small-business director to ensure

the provision of support and advice for women setting up their

own businesses. The department is meeting a vastly increased

demand from women attempting to enter the business field.

[ Page 170 ]

We are determined that information, programmes and staff

will be available to meet this demand.

The branch will produce policy recommendations for the

consideration of the Minister and the Deputy for extending the

present series of business development and promotional

programmes so that these programmes may extend equivalent

benefits to women and men. Currently, our business assistance

programmes are not being used by women. This means that we have

to look at the areas where women are currently entering the

business world and extend our programmes to meet the needs in

those areas.

In addition the branch, in response to consistent demand

from women's groups, will co-ordinate a continuously updated

profile of women in British Columbia to produce facts and

figures on all aspects of women's life in the British Columbia

economy. This will provide women's groups and institutions

working for the change that I menttioned the material they need

for policy proposals.

There has been insistent demand from many groups in the

province to examine the credit and mortgage picture for women

in British Columbia. The branch will also provide a contact

point to the administrative structure of the department for all

women's groups involved with economic development. The

necessity for this contact point has been clear for some

time.

In addition to providing additional statistical data and

consulting services, it will assist in conferences and

workshops for women in business. I already should mention, Mr.

Speaker, that through the efforts of Mrs. Caner, the British

Columbia Development Corp. has included within their programme

of seminars and courses throughout the province in business

education special emphasis and encouragement for women to enter

these courses and seminars so they can become familiar with

some expertise in establishing their own business or working in

the economy in some different level.

So, Mr. Speaker, we're not suggesting from this department

that this is going to be the total answer to the inequality of

rights between men and women, but it is our little modest start — a first start — and we hope that with some research and some

experience over the next several months and years it will be

able to provide some information to the women of this province

and to the men to establish clearly what the inequalities are

so that we can all work together to try and eliminate those

inequalities and try and bring about some equal

opportunity.

It is not, as I say, important to solve the problem

overnight — we can't do it. But in this modest way we hope that

it will be a sufficient start to encourage some women to enter

the business community, take their proper place in the

boardrooms of the nation, become leaders of national parties...

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Follow the leader of the

Conservatives.

HON. MR. LAUK: ...and run for the nomination in the

opposition. I have a feeling, Mr. Speaker, that if there were

more women in the opposition they would have a much more

reasonable approach to legislation that comes in this House,

and be much more effective as an opposition.

In all seriousness, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that I

think the jokes have to come to a stop once in a while. I think

that the little snide remarks do have to end and we do have to

work together to solve a problem for our fellow human beings.

Thank you.

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): It is a pleasure to

take my place in this debate. The style of the opposition has

been that they can't attack what we've done. They can't attack

the fact that we've brought splendid new programmes such as the

Community Recreational Facilities Fund Act, the sewage

treatment plant assistance Act, and housing programmes not just

in Vancouver and Victoria but all over the province —

programmes taking place in places like Fort Nelson and Fort St.

John in the north Peace River, and housing being constructed.

Certainly it's very evident, when one goes around an area like

my riding, that there has been a great deal done.

The other day we were treated by the Doukhobor choir from

Stanley Humphries Secondary School. While that high school is

in the riding of the Member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy),

many of those students come from Briems, Shoreacres, Glade, and

Pass Creek in my riding. I was very proud to see that; I think

it signifies something. Although some of these people, from

religious conscience, do not vote, unlike the previous

government we haven't ignored these people.

In fact, one of the most symbolic gestures or significant

achievements was exemplified when we opened up a new bridge

which will serve the community of Crescent Valley, Pass Creek,

Krestova and Goose Creek. Not only was the local MLA there, but

also the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley) was there,

the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr., King) was there, and the

Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) was there, This is a good, safe, concrete structure, and it means an

end to students having to get out of the school bus and walk

across that rickety old bridge on which they would be in danger

of falling through, because it was unsafe to transport students

to school each day. An old wooden bridge has been replaced by a

modern, reinforced-concrete structure over 132 feet in length.

Mr. Speaker, that was a proud moment. It was a very proud

moment for a 96-year-old lady who cut that ribbon and who had

looked for that bridge almost all of her life. I held the

ribbon.

[ Page 171 ]

Interjection.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: No, that is Social Credit. Many people

have talked about the sewage treatment plant assistance Act.

Under the former legislation passed only as recently as 1971,

if it were in effect, not one cent would have been received by

the City of Nelson which has built a rather expensive sewage

treatment plant to help enhance the environment of the Kootenay

River. But under the fine bill, pioneered by the Minister of

Municipal Affairs, there has been an impact and a saving to the

City of Nelson of the equivalent of 1.92 mills, a total grant

of $36,291.45.

Mr. Speaker, we hear quite often from the opposition about

what we supposedly aren't doing for the municipalities. Well, I

know that while the mayor of the City of Nelson is not

ideologically a socialist, he certainly has welcomed the many

moves that have been taken by my colleagues. He openly

supported right from the outset the acquisition of Kootenay

Forest Products. I have no doubt in my mind that if that were

being run by Crestbrook, if it had been allowed to go ahead —

as it surely would have if that group were in office — the

sawmill would be shut down today.

Somebody over there was talking about how many people were

out of work. One of my constituents was in the audience. He was

so misled, Mr. Speaker, that he rushed to the telephone. He

said that this can't be the case. After listening to that

prophet of doom and gloom over there, he thought that

everything was closed down. But he was very much reassured when

he phoned back and found out that not only was the thing going

but that it was going on a couple of shifts. Kootenay Forest

Products is going ahead and people are earning their salaries,

unlike what would have been the case if that group had been

allowed to remain in power for one more year.

You know, Mr. Speaker, there were a lot of concerns in that

last provincial election. One of the concerns centred around

the City of Nelson power plant. The former Social Credit

Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, Mr. Williston,

and Mr. Black the MLA, flew in one day and they laid a heavy

hand on the City of Nelson. They told them that that power

plant just had to go, that they had plans and they were going

to put everything under B.C. Hydro. Well, Mr. Speaker, that's

no longer an issue in Nelson. That power plant is still

operating, and it's still providing support and still helping

to supplement the needs and to provide services in the City of

Nelson.

Mr. Speaker, another type of assistance which was never

given by the previous government was assistance in the tune of

$17,330, equivalent to about one mill in the City of Nelson

and welcomed greatly.

You know that that sewage treatment plant assistance Act of the former government

would only have provided a total of $215,000 of assistance in the entire province,

Under our Minister's sweeping reform and legislation, we get assistance to our

municipalities in this province of $5.6 million. And, Mr. Speaker, next year

it's going to be a lot more.

Another concern in that area was the refusal of the old

Public Utilities Commission to allow Inland Natural Gas to

build a natural gas pipeline connection between Yahk and China

Creek. In the report in Business in B.C. ,

February edition, about KIDA country — that's the Kootenay

Industrial Development Association — Austin Fraser says:

"In the service field, Inland Natural Gas Company is

constructing a new interline between its pipeline terminus at

Rossland and the Albertan Southern Gas Co. line at Yahk to

serve Montrose, Fruitvale and Salmo to prevent peak shaving,

and B.C. Telephone Co. plans to spend close to $1 million."

Mr. Speaker, previous to this government putting an end to

the old PUC and bringing in the B.C. Energy Commission that

group, through political interference, prevented the building

of this pipeline, and it meant that every winter industry had

to shut down. The climate for industrial expansion in the

Kootenays was stifled, and sawmills, pulp mills and Cominco

itself were forced to curtail production. But the economic

climate is better, and many things are happening because of our

provincial government's legislation and programmes.

The Department of Agriculture is in the final stages of

negotiating a loan guarantee under the Farm Products Industry

Improvement Act to build a new packing shed for the fruit

growers in Creston: the Creston Co-op Packers Association. Swan

Valley Foods has been guaranteed loans and we have a 10 per

cent equity. They have a marvelous controlled-atmosphere

storage facility, and we will soon be into the stage of

building a processing plant that is as revolutionary as the

invention of the tin can.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Name names.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: The people of Nelson have been very

pleased with the response of the Department of Recreation and

Conservation, its Minister to my left, and its imaginative

programme under the Community Recreational Facilities Fund Act.

At the conclusion of the last election, there had been two

election promises made of a positive nature:

$25,000 to the Nelson swimming pool, and

$25,000 to Creston.

Under this provincial government programme, our grant to the

City of Nelson is $97,700; further grants for renovations of

the curling rink, $72,681. Little

organizations, such as the Nelson Rowing Club — and they

recognized rowing as both a male and female

[ Page 172 ]

sport, a very hard-working group — have been given encouragement for

a grant which would be in the order of $3,000. The Nelson Rod and Gun

Club, Creston Valley Civic Centre Association, got $80,000, Mr.

Speaker, not $25,000. With no election on, the West Creston Hall got

$1,000. The Boswell Hall, the Salmo Golf Club, the Salmo Tennis Club,

the Salmo Swimming Pool Society, the Salmo Ski Club, in all, almost

$1 million...

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Bingo!

HON. MR. NICOLSON: ...in recreational grants — money which I

say is well spent, Mr. Speaker, money which is recycled and

which created jobs that will create permanent jobs and will

create recreational opportunities for the young people, the old

people and the middle-aged people.

Very recently I had the pleasure of having the Minister of

Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) in my riding, and we visited

the Kootenay Society for the Handicapped. The Minister was very

impressed with the sheltered workshop activities which were

taking place there, and there will be...

MR. PHILLIPS: What about Dunill?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: ...assistance to the Kootenay Society for

the Handicapped as well as to the Nelson Homemakers Society,

the Nelson District Child Care Society and the Nelson Youth

Activity Centre.

Mr. Speaker, they don't like to hear about these programmes.

They can't attack what we're doing. They just say: "Well, what

you're doing — yes, well, we would do that but we would do it

differently." I'll tell you, Mr., Speaker, they'd do if

differently. They would cut the recreational facilities funds

back from $1 million to $50,000; that's what they would do over

there.

Interjections.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, they ask about housing. We're

building housing, provincial family housing. We have in

progress 444 units, and we have planned 7,373 units.

Senior citizens' housing in progress, that is under sections

40 and 43, 1,402 units. We have in progress, between

section 15

of the Elderly Citizens Housing Aid Act, 1,598 self-contained

units and 524 care beds. That is in senior citizens' housing

alone, Mr. Speaker, in progress, most of which is under

construction all over this province, 3,524 units.

If you want a comparison of what they were doing and what we're doing.... I

was at the opening of the Rainbow Lodge in Langley. I believe it was 294 units

of housing provided by the Kiwanis Society...

Interjection.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: ...Lions.

Mr. Speaker, in the year 1970, the entire budget or the

Elderly Citizens Housing Aid Act was $1.5 million. The grant on

that one project alone was $1.5 million. In your riding, Mr.

Member, it's an amount equal to your party's entire budget for

the year 1970 — that's how far we have come. We increased that

budget last year six fold because we think that the pioneers of

this province have a priority in this province. Are you going

to attack that?

I will say, Mr. Speaker, yes, Casa Loma is part of those

3,524 units.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, where would they have gotten

the money?

Mobile home parks and subdivisions: now it's too bad the

Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson), the leader of

the Liberal party, isn't here because I heard him muttering

under his breath, at the end of the question period — and it

was a good thing it was under his breath because of some of the

things he said — but he was saying that Central Mortgage and

Housing pays for 90 per cent of all this stuff we are

doing.

Mr. Speaker, we pay one-third of the capital costs as a

grant for elderly citizens' housing — one-third. They put up a

mortgage that the society has to pay back. This province, and

I'll touch on this later, is being discriminated against by

Central Mortgage and Housing because we are doing more for

senior citizens than any other province in this field of

self-contained housing. If one doesn't believe that, there is a

recent report which bears that out.

Mobile home parks and subdivisions: we have 199 pads in

progress in a mobile home park and, in a subdivision 156, for a

total of 355. Central Mortgage and Housing does not contribute

one cent to those mobile home parks, and we think that Central

Mortgage and Housing should find out that mobile homes are a

fact of life in this province. We've recognized this under the

home acquisition Act, which that group wouldn't recognize, and

that is one of the reasons why the grants and the mortgages

under the home acquisition Act are way up and have grown by

fantastic amounts.

Mr. Speaker, we have in progress 975 par value co-ops, and

they say we haven't built anything. Well then, I want you to go

to the tip of Gaglardi Way and see the Norman Bethune Co-op.

We're trying to do something in the way of neighbourhood

improvement. Go out here and see the Rochdale cooperative

which we opened a few months ago in

[ Page 173 ]

Victoria.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Look at the price you paid for

the land.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: To the City of Victoria....

MR. MORRISON: How much?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Are you against that — paying a fair

dollar to the City of Victoria? I thought you wanted us to be.... You say that we're treating the municipalities badly. Now

come on. You can't have it both ways — except you'd like

to.

MR. MORRISON: So you want to give it to them that way,

eh?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker....

MR. MORRISON: You give them grants.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, it was supported by appraised

prices and you can say what you like.

MR. MORRISON: Oh, come off it.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Residential subdivisions, Mr. Speaker...

MR. McCLELLAND: Dunhill appraisals.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: ...we have 1,097 in progress. Last year,

2,320 lots were serviced. In 1974, Mr. Speaker, 2,320 lots, in

just about every part of this province.

MR. PHILLIPS: Ten per cent of the requirements.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: You know, last weekend I was in

Cranbrook. We opened 44 units of public housing, and this is

one type of housing which nobody would be afraid to say is

public housing. It is scattered all over Cranbrook. It consists

of single-family, detached dwellings, fourplexes, duplexes, an

eleven-unit townhouse. We have housing in Fort Nelson, family

housing in Port Alberni. There are many of these examples and

types of housing — Penticton and such — to which we've

contributed. The programme right now consists of 6,377

involvements in lots, servicing lots, senior citizens' housing,

mobile home parks and everything. Yes, and Casa Loma.

MR. McCLELLAND: How many did you start from scratch?

None.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, we were recently....

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Tell us about

Prince George.

HON. MR. LAUK: How many houses did you build?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: We were recently in Ottawa and we had a

chance to look at the 1975 CMHC capital budget. Mr. Speaker,

there was an increase of only about 12 per cent, not even

enough to keep up with the increase in the cost of building in

the CMHC capital budget. Yet there were all of those new

programmes that were announced before the election, during the

federal election, and in the most recent budget speech. There

were new programmes, but there were no new dollars.

So what did they do? They actually reheated, warmed up, a

few old, tired Liberal programmes. The limited dividend

programme has been increased in the budget this year from $73

million to $200 million at the expense of other social housing

programmes. What is the record of that programme?

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): None in B.C.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: In the Colonist of December 25:

"Confusion is the only tangible result so far of the federal

government's new home ownership assistance programme." Another

one of the big plums in their budget.

HON. MR. LAUK: Where's David?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: The Sun :

"Urban Affairs Minister Danson expressed disappointment

Wednesday that no Vancouver builders had applied for any of the

$50 million available for low-rental accommodation in this

year."

MR. GIBSON: Isn't that shocking? That's rent control.

HON. MR. NICOLSON:

"He indicated in an interview that unusually high land costs

in the city had caused the city to lose out on the federal

funds and expressed the hope that city builders will apply for

more money being made available next year. Three Victoria

projects were among 18 across Canada."

Eighteen projects in all of Canada, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 174 ]

HON. MR. LAUK: It's a joke.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: That is a phantom programme, Mr. Speaker,

for a phantom government, and it will spend phantom dollars,

but it won't result in $200 million being spent because of the

bureaucracy which has alienated the private sector from

participating.

I have called Mr. Danson and invited him to come out here to

British Columbia, and I will convene a meeting with the

executive of HUDAC and the executive of the Urban Development

Institute. They can tell him why this programme isn't going to

fly.

Having done that, I implore him to put those funds which are

allocated to British Columbia into the non-profit sector, into

the cooperatives and municipalities that want to build housing

for families. This government will make a capital grant of 10

per cent in order to lower the rents in the initial five or six

years.

Mr. Speaker, this is my challenge to Central Mortgage and

Housing: reallocate those funds and do it in such a manner as

can be spent in this budget year.

There have been actual decreases in

section 43 for public

housing, and this is the instrument that most areas depend

upon. Most provinces in Canada depend upon

section 43 to build

senior citizen's housing. But there has actually been a dollar

decrease in that section, and the rest of that budget is a

juggling with considerable decreases in social housing

programmes and a budget for cooperatives for all of Canada

which would only meet the needs of British Columbia.

There is one other point which I would like to come back to,

and that is some of the changes we have made in sections under

the Elderly Citizens' Housing Aid Act and changes which we

think should apply in British Columbia to senior citizens'

housing built under

section 15 of the national Housing Act.

As I said earlier, this province makes a one-third capital

grant to housing built under

section 15. If this was built

under

section 43, as it would be done in most other provinces,

the provincial government would only have to put up 10 per

cent. On top of that, there would be an operating subsidy of 50

per cent from the federal government. We are willing to match

that with a grant of 50 per cent from the provincial

government.

We feel that municipalities should be able to collect taxes

from these projects, as they can from

section 40 and 43

projects. It's the responsibility of Central Mortgage and

Housing to allow the inclusion and to pay

section 44 subsidies

section 15 projects. I think that we are being discriminated

against.

I'd like to point out that because of the policies of that previous government,

on a per capita basis British Columbia should have received over the past years

from 1946 to 1973, if they had done the same job as other provinces had done,

$162 million under sections 40 and 43 of the national Housing Act. In fact,

the previous government didn't face up to that challenge and we only received

$82 million, only half of what was allocated. We failed to pick up funds.

But what is even more important is that by not taking

advantage of those programmes we have fallen behind in per

capita federal contributions. Based on the 1971 census figure,

B.C. received $371 per capita federal contribution under NHA

sections 40 and 43 in that period of 1946 to 1973 while Ontario

received $1,259 per capita. This is an obvious reversal of

regional disparity payments.

I feel that British Columbia is entitled to

section 44

subsidies. I have made this position clear to the Minister of

Urban Affairs (Hon. Mr. Danson). I know that many

municipalities feel that these subsidies should be available so

that they can collect their taxes on elderly citizens' housing

as it is collected in any other municipality. The whole

viability and the future of an aggressive programme for senior

citizens' housing hangs in that balance.

I would urge Members of this House to discuss this with

their local councils, which are all very much aware of the

programme, and to take whatever measures they can. If you are

in the Liberal Party, use whatever influence you have. I think

this is a principle which goes beyond party lines, and it is

something that should be pressed home to Ottawa.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): I'm pleased to take

part in

this debate and especially pleased to be following the Minister

with portfolio for ribbon-cutting (Hon. Mr. Nicolson).

I'm interested that he should mention one project which is

very dear to my heart as the shining example of the socialist

government's advances in housing — Rainbow Lodge in Langley. I'm

very proud to have been on the council in Langley when that

programme was approved under the Social Credit government.

Since he takes credit for his government for that kind of

programme, I can assume that the rest of his speech was just as

accurate.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Are they going to put the whole budget in

your riding?

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of things

I'd like to talk about in this throne speech debate and they're

very important.

I want briefly first of all to mention just for a moment the problem that has

arisen again this year about truth and integrity in government. I'd like to

give to you, Mr. Speaker, a couple of quotes which come directly from Hansard .

[ Page

175 ]

The first says: "They were not asked or ordered to do

anything." The speaker is the Premier, Dave Barrett —

Hansard , February 25, 1974.

The second quote: "I told no one to draft an agreement."

Again the Premier, Dave Barrett, in Hansard , February

25, 1974.

The next quote is: "It was a result of the intervention of

the Premier that the board entered into an agreement of

November 1, 1972, with Kovachich."

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Order!

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, that quote is from Mr. Justice

E.E. Hinkson in the British Columbia Supreme Court.

MR. CURTIS: Good judge.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): So what? It doesn't say

anything.

MR. McCLELLAND: Then again, Mr. Speaker: "I did not, I have

not, I will not order any solution to the egg-and-chicken war

in the Province of British Columbia." Again, Mr. D. Barrett,

Premier of British Columbia, in Hansard , February 26,

1974 "I did not, have not, I will not order any solution to the

egg-and chicken war in the Province of British Columbia."

The next quote, Mr. Speaker: "Mr. Barrett indicated that he

had instructed the board to implement the demands set forth in

the document that had been prepared on behalf of the northern

interior producers." That quote again is from Mr. Justice E.E.

Hinkson of the B.C. Supreme Court, Mr. Speaker.

These startling comments, Mr. Speaker, come from two

different sources: Hansard and the transcript of a B.C.

Supreme Court trial, almost a year apart. And it becomes clear

that the Premier of this province has been less than honest

with the people of this province...

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. McCLELLAND: ...and with the representatives in the

British Columbia Legislature.

[Mr. Speaker rises]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I think the Hon. Member knows that he's

out of order.

Were you in the House the other day when the Hon. Second

Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) was speaking?

Are you being entirely frank with this House in saying that you don't know

if you were here on that occasion?

If you were not here on that occasion, then you would not

know. The matter was raised in the House by remarks of a

similar nature made by that Hon. Member and he was ruled out of

order on a couple of occasions for persisting.

For the reason that he violates a very clear rule in our

House which deals with that on page 362 of Sir Erskine May,

18th edition.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

MR. McCLELLAND: I wonder if you would be good enough to

repeat that for me.

MR. SPEAKER: I'd be delighted to do that for you.

MR. McCLELLAND: I wish you would.

MR. SPEAKER: I must say that that also is in Hansard , —

those remarks are in Hansard .

Page 361: "Certain matters cannot be debated, save upon a

substantive motion which admits of a distinct vote of the

House." Then it refers to anything questioning the conduct of

Members of the assembly — it says: "They are Members of

parliament." And then it goes on to say: "These matters cannot,

therefore, be questioned by way of amendment or upon any motion

for adjournment." They cannot be in any way questioned in

debate as well, as I have already pointed out.

In that case, the Hon. Member was attempting to put an

amendment, and he did put an amendment, but it did not relate

to any charges or any allegations attacking the integrity of a

Member of the House. But what you are doing is to that point

and purpose and I ask you to desist, as I asked him, and I will

ask any other Member, whether he be attacking you or any other

Member of the House.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I don't know whether you're

calling the quotations that I've made from Hansard

incorrect, or the quotations that I've made from the

transcripts of the trial incorrect.

MR. SPEAKER: I think you know very well....

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I have not attempted to make

any amendment. I'm speaking in the throne speech debate, in

which I have quite wide latitude, as you know, and I'd like to

continue with my speech, Mr. Speaker, because I have....

MR. SPEAKER: So long as you do not say the statements that

you were making, which were not quotations — they were your own

statements.

[ Page 176 ]

MR. McCLELLAND: Oh, Mr. Speaker!

MR. SPEAKER: The statement you were making just a minute ago — you have the paper in front of you and you could probably

read it.

MR. McCLELLAND: I think you jumped a little ahead of me, Mr.

Speaker. You objected before I made my statement, which is

interesting.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I said, and I will say again, that it

appears from the quotes which have been taken from the

transcript of the trial and from Hansard of one year ago

that the Premier of this province has been less than honest

with the people of British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: That, of course, is quite unparliamentary and

must not be proceeded with at all. You know that and I know

it.

MR. McCLELLAND: All right. I shan't proceed then.

MR. SPEAKER: Therefore, for you to say that you hadn't said

anything was really begging the question.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I only want to spend a moment

on this business of the so-called chicken-and-egg war. I've

said all along....

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, would the Hon. Member be

seated?

MR. McCLELLAND: What are you rising on?

MR. PHILLIPS: He's standing up to say whatever he wants to.

He doesn't have a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. A member is entitled at any

time, including the Member for South Peace River, to rise on a

point of order, What is your point of order?

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm just telling you to make him rise on a

point of order....

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MR. PHILLIPS: He never does rise on a point of order. He

doesn't know how to do it properly.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Can I go ahead now?

MR. PHILLIPS: If you do it properly.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I would ask the Hon. Member who was

speaking to withdraw the words "less than honest" which he just

used, (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: He just read from the judgment.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, to those Members who treat

the matter so lightly, may I say that it is very clear in the

annals of parliament that you cannot stand up in the House and

accuse another Member of dishonesty. If you do so, you must

withdraw such a charge.

MR. McCLELLAND: I'll allow those quotes which I've given to

stand and I know that the people of British Columbia will

understand what they mean, and I'll withdraw those words "less

than honest."

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you very much.

MR. McCLELLAND: I said last year when we were talking in

this same debate that this so-called chicken-and-egg war didn't

have anything to do with marketing boards and all of that kind

of stuff, even though the Premier tried to fuzz things up quite

well, or with eggs or farmers or anybody else. But it did have

to do with the question of truth, honesty and integrity in

government. Premier Barrett....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member refer to

Members of this House in the proper manner?

MR. McCLELLAND: The Premier of the province, Mr. Speaker,

the Member for Coquitlam, refused at that time to accept sworn

affidavits by two very prominent and honest people of this

province during debates in this Legislature. But I suggest, Mr.

Speaker, that he can hardly shrug off the finding of a justice

of the British Columbia Supreme Court.

There isn't any doubt now in our minds — and I'm not going to

belabour the point — but I just want to make it clear that there

isn't any doubt that the Premier of this province did

intervene, used the power of his office as a club with which to

force an independent board to submit to his will. There isn't

any doubt in that any more.

That's not even the most severe indictment of what the

Premier did, because we could understand that. If he had done

it and stood up in this House and admitted that he did it, that

would have been fine. But to tell us in this House that he

didn't do it, that's the indictment against the Premier of this

province.

[ Page 177 ]

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member is again proceeding as to be

removed.

MR. McCLELLAND: And because he did it for political reasons,

the cheapest kind of political reasons, that's the indictment.

Because the Premier stepped in to help a political supporter

and a campaign contributor, and used his club for that

reason-that's the kind of politics which has no place in this

province.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member is again proceeding as to be

removed.

MR. McCLELLAND: And because he did it for political reasons,

the cheapest kind of political reasons, that's the indictment.

Because the Premier stepped in to help a political supporter

and a campaign contributor, and used his club for that reason —

that's the kind of politics which has no place in this

province.

I'm not going to suggest that the Premier should take any

action now, because he's refused to. But it's his own

conscience and he can do what he wants.

It's also on the Premier's own conscience that he stood up

in this House to defend his own throne speech and never said

one word, not one word, about the 100,000 people and more who

are out of work in this province.

He made a long tirade against Liberals, Social Credit,

Conservatives and everybody else — Ottawa, the Americans, the

international oil companies, the Japanese and the multinational

corporations. He boo-hooed his way through a long speech, but

he never once mentioned the 100,000 people and more who are out

of work in this province.

He talked about stupid contracts that other people had

signed in this province, stupid contracts. He talked about

sellouts to foreign countries. Talk about sell outs! Who sold

out to the Middle East nations for a loan at the highest

interest possible? Who sold out to that? Who signed the

contract? He won't even tell us what nations he is dealing

with. Who signed the contracts in New York with a black

marketeer to market our pulp products? Who signed that stupid

contract, Mr. Speaker?

He talks about the promises to the municipalities. He's

going to give the municipalities all his extra money that he is

going to get from this increased oil prices.

The Member for Delta (Mr. Liden), I recall, was in a Delta

council. He went to them and said, "I'd like you to tell me how

you would like us to spend this extra money that we're going to

get from this increased oil." He said, "It would be really nice

if you'd tell us how to spend that money."

But there wasn't any extra money. There's going to be a $25 million loss, I

wonder if he's going to go and see whether the municipalities will share in

that loss with him. That would be good. How do you spend the loss? It's not

good enough to try and shift the blame, as the government has attempted to do.

Make excuses; take every opportunity to blame it on somebody else. I don't care

who it is, whether it's the old government or the federal government or the

Americans or all of these other people we've talked about. Employees of Hydro,

sure.

It's no good to shift the blame any longer. This government

has been in power for about 30 months, I think, and it's about

time they started admitting some of their own mistakes and to

be accountable for overruns and everything else. What's $100

million?

The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) stood up and talked

about all the jobs he has created in the civil service. That's

fine — in 30 months 15,000 new civil service jobs. That doesn't

help those industries.

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: A 50 per cent increase. Right on. It doesn't

help those industries that you've driven into the ground with

your policies of socialism and ideology.

AN HON. MEMBER: Commotion Creek.

MR. McCLELLAND: There are 1,800 new employees in ICBC while

you destroyed an entire industry. Some record!

In British Columbia Hydro there are 1,900 new employees.

There were only 1,800 new employees in Hydro in the last 10

years. We've added 1,900 in one year, And while that Labour

Minister tells us about all the jobs he is creating in this

province, I'll tell you right now that there are personnel

committees of B.C. Hydro going to Calgary and Edmonton,

recruiting people in Calgary and Edmonton to come to British

Columbia and work in this province while we are telling people

to go to Alberta and work there. What kind of sense does that

make?

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, sure, Mr. Speaker, they've run out of

NDP friends in this province.

We talked about restraint. The Premier has a press release

in which he says we are going to restrain ourselves from

spending so much money in the next little while. The next day:

$74 million in special warrants. The Premier was in for a

minute. A couple of days later: 50 jobs in the Finance

department, after the Premier said there was going to be a

leveling off of hiring and restraint in spending.

[ Page 178 ]

Well, Mr. Speaker, we've solved the unemployment problem in

this province all right — for Dunsky Advertising to whom we

gave almost $800,000 last year for government departments

alone, and that doesn't count ICBC and all of those kinds of

things.

Yes, I suppose that one of those accounts was "Sing Along

with Graham Lea." "Aren't you glad that somebody finally cares?

Aren't you glad he doesn't care for me?" (Laughter.)

This government sits here and talks about restraint. It's so

arrogant; it was so arrogant of the Premier of this province to

be down in Ottawa not long ago, telling the federal government

to cut back and restrain themselves, when he's guiding that

cabinet over there through the wildest spending spree in this

province's history. What arrogance!

There was a piece in the paper the other day, Mr. Speaker...

MR. R.T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver–Little Mountain): Watch your

back.

MR. McCLELLAND: ...a new version of an old line, which

says, "And so, children, the end of the story is that the NDP

found the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow — and spent it."

That's this government. Some restraint! Well, you talk about

spending for the people.

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: Casa Loma. Dunhill Development. You paid $6

million for a defunct company which was worth $3 million the

day before you bought it. What kind of business sense is that?

What kind of any kind of sense is that? Ripoff.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: Jealousy will get you nowhere.

MR. McCLELLAND: There is one other item with which I wish to

deal, and that has to do with a problem in my own constituency.

It's probably one of the most serious indictments against this

government, and that's the complete disregard, total disregard

for the wishes of local government and for the wishes of the

local community.

I know the tiny Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr.

Lauk) will be very interested in this because I am going to

talk about an oil refinery. I know they didn't take you to

China with them, Mr. Minister. I know that you're still burning

about that. I know that you're sorry that no one talks to you,

but nevertheless....

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: Seven per cent Lauk. But nevertheless, Mr. tiny Minister

of Economic Development, I wish to talk about this refinery for just a moment.

This government has taken the wishes of local government and

taken the wishes of the local communities and just trod them

into the ground.

On the Burke Mountain thing in Coquitlam, which I won't go

into this evening and on, of course, the Surrey refinery this

government is shoving its ideological urges down the throats of

local government.

The Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr.

Nimsick), who you would think would be in charge of developing

a refinery — that's who I would have thought would have had

some input — wrote a letter to the municipality of Surrey when

they asked what he knew about this refinery that was going into

Surrey, a multi-billion dollar refinery and petrochemical

complex which was going to change the whole face of the area,

and the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources said, "I

don't think I have any information to offer you." Yes, he's

looking right now. "I don't think I have any information to

offer you. But Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas!"

HON. MR. LAUK: What have you got against Christmas?

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, the government has apparently

decided that it wants to put a refinery complex into the Surrey

area, one of the most ecologically sensitive and aesthetically

beautiful parts of British Columbia. And they're going to do it

whether or not the people of that community want it or not.

They intend to shove it right down their throats.

There are a lot of reasons why that refinery shouldn't go in

that area, and I'd like to outline some of them. First of all,

there are some serious pollution and environmental problems.

I'm going to quote from a text, written by some concerned

citizens in the community which I represent, which points out

that regardless of all of the most advanced technological

programmes that they might put into that refinery, there is no

doubt that some pollution will occur. There isn't any doubt

about that. Every technician who you can ever hire will tell

you that, because humans are humans and mistakes do happen.

There will be pollution from that refinery.

If even the most stringent regulations are adhered to, a

100,000-barrel-a-day refinery — and they're talking now of

between an 80,000- and 200,000-barrel-a-day refinery — will be

allowed to discharge oil and grease in the amount of 300 pounds

per day. That's approximately 130,000 pounds a year of oil and

grease discharge. No consideration is given to any kind of

accidents; that's just the normal discharge — 130,000 pounds a

year without

[ Page 179 ]

accidents.

There was a recent incident in Japan in which human error

caused the contamination of many square miles of the ocean

there with over 10 million gallons of oil. Ten million, not a

few hundred thousand. If that kind of effluent enters the

streams which are in that area — Campbell Creek, the Nicomekl

and Serpentine Rivers, or the ocean at Boundary Bay, which many

people in this province have been attempting to save for a lot

of years, including some of the people on that side of the

House — by direct discharge into the rivers (and that's what

the B.C. Petroleum Corp is advocating — direct discharge into

the Nicomekl River), the result could be the decimation of one

of the finest fish populations and salmon spawning grounds

in North America. Decimation.

The Attorney-General doesn't care. He smirks on the other

side of the House.

Destruction of a wildfowl resting area, breeding areas,

contamination of the beaches and pollution of the groundwater

supplies for that whole urbanizing area of Hazelmere,

Brookswood, White Rock, Surrey and Delta.

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: I'd like the little Minister of Economic

Development (Hon. Mr. Lauk) to stand up and say that for the

record: "What nonsense!" That Minister doesn't even care that

that kind of pollution could occur in that kind of area in

British Columbia. That's sick; that's really sick, Mr.

Speaker.

Interjections.

MR. McCLELLAND: Do you know that whole Campbell highland and

the Hazelmere Valley? Do you know anything about it at all?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. McCLELLAND: Not a thing!

Combining that with a heavy rainfall and the slow-moving

nature of the rivers there, if you place a petrochemical

complex on that highland, you'll be creating, as this brief

says, an ecological time-bomb. You're about to destroy a whole

area of British Columbia, and you don't even care.

Interjections.

MR. McCLELLAND: That has nothing to do with all of the pollutants which

might come in the air, given the westerly flow of wind there. That whole area

is relatively free of smog now, but it sure won't be, given the kind of development

this government wants to put there.

Not only that , but the Fraser Valley now provides 70 per

cent of the farm produce of this whole province, and you know

that only 6 per cent of this province is arable. Any reduction

or contamination of farmland, and almost every bit of that land

is in the land reserve, is unthinkable.

AN HON. MEMBER: He spends hours attacking the land.

MR. PHILLIPS: And you watered it down.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, what hypocrisy from that

Attorney-General who stood in this House....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I don't think the Hon. Member

should use the word "hypocrisy" towards any other Member. It's

unparliamentary. It has been ruled out many times, despite the

attitudes that may be expressed by one Member.

MR. McCLELLAND: What a strange attitude, Mr. Speaker, from

that Attorney-General. Is "strange" okay, or is that on your

list too?

MR. SPEAKER: That's much better, much better. Thank you.

MR. McCLELLAND: What a strange attitude from that

Attorney-General who delivered a land bill to this House and

hadn't even read it, didn't even know what was in it, and after

it was amended he wasn't sure what was in it.

Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, that Attorney-General would sit

there and say that it's perfectly okay to have land which is in

a land reserve under the Land Commission confiscated for a

petrochemical complex without having any reference to any local

government body. That's what you are doing today, Mr. Attorney-General, and if you don't know that you are doing

that, now is your opportunity to stand up, get out, go out and

contact your officials in the B.C. Petroleum Corp. and find out

what they're doing to the farmland of this province. I think

you have a duty to do that. It's about time you found out what

is happening in this province.

Mr. Speaker, every bit of the lower mainland will feel the

impact of this oil complex if it is allowed to go in, every bit

of it.

I was interested when the Member for Dewdney (Mr. Rolston)

stood up in this House...

MR. PHILLIPS: The three musketeers.

MR. McCLELLAND: ...with his charts and maps

[ Page 180 ]

and everything else and criticized the submarines in

Washington state. I suppose that was admirable of him. But he's

willing to stand in this House while his own government fouls

its own nest. He'll stand up against the subs and the United

States, but what does he say about the fouling of British,

Columbia, and the ecological time-bomb that you are planting in

the lower Fraser Valley? He doesn't even say anything about it,

and neither does any other Member of this government.

The Little Campbell River and the Nicomekl River both

support Coho and chum salmon, cut-throat trout and steelhead.

At this time those stocks are growing, the spawning beds are

becoming more productive. There are also beaver, raccoon and

deer — it's a beautiful part of British Columbia. Waterfowl,

many wild birds in that same area.... But I'm telling you, Mr.

Speaker, if this government allows the kind of development they

are talking about to go ahead in that area, none of that will

be left. Nothing will be able to survive, and the recreational

needs of the lower mainland of British Columbia will be in

danger and destroyed.

HON. MR. LAUK: Do you think we could talk Logo into running

again?

MR. McCLELLAND: We haven't heard about any kind of pollution

control in this whole development that is talked about by this

government. And you know, Mr. Speaker, they talked about

pollution control. How on earth can the government be its own

pollution control agent? We've seen what happened in some of

the mills which the government has bought. There is no

pollution control there, because the government says: "Those

are our mills; we don't need to have pollution control there.

You do it over there, but our mills are sacred."

What do you think will happen with this refinery. How on

earth can the government, which runs the refinery, be, at the

same time, the pollution control agent? It just doesn't work,

and it won't work. The government runs the pollution control

board; the government runs the refinery. That's pretty tidy,

but it sure doesn't do much for ecological protection of the

lower mainland. The government is on both sides of the fence,

Mr. Speaker. Unless the government maintains an adversary

position on behalf of the pollution control board, you might as

well forget about the pollution control in this province.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

The government cannot act as a pollution control agent

against its own refinery. Not only can it not, it will not,

because that has been proven with regard to its own mills, and

the government will destroy that vital adversary position.

We saw the same kind of an example with the Labour Minister (Hon. Mr. King)

and the British Columbia Railway. The same thing: the government can't be the

Labour Minister and the boss at the same time. They can't be the pollution control

agent and the refinery at the same time. It is the same thing. It looks fine

on paper, Mr. Speaker, but it just doesn't work.

You know, Mr. Speaker, there isn't any doubt in the whole

world that that 1,500 acres, or 3,000 acres, or whatever it

ends up to be in the Surrey-Langley area which is being bought

up for this refinery complex.... That's not all that's going

to be affected, because the whole of the lower mainland has to

be affected — from Hope, to Chilliwack, to Abbotsford, to the

Hazelmere Valley, to Whiterock, to Delta, to Semiahmoo, to

Tsawwassen. That whole lower mainland area, which is a vital

part of this vibrant province, is going to be altered and

altered drastically because of this government's intentions to

put a multi-billion dollar petrochemical complex in that area.

And why do they want it? Why do they want that petrochemical

complex in there, Mr. Speaker? The petroleum products

originating within the boundaries of B.C. right now are not

sufficient to operate at the existing refinery capacity that we

already have in this province. We don't have enough.

One or two years ago, to build a new refinery would cost

about $1,000 per barrel per day. An economic installation,

we're told, is about a 100,000 barrel per day refinery today.

That's a cost of $100 million one or two years ago, but today,

Mr. Speaker, with inflation, the additional cost of pollution

control and other costs, to build a new refinery of the kind

we're talking about in this area would cost $4,000 to $5,000

per barrel per day. If we talk about a 10,000 barrel per day

refinery, we're talking about $500 million.

However, Mr. Speaker, if we add now.... What if we put that

$500 million into housing, or that $500 million into

intermediate care beds, or into picking up five of Mr. Levi's

overruns? That's where that money should go, Mr. Speaker, to

pick up the social needs of this province, not to satisfy some

ideological urge that this government happens to have.

If we had to add right now, or if we add to the existing

refineries in this province to bring their capacity up to their

maximum potential, it would cost us $2,000 per barrel per day

today — half as much, Mr. Speaker, as the pie-in-the-sky

pipedream being advanced by the B.C. Petroleum Corp.

You know, we had another letter in our community, Mr.

Speaker, to one of the local councils from the chairman of the

British Columbia Petroleum Corp., Mr. James Rhodes.

MR. CHABOT: The Premier's old roommate.

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, the Premier's old

[ Page 181 ]

roommate. They used to live in the Queen Vic together and

share sausages and spaghetti. He got himself a $40,000 job out

of that deal.

Interjections.

MR. McCLELLAND: He's had a pie-in-the-sky dream about some

kind of a refinery for years and years. The Premier's old

roommate, anyway, wrote to Langley council, Mr. Speaker. I know

you're listening, Mr. Speaker. The Premier's old roommate wrote

in answer to a request from the council to come and meet with

them and tell them all about this refinery, because they were

kind of interested. You see, I don't know whether you know this

or not, Mr. Speaker, but the government never went to the local

council. They never went. They were buying up 1,500 acres,

2,000 acres in the local community, but they never went to the

local council to tell them about that. I don't think you knew

that because you'd be shocked if you knew that. It's terrible

that they never went once to the local council So the local council, in a fit of naivety, decided to write

to Mr. Rhodes, and they said: "Mr. Rhodes, we hear you're

buying all kinds of land in our community. We hear you want to

put in a petrochemical complex and it's going to cost $500

million, and you are going to get rid of all our houses, you're

going to put smoke in our community, and you're going to

pollute our streams, and you are going to kill our fish, and

you're going to destroy our groundwater system. We think it

would be nice if you told us about it so we can all move to

Alberta or something."

MR. CHABOT: Take the tunnel to Terrace.

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, that's right, take the tunnel to

Terrace, or whatever. (Laughter.)

Interjection.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's beyond your imagination.

MR. McCLELLAND: Anyway, the chairman of the petroleum corporation wrote

back and said: "Well, folks, you are a little premature, because I know we're

buying all this land and we're going to put in this complex, but I don't want

to meet with you. What's the point?" Then he says: "The government has had some

reports and I expect the government will make a decision whether to proceed

or not with the construction of a refinery." Not whether or not it's going to

be in Surrey or Merritt, or Roberts Bank, or some other place, but whether or

not to proceed with the construction of a refinery, It must then make a further

decision if the answer is in the affirmative as to the site.

Not only, Mr. Speaker, have they not decided where the

damned refinery is going to be, they haven't even decided

whether or not we need a refinery. So why are they buying 1,500

acres of land in Surrey? Can you answer that, Mr. Speaker? Why

are they buying the land? It's because they have again an

ideological urge to buy all of the land that's left in British

Columbia and take it out of private ownership.

Mr. Speaker, there isn't any doubt that this government has

embarked on an irreversible course that will have a tremendous

impact in one of the finest, most ecologically precious and

most beautiful parts of this province.

The government, without a doubt, is forcing a new lifestyle

on thousands of British Columbians without any consultation or

concern for their feelings. the government, Mr. Speaker, is

pursuing a programme that will alter a wide area of the lower

mainland with no discussion with the municipalities

affected.

The Speaker, in his role of Member for Skeena (Mr. Dent),

told us that one of this government's proudest achievements was

its consultation with the people of the province. It was a

beautiful speech, Mr. Speaker — I enjoyed it very much. I

noticed that in your own area the Premier came and said: "We're

going to have a public hearing on the problems of Rim Forest

Products." You remember that — he was on the radio up there. He

said: "We're going to have a public hearing on the problems of

Rim Forest Products, and we want everybody to come and tell us

their problems."

AN HON. MEMBER: Did they hold it in Trail?

MR. McCLELLAND: No, they held it in the area, Mr. Member.

Now be fair. They held it in the same area that the Member for

Skeena represents.

So everybody came. People who had sold equipment to Rim

Forest Products and thought they had a case wanted to come —

they hadn't been paid for their equipment. Bankers who had

loans thought they would come because they hadn't been paid

back yet. People who were interested, who were out of work

because they used to work for Rim Forest Products and didn't

have a job any more, all came to that public meeting. Mr.

Speaker, I think you were there. And when they got to the door,

what happened? They said: "You can't come in — you haven't any

interest. But if you have an NDP membership card, come on in,

folks, and we'll talk about it." That's the kind of

consultation your government believes in, Mr. Speaker, and

that's what happened. That's what happened with Rim Forest

Products in your area, and you know it.

Mr. Speaker, even though they're going to alter that whole

area of British Columbia they never

[ Page 182 ]

consulted once — not once — with the municipality of Surrey.

They never consulted once, Mr. Speaker, with the Greater

Vancouver Regional District, and they never consulted once with

their own Land Commission. The Land Commission that this

government so proudly set up and which said it was going to

save the farmland....

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: That's the same one they overruled in

Richmond — right.

Mr. Speaker, that whole area which is being purchased is in

the land reserve, and yet they're going to put a petrochemical

complex in there without ever consulting with the Land

Commission. Now is that fair? No, it's not fair.

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: Double standard. The Member for Saanich (Mr.

Curtis) reminds me that this is the government that told us

they're going to return some responsibility to local

government. Mr. Speaker, this government intends to ride

roughshod over the concerns of local government, and they don't

really care whatever happens in the local community.

Mr. Speaker, I think that all activity in relation to this

whole land purchase deal and the refinery complex should be

halted right now until some certain points are cleared up.

First of all, why has Surrey been given a number one

priority site for the refinery, despite the total opposition of

the council and the people in the area? Answer that

question.

Why is the B.C. Petroleum Corp. considering the relocation

of the Burlington Northern Railway through the Hazelmere Valley

of British Columbia, despite the objection of Surrey council

and all of the residents of that area? Those are questions that

need to be answered.

The government must answer questions, Mr. Speaker,

concerning the proposed source of crude oil for that refinery.

Will new pipeline corridors be cut through the narrow Fraser

Valley, and will the refinery receive crude from supertankers

coming up and down our coast?

If the refinery is not to be built in Surrey, Mr. Speaker,

will the option on land already taken be dropped and will that

land be returned to the private ownership to which it belongs,

or will the government continue to act as a land speculator?

That kind of question should be answered too, Mr. Speaker.

And will the government answer the question why it allowed

those land negotiations to be done in complete secrecy, opening

the door to possibilities of under-the-counter deals and

insider deals? And most importantly, will that people's

government...?

Did you want to interrupt, Mr. Speaker? I bow to your

wisdom.

MR. SPEAKER: I was going to ask the Hon. Minister if he

would tell me whether a "narc" is an unparliamentary term.

MR. McCLELLAND: He doesn't know what it is, and neither does

anybody else.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member for Langley please

proceed?

MR. McCLELLAND: The Minister doesn't know what he said; he

never knows what he says and we don't care, so it doesn't

matter.

Mr. Speaker, most importantly, and I must address this most

seriously to the government, will this government, in the name

of all decency and honesty, table in this House...?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I would draw to the attention of

the Hon. Member that his time is now up. If he could just wind

it up with a sentence....

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, they kept interrupting, Mr. Speaker.

I'll be 30 seconds, then I'm finished. I just want to ask the

government, in all decency, to please table today all

feasibility studies, marketing studies, engineering studies,

environmental studies and any studies which detail the social

impact which such a refinery complex will have on the areas in

question, and they should be detailed forthwith. In other

words, Mr. Speaker, it's time the government laid its cards on

the table and began to level with the people of British

Columbia.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): The opening

speech on which we are commenting here has a good deal to do

with government policy, but we haven't heard very much about

that in the debate tonight.

We heard the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr.

Lauk) talk to us about an important subject, but he didn't say

a word about his department. He didn't say a word about

economic development. Oh, indeed, I'm talking about the

economic development in this province and the creation of jobs,

and we didn't hear that from the Minister at all. That's been

the focus of this debate. I was very disappointed.

Then the Minister of Housing gladdened us a bit later with

his news of his department. He told us he had 7,000 units of

housing on stream. He didn't say what year they were going to

be built. He didn't say anything about the 15,000 units that

aren't being built in the present year. He was careful not

[ Page

183 ]

mention that.

But he did devote half of his speech, the opening half of

his speech, to questions such as a bridge, a wooden bridge. I

was distressed that he seemed to be calling down wooden bridges

because we have good cause to advance the cause of wood in our

province. But in any event, he was talking about the

replacement of that wooden bridge with a 132-foot concrete

bridge. I was most impressed because it's the first living

example I've ever seen of the old political joke where the

campaigner comes to town and tells the assembled townspeople:

"I will see you get a new bridge." The townspeople say: "We

have no river." The campaigner says: "I'll see you get a river,

too." That was sort of standard for the Minister of Housing.

It's good; it's recycled. We recycle things these days, Mr.

Minister.

Now the throne speech on which we are commenting, naturally,

contains a lot of good things. It's awfully hard to spend $2.5

billion a year and not do some good things. There are some good

suggestions mentioned in this document — that's the nature of a

throne speech. The government puts its best foot forward. I

want to talk about some of those things in a few minutes.

There was the major omission: the omission about which I

just taxed the Minister of Economic Development, the omission

of economic questions in British Columbia. I discussed this

yesterday and I won't repeat those remarks today, but British

Columbia is living on its capital as far as its economy is

concerned. It is not generating new jobs for the future. The

9.6 per cent unemployed we see now, unfortunately, is just a

way-station on the way down unless that new investment is

coming in. The Hon. Member for ice cream stands should know

that better than anyone else in this House. He's a small

businessman; he should understand that. The future has not been

provided for.

I do want to comment on some of the selected contents of

this speech. The forest employment idea is a good idea. But

where are the details, and why isn't it in place right now, Mr.

Speaker? We suggested this three or four months ago in this

House. We said: "Get out there and build some roads with those

men, that equipment, those 16,000 who aren't occupied." Why

haven't we got the details right now? Why isn't the government

going ahead with it right now? Why do we have to wait for all

this talk?

The idea of a financial institution for British Columbia —

I'll wait for details on that one, too, but in principle it's a

good thought because the banks need competition. There's no

question about that because we need local headquarters for

financial institutions — not, I might say, like that sham

local head office of the Canada Development Corp., which is

supposed to be in Vancouver, and which the head man, the chief

executive officer, scarcely ever visits.

We need genuine head offices here in British Columbia.

The province needs a local fiscal agent. Instead of giving a

lot of the share of our financing to foreign fiscal agents, we

should be able to do it through a local British Columbia agent.

But I want to suggest to the government that if it is going to

have this financial institution get into social areas, remember

that someone is paying for that.

If the government is going to get into 6 per cent mortgages,

be sure and make that cost clear. Don't try and tell people

that some depositor is going to lend their money to the

government bank or whatever it is for 4 per cent in order that

they can lend it out at 6 per cent. The taxpayers are going to

be paying for that social programme. In other words, it's most

important that whatever this legislation contains, it contains

complete financial disclosure clauses.

The elections Act suggestions I was glad to see. I want to

make one minor point which I made to the Provincial Secretary

(Hon. Mr. Hall) last year, and I hope he will include in the

Act that from now on election Act lists should be done

geographically, by blocks — in the polls by blocks, instead of

alphabetically. It's much easier to work with.

Much more importantly, the financial limits which I presume

will be in that Act with respect to expenditures in campaigns

must include not only money but they must include gifts in kind

and services. That must be controlled as well.

On the same topic, the redistribution absolutely must be

done in such a way as to be seen to be impartial. The

government, Mr. Speaker, must not bring into this Legislature a

map and say: "There it is." It has to set up some kind of an

impartial commission to go through it, with room for public

testimony and with room for adjustment of whatever limits are

decided on.

Now the throne speech provides for a committee to be set up

on a forest inquiry. The government will be looking at the

terms of reference of that committee, and I suggest, Mr.

Speaker, they should be very broad. It has to include the whole

subject of competition and the small logger, who is more and

more getting squeezed out by the large integrated and even the

large independent operators in this province. It has to include

the possibility of a reduction of Ministerial power because the

Minister, as I've said often before, can squeeze any forest

company until it says "Uncle;" and he could do that for things

that were not in the interest of the province (as has been done

before, for personal interest). I'm not saying this Minister;

I'm saying some Minister, some day.

An examination of the current sustained yield has to be part

of those terms of reference, because I think we could be

cutting much more in our forest industry. Reforestation has to

be considered because

[ Page 184 ]

we aren't planting as many trees every year in British

Columbia with 20 times the land as the Weyerhaeuser Co. Is in

Washington.

The question of world demand and world supply in competition

for British Columbia has to be in those terms of reference —

not just industry tenure, but industry competition. How do we

keep up with the world? Our resources are not that high-grade,

as I was explaining yesterday.

The committee should look at ways of evening out the cycles

in the forest industry — the huge swings. We're so dependent on

the construction industry, not just in this country but in the

rest of the world. What kind of counter-cyclical measures can

we take?

Appropriate resource rents and other taxes, research and

development in the forest sector — all of these should be part

of the terms of reference of that committee. It shouldn't be

narrowly limited to the question of tenures.

The liquor Act, again, badly needs amendment. I congratulate

the government for making plans on that and I ask the

Attorney-General to focus on reducing the areas of

discretion.

The government in the throne speech did its fair share of

blowing its own horn, which is fair enough, but it bragged a

good deal about the British Columbia Petroleum Corp. and about

Can-Cel, and I want to say just a word on that.

The B.C. Petroleum Corp., Mr. Speaker, was and is a good

concept. It is the best way, in the circumstances, to capture

that additional natural resource rent implicit in our natural

gas industry. But after that, some of the gas moves start to

look pretty stupid. Why are we still burning gas in British

Columbia to generate power? I know B.C. Hydro's trying to cut

back on that, but the fact of the matter is that the provision

is still there and it is still being burned for power. Gas is

too precious for that. Natural gas: it's highest and best use

should be a petrochemical feedstock. I ask the government to

make clear what its plans are on the price of natural gas in

British Columbia — not just to the Americans but here in

Canada, because energy has to rise to its proper price or else

it's going to be used wastefully, by B.C. Hydro as well as

others.

As to Can-Cel, speaker after speaker in this debate has used

this as an example of how the government is one of the finest

big businessmen in this province. Mr. Speaker, all I'll say

about that is that every pulp mill in this province is making

money; even a company like Ocean Falls is making money. So let

them brag after the turndown about the performance of

Can-Cel.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Aren't they paying too much for

the chips?

MR. GIBSON: Can-Cel was paying far too little for chips, Mr. Member,

until very recently, until the Minister got embarrassed.

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the government for

recognizing the world food crisis. Generally, provincial

legislatures in this country leave that up to the federal

government. I think it's a problem for every Canadian, and I

congratulate the government for looking at it.

In North America as compared to the rest of the world, if

you put things in terms of cereal equivalents, because all of

our food in the end comes from cereals — apart from fish, and

some fruit and nuts and so on, basically it's cereal — the

average person in the world consumes something like 400 pounds

of cereals per year. Here in North America we consume in excess

of 2,000 pounds per capita per year. We are very expensive

consumers of food.

The population has to be the basis of the problem all over

the world. But there are encouraging signs, not just in the

developed part of the world. There are ways of encouraging —

what would be the right word? — population sanity that we can

do from Canada and from British Columbia. I refer to things as

simple as literacy. It has been found in study after study that

literacy tends to cut down the growth in population rates. It

has been found that things like good health care and good

social services tend to cut down the population growth rate, as

does a sensible system of family planning. Authors such as

Harrison Brown, the author of a fine book called "By Bread

Alone," which I commend to every Member of this House,

have come up with, in global terms, very low figures for

getting at these questions — something like, I think, $1.8

billion a year for five years to make a significant dent on the

world literacy problem, for example. These are all things we

through the Government of British Columbia as well, On the supply side, what's the solution in the world food

crisis? Land? There's not much can be done there. New lands can

be brought into production but, generally speaking, the arable,

low-cost land is in production. Fertilizer? Definitely, yes.

There can be a great deal done in that case.

I am sad to report to you, Mr. Speaker, that the Arab

countries of this world are now flaring into the air every day

enough natural gas to create double the amount of fertilizer

that's being used in the world right now. That is a tragic

waste which should be put into production for the Third World.

In North America we use on our lawns and golf courses enough

fertilizer to grow the cereals required to feed 60 million

people in this world, So we have to look at our priorities a

little bit. The same thing with energy.

Is the price mechanism the answer to determine the cost of

energy, when to us it means an extra gallon of gas to drive our

car somewhere and to someone else it may mean the energy to

pump the

[ Page 185 ]

water to grow the food to stay alive? Is the price mechanism

really the way to allocate these scarce resources?

We can't solve these questions finally in this House,

obviously — but they are things we should think about.

I want to quote the Dean of Agriculture of the University of

British Columbia, Dean Shaw. He says that the major

contribution his faculty can make to the world food problem is

to train food experts. I suggest that the major contribution

this province can make is to train expert personnel to advise

other parts of the world, if they wish it, on increasing

agricultural production. I commend that to the government, as

well as sponsoring research such as developing nitrogen-fixing

cereals that would be of great assistance to the Third World as

well.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there are some extraordinary omissions in

this throne speech. The word mining isn't mentioned in the

throne speech, which I find very strange. Perhaps that's the

result of a quote from the Minister of Mines and Petroleum

Resources (Hon. Mr. Nimsick). I was astonished to see: "Mining

Problems in B.C. on Way Out, Nimsick Says." I don't know if the

Minister of Mines really believes that, Mr. Speaker. I hope he

will speak in that debate.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: He's on the way out, says the Member for Oak Bay

(Mr. Wallace).

Indian claims are not mentioned in this speech — a disgrace

to the NDP. They have been mouthing slogans about Indian claims

for years. There was the Kelly report.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: I'll send you a copy, Mr. Minister. There's

nothing about Indian claims in this speech.

Rent control — nothing about that in this speech The

commission that the government has appointed on rent control is

to report in September. What are going to be the problems by

then when there is no rental housing being built in this

province?

Because of the time limitations we now have in this debate,

I have to pass on some of the items in the throne speech and

move on to local issues because there are problems important to

my riding which I want to put on record.

First and foremost in North Vancouver is the continuing problem of transportation.

I am glad the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) is here because I want to

renew my representations to him for the construction of grade separated interchanges

at the very dangerous crossings of the Upper Levels Highway at Lonsdale Avenue

and Westview Avenue. I want to suggest to him as well that the time has come

to move ahead on the Lower Level Road, which requires the

cooperation of three municipalities and which is required as a

feeder route to the new ferry terminal.

I very much commend that new ferry. I just wish the Minister

of Municipal Affairs could get it going even quicker, designate

a specific site for a ferry terminal at both ends, and award

the contracts. Let's get that ferry moving across the inlet. I

hope he will have good things to report as this session goes

on.

The third crossing. I will simply note that it is inevitable

with the growth patterns we have in British Columbia. There are

going to be more people living on the North Shore. I will have

more to say about that in the estimates of the Minister of

Highways.

With respect to municipal affairs in general terms, I

suggest to the government that municipalities simply must have

greater financial resources. They must have a greater

classification of tax revenues to draw on, not simply the

property-tax revenues. They have services to provide which go

far beyond services to property.

Now in specific matters related to North Vancouver, I wish

the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley) were here, but

the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) can listen

as well. Seventeen acres of the land in the core of North

Vancouver city was expropriated last year, with about the same

acreage in water lots as well. This is right in the middle of

North Vancouver city, The planning of that city can't go on without knowledge of

what the provincial government plans to do with this crucial

land. Won't they consult with the people? There's going to be a

ferry terminal there, obviously. Is there going to be a BCR

passenger terminal? Is there perhaps going to be the BCR

headquarters building? That might contain 300 or 400 people.

It's important for us to know just how this land is going to be

used so we can get on with the business of the intelligent

planning of the rest of the City of North Vancouver. It's

important that, in making those plans, the municipal government

be consulted. The British Columbia Railway simply must begin paying taxes

to this District of North Vancouver this year and to the city

as well.

AN HON. MEMBER: It doesn't earn any money.

MR. GIBSON: "It doesn't earn any money," the Member

says. But that's not the problem of the District of North

Vancouver; it's the problem of the provincial government. The

municipality shouldn't be asked to pay for that.

I make a representation to the Minister of Municipal Affairs

on the matter of amalgamation. As he knows, there is a

long-term suggestion of amalgamation on the North Shore. The

people may

[ Page 186 ]

or may not be for it or against it, but the fact of the

matter is that under the present Municipal Act an overwhelming

majority in one of the municipalities could force an

amalgamation against the wishes of the other. I ask the

Minister again to consider the case, and I will bring in a

private Member's bill on this particular matter. There should

be a double majority if and when any amalgamation is sought;

there should be a majority in each section.

I won't even ask the Minister to accept that principle all

across the province. I'm just saying that in this particular

area of the North Shore it's important. I should tell the

Minster that the councils of both the municipalities strongly

agree with that. I've consulted them on that, and that's what

they believe. I wish you would write to the councils and ask

them for their official word. They'll tell you that that is

what they believe.

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): They tell

you a different story than they tell me.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, the education costs on the North

Shore District 44 could be going up by 10 to 13 mills the way

the financial situation is this year. That could be $80 to $200

per household. That is not good enough, and the government must

come through on that.

I spoke about Indian claims. I want to talk about some

particular Indian claims. There is in my riding 132 acres of

so-called cutoff lands in the Capilano reserve No. 5. This

question of cutoff lands is an enduring disgrace to the

Province of British Columbia and to every government that

allows another year to pass without solving it. It has to be

solved during 1975, and you can start with the Capilano reserve

No. 5 because that land is mostly in public use. With certain

modifications it can be turned back to the Indian band the day

after tomorrow. You can't keep this one quiet much longer and

swept under the rug. It has to be solved this year, Mr.

Minister.

Many other items in the throne speech, Mr. Speaker. The

leader of my party gave a long list, including the repeal of

Bill 3 I to start with, a phasing out of rent control,

ombudsman, an auditor-general and many other items. I want to

add a few to it.

The role of resources in our economy is so basic to employment, to Crown revenue,

the general question of the upgrading of resources within British Columbia,

their further manufacture, the question of the timing of the exploitation of

resources. When do you dig that ore out or when do you leave it in the ground?

When do you produce the gas? Do you produce it or do you keep it for a petrochemical

factory, and so on? The questions of world supply and demand — all of these

things are so complex that I think we need from this government a clarification

of its thinking.

Therefore, I suggest that we need a resources policy White

Paper out of this government sometime during this session in

order that this Legislature can see if there's really a

coherent philosophy behind the resource exploitation doctrine

of this group.

On the question of land, our basic natural resource, the

Land Commission, I think, is doing a good job. But in common

with the Hon. Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) I ask why

they are buying up everything. What is their intention here?

Obviously they are purchasing a great deal more land than can

be used for any particular government project we know of. Is it

the plan of this government to gradually accumulate more and

more land around the Province of British Columbia? If that is

the case, can we know the grand master plan? It is the people's

money that is being used and it is the people's land that is

being bought up.

Another point on land is the continuing problem of foreign

land ownership. We brought in last year in this House and

passed a law to provide that new land transfers had to be

registered as to the nationality of the beneficial owner. That

was a good thing, but it was only a start, I would like to see

this year legislation providing for the complete registration

of the nationality of land ownership in this province so that

sometime this year we would begin to see the exact dimensions

of who owns what in British Columbia. We would know whether

there is a genuine problem of foreign land ownership or not,

and thereby have the information base necessary to know whether

further measures are required.

There's a question of other foreign ownership in this

province. What is this government's policy? All through this

throne debate I have heard Members of the NDP railing against

the multinational corporations who were the all-time bad guys

of the ladies and gentlemen opposite. If that's the case, I'd

ask the Minister of Economic Development: what is the attitude

of his government to proclamation of

part 11 of the Foreign

Investment Review Act?

Every other province in this country is making

representations to the federal government that this

part 11

should not be proclaimed. That's the part that calls for

control of the expansion of existing foreign-owned companies

within Canada. What is the policy of this government? It hasn't

spoken up on that.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: It's on the fence, says the Hon. Member for Oak

Bay (Mr. Wallace), It may be on the fence, or it may have no

policy at all; it may simply not have thought of it, I think

that is the more likely thing.

Growth remains the central problem in the

[ Page 187 ]

Province of British Columbia — over 3.5 per cent per year.

We need this government to show that they're doing some

thinking about the patterns of growth in this province, some

forecasting as to numbers, some forecasting as to where those

people are likely to locate or want to locate, and some

potential ways and means as to guiding the development of

growth around this province by incentives and encouragement to

live there and not here, or whatever it may be. In other words,

we need a White Paper on growth to indicate that, indeed, the

provincial government has been thinking, has some plans on

it.

Mr. Speaker, we need a strong provincial submission to

Ottawa on the subject of immigration. The immigration laws are

to be changed this year. The Minister of Housing was down in

Ottawa a couple of weeks ago talking about this very subject,

but that's not good enough. We need an official government

position on the subject — a strong submission to Ottawa,

hopefully one that would be debated in this House, because

immigration is providing a great deal of that growth we're

talking about, something like 40 per cent in the greater

Vancouver region alone.

I want to say a word about housing. There were something

like 38,000 housing units built in British Columbia in 1973,

and something like 30,000 in 1974. Mr. Speaker, there is a

prediction of the Employers Council of British Columbia of

22,000 for 1975. The curve is just going down. That Minister of

Housing we had talking here a while ago — what are his targets?

How can we measure his performance? He doesn't say: "I would

like to see X number of houses being built in this province in

a year." He just waves his arms and says: "We're doing this and

that." He doesn't say when.

He gave us an inventory of a few thousand houses, and didn't

say when they were going to be completed. He didn't say when

they were going to be completed — one year, two years, three

years. It is a lot of pie in the sky. People can't live in the

pie in the sky; people have to live in existing houses, and it

not happening. There are a lot of ideas around on this subject

of housing.

The problem basically is land, and the government knows

that. There's lots of land physically available. It's a case of

making it available for building. One of those things that

should be done — and I'll be elaborating on this in the budget

debate — is financial encouragement to municipalities to make

it attractive to them to take new people within their

boundaries so we don't ask municipalities to bear themselves

the burden, the cost, of new growth within their limits.

Mr. Speaker, in the general field of economics in this province we currently

have to rely on vested interests for almost all of our economic analysis. We

have to rely on corporations or unions or trade associations or banks or governments,

and they all have an axe of some kind to grind. We need a group to which we

can refer problems and also to report on their own independent initiative on

things like: an annual report on the B.C. economy; on things like resource economics;

the question of B.C. In Confederation and what are the economic advantages and

disadvantages; the question of the cost of tariffs to this province; agricultural

economics and marketing boards; what our secondary industrial strategy should

be in British Columbia; the cost of living in British Columbia and northern

British Columbia. These are the kinds of questions that could be and should

be referred to an economic council of British Columbia, appointed by government

but independent of the government and all other bodies and representative of

all other bodies, to give impartial advice on this.

This government must work with other governments in the

country on inflation, which is one of the most debilitating

forces in our society. It's particularly important in British

Columbia where we have a cost of living higher than the rest of

the country.

Mr. Speaker, the British Columbia government is the largest

employer in this province — over 42,000 employees. The wages

for this employer set a pattern around this province, whether

we like it or not.

I ask the government why the wage settlements for this year,

the ones that have already been made, should be kept a secret.

The Minister says that he has to deal with the various

component leaders of the public service to keep them secret

until they are all settled. This, I'm sure, isn't so that the

government can play one component off against another, Mr.

Speaker. It is not the case, in fact, anyway because they all

know what is going on. The only people who don't know what is

going on are the public. Why don't the public and this House

have a chance to monitor the settlements that are being made?

The stories that are going around, and in the newspapers, say

that the wage hikes are running up 40 per cent on the

settlements that have been made so far, and the average is

running over 20 per cent plus a COLA clause.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

AN HON. MEMBER: Pure speculation.

MR. GIBSON: Pure speculation, says one of the government

Members. Of course it's pure speculation, because the

government won't give us the facts, and that leads me to a

point that bears directly on this.

Mr. Speaker, the most consequential thing we can discuss in

this House, I believe, is what I would head under the general

category of democratic institutions. Let me commence that

subject by giving credit to the

[ Page 188 ]

present government in that area for the introduction of a

question period, a Hansard , various services to the

Members and so on. I commend them in that area. But there are

more things to do, Mr. Speaker.

We've discussed briefly an election Act.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: You'd expect there would be more things to do,

Mr. Minister. You'd expect it.

We need, Mr. Speaker, laws in this province providing for

open government — laws of the kind that the Attorney-General

(Hon. Mr. Macdonald) used to introduce when he was a private

Member, like the old "sunshine law."

MR. LEWIS: He's still introducing them.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, why should the people of British

Columbia pay for expensive consultant studies on topics on

every department of the government, on controversial topics,

that they never get to see? Mr. Speaker, that is wrong.

Why should government and commission decisions on various

questions be handed down from high with no back up and no

reasons to the citizenry as to why these decisions are

made.

Why should it take this House so long to see the detailed

government accounts? Why did we have the Premier of this

province tell the chairman of the public accounts committee,

the Hon. Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser), that he didn't have

to worry about the $100 million Human Resources overrun because

he would see it in his committee in due course — over a year

later? What good is that? We need laws to look after that kind

of open government and to improve it.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Minister, we can't get inside the detailed

government accounts, and you know it. We can't get inside the

ICBC accounts, and you know it.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: I can tell you about the federal Auditor-General, Mr. Premier.

The federal Auditor-General causes a lot of trouble every year to the federal

government, and he should. We should have that kind of auditor-general here

in British Columbia. That's one of the kinds of democratic institutions I'm

talking about.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: What happened to Maxwell? You tell us what

happened to Maxwell.

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, in the present circumstances I

might call attention to the clock.

MR. SPEAKER: I wonder if the Hon. Member would instead

adjourn the debate until the next sitting of the House.

Mr. Gibson moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, I've looked at the point of order

that was raised this afternoon by the Hon. Member for South

Peace River (Mr. Phillips), and in view of what happened to the

sound system last Thursday when I gave an explanation of

prorogation, I thought it might be fitting to merely put it in

the Votes and Proceedings and take it as read, unless

you insist. Do I have leave to do that?

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. Lorimer files answers to questions. (See

appendix.)

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:03 p.m.

APPENDIX

48 Mr. Curtis asked the Hon. the Minister of

Municipal Affairs the following questions:

Did the Minister of Municipal Affairs travel to Europe in 1974 for the

purpose of reviewing the operation of urban transit systems?

If the answer to No. 1 is yes, how many persons accompanied the Minister

on this visit and who were those persons?

What was the total cost to the Provincial Government of the trip referred

to above?

The Hon. J. G. Lorimer replied as follows:

"1. Yes.

"2. Thirteen persons: Mrs. James G. Lorimer; Miss L.

Lorimer; Miss Y. Lorimer; Mr. D. Jantzen, Executive Assistant

to Minister; Mrs. D. Jantzen; Mr. V. J. Parker, Director of

Transit Services; Mrs. V. J. Parker; Mr. B. Sullivan, Assistant

Director of Transit Services; Mr. James Campbell, Chairman,

Capital Regional District; Mrs. James Campbell; Mayor W. N.

Vander Zalm, representing Greater Vancouver Regional District;

Alderman W. Hardwick, representing Greater Vancouver Regional

District and City of Vancouver; and Mr. B. Wallace, staff of

City of Vancouver.

"3, Total cost to Provincial Government, $7,642.64. Mrs.

James G. Lorimer, Miss L. Lorimer, Miss Y. Lorimer, Mrs. D.

Jantzen, Mrs. V. J. Parker paid their own expenses. The

Provincial Government has no record of the expenses of Mr.

James Campbell, Mrs. James Campbell, Mayor W. N. Vander Zalm.

Alderman W. Hardwick, Mr. B. Wallace, nor of how they were

paid."

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1975, 2001, 2013: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada