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)

THURSDAY, MARCH 6, 1975

Night Sitting

[ Page

437 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Budget debate (continued)

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

Orders of the day.

ON THE BUDGET

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Transport and

Communications.

AN HON. MEMBER: How's your computer? Broken again?

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): No, it's

not broken again, but that's the same old broken record that you're playing.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say first of all that I'm very

pleased to have this opportunity of making a speech in this

House. I haven't had much opportunity so far this session. It's

always nice to get up on one of those main debates, now that

we're back on the business of the House and applying ourselves

to the budget that was so ably presented by the Minister of

Finance a week or so ago.

First of all I want to express my regret about the loss of

Ned DeBeck, which was mentioned in the throne debate. He was a

good friend of mine for many, many years. I first met Ned in

1939 when he was the inspector of credit unions and I was a

director of the first credit union in the Province of British

Columbia. From that day until he died he had always been a good

and helpful friend to me.

Art Laing, of course, used to sit down here when I was

sitting in that seat there from 1953 to 1956. He was a great

British Columbian and one of the most able parliamentarians

that I have ever met, and I learned a great deal from him in

the three years that I sat with him. So with the others, I want

to express my regret at the loss of those two fine British

Columbians to the province.

The budget speech to which we're now addressing ourselves is — and I say this completely without prejudice — the best budget

speech I have ever heard in this House in the last 20-odd

years. I've listened to the comments which have been made in

this House and outside the House by different people. The night

it was presented, I was driving up island and I was listening

to one of the hot-liners trying desperately to find something

to criticize about the budget speech, trying desperately to

nitpick his way through it, and when we came back into the

House the following week, of course, we've been through a great

deal of the same thing.

Before I get on to the budget speech, I think I should

mention the communications field slightly and one of the major

communications companies in the province, Premier Cablevision.

Someone over there — I think it was the Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A.

Anderson) — said that they're going to get all the money and

support from their own membership. Well, I have in my hand a

letter sent out by Premier Cablevision Ltd., dated November 6,

1974. Premier Cablevision is a pretty big corporation in the

communications field. They sent this around the province to

different places of interest, and they say:

"Dear Sir:

We certainly aren't promoting the interest of any political

party, but I thought you might be interested in this paper,

which summarizes the policies of the B.C. Social Credit Party.

I draw your attention particularly to the

article on page 5

headed 'Transportation and Communications Workshop.'"

And they enclosed a nice little picture of the mayor of

Surrey, Bill Vander Zalm.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Is he Social

Credit now?

AN HON. MEMBER: He's a Liberal.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, he's not a Liberal, is he? No, he's

the man who wants to replace the present leader of the party.

Yes, and he's talking about what should happen in

transportation and communications. He says:

"From our point of view, it is very encouraging to see a

political party with a strong, positive, intelligent policy in

this area. The B.C. Social Credit Party is unquestionably the

strongest alternative to the present government in most

people's minds."

This makes this policy statement especially interesting. I

think the past two and a half years have demonstrated very

clearly that the establishment in this province, the industry

in this province and those who are tied to the past are

determined to go to any lengths to try and defeat this

government. So here's Premier Cablevision supporting the Social

Credit Party. Who owns Premier Cablevision? That fine Canadian

company, the Columbia Broadcasting System, is the largest

shareholder in this enterprise that controls communications

through cablevision on the lower mainland. They're taking the

money out of the lower mainland, they're investing it in

Ireland, they're investing it in London, buying up cablevision

and they're supporting the Social Credit Party in this

province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's just an example of the kind of

people. Columbia Broadcasting, a completely U.S.-owned company,

is the largest shareholder, not the major shareholder in

that

[ Page 438 ]

corporation.

But then, when we want the right that is enjoyed in other

provinces to set up an educational cablevision in this

province, then all these little minds over there say: "Oh, we

can't have politics. We can't have any government involvement of any kind."

Who do you think controls communications in this country? An

organization set up by the federal government controlled by the

Liberal political party. To infer there is something disastrous

or wrong about having an agency of communications set up at

arm's length in this province is, of course, simply a dual

standard.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: But to get back to the budget, I have

listened to the doom-and-gloom boys across the way. Here is the

February issue of Business in B.C.

MR. BENNETT: Berger was right.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: What does it say?

"The gloom-and-doom predictions of a few months ago have

gradually swung around. 1975 is not going to be a great year,

but it will not be a disaster. The sun will begin to shine

sometime in the third quarter — the fourth quarter at the

latest."

I read that badly-arranged, wrongly-conceived

article that

was in there, full of wrong predictions. Time will prove me

right. But here is the British Columbia bankers' forecast of

what is going to happen in British Columbia. Here is what the

bankers are saying:

"Canadian prosperity does, however, depend heavily on

foreign trade, and the worldwide demand for many commodities

has shrunk considerably. In some cases, market prices have

fallen to levels where returns to Canadian producers are barely

profitable."

Then it goes on to say:

"Some bankers were more optimistic than others about the

outlook for B.C., but there was general agreement that the

experience of this province should not be much worse than that

of Canada as a whole. They will look for resumption of economic

growth in the latter part of this year, although some feel it

will be 1976 before the benefits of improved lumber demands are

felt here.

"The bankers named declining metal prices and reduced demand

as the principal, immediate causes of the mining industry's

difficulties."

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): What about Bill 31?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: This is what the bankers say: declining

prices.

Then later on they say:

"The slowdown is certain to be offset by infrastructure developments which provide a fair amount of employment."

So they are not too unhappy about the prospects for the

future, despite what you boys are saying. If you check what the

Employers Council of British Columbia say, they say exactly the

same thing. But you are working, you are digging away there

furiously, trying to create a feeling of fear in this province,

deliberately trying to hurt this province because of the things

you say.

AN HON. MEMBER: They need help.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You follow the straight and narrow-minded

path because you are prepared to say anything, as long as you

think it might hurt us. Yes, that is what you are doing.

Straight and narrow-minded, right down that road.

The Leader of the Opposition said that this budget was a

most politically expedient, irresponsible and dangerous

budget.

AN. HON. MEMBER: Approve it. I don't care.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: There was the cry of the wrecking bird in

full flight, determined to say anything at all that you think

might hurt this province. And the Liberals are joining in that

cackle chorus.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Relative to a

crow.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, the Liberals are joining that cackle

chorus. You talk about inflation, how our budget was

inflationary and how we are spending all this money. I wonder

what the Liberals say now after what Jean Chretien did this

week? Jean Chretien tabled the main estimates two weeks ago.

This week he tabled supplementary estimates — $1.9 billion

supplementary estimates — two weeks after he tabled his main

estimates. How do you like that? Shocking! Shocking! Done by a

Liberal government.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): You won't give any

facts.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Now, you talked about.... Mr. Speaker,

could I have a little order, please?

[ Page 439 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. We either adjourn to the club or

we be silent here. Make your choice.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, you know where you've been. I don't.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker....

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Facetious Speaker.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, they talk about unemployment

in British Columbia. We have been through a charade twice this

session where they talked about unemployment.

MR. CHABOT: Casa Loma Speaker.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: They talked about people being forced to

live on the restricted income of unemployment insurance.

I want to ask them a question. I don't want any charades,

any play-acting or any flowery language about desperation,

inflation and all the rest of it. I want to ask them a question

and I want them to answer me the question. Go through the

estimates of expenditure....

MR. PHILLIPS: "How to Live on 50 Grand a Year in One Easy

Lesson," by Robert M. Strachan.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I don't know how much you made as a car

dealer, but I think you have done very well over the years.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'm going to talk about public funds.

We find that the cost of courts — and here we were helping

the municipalities by taking over what was a cost item to them — is up from $4 million to $12 million. Should we cut that

out?

Let's look at education: post-secondary education and

training, up $75 million. Do you want us to cut that out? Do

you want us to reduce that? Is that what you are saying when

you tell us you are going to vote against this budget? Grants

to school districts — up $105 million. Are you going to cut that

one out?

Local health services — up $9 million. Are you going to cut

that one out? This is what you are talking about when you use

that wild, irrational language that you've been using.

A new item, ambulance services — $1.1 million.... I

don't think you've read these estimates.

MR. PHILLIPS: Sure we have — we've read the estimates.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I don't think you've read them, because

if you had read them you could not have made the wild,

ridiculous, irresponsible, wrecking remarks that you have

pursued this session.

Community services — up $9 million....

MR. PHILLIPS: Read the figures out of that budget about your

Icky-Bicky. Why don't you talk about your own

responsibilities?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'll get to that. Just be patient, my

friend.

Community services — $9 million. Roads, bridges, ferries,

wharves, et cetera — up $35 million; roads, bridges and

ferries, capital construction — $30 million. Do you want to cut

all that extra out of there? Is that what you say?

MR. PHILLIPS: Tell us about the increase in gasoline.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I heard a completely erroneous statement

today about welfare being up, a completely false statement from

across the way — so many millions for welfare waste.

MR. PHILLIPS: After last year, it's pretty hard for an

encore.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Programmes for senior citizens and

handicapped persons — up $74 million. Are you going to vote

against that $74 million for programmes for senior citizens and

handicapped persons? That's what you're going to be doing.

Community programmes — $16 million. Special programmes for the

retarded an extra $9 million. That's what you've been

denigrating for the last week — all of those items. That's what

you've been tearing down. That's what you've been calling

inflationary — $9 million extra for the retarded. I could go

down the list some more, item after item.

You like to talk in generalities, but generalities are made

up of the whole, item by item in that budget, in those

estimates. But because you indulge in those flights of fancy

about inflation, runaway, uncontrolled...tell me which of

these items we should take out of there, and come to your

senses.

What the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) says is the

only answer is massive firing of civil servants. That's all we

get from him.

MR. FRASER: He never said that.

[ Page 440 ]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, he did. He said: "Massive firing is

the only way." That's what he said — there are the headlines,

right there.

MR. CHABOT: He never said that.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The Leader of the Opposition also quoted

a speech made by the federal Minister of Revenue in which Mr.

Basford said:

"One of the most overworked slogans in the political

lexicon is 'bring us together.' But that is precisely what this country

and province needs:cooperation rather than disputes; tact rather than tantrums."

Then he went on to be critical of British Columbia because

of some of the things that have been said in this province

about Ottawa's attitude towards this province.

As the Premier said in his budget speech: "We came into

office in this province determined to build a new relationship

with Ottawa." And as the Minister of Highways, as a clear

indication and a symbol of the fact that we were part of

Canada, the first thing I did was take down those B.C. 1 signs

and put up the Trans-Canada signs.

MR. FRASER: Big deal!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The next thing I did — and the previous

administration refused to even talk to the federal government

about it — was to have a meeting in the Premier's office with

Commissioner Smith of the Yukon Territory, the Governor of

Alaska and the Premier. They came to see if we would move from

that hard and fast B.C. position and participate in the

construction of that road from Carcross to Skagway. We sat

right in the Premier's office and we agreed. And it's been

done. We are part of Canada. The previous administration would

not participate in any of those programmes — none at all.

The next thing was the road from Fort Nelson up to

Mackenzie. Under the previous administration the federal

government had the money in the estimates to do their part of

that road, but they could get no acquiescence from the Province

of British Columbia. So then they moved their emphasis up into

the Mackenzie, and that's where they're building. So what I

did, and my successor has followed through the same, is to

start up that road and when the feds are ready to move in, then

we'll come together.

Those are three clear examples and a clear indication for the federal government

that we are prepared to do our bit to help other parts of Canada also.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Delta): They didn't think they were in Canada.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: But when I was in Ottawa just a couple of weeks ago,

Mr. Basford made a similar remark to me about things that were being said in

the Province of British Columbia. He said: "There's no little group sits here

in Ottawa and says what we can do to finagle British Columbia this week." I

said that may not be the case, but I'm reluctantly coming to that conclusion

— very reluctantly — because of the difference in attitude towards this part

of the country and the other coast.

It's a pretty tragic story. We had to buy a ferry last year

because of the urgent need and the growth in the figures, and

they couldn't even let us put that ferry on the run until we

had paid that $3.5 million in import duty. They wouldn't let us

put it on the run. We applied to get it back and we still

haven't got it back.

Mr. Speaker, here we are carrying the full load for ferries

in this province — the full load. When we look at how it's done — I have the growth figures here but I won't go into them —

it's about 200,000 vehicles from 1969, I think, until 1974.

But you look at what's happened and you find that in eastern

Canada this is what happened due to the federal disbursement.

The federal Ministry of Transport expended on the ferry coastal

services surface transportation programme: operating — in 1972,

$35 million, and in 1973, $41 million; capital — $25 million in

1972, down to $4.4 million in 1973. That was $61 million in

1972; $51 million in 1973.

Canadian Transport Commission, steamship and venture

subsidies: 1969, $12 million; 1970, $13 million; 1971, $6

million; 1972, $6 million; 1973, $6 million. Added to that,

capital expenditures include.... Oh, steamships and ventures

include both vehicle/passenger ferry service and coastal

shipping services.

In 1970 — $3 million for Saint John, a ferry terminal. A

ferry terminal in Saint John, New Brunswick. In 1971 — $6.9

million. In Digby a $15 million write-off of loan balance for

acquisition and construction of two vessels for the New

Brunswick – P.E.I. ferry service.

A statement of additional aid paid in support of Atlantic

region transportation.... I don't mind this one. This is the

extra. This is subsidizing freight and transportation

movements: 1969, $13 million; 1970, $19 million; 1971, $16

million; 1972, $20 million; 1973, $21 million.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, I'm tired of listening to you.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's all right.

Payments to the CNR: $21 million in 1969; $22 million, and

then $21 million.

[ Page 441 ]

You know how they do it, Mr. Speaker? There was a rumour

around here that I was going to lease a ferry. Now I know the

Members are not interested in the problems of this province.

They've demonstrated that very clearly in the last two and a

half years. They're not interested in what's happening in this

province. But what happens is that the Minister of Transport

and his department either buy the ferries for the east coast of

this country or they lease them. The federal government has just finished leasing a ferry

from Sweden for utilization on the east coast at a cost of

approximately $3 million a year. Then they give it to the CNR

and pay them a management fee for running it.

Do you know all we've had in British Columbia? In the fall

of 1972 they hired consultants to have a survey on west coast

transportation needs. They came to see me; they visited the

Department of Highways; they visited different other areas of

British Columbia. I asked for that report a year ago, and I

have the correspondence here.

I asked for that report a year ago. I got a reply saying

yes, they have it, but they've sent it back for some

clarification. I've written back and forth several times asking

for the report. I asked for it two weeks ago at a meeting with

the Minister. The Minister has not yet seen it. One of the

individuals present said: "Well, the big problem is that the

magnitude of the costs named in that report scared us."

They have a report that indicates the magnitude of the costs

we face in providing west coast transportation needs, and

they're holding that report back because they know that I would

be after them to give us the help, as we have been. So far,

they're still refusing to give us the kind of help that's given

in other parts of Canada.

But, Mr. Speaker, we have a good ferry system in this

province. We have a lot of problems, there's no doubt about

that, but I think it's....

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I think it's time we had a fair.... Mr.

Speaker, could we have a little order, please?

I'm sorry I didn't join them for dinner — they must have had

a good time.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I can assure you I wouldn't miss you if

you left.

MR. SPEAKER: And it wouldn't be as noisy, either, Hon.

Members. I wish you would settle down.

AN HON. MEMBER: We can't be noisy if we're not here, Mr.

Speaker.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, Mr. Speaker, to top it all off, the

federal government just purchased that ferry system that was

operated by the CPR between Digby and Nova Scotia. Under the

1968 agreement, CP acquired the ferry vessel the Princess of

Arcadia and the federal government agreed to provide the

terminal facilities necessary for the operation of a service

using it. At the time, Ottawa promised to buy the vessel if no

satisfactory long-term operating arrangement could be

reached.

On December 24, following complaints by Canadian Pacific

that it was losing money on the service, Marchand announced

that the government would make good on its promise. They've

bought that ferry and they're going to continue operating

it.

I think, Mr. Speaker, it's clear that we should have a

better deal from Ottawa than they're now giving us. We have

problems here — some fantastic costs facing us. They won't even

tell us the cost of what their reports are. They certainly

should give us a fair break. I hope my Liberal friends will

carry that....

MR. GARDOM: Just like ICBC, Bob. Some deal! Great deal!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Now, Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of

talk: we shouldn't spend this money; we've been extravagant;

the biggest budget; it's terrible; it's inflationary. I want to

give you an example of just what happens when you don't go

ahead with projects when you should go ahead.

My Socred friends may know a man by the name of Dr.

Reynolds. I listened to him give a fine speech in Duncan a few

weeks ago on the provision of medical services.

In Duncan, three years ago we opened an extended-care unit.

At the time, they wanted to finish that particular building

completely, but the then Minister of Health would not allow us

to put in all the beds and the services. So we're now finishing

up those 22 extended-care beds. Dr. Reynolds said that at that

time it would have cost $30,000 to finish that particular

building three years ago. It's now costing $266,000, according

to Dr. Reynolds, because we didn't do it just three short years

ago. So it's obvious that we have to spend the kind of money

we're spending to meet the needs of today.

The motor vehicle branch. Despite what the....

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): When are you going to

start your speech?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, I don't know. I know you have no

interest in what happens in this province, Madam Member. I know

that. You've demonstrated that very clearly. But if you don't

want to listen, then go away. Go away.

[ Page 442 ]

MRS. JORDAN: Let's hear about ICBC.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'm talking about my department and my

department responsibility. If you're not interested, then just

let me go on my way, will you?

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, well, they know that.

The motor vehicle branch has had a number of problems in the

last 12 months. One of them has been meeting driver examination

requirements, with the result that on occasion there have been

line-ups at the driver examination offices. So we decided on a

new departure allowing those who had graduated from a licensed

driving school to be given their certificate without the

necessity of a driving test. But on the first day, we decided

we would test all of them. There were three people who came in

from the driving schools to get their drivers' licences. We

tested the first three, and two out of the first three failed.

My instructions then were to notify every driving school that

we will be making periodic checks and that they must recommend

the drivers who will be given the licences without going

through the test. We'll make periodic tests, and if any school

is getting too many failures, then, of course, we'll have to

see what we can do about that.

MR. GARDOM: How many mobile testing units have you got,

Bob?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mobile testing units? There are quite a

number of them, if you want....

MR. GARDOM: I could count them on my hand.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: We've increased the number of mobile

testing units around the province. There are three operating in

the lower mainland alone. I'll send the amount over to you

later; I can't find it right now.

There were 216,000 drivers' examinations in 1973 and

226,000 in 1974. The motor vehicle branch, along with the

Department of Highways and ICBC and the Department of Education

are now correlating and developing a safety programme so that

we can make a unified effort to make the people of this

province safety conscious.

In the vehicle testing, incidentally, there was another change made this year.

We took a look at the reasons for rejection in motor vehicle testing and we

found that 49 per cent of them had to do with headlights out of line or something

like that. So we simply said, if it's a simple thing, just take it and fix it

right there, which then removes the necessity of this man having to go get it

fixed elsewhere and come back for a retest. So we've eliminated almost 50 per

cent of the returns.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Pardon? Oh, no. The carrier commission

has had a bigger year too. This is the body that handles the

franchises for the trucks, and of course the increase in the

cost of fuel and wages and everything else meant that the...

MR. FRASER: You're still away behind it.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: ...trucking companies had to apply three

times in the one year for an increase in the rates. The

Motor-carrier Commission was kept extremely busy keeping up to

these applications for a review of the rates.

MR. FRASER: You're still away behind.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The department's also been busy in

meetings with Mr. Marchand of the federal department in matters

arising out of WEOC and the railway costs. Of course, we have

had great difficulty with the federal railways. They absolutely

refused to give the cost disclosures that were required and

demanded and promised by the Prime Minister of Canada at the

WEOC conference.

MR. GARDOM: Don't they answer questions on the order paper

either?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It took us almost a year to get that cost

disclosure from the railways, and the Minister of Transport

(Hon. Mr. Marchand) had to threaten to bring in federal

legislation. We are now getting the cost disclosures from the

federal railways.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. How can three people make so

much noise?

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I had intended to give some time to ICBC.

I want to tell you that ICBC has come through with flying

colours. Make no mistake about that.

I wanted to read what the Minister from Quebec said when he

was out here about the ICBC — what a great thing it is.

Interjections.

[ Page 443 ]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The minute you say "ICBC" they just go

hairy over there.

But I want to draw your attention to the cost differentials

across this country. I want to tell you this. In the City of

Victoria, for a 1969 Dodge Charger for pleasure driving, the

over-25 driver paid $83; in Vancouver, $97; Nanaimo, $87; in

Chilliwack, $93; Kelowna, $93; Prince George, $120; Edmonton,

$154; Toronto, $169; Montreal, $235...

MR. GARDOM: Consolidated revenue. How much?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: ...Halifax, $156; Charlottetown, $174;

St. John's, Newfoundland, $218.

MR. GARDOM: Bingo!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The lowest insurance costs anywhere in

Canada. And these are the figures of July, 1974, published by

the Canadian Underwriters Association.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Tell us about the subsidies.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: A 1973 Mustang — listen to this:

Victoria, $125; Vancouver, $169; Edmonton, $337; Montreal,

$534; St. John's, Newfoundland, $504. Tell the people that.

Tell the people that. Those rates, in other parts of the

country, have been up at least 20 per cent since then. Make no

mistake, my friends. This is one of the greatest

programmes.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Tell the truth. Tell

the truth!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Territorial equalization grants so that

no matter where you live in the province you will pay the same

rate: that's our objective. And we will reach that objective

under this government.

You talk about disclosure. Until we became the government

you couldn't find government aircraft mentioned anywhere in any

report at any time in this House. But look in your estimates.

Look in your estimates.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, before I close....

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The logs will be tabled. There are three

jets and there are two Kingairs.

There are areas of this province that hadn't been aerial

photographed since before 1950. The most incompetent government

in history! When you think what we can do with aerial

photography. You ask the Department of Mines, the Department of

Lands, and the Department of Forestry the good that came out of

those two Kingairs last summer — the aerial photographs we were

able to get. We're bringing this province into the 20th

century, getting it out of the 19th century where you people

kept it.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I would ask the First Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) to observe a little more

silence. This is not the Senate. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Last September I was in Britain when the

election was on there. I read the newspapers, and the first two

papers I read were very much like the papers here. They were

all against the Labour government — the editorials, the way the

news was presented and the cartoons. Now that's normal. Then I

picked up some other papers and I said: "This is completely

different." I found there was a balance in the presentation of

the news and everything else in Britain — some for the

government, some against the government.

No government in the history of this province has been

subject to the misrepresentation and the false accusations that

we have been subject to.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I asked myself why this was

so, and suddenly I realized....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you the press?

HON. MR, STRACHAN: Suddenly I realized, Mr. Speaker, that

two and a half years ago the people of the establishment, the

people who had controlled the levers of power in this province

for 100 years, lost that control. It is obvious that they're

prepared to say anything, do anything, to try and get their

hands back on the levers of control, and that's why we are

being subjected to the sort of attacks that we are being

subjected to as a government.

There is no balance in the presentation of the news of this

province. These people across there are determined to do and

say anything. Mr. Speaker, there are times when I worry because

I sometimes get the feeling when I listen to what is being said

out there....

[ Page 444 ]

MR. FRASER: The light's on that you put on.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: There are times I get the feeling, Mr.

Speaker, that there are people in this province who would

rather see this system destroyed if they can't control it, and

I'm very sorry about that because....

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I explained to you in another country

where our Mother of Parliaments is there is a balance: there

are papers that support the government and there are papers

opposed to the government. I think a fair presentation requires

that it be presented either way.

But they print the sort of attacks and the sort of

calculated statements that are made about us in and out of this

House. They are the people I'm blaming, the people who

controlled the levers of power. And because they lost them

after 100 years of holding onto them, they're prepared to go to

any length to try and get them back into their hands.

But they are not going to get them there because, Mr.

Speaker, with this budget and these estimates, with the things

and the programmes that are contained in this book, the people

of this province are going to know that this is the most

feeling, the most humane, the most forward-looking government

this province has ever had. When that election comes — and it

will come — I'll wave you goodbye, because you won't be back

and we will.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): A point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Would you state your point of order,

please?

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, that Minister has a habit in

this House of accusing other people of using innuendo and smear

and things like that. My point of order is that he made an

incorrect statement in his speech regarding a company, Premier

Cablevision, in which he said....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Order!

MR. McCLELLAND: The company, Mr. Speaker....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Member is out of order. I

point out to him that you cannot correct statements....

Order, please.

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member be seated! You've already

made your point. The point is that you are contradicting

another Member, not in something he said about you but in your

dispute with him about a point of fact. You have no right to do

that unless you have your place on the floor, and therefore you

are abusing the rules of order if you seek to raise a point of

order on that point. I therefore ask you to remain seated

unless you have a point of order that affects you

personally.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, you are very quick to jump and say that

my point of order has nothing to do with me — and whatever you said — but you

don't even allow me to state my point of order, and I don't think that's fair.

I think that every Member in this House has the opportunity to state a point

of order.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the Hon. Member said that he had made a

mis-statement regarding Premier Cablevision, and you're not

connected with....

MR. McCLELLAND: I think that that Minister has to be

responsible for his statements, and he is not being responsible

for his statements. The control of that company is in Canadian

hands and always has been.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Hon. Member is again abusing

the rules of the House. It is not up to....

HON. MR. STRACHAN: CBS is the largest shareholder.

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. It is not up to any Member to

contradict any other Member except in his own debate. The

purpose of a point of order is: if you have personally had your

statements....

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The only purpose of a point of

order where you stand up is to determine whether some statement

made against you is incorrect. You have the right to correct

that Member, but you do not have the right to correct him in

his speech with regard to his opinions. That is a basic freedom

of parliament.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): It's a

[ Page 445 ]

pleasure for me to take my place in this debate, Mr.

Speaker, on the budget. What I'm going to try to do is to

inject some reason into it.

We've had a lot of irrational statements from the opposition

and a lot of irrational attack on this very excellent budget.

But a number of areas in this budget catch the eyes of the

people who live in my constituency, and that's what I am going

to address myself to. I am going to try to ignore the kind of

attacks that have been made on it which have no basis in

fact.

Again, I'm going to speak about housing, Mr. Speaker,

because housing remains a major area of concern in my

constituency. I'm very pleased with the extra allocation made

to the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson). I'm hoping that

these funds will be used and that a large sample of them will

be earmarked to relieve the tenants presently living in that

constituency who are presently living in good housing, in solid

housing and older apartment blocks and in multiple dwellings.

The City of Vancouver is allowing demolition permits to

developers who are trying to accumulate and hold land and

replace this housing with high-cost condominiums which people....

MR. GARDOM: You gave that speech last year.

MS. BROWN: That's right. And I'm going to give it again,

because in point of fact this is one of the things that the

Minister of Housing will be able to do with his extra

allocation in his budget. He will be able to secure some of

that housing for the people especially living there.

Now, the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer)

brought down his Liberal budget. It really was quite

interesting because he cut all the departments that had to do

with services to people and poured all the money into resources

and mines. I thought it was interesting that he decided to cut

money from the Department of Housing at the same time he was

telling us that there was a need for housing and accommodation

throughout the province. That's one of the contradictions,

however, that we've come to learn to live with with Liberals.

We've come to learn to live with their contradictions.

The fact of the matter, as I've said before and I'll say

again, is that there is no shortage of housing for people who

can afford expensive housing. There is shortage of housing for

people on fixed incomes and low incomes. This is exactly the

sector of the community that the private developer has never

been interested in. He has never made any effort to try and

meet the needs of these people.

With this extra allocation, the Minister of Housing will be able to do this

in terms of securing housing presently in existence and helping those tenants

living there, who may want to form a cooperative and buy that housing, or in

developing new housing.

MR. GARDOM: That Minister?

MS. BROWN: That's right, the Minister of Housing. In

Vancouver we're in the process of developing an area which is

known as False Creek. I don't know how many people in here have

heard of False Creek. One of the things that this Minister of

Housing will be able to do with his additional allocation is

cooperate in terms of financial input into that

development.

What that means is that he will be able to insist that a

percentage of the housing going into the False Creek area, a

very high percentage of the housing — maybe 25 per cent, 33.3

per cent, as the case may be — should be earmarked for social

housing for people who are living near the poverty line or even

below the poverty line. I'm talking about the working poor; I'm

talking about the single-parent families, the young families,

the young married couples with children, senior citizens,

handicapped people. The Minister of Housing, with this

additional allocation, will be able to make that kind of demand

on the City of Vancouver when they move in to develop the False

Creek area.

The other thing that he will be able to do is involve

himself in something known as infill housing, which is

something that's coming out of the community groups in the

area. They're suggesting that one of the ways we can deal with

the density in the area, in a less expensive way than building

new housing, is to go into infill housing.

In fact, this additional allocation makes it possible for

the Minister of Housing to involve himself in all sorts of

innovative and different ways of supplying the housing needs of

the people in this area. These are areas in which the private

sector, quite frankly, is not interested and has never been

interested. So I certainly laud that

section of the budget

which gives this extra allocation to the Minister of

Housing.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: I don't think I have to repeat for the benefit of

everyone here that the housing crisis did not just start two or

two and a half years ago. It started when the federal Liberals

decided that they weren't going to allow the tax shelter any

more for the lawyers and doctors over there who were investing

in the private sector. Even when you had the opportunity, you

never went into social housing.

MR. McGEER: Is there a housing crisis now?

MS. BROWN: There is no crisis for people who can afford

expensive housing, Mr. Member. In the constituency of Burrard,

we have condominiums

[ Page 446 ]

going for $110,000 and $120,000, sitting on the market

waiting to be purchased. We have apartments there that rent for

$400 and $500 a month, waiting for people to rent them. There

is no shortage of housing for people who can afford high prices

in housing. That is what the private sector is interested in

building. They are not interested in people on low incomes.

They never were, like you, Mr. Member, who in your budget

decided to cut off all of the funds for Human Resources.

As far as Municipal Affairs is concerned, this is another

area which seriously touches the lives of the people who live

in Vancouver-Burrard. Again, I was very pleased to see that we

are going to assume up to 90 per cent of the administrative

costs for welfare in the city. What this is going to do is

leave the municipalities with much more money and much more

funds to deal with some of the needs that they have to deal

with.

MR. FRASER: Did you hear what the mayor of Vancouver

said?

MS. BROWN: I am pleased that we are going to assume the

costs for the administration of the courts and for correction

services, again leaving funds. It's the same kind of peanuts

that they used to complain about when they were carrying those

costs. Now we're relieving them of those funds — additional

money in the pockets of the municipalities.

Through the Sewerage Facilities Assistance Act we are again

relieving more funds for the municipalities. The budgets of the

municipalities have been relieved up to almost $14 per capita

for everybody that they are responsible for in terms of their

operating budgets. Hopefully, the mayor is going to use all of

this money which we are saving him in a constructive kind of

way.

MR. McGEER: That's not what the mayor says.

MS. BROWN: Part of the allocation in the municipal budget,

Mr. Speaker, has to do with transit. I'm sure that you will

agree with me that this is one area that the mayor of Vancouver

never ceases talking about. He's got tunnel vision — all he

talks about is tunnels. He wants to put a subway through the

centre of the city.

When the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) suggested to the

mayor that the rail lines running down the centre of Granville Street should

remain there when he was going to do this great beautification project of his,

in a very irresponsible way, as he usually does, he decided no, he wanted those

lines lifted out. At the same time, he's asking for transit. Now if those lines

had been permitted to remain, light rapid transit would have become a reality

much sooner. What happens is that at peak hours....

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: I would remind the Second Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) that he is out of his

seat.

MS. BROWN: It's the First Member (Mr. McGeer) who's doing

the chattering.

What happens is that at peak hours in the City of Vancouver

we have a bus going down Granville Street at least once a

minute. Now if we had light rapid transit, which carries a lot

more people and moves much more faster and much more

efficiently, we would have the transit going once every four

minutes. This would certainly relieve the congestion and the

cluttering which presently happens on Granville Street.

Instead of that, the mayor insisted that those lines come

out. And he does not have the support of the regional district

in his demands that he is making for a subway. As I said

before, he's got tunnel vision.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs in 1973 tried to get the

City of Vancouver interested in running a bus along 49th Avenue

from Burnaby through to Marine Drive. No one was

interested.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Right! How long did it take? This is the kind of

thing that we have to deal with with the municipality. We're

always a couple of years ahead of them. What happens in the

final analysis is that it costs more and then they come

shedding their crocodile tears, and here I'm quoting the past

Member — the father of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr.

Bennett).

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: All I'm saying, Mr. Member, is that there are a

number of ways in which this government has tried to help the

municipality of Vancouver and the mayor has not availed himself

of those services.

MR. GARDOM: It's a city, Rosemary.

MS. BROWN: I beg your pardon, Mr. Member. It's a city.

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

picky.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to speak about the

allocation in the budget to the Department of Consumer

Services.

Again I notice in the budget brought down by the

[ Page 447 ]

First Member for Point Grey — the Liberal budget — that he

suggested that Consumer Services should be cut by $1 million,

another indication of his lack of caring for the ordinary

people of this city and of this province. He doesn't care about

the services this department provides — for example, debtor

counselling — for the people.

MRS. JORDAN: What about ICBC?

MS. BROWN: He doesn't care about the storefront offices that

are under the jurisdiction of Consumer Services. He doesn't

care about the excellent job that they are doing in terms of

helping people to budget. In this day of the cashless society

and easy credit and credit cards, the consumer is under

continuous jeopardy. He doesn't care about the invaluable

service which this department offers to the people of

Vancouver.

I am certainly grateful for the 28 per cent increase in this

budget because I hope that it will help the Department of

Consumer Services, for example, take a closer look at people

like Hospitality Services. I want to tell you a little story

about Hospitality Services.

MRS. JORDAN: How about ICBC?

MS. BROWN: On March 6, 1974, a couple needed the services of

a housekeeper because the wife involved was very ill. She had

cancer and had to be in hospital all the time. They paid $300

to Hospitality Services who guaranteed that in three weeks they

would be able to secure for that family a housekeeper to live

in and take care of that woman's family while she was in the

cancer clinic. At the end of that three weeks they said that if

they could not find someone, the $300 would be refunded in

total after 30 days. Three weeks went by and they were unable

to find anyone. Thirty days went by and they did not refund the

$300 which was paid to them.

MRS. JORDAN: Sounds like ICBC.

MS. BROWN: In June of that year, three months later, the

couple had to file in small debts court to have the $300

returned. The wife has since died, but I am told by the husband

that they made at least 10 trips to the small debts court to

try and have a successful resolution of this problem.

MRS. JORDAN: That does sound like ICBC.

MS. BROWN: In August, 1974, a judgment was issued. In

October, 1974, this man had to go and pay over $200 to file a

committal order to put Mr. Livingstone, the person from

Hospitality Services, into jail unless he refunded that $300.

Mr. Livingstone then applied for a motion of the order asking

for permission to tell his side of the story and to have the

committal order stopped. In November, 1974, there was a notice

of the hearing of this case. Again, Mr. Livingstone failed to

show up. We find 10 months later there is still no refund for

the $300. The average person would have given up. In terms of

time lost, in terms of income lost to keep going down to the

small debts court, the decision would have been made to let the

$300 go by. I received a phone call that on Monday, March 3,

one year less two days from the original time that the $300 was

paid, the case was successfully resolved. One year later.

It is of vital importance that we have an agency like

Consumer Services that can take class action on behalf of

people like this because not everyone has the

stick-to-it-iveness, and not everyone has the time and the

resources, to spend a year in court dealing with a small debts

claim the way that this particular family has. This should be

of interest to the Attorney-General's department too because I

think what it indicates is that his department needs to take...

MR. GARDOM: Did you report it to him? Did you report it to

him?

MS. BROWN: ...a second look at the small debts court.

MR. GARDOM: Are you just spouting off tonight? Did you tell

him?

MS. BROWN: The file is being turned over both to the

Consumer Services department and to the Attorney-General's

department because I think that Consumer Services has to

maintain a watching brief on Hospitality Services.

I am glad about the increase which went to the

Attorney-General's department in this budget. I am hoping that

that additional allotment will ensure that the unified family

court project, which is an excellent project which grew out of

the Berger commission report and which is presently in

existence in Surrey, that the Attorney-General will find it

possible to duplicate this unified family court throughout the

province. All research has shown, and people who have visited

this unified family court as well as the clients who have used

the unified family court insist, that this really is the way

that a family court should be run. The accent is not on the

adversary system when the family breaks down, but rather is on

cooperation and trying to deal with relationships with people.

It is a slow process and it is an expensive process, but it

certainly is an excellent process which should be duplicated

throughout the province. The additional allocation to the

Attorney-General's budget will make this possible.

[ Page 448 ]

MR. GARDOM: He is back now. There he is. Tell him.

MS. BROWN: The Attorney-General is here, so I would like to

congratulate the Attorney-General on the upgrading of the

provincial court judges. I have been keeping a close look on

it. I notice that he has been appointing a number of young,

bright judges, compassionate judges, and I would like to

congratulate him on this.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Hear, hear!

MR. GARDOM: Compassionate judges?

MS. BROWN: Well, maybe they are liberal judges.

I would like to tell the Attorney-General that I have noticed. Are you

listening, Mr. Attorney-General? (Laughter.)

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, I am.

MS. BROWN: I am congratulating you, Mr. Attorney-General, on

your appointment of 31 bright, young judges and wondering why

only one of those 31 happened to be a woman.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): Oh, oh!

MRS. D. WEBSTER (Vancouver South): Right on! Right on!

MS. BROWN: Maybe it was compassion. I don't know.

MR. GARDOM: Compassion or from passion?

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Why not?

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Human Resources also touches the lives of many of the people

living in my constituency. I really hate to keep coming back to

the budget which was brought down by the First Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) — the Liberal budget. It is

just that it was such a bad budget, actually; it was such a

cruel budget...

MR. McGEER: No, it's the best budget we've ever had.

MR. GARDOM: Are you going to vote for it?

MS. BROWN: ...as far as people were concerned. I really couldn't believe

what I was listening to and I had to get the Blues and underline to convince

myself that he really did say that he would cut $93 million from the Human Resources

budget.

MR. LEWIS: Shameful!

MS. BROWN: So I looked at the estimates for the Department

of Human Resources to try and find out what he would be cutting

which would add up to this $93 million figure. What I found was

that he would be cutting the special programmes for the

retarded, which came to $29 million; that he would be cutting

the health-care services, which came to $28 million, and that

he would be cutting the services to families and children. You

add those three up and they come to $93 million, give or take $1 million here and there.

I really do believe it's shocking, Mr. Speaker, that that

Member, himself a man of medicine, the most compassionate of

all professions, should see fit to take $93 million out of the

budget of a department like Human Resources, which deals almost

exclusively with people in need.

I welcome the increased allotment to the Department of Human

Resources because that department has demonstrated that it is

meeting the needs of a large number of people in this province

who are handicapped, who are over 60 years of age, who are

sole-support parents or who, in one way or another, cannot

survive on their own. Through this department we as a society

are discharging our collective responsibility to them.

In addition, this department is also looking into the

retraining of people over 45 and 50, trying to design services

for them so that once they are discarded by the private

enterprise work system they can find jobs in adult care, in

homemaker services programmes, in services-to-children

programmes, in the delivery of services to people and in other

areas in which the private sector has never been

interested.

Believe it or not, Mr. Speaker, there are large numbers of

very talented people living in Vancouver-Burrard constituency.

Some of these people are vitally interested in developing a

film industry in British Columbia. The seed money for such an

industry has to come from two sources: one through a cultural

grant from the Provincial Secretary's department and the other

through the Department of Economic Development. Therefore I was

very pleased to see the allotment increase which was given to

the Provincial Secretary's department.

As you know, the federal government made some kind of token

gesture in the direction of Canadian ownership in the

publishing business a couple of weeks ago. It suggested that

the two large American publishers, Time magazine and

Reader's Digest , should not continue to enjoy the tax

shelter which they did in terms of advertising. Well, it did

not take very long for the federal government to renege on this

once again and to throw the Canadian publishing

[ Page 449 ]

business to the American wolves. They tell us that they are

going to be able to monitor 80 per cent of the content of these

magazines. That's this week. Next week it's going to be down to

50 per cent and then it's going to be down to 20 per cent, and

in no time it's going to be right back where it is now.

However, I am talking about the film industry, and certainly

the same thing is true of the film industry. But more and more

people are beginning to find — and this is certainly the case of

Americans too — that British Columbia is an ideal place for

making films, and more and more people are coming here and

using British Columbians as well as the British Columbia

surroundings to make films. People of this province themselves

are coming together and saying that they would like to develop

their own film industry. Certainly we have the talent here and

we have the people with the ability who are able to do so.

There are a number of people in Vancouver who came together

and formed a cooperative, but what they would like is some

funding and financial encouragement for the development of this

industry on a cooperative basis. Although no one has anything

against American films, and we accept that the two major

distributors, Famous Players and Paramount Films, are American

companies, the fact is that certainly a film industry should

reflect the attitude and the feelings and needs of a country.

Whether it is through a quota system or a rebate system, the

Canadian audience should benefit, the producers should benefit

and the Canadian artists should benefit. Certainly the best way

to do this would be through helping to develop, through some

assistance from our own economic development or through the

Provincial Secretary's department, a film industry of our own

in this province.

The Members of the opposition are always talking about

creating jobs. Here is an opportunity that we have that this

government will be able to assist in helping the creative

people and the talented people of this province to find jobs

and to find work in this province and not have to move

elsewhere.

MR. McCLELLAND: I wish I could vote for you.

MS. BROWN: Another area which is of concern to the

Provincial Secretary's department is the civil service. One of

the things that the opposition Members have failed to do is to

discuss, even once in all of their speeches on this budget, the

question of poverty. Now this is not surprising because they

are not interested in poor people. They do not see the poor as

their constituents.

Both the Member for North Vancouver – Capilano (Mr. Gibson) and the Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey, when they were discussing low incomes, say, to people

in the civil service, made statements to the effect that, depending on their

place in the hierarchy, they were earning low incomes because that was the pecking

order or they were earning low incomes because secretaries do not generate capital.

What the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall), through his

responsibility for the civil service, has been able to do is to

deal with the redistribution of income. Some of the contracts

which have just been settled address themselves to just this

thing. There are a number of people in this province who,

despite the fact that they work very long hours, remain poor.

And a number of these working poor were members of this very

civil service. They were victims of the past administration

which exploited its lower echelon workers and, in many cases,

kept them living perilously close to or below the poverty

line.

We heard from the Provincial Secretary last night that there

were actually people working for this government who were

trying to raise families on $300 and $400 a month. These people

were poor. Although they were not collecting welfare and other

services administered by the Human Resources department, it

must have been impossible for them to enjoy or appreciate any

of the benefits which should accrue to people living in a

province as wealthy as this.

MRS. WEBSTER: Hear, hear!

MS. BROWN: I notice as soon as I start speaking about

poverty that all the Liberals disappear.

MR. LEWIS: They went out to see if they could find some.

MS. BROWN: However, some of the settlements which were made

deal primarily with this; they deal primarily with the lower

income category. For this we were being attacked by the Member

for North Vancouver – Capilano (Mr. Gibson) last night and by

other Members of the Liberal opposition who are saying that we

are competing with private industry and that we're making

things difficult for the private sector by paying a living wage

to people who had been exploited while working for the

government and for the people of this province.

I want to deal with one of the statements made to the effect

that a secretary does not generate income. There are very few

offices in this world which would survive very long without a

secretary. Anyone who knows anything about legal secretaries

knows that they are the ones who do the work, and all that

lawyers do is collect the money. If anyone has ever had to go

into a legal office, they will see that all the research, all

the legwork and all the sweat work is done by those legal

secretaries. The only thing the lawyer does is affix his

signature to the work done by the secretary and then collect

the bill for the work done.

[ Page 450 ]

This is why, at every opportunity I get to speak to legal

secretaries, either individually or in a group, I say to them:

"Organize, and get yourself a piece of the action. You are not

secretaries; you are partners in the firm, and you should be

treated as partners." I am certainly not going to stop until I

see all the legal secretaries in this province organized and

partners in the legal firms. Then we'll find out who is in the

pecking order.

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: The last area which I would like to speak about,

Mr. Speaker, does not primarily affect my area. That has to do

with the Department of Agriculture.

I was very pleased to see the addition to the grant which is

being administered through the Department of Agriculture to aid

the developing countries, the major disaster area fund. This is

the very first time since 1969 when that fund was first

established that any moneys have been added to it.

I am pleased at the way in which the money was added. It

wasn't just a matter of doubling the fund. The money was added

in such a way that it involved the community. In other words,

the onus is on everyone in British Columbia to contribute to

this fund, and the government's commitment is to match

this.

MR. WALLACE: Right on!

MS. BROWN: To religious groups, private groups, individuals — anybody who wants to contribute. This is going to really give

everyone out there a chance to participate and to put their

money, quite frankly, where their mouth has always been.

One of the things I'm hoping that the Minister of

Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) will also do is take a look at

the whole concept of surpluses. I realize that this is probably

something that should be done on a federal level. Certainly one

of the things we can do is to send these surpluses to

developing countries rather than have a system whereby our

surpluses are dumped. So that our farmers can maintain a decent

standard of living, they shouldn't be dumped on the market to

affect the incomes of the farmers.

MR. LEWIS: Hear, hear!

MS. BROWN: They shouldn't be wasted. Rather than this

dumping, this food should be sent through church organizations,

through CARE, through UNICEF or whatever to developing

countries. This would give us an opportunity to do two things

at the same time.

The third area — and this applies, I realize, to the

government as a whole as well as to the Minister of Finance — would be to look at the relationship between some

of the debts that some of these countries are in with the

federal government. A number of these countries are being held

to ransom because they are indebted to us — the developing

countries. They have high interest to meet, and so often we go

in and we make contributions in terms of helping these

countries develop their resources. But there is always a price

tag affixed to it, and the interest increases, and in order to

meet this debt they owe to us, instead of being able to grow

food for themselves, they have to grow things like coffee and

rubber and sugar for export so that they can generate income to

pay off these debts.

So I hope that one of the things we will try to do is to

negotiate with the federal government on behalf of some of

these countries to see whether, if we cannot retire the debt,

we can at least try and retire some of the interest.

This is an excellent budget, Mr. Speaker. It is geared to

the helping of people, and I'm very glad to be able to support

it. Thank you.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): It's a pleasure to once

again stand in my place in this House and take

part in the

debate on the budget. I have a few notes which I will refer to

from time to time.

MR. SPEAKER: Copious?

MR. SMITH: Not exceptionally so, Mr. Speaker.

I'm a little unhappy to see that the Attorney-General (Hon.

Mr. Macdonald) left the House again. I had a few nice things to

say about him. Perhaps I can save those for a little while. As

the lay lawyer from the opposition ranks, I had a few words of

advice for the Hon. Attorney-General this evening. Without

being biased in favour of the lawyers, sometimes it's a little

easier to hand out advice from a slanted position or a biased

position with respect to the training that one might have had,

or not have had, in previous years.

I listened with interest to the remarks of the Minister of

Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan). Particularly

I think that all of us in this House wanted to hear him spend

some time on the subject of ICBC and how much it is actually

costing the taxpayers of the province.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, while he was glowing in his

remarks about ICBC, he very carefully avoided the matter of

subsidies to that company. It is not too long ago that we heard

the same Minister stand on his feet in this House and say that

not one cent of consolidated revenue would go from the pockets

of the taxpayers in the Province of British Columbia to

subsidize any part of the operation of ICBC. I think that the

question on the minds of everyone in this province tonight is

not only the amount of premium

[ Page 451 ]

that they have to pay according to the notices that they

receive; it's how much money is channeled from general revenue

into the operation of ICBC. The people of the province have a

right to know that.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): It's the automobile

driver.

MR. SMITH: The people of the province have a right to know

that — a direct subsidy to ICBC based upon gasoline tax. If

that's the position today, how much more revenue is being

siphoned off to subsidize the operation of ICBC? What does it

actually cost us, including the subsidies when we get down to

the total premium that is paid...

HON. MR. BARRETT: Are you against ICBC? You've very

wrong.

MR. SMITH: ...for insurance in the Province of British

Columbia.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You're very wrong.

MR. SMITH: The Second Member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms.

Brown) was a little critical of the shortage of rental

accommodation, and I agree with her. There is a great shortage

of rental accommodation in the Province of British Columbia.

It's a crisis. But what has brought it about? Certainly it has

been as a result, to a great extent, of the intervention of the

government into the housing field, and the rules and

regulations and controls that people have to live with

today.

There was a time, not long ago, when 90 per cent of all the

rental accommodation in the Province of British Columbia was

supplied by private enterprise and private investment. At that

time they were quite able to take care of the growth rate of

the province. Much of it was built by small investors who

invested their dollars in a condominium or a small apartment

block for those people who choose to rent at least on a

temporary basis.

But that has gone by the board. It has gone by the board as

a result of government policies, as a result of the fact that

no one today in industry, or with money to invest, would invest

that money and expect a return under today's conditions. They

know it is not there, and it is an unfortunate thing when we

need accommodation as badly as we do in the province.

Interjection.

MR. SMITH: Oh, yes, Casa Loma would. The corporation now

under the jurisdiction and control of the Province of British

Columbia because that's an easy way to do it. You don't have to

justify that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Maybe.

MR. SMITH: Maybe, that's right. We're not even sure of

that.

I don't intend to spend a great deal of time speaking about

housing tonight, because I think other Members of the

Legislature have canvassed the subject quite thoroughly in

debate and in question period. But I do say that....

Interjection.

MR. SMITH: What was the interjection? I didn't hear it.

HON. MR. COCKE: Your constituency said: "Do us a favour and

don't say anything."

MR. SMITH: Well, someday, Mr. Minister of Health, perhaps

you'll have cause to regret interjections of that nature.

Mr. Speaker, I don't think anything illustrates the NDP's

preoccupation with red tape, with waste and extravagance at

public expense more vividly than a brochure entitled "The

Rentalsman and You." This is part of the housing problem in the

Province of British Columbia.

You know, it must be the first time in the history of

government that a department has spent so much money to explain

a bewildering array of eight new forms. Eight new forms are now

needed in negotiation procedures between landlords and tenants,

Mr. Speaker, by the time the landlord and the tenant finish

completing all of the forms required, I'm sure that one or the

other will have died of old age, because there they are, a

massive array. There's a form that's called "a notice to

landlords." Another one is "a notice to tenants." And there's:

a demand of payment of rent arrears; an application for consent

to early termination; a notice of dispute; a security deposit

notice to the rentalsman and the tenant; application for order

to pay a rent to rentalsman due to lack of repair; application

for order to pay rent to rentalsman due to lack of provision of

assurance of essential services.

MR. BENNETT: Would you say the bureaucracy's running true to

form?

MR. SMITH: I would say that true to the form of the NDP,

whenever you have a problem to solve you seem to think you can

solve it by printing another piece of paper — another form for

someone to fill out, another excuse for hiring more people into

the departments of government. But it won't build one apartment

or one new house, or solve one problem that we have today in

the housing field.

[ Page 452 ]

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It helps the pulp market.

MR. SMITH: The only bright solution has perhaps been offered

by the Attorney-General when he says it helps the pulp market.

Well, perhaps it does, and seeing we're in that business in the

Province of British Columbia, it might be some small relief to

the people of the province when they know they've had to pay

the type of money that would be involved in printing this type

of form.

It's interesting to note the vast increase in dollar figures

at least in some of the departments, and wonder, as I do, what

that money will be used for. For instance, in the

Attorney-General's department, I notice that his budget is up a

total of 65 per cent.

Interjection.

MR. SMITH: Sixty-four? Well, I'll give you the benefit of

the doubt, then, if you say it's 64. I know that you're an

honest man and I'll take your word for it that it's 64. But it

is up from $70 million to $115 million — an increase of $45

million, Mr. Attorney-General, in one year. This is really what

I would call helping inflation feed upon itself.

How much would you take off the municipalities? Oh, you're

going to give them a great big windfall profit when you sell

some natural gas. We'll get around to that in a minute.

Mr. Attorney-General, with the budget in your department and

in other departments, you're not helping to control inflation,

you're part of the problem. There's good reason for us to doubt

the figures that are down there respecting both revenue and

expenditure.

It's possible that revenue has been vastly overestimated.

Hopefully, expenditure has been vastly overestimated, because

if not, we're in real trouble in the Province of British

Columbia.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): We deserve a break today from

Macdonald.

MR. SMITH: I think we have a good example how the government

of this province puts before the public information, and then

forgets about it a few days later. In other words, as a

government, you have little respect for your own edicts, but

you put it before the public and tell them what you're going to

do — the things that you have decided on as policy of

government, and then you completely ignore it. It's forgotten;

it's dead and buried.

I'd like to quote an example from some of your own material. A memorandum over

the signature of the Deputy Minister of Finance, Mr. Gerald Bryson, issued December

30, 1974, ordered all government departments to halt hiring, purchase of office

equipment, all recruitment, and even imposed limitations for

car mileage allowances. I'm sure that the Deputy Minister did

not do that on his own accord. He was following the advice of

the Minister of Finance on December 30. I'm sure all

responsible Ministers of government received a copy of that

memorandum.

My question to the Attorney-General, then, is what did you

do with it? Throw it into the wastepaper basket? You must have,

because on January 16, 1975, just two weeks later — order-in-council 149, public service, Department of the

Attorney-General, increased by 48 positions in various

branches.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SMITH: Is that the way you pay attention to a memorandum

of, I would say, major importance from the Deputy Minister of

Finance? Two weeks after the memorandum was published and

certainly in the hands of all the Ministers of government, you

increase the personnel of your department in various branches

by 48 positions. Is that the way you try to help control

inflation?

HON. MR. COCKE: Justice will prevail. (Laughter.)

MR. SMITH: I think the public in the Province of British

Columbia expect and have a right, above all else, to truth in

all matters where the public purse is involved. What we should

be reasonably able to expect and what we are presently

receiving are, in my opinion, poles apart.

I'm surprised that the Attorney-General in his capacity as

the chief law enforcement officer in this province has not

launched an action against the Minister of Finance for

misleading advertising, particularly with respect to the most

important document of the year. I refer to the budget. I'm sure

the Attorney-General must agree with me that the publication of

a

summary of that document includes misleading advertising. I'm

sure he is going to carry out his duty to make sure that action

is launched forthwith against the Minister of Finance for

allowing the publication of misleading advertising.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, get out of here.

MR. SMITH: Just what did it say? It says, first of all, when

you speak of municipalities, that the municipalities will

receive one-third of all revenue above $1 per thousand cubic

feet when and if Ottawa approves an increase in the export

price for natural gas. Sounds good. Sounds great. There's a

suggestion that that will amount to at least $20 million a year

and then go up if the price goes beyond $1.35 per

[ Page 453 ]

thousand cubic feet, and so on. I presume this was

predicated on so many million cubic feet of exportable natural

gas per year.

Well, tell me, then, Mr. Attorney-General, how do you

account and what calculations were taken into consideration, if

any, for the reduction in natural gas that we have experienced

in the last year? You can tell me about it when you have an

opportunity to speak in the budget. It's not question period.

Sit down and I'll finish my questions to you, which I presume

you'll take note of and answer in good time, perhaps in your

estimates. I want to be fair with you and give you an

opportunity.

What happens if the present trend of reduction in the amount

of natural gas producible in the Province of British Columbia

continues? Are we going to experience even greater shortfalls

than we have in the past? If we have no exploration, it's going

to continue to decrease because it is an exhaustible resource.

It is an exhaustible resource; it's diminishing in supply. So

if you do receive an increase in price, what you're doing is

offering the municipalities one-third of nothing, Mr.

Attorney-General, and you know that.

No increase in personal income tax — so this nice document

says — or sales tax. But what about the 2 per cent increase in

the price of gasoline?

In order to get the revenue side of the budget up to the

figure of $3.2 billion, you had to project a 40 per cent

increase in the province's share of income tax. Is that not

taxes against people? I think it is. I think that the people of

the province have every right to expect a more honest appraisal

of the budget than we see laid out in this.

The only person who is happy with this is Dunsky because he

got paid well for setting up an ad such as this in the Province

of British Columbia.

You talk about taxes to homeowners and school tax. "Each

homeowner and family farmer will receive the benefit of a

doubling of the limit of the school tax removal programme."

It's not true, Mr. Speaker. Some will reap the benefit of a

double grant. In actual fact, others will receive less than

they did last year.

I would suggest to the Attorney-General that it would be

nice if he would consider becoming the ombudsman for the

citizens of this province. Ensure yourself, Mr.

Attorney-General, of political immortality. Become a little bit

more courageous, a little more fearless, Mr. Attorney-General,

in the operation of your department. I'm sure that if you do

you will go down in history as one of the greatest

Attorneys-General in the Province of British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: Wait till he gets home. He is going to go

down in history.

MR. SMITH: When you leave the chamber tonight, advise your department

to start a suit forthwith against the Department of Finance and the Minister

for publishing misleading advertising such as this. I know that if you were

to do that, the Dunsky advertising company wouldn't like you very much, and

the Premier wouldn't like you very much. You would then probably be removed

forthwith from the No. 2 position. But the people of British Columbia would

proclaim you as a great, stouthearted defender of the rights of the individual.

Do you know, you might become a household word in the

Province of British Columbia? I can just hear everyone saying:

"This man, who defended our rights and pointed out the

deception in the advertising and the fact that our taxes were

going to be increased, is a great man. Macdonald is the great

legal lion of British Columbia."

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: That is what you could be. So don't be a little

pussycat. Come on out. Do the job that you were put in charge

of when you became the Premier....

AN HON. MEMBER: Order me a hamburger.

MR. SMITH: The Premier? No, the Premier's adviser — the No.

2 Premier in the Province of British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: Put your decals on.

MR. SMITH: I'd like to spend a few minutes now talking about

vote 14 in the book of estimates. It is a new vote and under it

we have legal services and advice to government departments —

something new that the Attorney-General has decided was a good

idea. It provides a good deal of money for this particular

function, advice to government departments.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Quit picking on the Attorney-General.

MR. SMITH: I would like to know. I am sure that in good time

the Attorney-General will advise us what type of advice he

intends to disseminate to the public. Are you, Mr.

Attorney-General, going to advise the government on how to

build large bureaucracies? Is that one of the duties?

Are you going to advise government departments on how to

recycle all the controversial problems and send them back

through the system so many times that people become so

frustrated they give up in disgust because they can never get

any answers?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Time's up.

[ Page 454 ]

MR. SMITH: Are you going to use the advice of this

department to help lick inflation and inefficiency? Is that

part of the advice that this department will give the other

departments in government? Are you going to advise the Minister

of Housing that in the future it would be better if he looked

before he leaped — that perhaps, instead of becoming so

involved in public housing with Dunhill Development Corp. and

Casa Loma and Meadowbrook, he might be well advised to

encourage the private sector to build more accommodation in the

Province of British Columbia, and see about what could be done

to get the price of property down to a reasonable, acceptable

level?

Perhaps he would even give the Minister of Housing some

advice on the acquisition of property. Do you know, the

Attorney-General is great for accusing the people in the real

estate business of being less than frank sometimes with the

public in the Province of British Columbia.

It seems to me that the Attorney-General — not that he would

have to do it personally, but through this department which is

set up to advise government departments — would suggest to the

Housing department that when it comes to the purchase of

property, they would be well advised to be a little more frank

with the people in the Province of British Columbia. Will he

suggest to the Department of Housing that it is really not

cricket to lean heavily on the elected municipal officials in

the Province of British Columbia, that it is really not cricket

to try to make them bend to the will of that particular

Minister, to grind them down or tell them they will suffer the

consequences?

Perhaps the department, under the advice of the

Attorney-General, would speak to the Minister of Lands, Forests

and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) regarding the

indiscriminate use of power in his hands and in his department — that there is a great feeling of insecurity among the people

in the logging industry today and in forestry with respect to

cutting rights and timber leases and the fact that this could

very well be taken away from them for no justifiable reason.

There is certainly a strong feeling of that throughout northern

British Columbia.

MR. CHABOT: Right on!

MR. SMITH: Perhaps the Attorney-General, through this

department, would provide some advice for himself that he would

consider having the department advise him with respect to an

unreasonable verbal vendetta against the mining, the petroleum

and the gas business in the Province of British Columbia, and

those companies that are in the exploration and production of

gas.

Perhaps he would even ask his own department to investigate and advise him

on what I would term the sloppy, ineffectual manner in which a number of cases

have been handled through the Attorney-General's department.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: We want Nicolson.

MR. SMITH: There was a case of a couple of football players,

Mr. Attorney-General.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, what about them?

MR. SMITH: What's happening there? What's happening

there?

AN HON. MEMBER: They're not with the Alouettes, either.

MR. SMITH: They were first taken before the courts and then

released.

Interjections.

MR. SMITH: Lack of action...is it? I'm suggesting that

through this new department you set up you should investigate

this, or have the department investigate this if you yourself

are not going to do it.

Then there's the question of another case: the Sanucci case.

What is being done in that particular case?

HON. MR. BARRETT: What is being done in that case?

MR. SMITH: I'm sure that the people who are relatives of the

person who was involved, namely Mary Jones, feel that the case

was improperly handled and that for some reason a person who

committed a felony in the Province of British Columbia just

suddenly went out to the United States on a....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member be

seated?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: On a point of order. The point of order

is that the Hon. Member, through misadventure, has said that a

certain person committed a felony in the Province of British

Columbia. That person was found by the courts of the province

not to have committed an offence. He should not, therefore, be

branded as having committed a felony. I wish he would withdraw

that.

MR. SMITH: I'll correct the statement. There certainly is,

at the present time, reasonable doubt in the minds of many

people in the Province of British

[ Page 455 ]

Columbia, who were personally involved with the lady whose

life was lost in this case, that justice was not done in this

particular instance. Justice was not done.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: There was a full court hearing.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Are you blaming him for that?

MR. SMITH: I'm asking him, through this new department, to

take another look. After all, the Attorney-General has been

great with a statement that says he is always prepared to let a

little sunshine in. Get on with it, that's all. There's a

provision for $390,000 in your budget to advise other

government departments, and I presume that that means you can

give advice to your own department as well as to other

departments.

It would seem to me that there's ample reason for

investigation of just two of the facets of law enforcement and

dispensing of law in the province that I have named in the last

few minutes. A good place to start would be within your own

department.

I believe that the Attorney-General, in good time, will tell

us how he intends to operate this department, but I believe

I've given him a few suggestions this evening with respect to

some of the things that the public will be watching very

closely in the operation of a new venture in the department

under your jurisdiction.

After all, $390,000 is included in the budget for this new

experiment. Let's see some justice done in the Province of

British Columbia and where abuses are perpetrated on other

people, regardless of whether it's by an agency of the Crown or

by edict, look into the matter so that the public interest is

put ahead of the interest of big government in this

province.

I'd like to spend a few moments now speaking about the part

of the budget which refers to northern affairs. There's a short

paragraph in the budget on page 17 referring to northern

affairs. It says:

"Our government is developing policies for the northern region of the province through consultation

with those most intimately affected by such policies — the

northern residents. The northern affairs office to be

established in Prince George, with the necessary support staff,

will liaise with government departments and advise on northern

matters, expand the public consultation programme, and

undertake studies on matters of particular interest in the

north."

Mr. Speaker, we've had studies done in the north, I believe,

until they're about ready to run out our ears.

It would seem to me that there are many people living in the north who have

a great deal of expertise on not only some of the problems but some very good

ideas on the solution to those problems. If the purpose of this new department

is to enter into some sort of programme of continuous study before they come

up with any solutions to some of the problems, then all that will be done is

to set back the development of northern British Columbia even further than at

the present time.

Other than hear the Minister Without Portfolio in charge of

northern development (Hon. Mr. Nunweiler) thump his desk once

while the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) was speaking

in this debate, I can't recall of any other contribution made.

Certainly it requires more than a PR job and the Minister

meeting with individuals and organizations throughout the north

to solve the problems.

Mr. Speaker, they have known about these problems in the

north for some time, and they have some very good ideas about

solutions. They'd like to know, for instance, why the

development of rail lines and transportation communications is

not progressing faster than it is. They'd like to know why

Churchill Copper had to close down, and Bradina near Houston.

They'd like to know why Granduc had to cut back production at

Stewart, and Gibraltar at Williams Lake, and Lornex at

Kamloops.

HON L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Want me

to tell you right now?

MR. SMITH: Oh, yes. You're going to say: "All because of the

price of copper." Well, it would seem to me that rather than

blame all the problems on the price of copper, the Minister of

Mines and Petroleum Resources would have been well-advised to

take seriously the advice of the chamber of mines when he

brought his legislation into the House.

It is not enough any more for the NDP government to flit

around the north and pay lip service to the problems that exist

there. We need certain services. There's no question about it.

We have communities up there that are behind in terms of

adequate water and sewerage facilities, recreational

facilities, and hospitals and schools. It's improving, but it

could improve much faster.

We need to develop a system which will help and encourage

people who want to get ahead in life, to seek a chance and an

opportunity in the north. The opportunity was there. Hopefully

it will still be there in the future.

Talking to people will not solve the problems because they

have been known for some time. But development of the natural

resources and, eventually, the creation of secondary industry

will. We do not want to see large metropolitan cities in

northern British Columbia, but we have a reason to wish and

[ Page 456 ]

hope for adequate communities, well serviced, where people

can live with their families and enjoy the same type of

amenities and life that a person enjoys if they live in

Vancouver or the lower mainland.

That's all the north asks: some cooperation and help in

developing the resources that they have in abundance around

them, and the right to live the way they wish to live with a

minimum of government interference.

This budget was large in figures but small when it came to

providing adequate solutions to the many problems of the people

in the Province of British Columbia. For that reason I have no

hesitation in voting against it.

MR. C. LIDEN (Delta): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me

to rise and support this motion and to compliment the Minister

of Finance for the presentation of a very fine budget.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. LIDEN: It is hard to understand sometimes what the

opposition are saying around here, and what they are doing and

some of the things that have been said not only by the

opposition in the House but by some of those outside. Last

night I mentioned the political wanderer from Surrey who has

bought himself a ticket on the Titanic, the one who is out

looking for headlines all the time.

MRS. JORDAN: The Member for Surrey on the Titanic. Right

on!

MR. LIDEN: I said the politician, that politician wanderer

out in Surrey, the mayor of Surrey (Mr. Vander Zalm) who is out

always looking for headlines. It is in that place where we have

stories where the mayor one day wants a railroad through the

area to develop the industrial area, and the next day he

doesn't want it. He wants an oil refinery one day, and the next

day he doesn't want it. You know, it depends on what kind of

wind is blowing.

HON. MR. BARRETT: He wants to be a leader and the next day

he wants to be a cabinet Minister.

MR. LIDEN: He's sort of a champion, like they all are in

that group. They're champions for the municipalities, but all

they're really doing is making headlines.

They made some headlines some years ago, too. In March of

1974, there was a headline that said:

"Bennett Attacked for Slur on the Cities. Charges Misuse

of Road Grants. Premier W.A.C. Bennett was accused Friday of casting a shadow

on the conduct of municipal officials from all over the province."

MR. LEWIS: How could he do that?

MR. LIDEN: "The municipalities are misusing the funds.

They've caught themselves in their own glue," he said.

That was the Premier in 1967, W.A.C. Bennett.

Another headline says: "Bennett Slaps Down Crying Civic

Heads."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LIDEN: "It's just 92 per cent crocodile tears." That is

the headline of 1967.

Then some things go the other way too. In March, 1967:

"Bennett Lashed Over Funds Charge." And there's an interesting

comment here where it says:

"Saanich Reeve Hugh Curtis, who also sent a telegram to

Municipal Affairs Minister Campbell demanding retraction of a

charge, said he hoped the Premier's charge was only hasty

comment in the heat of debate."

Then he added:

"If, however, this reflects the attitude of the Premier as

Minister of Finance, then it is essential that this allegation

be supported by facts."

MR. PHILLIPS: No more! No more!

MR. LIDEN: It goes on:

"Curtis said the municipal taxpayers and the public in

general are entitled to have full details of any misuse or

mismanagement of funds which have come to the government's

attention."

That's what he was saying in those days.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Where's Hugh now?

MR. LIDEN: On April 17, 1967: "Smokescreen, Cries Campbell."

There was a demand for a royal commission by the municipal

people. What does Campbell say? He says: "Demand for a royal

commission study of provincial-municipal fiscal relationships

is only a political smokescreen originating with the Liberal

Party."

MR. LEWIS: Who said that?

MR. LIDEN: The Minister of Municipal Affairs, Dan Campbell,

said that on April 17, 1967. "Mr. Campbell made his charge

during a press conference he called to answer Mayor Stevens'

demand at the weekend for a royal commission." He wouldn't

refer to Mayor Stevens as the messenger for the Liberal Party,

but somehow or other the municipalities were asking for a royal

commission and the Minister of Municipal Affairs of that day

decided it was the

[ Page 457 ]

Liberal Party.

What did Campbell say? He said: "The best formula for

education, health and welfare assistance in Canada — these are

not static and would be changed to keep pace with the times."

He said that B.C. had made 30 changes since 1952 up until 1967,

and had developed the best assistance for municipalities in all

of Canada and the best formula for sharing those costs. But in

spite of those statements and his statement that there'd be no

investigation, he would not go for the royal commission that

was asked for; by September of 1969, he decided to go a route

of his own.

In a speech he made in Kamloops, he said: "A 30-day blitz to

find out where British Columbians spend their money will be

launched next week by the Minister of Municipal Affairs." He

said: "Starting next week, 10,000 questionnaires will be mailed

out to a select group of taxpayers in the province."

MR. LEWIS: All Socreds.

MR. LIDEN: All to find out what's happening in the

municipalities. Then what happens? In 1970, they got the result

of their little questionnaire and they made a decision. I see

in 1970 that the president of the Union of B.C. Municipalities

said that social welfare is a case where administration costs

have risen without the municipalities having any control over

them. He said the cost-sharing ratio changed in 1968 when

Campbell was the welfare Minister and the municipal share was

increased from 10 per cent to 20 per cent.

MR. LEWIS: Increased?

MR. LIDEN: The municipal share was increased from 10 per

cent to 20 per cent. That statement was made by the president

of the Union of B.C. Municipalities of that year, who was the

mayor of Saanich, Hugh Curtis.

MR. H. STEVES (Richmond): Hugh who?

MR. LIDEN: He was very, very critical of that kind of move,

where the government of the day increased the municipal share

of welfare.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Where's Hugh now?

MR. LIDEN: He's left. He's gone out.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, he's not left. He's way to the

right.

HON. MR. BARRETT: When he's in here, they all leave. When

he's gone they all come back. (Laughter.)

MR. WALLACE: That's what it's like to be alone.

MR. LIDEN: It doesn't really look like the Unity group.

There were a lot of headlines in those days where the

Minister said that the biggest share of outlay was unlikely

from the province. He was talking about the sharing of the

finances with the municipalities. That was in June of 1971. He

went back and forth from time to time where Campbell was

Minister of Municipal Affairs, was very critical of what was

happening in the municipalities. The mayor of Saanich, once

again, in 1971 only had one word on Monday night for a letter

from the Minister of Municipal Affairs. He said: "It's

incredible. It can only be described as an incredible letter," he told the council.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Who was that?

MR. LIDEN: That was the mayor of Saanich, Hugh Curtis, in 1971.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Is that right?

MR. LIDEN: He was complaining about what was happening under

the Social Credit government of British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is he now?

MR. LIDEN: And what's happened now? He has become a

political tourist. He's touring around from one place to

another. I am not sure, but someone said that this was an

example of someone who had sacrificed personal ambition to

achieve political power. Now he is touring around the political

movements of the province.

I suspect that at one time he had a future. That was when he

was one of two. Now he is one of eleven, and the evidence is

that he has been told to be quiet. He has been told to be quiet

because they have to focus all their attention on the man that

takes the powder in order to get into the headlines.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who is that?

MR. LIDEN: You have got to watch out for those fellows

behind them. But you know, when the Member for Saanich and the

Islands took a look at the weather report here last year....

It reminds me of when we were working at sea. We always

listened to the weather report, but we would take a better look

than what he took. He took a look at the weather report and he

saw breaking clouds. He thought there was some sunshine coming

through over there. But, really, he didn't realize that there

was a wind blowing to break those clouds and it was

[ Page 458 ]

blowing a long way. They're going a long way.

HON. MR. BARRETT: And Scott won't take him back.

MR. LIDEN: At that time he was making a lot of headlines; he

seemed to have an effect somewhere in this province. Now, with

his new-found leader or foster parent, whatever he has there.... I'm not sure who is slapping whose hand, but he is

certainly playing a low-key role. His leader said one day that

they are critical of the unemployment situation in the

province, and the political tourist is critical of the

government getting involved in Can-Cel. I wonder if he has ever

thought of what would have happened to Prince Rupert if it

hadn't been for the government involvement in Can-Cel.

The mayor of that town told me: "You can use my name any

time and say that the government action at Can-Cel has

stabilized Prince Rupert." It's stabilized Prince Rupert.

MR. BENNETT: What's the mayor's name?

AN HON. MEMBER: Pete Liden.

MR. BENNETT: Good man, Pete Liden.

MR. LIDEN: He says that the government involvement in

Can-Cel has stabilized the town. Now what's happening there

now? What's happening to Prince Rupert? Prince Rupert is

booming.

[Mr. Dent in the chair]

There is a shopping centre under construction — two shopping centres under

construction — housing projects going ahead and the second stage of the port,

the development of a major port in Prince Rupert that has been developed on

the initiative of the Government of the Province of British Columbia, working

with the federal government. I think the Member for Saanich and the Islands

in his suggestions had really better take another look at the weather report.

The tourist from Saanich is the same as the political

wanderer from Surrey, the mayor there. They are both after the

leadership. And it's awfully difficult to decide which one is

going to get him.

HON. MR. BARRETT: What about McClelland?

MR. LIDEN: Who's the leader now? It's either the millionaire

mini-Wac from Kelowna, the Surrey wanderer or the Saanich

tourist. I don't know which one, but they are all carving

away.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about Langley?

MR. LIDEN: There have been some interesting speeches made in

this House but some of them have been pretty badly researched;

some of them very badly researched. I understand that the

Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) made the same speech today

that he made on February 25. I checked Hansard to look

at some of the things that he said about the Member for Delta

(Mr. Liden) and he said: "The Member for Delta, I recall, was

in Delta council. He went to them and said: 'I would like you

to tell me how you'd like to spend this extra money that we are

going to get from increased oil.'" Not very well researched.

"He said: 'It would be really nice for you to tell us how to

spend that money.'" Well, I was at the Delta council meeting —

I've been there more than once — and what I asked the Delta

council was to make representation to Ottawa to support the

province's call for an increase in natural gas.

The mayor for Delta at one time was a Member of Parliament.

I asked him to use his influence in Ottawa to see if he

couldn't help us get an increase in gas prices. And you know

what he said? The mayor of Delta said he agreed with what we

were doing and, if it would provide more funds for the

municipalities, he would be right in there supporting us.

That's what he said.

Interjection.

MR. LIDEN: What else did that Member for Langley say? That

Member for Langley, when he was critical of the oil refinery,

said a number of things. I want to just examine those because

the record needs to be set straight. We can't allow that kind

of badly researched speech to stand as a record in this House.

He said:

"...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.

He was talking about the oil refinery proposal in south

Surrey. Can you imagine that, when you think about the things

he said when we were in discussion on the land bill? Can you

imagine what he said? He campaigned in favour of all land being

used for whatever anyone wanted to use it for. He didn't want

it saved for farm purposes, not then and not now.

AN HON. MEMBER: The old switcheroo.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Short fuse and short memory.

MR. LIDEN: Then he goes on to say:

"...the whole of the lower mainland has to be

[ Page 459 ]

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

Valley, to White Rock, to Delta, to Semiahmoo, to Tsawwassen.

The whole area from Hope to the Gulf of Georgia. What was he

talking about? He was talking about the possibility of an oil

refinery in south Surrey.

He said that the additional cost to build an oil refinery

today with the cost of pollution control would more than double

and triple the price that was talked about a few years ago. So

on one hand he is talking about pollution control that he knows

this government will bring in — he knows this government would

have full pollution control on any oil refinery, no matter

where it's built — and then on the other hand he says it's

going to pollute the whole of the Fraser Valley.

MR. LEWIS: Does the oil run up hill?

MR. LIDEN: He also said:

"...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."

Well, I think it's a matter of record that the mayor of

Surrey has stated that he was involved in discussions at the

very outset. He was involved; he knew exactly what was going on

in taking the options; he knew exactly what was going on in the

way of studies. He has made no bones about that. Somehow or

other, the Member for Langley says something in the record here

that is totally and completely untrue.

HON. MR. COCKE: What else is new?

MR. LIDEN: He goes on and repeats that into the next

page.

Interjection.

MR. LIDEN: Then he goes one stop further and he says:

"...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."

That's a statement from the Member for Langley.

MR. LEWIS: Irresponsible.

MR. LIDEN: Well, if he did a little bit of work — the maps are available

— that area is not in the agricultural land reserve. There is a thin strip on

the western side of it that's in the agricultural reserve — one-quarter of the

site. That makes him three-quarters wrong. It's been said around here that sometimes

people are 50 per cent right and 50 per cent wrong, but not the Member for Langley.

He's 100 per cent wrong and 75 per cent wrong.

HON. MR. BARRETT: In his case that's an improvement.

(Laughter.)

MR. LIDEN: It is, because earlier in his remarks he was 100

per cent wrong. Then he improved to where he was 75 per cent

wrong.

If we're going to look at the possibility of an oil refinery

in British Columbia, no matter where it's going to be, you

should look at it very factually and try not to deal with it

emotionally.

The first question that has to be looked at is whether or

not we need an oil refinery in British Columbia at all. When

you look at that question, you find we're running a deficit

today of 20,000 barrels per day. By 1980, we'll be running a

deficit of 70,000 barrels per day. Either we're going to have

to provide those kinds of oil products for the people of

British Columbia or we're going to have to change our

lifestyle. That means we cut out the driving of the car and we

cut out heating our homes with furnace oils. Those are the

kinds of things we have to consider. Either that or we're going

to be awfully short of oil products in the very near future.

That's part of a study that's taking place right now.

The second question that we have to look at, if the answer

to the first question is yes, and we need an oil refinery, is

where. Where should it be? I don't suppose there's a site

anywhere in British Columbia where there isn't some

environmental consideration, whether it's at Roberts Bank in

Surrey, in Merritt, Highland Valley, or wherever.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

It has been suggested that we look at all of those places,

and studies have taken place. The reports are being prepared

and put in the hands of the petroleum corporation and from

there on they'll be dealt with by the government of the

province. But, you know, for all the fuss that's been made

about the Surrey site, there's one thing that we should make

clear, and that is that there's an official community plan:

"The District of Surrey." It's up to date, and it shows here an

order-in-council that was passed in 1966, on June 30, that

approved this site as an industrial site.

MR. LEWIS: Industrial?

MR. LIDEN: And you know who it's signed by? W.A.C. Bennett,

that's who it's signed by; in 1966, on

[ Page 460 ]

June 30. There was a bylaw passed at the same time, signed

by the reeve and the clerk of the municipality. I have a copy

of that report. It shows very, very clearly the industrial site

that's set out on a map that's shown as

Schedule A in the

report. It shows the site in question as an industrial site and

declared as such by the former administration of this

province.

MR. LEWIS: For industry? That's bad.

MR. LIDEN: For industry. Today they're taking a different

position. You know, if we are going to look at an oil refinery,

we have to look at the kinds of refineries, as well. And we

have to look at who should build it, if we do decide that we're

going to have one. I say that the case is clear: the next oil

refinery in this province should be built by a Crown authority,

not by the private oil companies. They control 99 per cent of

the oil production in this country today, and we've got to put

a stop to that. We've got to provide the alternative. If it's

done by the public corporation, then we can have the kind of

refinery that will allow us to have it pollution free.

Interjection.

MR. LIDEN: There are such refineries in the world. We don't

need to have the pollution that we've had with the 50-year-old

ones that we've got, so far, in British Columbia. The site in

Surrey that's still a possible site really consists of 2,000

acres, as the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) indicated. He

was correct on that score. But, you know, only 600 acres are

needed for the oil refinery site and the tank farm. The rest of

it becomes a buffer zone around it. That's good planning. That

kind of planning can be done by the Crown in developing the

kind of site that we need.

Mr. Speaker, I submit that the Member for Langley hasn't

made use of the researchers that this government has provided

for that opposition group. He's just taken figures out of the

air; he's never really gone into the situation properly.

MR. LEWIS: Do you think we should help him?

MR. LIDEN: Mr. Speaker, I want to deal with one other issue, and that's

an issue that's in the budget: a provision for $1 million to pay the interest

on loans that are obtained under the farm products industry assistance programme.

That's to provide farm products industry assistance to get them going in this

province. There are some interesting things that have been stated. There are

some things that have happened in western Canada that certainly we have to look

at.

There's a book that's been written by Walter Stewart, and he refers in one

chapter to, "Old Macdonald had a farm, but now it belongs to McCain's." What's

happened in eastern Canada is that a large monopoly — a food organization —

has bought out the farmers in many instances and has made poor men out of them

while the company has become very, very rich. McCain's Food Ltd. is a perfect

prototype of the agribusiness. It's a credit to the theory of vertical integration.

And what do they say?

"They own practically everything in sight. What they don't own,

they run, and what they can't run, they have under contract. Anything they don't

own, or run, or hold under contract, they watch very, very closely indeed. The

McCains are big. Their companies had sales last year of $100 million, double

the take of 1969, but they pay lousy wages. They have their own airplanes, two

of them, and they're kept in their own hangars and flown out of their own airport

at Florenceville."

MR. PHILLIPS: Have you ever been there?

MR. LIDEN: They house their families in a row of mansions.

The Member for South Peace River may know more about New

Brunswick the way it was years ago, but if you went back there

to see what's happened to the farmers, you'd find that their

homes are run down and some of them are vacant, and so on. But

it goes on to say that:

"The McCains drive huge cars. They are forever popping up

all around the world: in New York, in the Netherlands, in

Uruguay, in Greece...

MR. PHILLIPS: You're against everybody!

MR. LIDEN: Just a minute, now.

"...and yet the farmers back home, who provide the crops

that keep the McCains rich, are still dirt poor. They're hard

working, and they're getting nowhere."

AN HON. MEMBER: Shameful! Shameful!

MR. LIDEN: You know, if you're a supporter of McCain's, Mr.

Member for South Peace River, then I think you better take a

look at what they're doing and the possibility of what can

happen if you don't have a government that's prepared to work

with the farm community and do things.

McCain's story is not only a classic tale of agribusiness;

it is also a classic tale of capitalism. In other words, they

inherited a bundle from their father, benefited from the

astonishing generosity of governments, both federal and

provincial, and now they sing their never-ending hymns of

praise for free enterprise, thrift and the rewards that go to

the deserving. Very, very interesting indeed. That's the sort

of thing that's been happening in the Maritimes

[ Page 461 ]

in the agriculture business. They have developed an industry

that they completely control. All the potatoes are grown under

contract.

Interjection.

MR. LIDEN: I don't know what the former Minister of Labour

(Mr. Chabot) is saying but I know he's speaking about people

where he had no friends, and that was in the labour movement.

Labour leaders all over the province recognized his role.

MR. CHABOT: I'm talking about your Commie friend, Homer

Stevens.

MR. LIDEN: I've got friends throughout the working class

that you will never have, my friend.

Here's what happens to the farmers in the Maritimes. They

contract all potato growing to McCain's. If there's a poor crop

and the farmer goes short of filling his contract, then some of

the most terrible things happen. Now listen to this — if the

farmer's crop fails, in that event, McCain's is entitled to go

out to the market, which is likely to be high and they buy

potatoes at the going rate to fill the contract that the farmer

had. Then they charge to the farmer the difference between the

contract figure and the market for all of the potatoes that he

fails to deliver.

AN HON. MEMBER: Free enterprise.

MR. LIDEN: That's what they're able to do. They're able to

contract the farmers and if the farmer doesn't deliver, they go

out on the market and they buy the potatoes and they charge it

back to the farmer. If you don't think that can happen, think

again.

In brief, a farmer who ran short of his contract was billed

$8,196. When he failed to pay, he protested among other things,

that McCain's accounting was faulty. But the company took him

to court and they collected the contract and the court costs.

That's the kind of contracts these people write up for the

farmers. And what happens? The farmers become poor people and

the monopolies become bigger and bigger. And all of the time

they're singing great songs about free enterprise. That's what

it does. That's the growth of monopoly and that's the kind of

things that are starting to happen in this province.

McCain's have bought in British Columbia. They've bought out

Fresh-Pack in Burnaby, and they talk about closing it down.

Interjection.

MR. LIDEN: I suppose the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) would

join hands with them and keep them here. As far as I'm concerned, they can go.

The B.C. Coast Vegetable Co-op recognizes the problems that they are faced with.

The farmers recognize these problems and they are getting together to do something

about it. But they are only able to do something about it because of the attitude

of the government of the Province of British Columbia today.

MR. PHILLIPS: What about all of the ships in Vancouver

harbour?

MR. LIDEN: The farmers want to build processing plants of

their own and they're going to be able to build processing

plants of their own because of the programmes that have been

initiated by this government and the kind of budget that we've

set up by this government.

What happens? If you take a look at the situation today, the

farmers in Prince Edward Island are getting $28 a ton for their

potatoes; in New Brunswick $34 a ton for their potatoes; in

B.C. the farmers are getting $90 a ton for their potatoes

because they don't have to deal with that monopoly just yet,

because that monopoly hasn't got control. But the consumer gets

no break. The only thing that happens is that there's a larger

cut for the monopolies.

This budget is the kind of budget that's going to keep the

farmers in production in this province. This is the kind of

budget that's going to help the producers. This is the kind of

budget that's going to help the little people throughout the

province in all walks of life. This is the kind of budget that

I hope we're going to be able to use to keep small business

going and put a little heavier load on the big business.

I think we've got a responsibility in this province to

prevent monopolies from taking full control. The control in

this province belongs to the people. That's where it sits today

with this government and that's where we intend to keep it.

Hon. Mr. Lea moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Hall moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1975, 2001, 2013: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada