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 13, 1975

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

605 ]

CONTENTS

Sayward Valley residents' petition. Mr. Fraser — 605

Statement Campaign contribution. Hon. Mr. Levi — 605

Routine proceedings

Oral Questions

Escapees from Island View Centre. Mr. Phillips

— 609

Casa Loma Motel purchase. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 609

Casa Loma property appraisals. Mr. L.A. Williams — 610

Cypress Park ski lift tenders. Mr. Wallace — 610

Fraudulent welfare applications. Mr. Smith — 611

Proposed elections Act. Mr. Gibson — 611

Education department blacklist. Mr. Schroeder — 611

ICBC payments to employees. Mr. Gardom — 611

Income assurance plan funds. Mrs. Jordan — 611

Appendix — 640

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Presenting petitions.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask

leave of the House to present a petition.

Leave granted.

MR. SPEAKER: You are permitted to state very briefly in some

way the purpose of the petition, Hon. Member.

MR. FRASER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

"Whereas a large number of residents of the village of

Sayward in the Sayward Valley have signed a petition expressing

deep concern that decision on the future of logging operations

on northern Vancouver Island might be made at the sole

discretion of the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources, and

whereas these residents have concerns which are

not simply to petition on behalf of any private company but

rather the concerns which will follow with respect to jobs,

housing and community investments which will be lost if any

current options for the total ban on logging in the

Tsitika-Schoen are followed."

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Mr. Speaker,

I'd like to draw the attention of the House to a couple of good friends of mine

in the gallery, Mr. and Mrs. Drouin from Fernie, along with my wife.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, we have in the

gallery today a lady who has given tremendous service over the

years to the community in Victoria, particularly to the senior

citizens. Recently in a competition sponsored by The

Victorian newspaper, she was given the award of person of the

year by a large margin over all the other competitors. She's a

lady who in many ways has served the people of Victoria very

well. For example, she spent a lot of time looking after the

returning prisoners of war some years ago.

I would like the House to give a warm welcome to Mrs. Annie

McVie.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, we have in the gallery

today Mr. and Mrs. Bill Murdoch, from the fair City of Revelstoke. I would like

the House to join me in extending a warm welcome to them.

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): Mr. Speaker, I ask the House

to join me in welcoming 25 students from Madeira Park School at

Pender Harbour, accompanied by their principal, Mr. Vern

Wishlove, Mr. Fred Horton, Mrs. Peter and Mr. Meyer.

MR. C.S. GABELMANN (North Vancouver–Seymour): I would ask

the Members of the House to make welcome with me a group of

students from Windsor Senior Secondary in North Vancouver. The

students today are accompanied by two of their teachers, Mr.

Johnson and Mr. Fair.

MR. D.T. KELLY (Omineca): Mr. Speaker, seated in the

Members' gallery is a gentleman from Vanderhoof, Mr. Gene

Trubach. Mr. Trubach is the government agent and also an

alderman for Vanderhoof, and I would ask everyone to welcome

him.

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Human Resources): Mr. Speaker, I

ask leave to make a statement.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, this morning on radio CKNW at 9

o'clock Mr. Gary Bannerman, a hotline commentator, stated that

I had received a cheque from Mr. Joe Hargitt in the amount of

$200, and that I had deposited that cheque in my personal

account.

Last week, I believe on Thursday afternoon, March 6, 1975,

my executive assistant, Mr. Ray Wargo, informed me that he had

had a telephone call from Mr. Bannerman in which Mr. Bannerman

stated that he wished to talk to me on a personal matter

involving a cancelled cheque which he had in his

possession.

I discussed this with Mr. Wargo and placed a call to Mr.

Bannerman at 9 a.m. the following morning. However, we were

unable to discuss the issue because Mr. Bannerman was going on

the air. A subsequent call was placed at noon that same day,

and Mr. Bannerman told me of the cheque he had in his

possession, signed by Joe Hargitt. Mr. Bannerman suggested that

accepting the cheque and depositing it to my personal account

constituted an indiscretion because I was a cabinet Minister.

However, I pointed out to Mr. Bannerman that I did not become a

Minister in the cabinet until September 15, 1972. He

characterized my action as an indiscretion because of Joe

Hargitt's previous criminal record.

I informed the Premier of my conservation with Mr. Bannerman

at the first available opportunity and gave the Premier all of

the information contained in this statement.

[ Page 606 ]

I have worked in the corrections field for approximately 17 years.

The nature of the work is intensive and involves working with men and

women in prisons or on parole, and with those who come to my office for

counselling.

The question at issue here is whether a politician should accept

moneys from persons with criminal records. I have devoted my

professional life to assisting in the rehabilitation of people who have

been in conflict with the law. For me to reject a donation on the basis

that someone has a criminal record would be against everything I have

said to people I have worked with; that is, that acceptance in the

community is extremely important. If a man has paid society's penalty,

surely to treat him otherwise destroys the whole purpose of

rehabilitation. I recall receiving a cheque from Mr. Joe Hargitt in the

amount of $200 prior to September 6, 1972. The cheque I accepted as a

political donation. The provincial election was over and we were

involved in a federal campaign. In respect to that federal campaign,

two cheques were made out on a joint account which I share with Gloria,

my wife. One cheque in the amount of $100, dated September 15, was

issued to the Vancouver Centre federal NDP constituency, and he second

cheque in the amount of $100, dated September 5, was made payable to

Mr. Joseph Denofreo who worked as the organizer in the

Vancouver-Burrard provincial campaign. The money was given to him to

help him defray the expenses for the federal campaign in which he was

going to work.

I view these two actions as legitimate dispersal of political donations to the NDP federal electoral campaign activities.

I impress upon you that at no time did I accept funds for my

personal use or for the personal use of my family. I also impress upon

you that at no time has Mr. Hargitt received any consideration from me

as a result of his political donation.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, I have deposited with you the two original

cancelled cheques from the joint bank account to which I referred

earlier, and I will now table a copy of those cheques with the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Hon. Member.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, in

responding to the Minister's statement on a matter which should be of

grave concern to the House, it seems to me that the Minister has

overlooked one very important point. It is not a question of whether

the Minister, prior to his appointment to cabinet, accepted a donation

or not.

The fact is that the....

MR. SPEAKER: What is the Hon. Member rising on — a point of privilege?

MR. CURTIS: A point of privilege — replying to the Minister's

statement.

MR. SPEAKER: You have no right to reply to the Minister's statement, but you do have a right to raise point

of privilege under parliamentary law. You must raise your point

of privilege and tell us what it is, not embark on a speech

either criticizing the Hon. Member or in any way impugning

him.

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, prior to the sitting of the House, as a matter

of courtesy to you, I indicated I wished to rise on a matter of privilege.

MR. SPEAKER: You are always entitled to, and that's a courtesy I welcome

when you ask me that.

I do point out that you didn't indicate what your purpose

was, other than to rise on a point of privilege relating to the

Hon. Minister. But you have not stated the point of your

privilege, because privileges are things that are clearly

defined in parliamentary law.

MR. CURTIS: I am en route to that. In view of the widespread

public discussion today, may I have leave, Mr. Speaker, to make

a statement?

Leave granted.

MR. CURTIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate your

assistance. (Laughter.)

It seems to us that it is vital that this matter now be

brought before the House, in view of the very widespread public

discussion on radio today and the charges which have been made

by Mr. Gary Bannerman on CKNW on a programme today.

As I was about to say before I encountered your guidance,

Mr. Speaker, it seems that it is not relevant to discuss

whether the Minister accepted a donation after his election and

prior to his appointment as a member of the cabinet, but

rather, under the Provincial Elections Act,

section 172:

"No payment, expect in respect of the personal

expenses of the candidate, and no advance, loan or deposit shall be

made by or on behalf of any candidate at an election before or during

or after the election on account of or in respect of the election

otherwise than through his official agent."

This seems to be the vital point, Mr. Speaker.

The questionable donation and the questionable acceptance of

that donation is something which the House should address

itself to.

MR. SPEAKER: I point out to the Hon. Member that we've had a

statement from the Minister indicating....

Interjections.

[ Page 607 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. CURTIS: I understand that I have leave from the House to

make a statement.

MR. SPEAKER: You have leave to state your point of

privilege, of course, but....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order! The Hon. Minister has indicated to you

and to the House that the payment he was referring to was used

in a federal election campaign.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! What is your point of order?

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): On a point of order, Mr.

Speaker. It's my understanding that there's no need in this

House to ask leave to make a point of privilege. That's a

privilege of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: You are the ones who asked for leave....

MR. McCLELLAND: The Member for Saanich and the Islands asked

leave to make a statement in response to the Minister's

statement and was given leave by this House. It's your duty to

allow him to finish that statement, Mr. Speaker.

MR. CURTIS: In the McKeough situation — the McKeough case in

the Province of Ontario — I would draw your attention and that

of the House to the fact that Mr. Darcy McKeough as Minister of

Municipal Affairs approved a subdivision housing scheme being

built by a company in which members of his family were

reportedly shareholders. The opposition asked questions about

it, and to cut the story to the shortest possible point, the

Minister in question in that provincial House resigned his

portfolio solely on the basis of the charges being made against

him in the press.

He was not requested to do so by the House; he apparently

was not requested to do so by the Premier. He resigned on the

basis that he could not hold the cabinet post until his name

had been cleared.

We must have a judicial inquiry in this respect, Mr.

Speaker, and I respectfully ask, through you, the

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald), who is not in his seat,

that action be taken forthwith to conduct the most complete and

detailed judicial inquiry into the allegations which have been

made in the public....

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): What are the allegations?

MR. CURTIS: I am coming to the allegations in just a moment:

violation of the Provincial Elections Act and, certainly,

impropriety in the 48 hours or 72 hours of elation following a

provincial election in which a Member has been elected.

Mr. Bannerman has stated publicly again that he made a

number of attempts to contact the Minister to give him an

opportunity to clarify the situation and to appear on the

programme to straighten the situation out if, indeed, that's

possible.

With your permission, therefore, with leave of the House,

Mr. Speaker, I would table the transcript of Mr. Gary

Bannerman's statement today, which relates to the divorce

company in question; to the $200 cheque which was donated by

Mr. Joe Hargitt; the accompanying telegram — or a telegram

which arrived at about the same time — which says:

"Congratulations. Outrageous bribe to follow," and the

indication by Mr. Bannerman that at that time Universal Divorce

Financing was starting to go through "its corporate

nightmares."

The indication is very clearly, on the basis of Mr.

Bannerman's research and his statements today, that two days

following the provincial election the Minister did, in fact,

receive...or at least the cheque was en route to him at that

time. It was endorsed. It was endorsed and put in the

Minister's account, his personal account. The cheque was made

out to Norman Levi, in the amount of $200. The endorsation on

the back of the cheque, according to the photocopy available to

us, is "Norman Levi for deposit only."

The statement is virtually complete. I ask leave to table

the documents.

Leave granted.

Interjections.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, in line with the

precedent of following the official opposition in this matter,

I would like simply to state briefly that the Minister's

statement is something that we in no way wish to comment on

critically....

MR. SPEAKER: Is the Hon. Member asking for leave to make a

statement? There's no motion before the House.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: First, we would not want to comment until

we've had a full opportunity to

[ Page 608 ]

study the wording of the Minister's statement.

Briefly, however, there are a couple of points which we

trust before the end of question period or at the end of

question period he might comment upon. The first is the direct

relationship between the incoming cheque of $200 and the

outgoing cheques to federal campaigns. Certainly a contribution

was made to a federal campaign, but we do not see the direct

linkage. We would question whether or not the cheque was given

for campaign purposes, which the Minister has not made clear.

Indeed, it has not been made clear by Mr. Bannerman either. It

may well be that no politician can accept a cheque from anyone

in that election period, I don't know. There is need for

further clarification on that.

The third point I'd like to make, Mr. Speaker, is really

directed to the Premier. He has promised us a new election

expenses Act, and I would like to make sure that we get it

soon. Election expenses are a problem for every politician of

every party and that's why no one wishes to comment too quickly

upon any individual situation such as this. If we had

an Act

which made more clear some of the things that one can and one

cannot do, as has been promised by this government, perhaps

problems of this nature would be avoided.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I will only say that it's curious that

$103 million passes so easily, and $200 seems to be a matter

upon which there is such comment.

MR. SPEAKER: May the Premier have leave to make a

statement?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. BARRETT: First of all, let me say that the Minister

approached me and informed me that he had received a phone call

from the radio commentator as outlined by the Minister. I asked

the Minister to recall the events to me. He did, and he

subsequently informed me that the sequence of events did take

place as he has outlined here in the House.

I took the matter most seriously and did not comment upon it

until the Minister presented me with the two cancelled cheques.

Upon seeing those cancelled cheques, I suggested that he make a

statement in the House.

As I understand it, no allegation of criminal wrongdoing was made against the

Minister by the radio commentator. It appears that innuendo has been the focus

of the radio commentator and the focus of the Member for Saanich and the Islands

(Mr. Curtis.). If there is a question of criminal behaviour, then, of course,

access to the courts is open to anyone. That is exactly correct, Mr. Member.

If someone feels that that is what has taken place, they then have access to

the law as it stands. But to stand in this House and leave innuendo without

any responsibility behind it, Mr. Speaker, leaves a great deal to be desired.

Secondly, in terms of an elections Act itself, it is a

commitment of this government to ensure that there is a new

elections Act, and hopefully with that new elections Act the

day of the bagman will be over forever in this province.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Until the next

election.

MR. SPEAKER: For the record, Hon. Members, I've asked the

Member for Saanich and the Islands if he is making a charge in

the document that he presented to the House.

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I think the question is out of

order, if I may say so.

MR. SPEAKER: I would remind the Hon. Member that any

imputation or innuendo against any other Member is a charge. If

you are making a charge, I think the House has the right to

know.

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I will reply as accurately as I can

to assist you in this matter. The matter has been discussed

considerably in public today and has now come to this House

this afternoon, where, indeed, I feel it properly belongs. We

are calling for a judicial inquiry to determine if the Minister

acted improperly as a newly elected MLA. If that is determined,

then other steps will be obvious to the Minister and to this

House and the people of B.C.

We have the Darcy McKeough instance which I cited for you,

and we also have the John Munro situation in the federal House,

where....

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Lay a charge and let the courts

decide.

MR. CURTIS: You asked for my statement, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I asked for simply one question, and you are

not prepared to take it as your personal statement.

MR. CURTIS: The other example is, I think, most important,

Sir, and that relates to the question. Mr. Munro is accused of

his campaign committee — not Mr. Munro — accepting donations

from the SIU. We have money here which appears, on the basis of

public statements made today, to have passed

[ Page 609 ]

through the hands of the Minister of Human Resources. We

filed the cheque with the House and that is the matter which

should be of concern, with respect, to you, to this House and

to the people of this province.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): A point of

order, Mr. Speaker. Aside from all the other matters that have

been discussed in the past few minutes, it occurs to me that

there may have been a breach of the privileges of Members of

this House by persons outside this House.

I wonder if you, Mr. Speaker, would take it under advisement

and let this House know what appropriate action it might take

if such privileges have been breached.

MR. SPEAKER: I will examine the matter.

Oral questions.

ESCAPEES FROM ISLAND VIEW CENTRE

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I would

like to direct a question to the Minister of Human Resources.

Would the Minister advise me what position Mr. Frank Murphy

holds in the operation of the Island View Centre?

HON. MR. LEVI: He is the principal of the school there and

has been so for many years.

MR. PHILLIPS: Supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the

Minister advise the House how many persons have escaped from

this institution?

HON. MR. LEVI: I'll take the question as notice, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. PHILLIPS: Another supplementary for notice also: would

you advise the House how many persons have escaped more than

once and how many crimes have been committed by those persons

while they were escaped from this institution?

MR. SPEAKER: Obviously this is a question for either a

return or for an order paper question because of the research

that would be needed to get the answer. You can't expect any

person to answer that question.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I would think, since this subject

is of great controversy on the island today, that the Minister

would have done this research and had these answers ready for

the Legislature. He should know them. The fact is that there

are possible charges being laid against him ...

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: ...by the mayor of Duncan, and he should have

had these questions ready for the House.

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

been principal there for 20 years.

CASA LOMA MOTEL PURCHASE

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

A week ago the Minister took on notice my question as to

whether the government had applied for its....

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I wonder whether the Minister of

Transport (Hon. Mr. Strachan) would shut up. Good.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: What are you going to dredge up now?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Something to put your ferry in, Mr.

Minister.

Mr. Speaker, on Thursday last the Minister of Housing took

on notice my question as to whether the government had applied

for its loan from CMHC before the liens on the property were

cancelled. Could he confirm the evidence that while the lien

holders were trying to decide on how to share a sum which left

them eventually only 40 cents on the dollar, Casa Loma was

negotiating a deal with the provincial government and Dunhill

which, if we can believe the Minister's statement, may have

given them a profit of up to $700,000?

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): The Hon. Member who

has just asked this question has, in the first instance, I

think, raised this question intimating that there was some $1

million discrepancy between the price agreed to by the

department and the price that the property was allegedly

offered for. I have not seen him document this claim. It may or

may not be a fact; it may or may not have an explanation. I

would attempt to deal with these questions, but I think they

are full of some rather hypothetical statements. I would like

to know on what basis he is claiming some discrepancy or profit

of $700,000.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The discrepancy is, I believe, higher

than the Minister mentioned. He says

[ Page 610 ]

$700,000 and I say $1 million. It's a matter of opinion.

Nevertheless, it is a substantial amount of money.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: No, I didn't say anything.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: That's right. The Minister says he

doesn't say anything. That's too true. Nevertheless, the

question is this: at the time the lien holders were settling

for 40 cents on the dollar, was the government negotiating with

Casa Loma for the purchase of this property which ultimately —

and the Minister and I agree here — left the Casa Loma

principals with substantial profits?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I'll take the question as notice.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: If he is taking that question again on

notice after a week or two weeks of questioning on this matter,

may I ask him, then, specifically on what date the department's

proposal-call screening committee considered the purchase of

the Casa Loma property and on what date they made their

decision to purchase?

CASA LOMA PROPERTY APPRAISALS

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Would the Minister advise the House

whether or not his department or Dunhill was in receipt of

appraisals of the Casa Loma property other than that prepared

by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Member, I am informed that a quantity

survey was done, I believe by an independent quantity

surveyor.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Who?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I'd have to take the question as notice

now.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, so that there is no

misunderstanding, I would like to direct the Minister to this.

I am concerned about an appraisal of market value. Would the

Minister please take that as notice? Was the Minister of

Housing aware that the quantitative survey he is referring to

was paid 50 per cent by the contractors and the subcontractors

- the prime contractor and the subcontractors — who did not

even get 50 cents on the dollar for that quantitative survey?

Is that the survey he is referring to?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I will take that question as notice. But I see in

that an allegation that a quantity surveyor could be influenced by the person

who is paying him. Mr. Member, that is a very serious charge and I defy you

to make that outside of this House.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I would like the Minister of

Housing to withdraw that charge. I made no charge whatsoever

about a quantitative survey, but the quantitative survey that

he's talking about was paid for 50 per cent....

HON. MR. NICOLSON: No backtracking!

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm not backtracking at all! You made an

allegation. I'm asking you to withdraw it, because all I said

was that the survey you were referring to — the same

quantitative survey that was paid for 50 per cent by the owners

of Casa Loma and 50 per cent by the prime contractor and the

subcontractors to determine exactly how much work was done —

pointed out that the swimming pool and the sauna were zero

completed....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Is this a question?

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm asking the Minister of Housing to withdraw

the charge that I made an allegation against the quantitative

survey.

MR. SPEAKER: You know that you can't ask another Member to

withdraw his statement. You can contradict him, if you wish.

That's the rule.

CYPRESS PARK SKI LIFT TENDERS

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Minister of Recreation

and Conservation a question regarding the acceptance of a bid to produce a ski

lift at Cypress Provincial Park. Why was the bid of Murray-Latta Ltd. accepted,

when it was the fourth out of five bids and approximately $250,000 above the

lowest bid?

HON. J. RADFORD (Minister of Recreation and Conservation):

Mr. Member, chairlifts are technical, complex pieces of

equipment, and some exacting Canadian standards are applicable

to them. This was a recommendation from a consultant and from

my department, and the lowest bidder is not necessarily

acceptable. This was also informed that way in the tenders that

were presented to all the bidders.

MR. WALLACE: A short supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Could the

Minister confirm the evidence that's been given to me that in

fact Murray-Latta Ltd. has the least experience of all the five

bidders, in terms of the number of ski lifts that they have

constructed?

[ Page 611 ]

HON. MR. RADFORD: Murray-Latta has installed ski lifts in

Manning Park. The downtime on those facilities over seven years

has been one day on one lift, six days on the other lift.

AN HON. MEMBER: They're horizontal lifts — that's why.

FRAUDULENT WELFARE APPLICATIONS

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Speaker, my question

is to the Minister of Human Resources. Is the Hon. Minister

aware that one Mr. Kenneth Mayea of Duncan applied for and

received welfare benefits from his department shortly after

receiving a cheque for $25,000 as a result of a raffle or that

type of windfall profit?

HON. MR. LEVI: I'll take the question as notice.

PROPOSED ELECTIONS ACT

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Premier to

confirm an indication that I thought I understood earlier on

today: would the Premier confirm that there will indeed be a

new provincial elections Act before the next election?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, barring any unforeseen event,

I expect that there will be an elections Act submitted to this

House this session, and then, hopefully, there will be a great

deal of discussion on the Act. We would welcome amendments and

anything to improve it to assist us. We'd welcome participation

by the lawyers in the House to correct the wording.

EDUCATION DEPARTMENT BLACKLIST

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): My question is for the

Minister of Education, Mr. Speaker. What kind of an information

bank or information source of any kind has replaced the alleged

blacklist since May of 1974, to ensure the protection of school

districts and students against teachers who, in the Minister's

own words, "for good reasons, clearly should not be hired"?

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): We are continuing

to rely on the basic employer-employee relationships between

the field superintendent, the school board and the teachers of

the district. There is no one specific informational bank. But,

as I said yesterday, because of the concern expressed about the

guidelines on this whole matter the trustees, the teachers and

our department will be working on that and I'll certainly be

glad to inform you on it.

MR. SCHROEDER: A short supplementary. What kind of

rehabilitation programme is in effect for teachers who perhaps

were previously on blacklists because of cancelled certificates

or expulsion from the B.C. Teachers Federation or illness or

incompetence, or any other reason? Is there a rehabilitation

programme?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Of course, that depends on each individual

case — on what the particular reason was. I think the B.C.

Teachers Federation will take the responsibility if they can

give me that information, and with our assistance.

ICBC PAYMENTS TO EMPLOYEES

MR. GARDOM: A question to the Minister of Transport. I'd

like to ask the Hon. Minister if there were any payments made

by way of income, salary or otherwise by ICBC to its employees

or officers, outside and beyond the figures in the return that

you filed a few days ago?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You'll have to explain that question.

MR. GARDOM: The Hon. Minister filed a return a few days ago

indicating the salary

schedule of the Insurance Corp. of

British Columbia. I'm asking the Hon. Minister if there are any

salaries or income paid over and above that salary

schedule.

HON. MR, STRACHAN: I'd have to check on that. As you know,

there was a 10 per cent increase given, I think, last June with

the permission of the Labour Relations Board.

MR. GARDOM: Your statement stated December.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, I know, but I'd have to check. I'm

not sure, but I doubt it though. There are laws that affect us

changing....

INCOME ASSURANCE PLAN FUNDS

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): I have a question for the

Minister of Agriculture, if the Minister of Transport would sit

down.

When did the Minister first become aware that he was short

of money for the 1974 income assurance plan negotiations?

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

have not yet become aware that I am short of money for the 1974.... (Laughter.)

MRS. JORDAN: In light of the Minister's statement that he's

not yet aware that he's short of

[ Page 612 ]

money for the 1974 negotiations, would he explain to the

House why the negotiations between the cattle producers

negotiating team and the government are at a stalemate pending

a meeting with the Minister and the Premier and Minister of

Finance about more funds to meet the government's commitments

to this group that should have taken place two weeks ago?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Tell them we'll go back to their

programmes.

HON. MR. STUPICH: I'm not sure whether Hansard caught

that. I think it's an excellent answer. We should go back to

the programme that was in effect when the previous

administration was in office.

Mr. Speaker, negotiations are not at a stalemate.

Negotiations are continuing and will continue, and will only

have reached conclusion when both parties have reached an

amicable agreement.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

Orders of the day.

ON THE BUDGET

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): It gives

me a great deal of pleasure once again to have the opportunity of speaking in

a debate. I don't take as many opportunities as I used to when I was on the

other side of the House, but I find now that actions speak truer than words.

Before starting in I would like to say that I believe the

president of the Mining Association of British Columbia is in

the gallery today, along with a couple of others. I'd like to

welcome them to the House. I hope the House welcomes them as

well.

I want to say how sorry I am that I don't see my old friend

Ned DeBeck sitting at the table. The first time I knew Ned

DeBeck was back in the '40s when he was inspector of credit

unions. I happened to be treasurer of the credit union in

Rossland at that time, and we got along very well.

Also, in regard to Mr. Art Laing: I offer my sympathies to

his family. Mr. Laing gave, I guess, his whole life to the

public and passed away, I think, prematurely. It's unfortunate

that he was not able to sit back and watch others doing the

work that he paved the way for.

This is the budget debate. You wouldn't know it by most of what you hear. A

budget is set up to cover the financing of the operations of government. It

is set up to cover the needs of the people. I know that many people may disagree

with the priorities in the budget. I sometimes would like to see some of the

priorities which I think should come first take a lead, but

we're living in a democracy. We have so much money and we've

got such a large province to look after. The needs of the

people throughout the province must be dealt with.

In my area there are a few priorities I would like to have

come first. I would hope that the Hon. Minister of Health (Hon.

Mr. Cocke) will be able to build that hospital in Sparwood

before too long.

I want to congratulate the Minister of Recreation and

Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford) for his efforts in my area with

regard to wildlife which is a very important resource in that

whole area. I notice that he was just up there a few days ago

feeding 2,300 elk at 14 feeding stations.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): He was? All by himself?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I don't know whether he was forking the

hay or exactly what he was doing. Nevertheless, I think this is

a step in the right direction. During other years, much of the

wildlife, due to the fact that they're wandering around, have a

lot of casualties among them, especially along the railroad

tracks. I want to say that the Minister of Recreation and

Conservation, I think, is doing a very worthwhile job.

There are other priorities. The previous government set up

certain priorities. When we got in as government we set our

priorities, and our priorities were people. Our first priority

was senior citizens. We set up Mincome for our senior citizens,

which the previous government felt they could not afford.

We've given Pharmacare to those over 65; we've given Mincome

to those between 60 and 65. This has got to come out of the

revenue, and this is how you divide your budget up.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is this an election speech?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Some people look at it one way and others

will look at it another way. But I'm certain that these

priorities were very worthwhile, and I'm sure that the people

who have received these benefits feel that this government has

placed people in top priority.

Health is another question that receives high priority in

this government.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Like the nursing homes, Leo?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I feel that we're not moving fast enough

sometimes.

MR. WALLACE: I like that.

[ Page 613 ]

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I'm sure the Hon. Minister would like to

move a lot faster, too, in regard to chronic care, intermediate

care and these areas that concern the health of the people.

Education receives great priority in the budget, and I

suppose rightly so because education is something that is

looking after the young people and the future generations, the

people who will be sitting in this House after we are gone.

Recreation has received a great priority by this government.

Many, many small communities have benefited from the grants

made out of our recreation fund — many small communities that

never had those facilities before — something for the young

people to do in those small communities. Now they can have a

skating rink. Now they can have a ski hill. When we look at

Canal Flats, Yahk, Sparwood, Elkford, and all those small

places that have been receiving grants for recreational

purposes, I think this government should be given a great deal

of credit.

Welfare. A lot of people talk about welfare as if welfare

only started since this government came to power. We in the New

Democratic Party only believe that welfare should have to be

paid to those people who are unable to look after themselves —

to mothers with children to look after. There is no doubt about

it that we have inherited welfare which covers a far greater

perspective than that — welfare that has been given to people

because the system under which we operate failed to provide

them with a job when they would have worked.

Sometimes we have conditioned these people to the point now

when they would sooner be on welfare than be at a job. But this

is not the thinking of the New Democratic Party. When we

organized the CCF originally, our motto was: "From him

according to his ability, and to him according to his

needs."

That motto holds good today, but don't forget that we are

living under a system that fails to provide the jobs. In spite

of the fact that the so-called free enterprisers across there

tell us to leave free enterprise free to do whatever they like

and they will look after the unemployed — they'll see that

everybody is working.... If that is so, why have we come back

to this same situation year after year?

Interjections.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Since I have been in here, from 1949, I

don't think one single year has passed that unemployment has

not been a problem before this House.

Interjections.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Unemployment has been a problem continually. The only

time that I can remember that unemployment wasn't a problem was when we had

a war, and at that time we were under somewhat of a managed economy. We were

destroying the goods and we kept everybody busy doing that. I think that it's

a sad situation when we've got to destroy our goods in order to keep up a false

price structure that we have today.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): What about Jordan

River?

Interjections.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Unemployment....

MR. PHILLIPS: The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) says:

"Go to Alberta."

HON. MR. NIMSICK: We are victims in this province of ...

AN HON. MEMBER: The NDP.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: ... trade outside of our country.

MR. PHILLIPS: Aren't they victims of that in the Yukon?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: You bet, and they've got unemployment in

the Yukon and they've got unemployment....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. PHILLIPS: Go up there and find out what's going on.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: They've got unemployment in the United

States. When you see statements like this:

"Seattle — Every Tuesday and Friday, despite the cold, two

lines of several hundred persons form outside a storefront in a poor

section

of this city. One line is made up of men, the other women. These are breadlines,

something nearly all Americans thought vanished along with the soup kitchens

of the great Depression."

MR. PHILLIPS: You're happy about that, are you?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Then you look at headlines like:

"Desperate Jobless Clog U.S. Highways." I went through the last

Depression, and I saw headlines like that back in those

times.

MR. PHILLIPS: Now you're creating another one.

[ Page 614 ]

HON. MR. NIMSICK: If you'd just quit chirping for a few

minutes, I might be able to explain the facts of life to you.

Then, maybe you will ...

MR. PHILLIPS: You don't know them; that's your problem. You

don't know the facts of life.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: ... understand what the New Democratic

Party really means.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. Order, please! Would the Hon. Member

please quit chirping? (Laughter.)

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Unemployment is a disease of capitalism.

It cannot be cured under that system. When you talk about the

free enterprise system being able to put people to work....

When we came to the last Depression, and a half-dozen

recessions since that, who did they always run to when those

problems came up? Who did they bring the unemployment problems

to? To the government, and asked the government to solve their

problems. They didn't solve their problems themselves, and

they've got no intention because they can't do it unless they

waste the goods.

MR. D.T. KELLY (Omineca): That's right.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Something that we should ask ourselves is:

when are we going to get rid of this cancerous thing called

unemployment that is always with us — every year?

Interjections.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Every year that comes along — unemployment

is the situation. It repeats itself.

MR. PHILLIPS: You know as much about the economy as I do

about flying, and I've never been off the ground.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: There has to be a change coming in this

world, and you're not going to do it by the province. The only

thing a budget like we have placed before you can do is to use

every dollar that you can have in the budget in order to give

as much work as possible.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I wish the Hon. Member for South

Peace River (Mr. Phillips) would quit punctuating the speech.

(Laughter.)

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Any solution of this problem would have to be done

as if you were a total country, and it would have to be done on the federal

level. As long as we're victims of foreign interests, as

long as we're victims of having to trade with other countries —

and this is something I'm always perturbed about: the fact that

we produce lots of lumber, or we produce anything....

Just take lumber, for an example. We're paying $100 a

thousand for it, and all of a sudden, because somebody in some

other country wants to pay $300 a thousand, then our people

have got to pay $300 a thousand at the same time.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Your free enterprise system would sell all

the lumber outside the country and leave you without any of it.

Our price structure is working under a supply and demand system

- waste and destroy. We'll waste goods in order to hold up the

price. We did it in the '30s and we'll do it today. We'll

restrict production in order to hold up price, not because

people get enough to eat. We did it in the '30s and we do it

today. I remember in the '30s when they dumped 3.5 million pigs

into the Mississippi just to hold up an artificial price, when

they turned down every second row of cotton, when they burned

piles of oranges to keep the price up.

It's only a few years ago that we paid the farmer not to

grow wheat. Your Liberal government did that a short time ago.

It's not long ago since we paid 59 cents a pound to the farmer

for butter and we built up millions of pounds surplus. We

didn't give that back to our own people at a lower price. No,

the only countries that we could sell it to were Poland, Russia

and those countries that are on those type of economies — at 25

cents a pound after we paid 50 cents a pound for it.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Those people over there would deplete

every bit of our resources as quickly as they could. That is

the reason, of course, that we have come to the situation with

the energy question. That is the reason that we have decided,

in many instances — even previous governments — that we had to

go to planning, because if we didn't plan we would destroy and

use up all our resources and have none left for either

ourselves or future generations.

I'd like to quote a

section here in regard to an

investigation made by the United States. They state that we

must have planning if we're going to solve our problems. We've

got to plan the use of our natural resources in such a way that

we will look after all the needs of the people.

I was at a dinner not too long ago, and they were talking

about the gas and oil. They said we should throw it wide open

and leave the free enterprisers the opportunity of doing what

they wanted and that they

[ Page 615 ]

would really find the oil.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Will you talk about

mining before you sit down?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Well, petroleum is a part of my

department, Mr. Member. I'm just speaking on it at the present

time.

When we did leave it wide open to the oil companies to

exploit petroleum as fast as they wanted to exploit it, we have

arrived at a situation where your own Minister in Ottawa the

other day said that we are going to be short of natural gas in

a very short time.

The mining industry is another industry that has to be

planned in regard to the depletion of our natural resources.

The federal government is doing something towards this as well,

and I'd just like to quote you something from the federal

government. They have several alternatives, and this is toward

the mineral policy for Canada. They are thinking of evaluating

the resource throughout the whole country and, on top of that,

seeing that the resource is depleted or exploited in such a way

that not only our needs will be looked after but those of

future generations as well. I'd like to quote a few pieces from

this report:

"Postponed development will permit higher returns for

minerals in the future. Canada is in danger of depleting its

minerals too rapidly. Minerals left in the ground will not

become obsolete through new discoveries elsewhere, substitution

or technological change. Postponed development will permit

better benefits from minerals in future. Other economic

activities will compensate, both nationally and regionally, for

delayed growth in the mineral sector if further mining

development is postponed."

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Tell that to the

miners who are out of work.

MR. FRASER: Give us your policy! Don't read the federal

policy.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I helped to draw up that policy, Mr.

Member — I was down at a Mines Ministers' conference.

Your attitude would be to mine everything that you can find

as quickly as you can. You'd think that the ore was going bad.

I'm sure that the mining companies that didn't bring those

three or four operations that could have been in production at

this time.... I'm sure that many of them are glad they didn't

bring them into production at the metals' price you're

receiving today.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's your legislation — Bill 31.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: In the last 100 years we've had 500

operating metal mines in the Province of British Columbia.

We've got 27 left. The rest have vanished.

AN HON. MEMBER: And none have opened in three years.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Oh yes, I signed a couple of production

leases lately and mines will be opening up. But I don't think

that is the sole question. The question is that you try to make

us believe that the legislation we brought forward is creating

all mine closures, when in the last 100 years 477 mines have

closed down because they've run out of ore — they've depleted

the ore completely.

Interjections.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: You say that mineral claims have come

down. Mineral claims are no real criteria as to the progress of

mining. You'd be surprised how many of those mineral claims

were only held without doing anything with them. Then when we

placed a rental on them, they gave them up because they felt

they were of no value to them. The thousands of claims that

were in operation, many of them were just sitting there without

effort being made to explore for ore and see what they could do

with them.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: And the claims are down. I expected that

when I brought in the rentals rule.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I did tell you that at the time. I

expected that the number of claims would be down.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Where's the $100 million

you lost? You lost it in your calculations.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I never calculated it. I said I'd bring in

$20 million. It was the Mining Association of British Columbia

that said we were going to bring in $150 million from our

royalties.

Interjections.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Well, they said so. But I could look ahead

better than they did and see that

[ Page 616 ]

the price of metals would not hold. I'm not in the business,

as they are. I don't know why they would think the metal price

was going to hold up, especially copper prices, in view of the

fact that when Allende was head of Chile, a good deal of the

copper he shipped out was hijacked on the high seas, from

what I can understand — it was held up from delivery. When he

was killed it was thrown on the market, and this is one of the

reasons why the price of copper went down so quickly.

[Mr. Liden in the chair]

Coal is a good prospect today. I'd just like to quote a few instances from

the copper producers of the world:

"...thus the dollar price index for metals, published by

the economists, showed a price drop of 13.8 per cent for the

fourth quarter alone, and a 26.5 per cent drop for 1974.

"In the United States, while we find copper deliveries up to

September always showed a surplus in relation to production,

the situation changed in October and large surpluses appeared

at the production level. This was indicated by a progressive

increase in stock which became quite large at the end of the

year since stocks tripled in size from the end of September to

the end of December — from 61,500 short tons at the end of

September to 194,000 tons at the end of December. Refined

copper stock, nevertheless, rose from 400,000 to 445,000 short

tons during the same period.

"In

summary, during the fourth quarter of 1974 the producer

situation worsened in all countries. Prices at the end of the

year, in real value, were at the lowest level reached during

preceding depressions, while production costs continued to be

affected by the worldwide inflation and the rise in the cost of

energy and transportation.

"By the end of the third quarter, the LME prices had

moreover fallen below the marginal production costs, as was

indicated by the announcement that certain mines, in particular

in Canada and the United States, were to be closed. It was

under these conditions that a CIPEC conference of ministers,

convened in extraordinary session in Paris on November 18 and

19, 1974, decided to implement a policy for the reduction of

shipments, and consequently to reduce the surpluses which were

affecting the market in the first stage, which became effective

as of the beginning of December."

This gives you an idea that this copper situation is

worldwide. It's not due to the legislation that we brought out

in British Columbia.

MR. GIBSON: How about gold?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: If you know Bralorne, you know full well

why Bralorne will not open.

MR. GIBSON: Then why have they spent $2 million there in the

last year?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: It was in the hopes that they would find

out that it's not feasible to open Bralorne.

MR. GIBSON: It's not feasible because of Bill 31, and you

know it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: Come on!

HON. MR. NIMSICK: No, that's not so.

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

nonsense, and you know it. That's nonsense.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I quote again:

"In view of the special situation of the Japanese market,

the CIPEC countries have given priority to reducing their

shipments to this country. The percentage of reduction in

exports to Japan, which was only slightly more than 10 per cent

in December, will thus progressively increase and will reach

almost 30 per cent in January."

So even the future in copper for this year doesn't look too

good. But, for goodness' sake, don't blame it on royalties.

The North West Territories do have a royalty on the

production of minerals. When I was over in London, I sat in on

the London Metal Exchange, and ...

MRS. JORDAN: Have you been to London, too, at the taxpayers'

expense?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: ...it's marvelous how they set the price

of metals each day. It's like a big roulette wheel, where

everybody sits around there ...

MRS. JORDAN: That's where you got your training for the

budget.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: ...and they start quoting prices. The

last quote is the price of the metal for that day. It seems to

me that we should find some more rational way of....

Interjection.

[ Page

617 ]

HON. MR. NIMSICK : is it something like an auction? Yes.

We need a more rational way of setting the price of metals.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. NIMSICK: It seems to me that one of the problems

that has created a lot of consternation, and which the mining

companies have put up quite a struggle against, is the royalty

bill.

Royalties are not new. Royalties were on the metal that they

took out of Mexico back in the 1500s — the King of Spain put

royalties on it.

MR. GIBSON: You had the Inquisition back then too, you

know.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: So it's not something that's new. We've

had royalties on oil and gas for years.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: When one independent operator deals with

another independent operator in mining, they charge royalties.

The CPR charges royalties if they lease out or farm out any of

their mineral claims. If any of you had a mineral claim and you

farmed it out to somebody else, you would ask for a royalty. If

it's good enough....

MR. GIBSON: They share the profit.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: No, they don't share the profits — it's

royalties in most cases. When you're talking about the Jordan

River mine, it has had a problem ever since it was started. It

goes back to 1916, when Cominco at that time had done a certain

amount of work on it. But Cominco never opened that mine;

Sunlock opened it for a while, and then they leased it out to

Cowichan....

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): You're the biggest problem

they've got now.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: They leased it out to Cowichan Copper, but

all the time that it was leased out they were paying royalties

right off the top.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Are you going to reduce

royalties?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: They were paying royalties right off the top to Cominco.

When Petchney took over, they had plenty of money, but he couldn't see with

the price of copper that it was going to go any place. They closed down Coast

Copper, and nobody said Coast Copper was closed down because of royalties. The

mine near Wardner was closed down — they ran out of ore. There were less mines

closed down in 1974 than 1971.

MR. F.X. RICHTER (Boundary-Similkameen): Less mines to close

down.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: So don't try and tell me that royalties

.... If it's proper for private industry to charge royalties to

each other, then it should be proper for the government to

charge a royalty.

Don't forget: a royalty is not a tax. It is a charge for the

product that is being depleted from out of the ground. It's

only a one-chance resource — you only get the one chance at it,

because once it's taken out it is gone for good except for what

they recycle.

Interjections.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: We say that royalties should be a charge

the same as you pay for your picks and your shovels, your

reagents — it should be a charge in the same manner. I want you

to understand that it is not a tax.

The attitude taken by the federal government is one that has

caused some concern.

MR. FRASER: Never mind that. Talk about the provincial

government.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: All right, I'll tell you one more

story.

Interjections.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Last year when I brought the Prospectors

Assistance Act before this House, everybody discredited it.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Yet we had so many applications for

assistance that you'd be surprised — 200 applications! Some

people tried to let on that we weren't careful whom we gave it

to. There were only 73 of those that were successful in getting

the grants, because we did not intend to give the money to

people if they were not going to use it for the purpose for

which it was given. This year the amount of money in the budget

has gone up to $300,000 for prospectors' assistance, and I am

sure that that will not be enough. When the people try to tell

you that the prospectors are not interested in this assistance Act, they're completely wrong.

The attitude taken by the federal government in regard to

the deducibility of royalties is unfortunate, since it not

only places them in the position of imposing double taxation

but they are also imposing double standards in regard to the

treatment of the

[ Page 618 ]

provincial government versus private industry. A private

mining operation that mines a property owned by another private

company or individual is allowed to deduct the royalties they

pay to the private company as a cost of operation before

federal taxes. It is my opinion that such double standards are

not only unjust but unconstitutional.

In spite of what the federal government is doing, we in

British Columbia will allow the companies to deduct royalties

as a cost of operation in the same way that they deduct the

cost of their reagents, picks, shovels, et cetera. This means

that the B.C. government will allow the deducibility of

royalties under the Mining Tax Act and of royalties and mining

tax under the Income Tax Act in calculating income under these

Acts, retroactive to May 6, 1974. There will be amendments

coming forward during this session to do that. The amendments

do not come under my department but that of the Minister of

Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett). In the budget he announced that

this would be done, because we feel that double taxation is not

a fair shot at all. That's exactly what the federal government

is doing; and I hope that the federal government will see the

light and allow the deducibility of royalties before federal

income tax.

Now I'm not going to go into any depth in the mining field,

because as you well know I had a meeting with the chamber of

mines a short time ago. It was in the papers. I had them in my

office. They left, and I told them that they had to write down

any real objections. If I were to go further and make

statements, they may think that they were going through an

exercise in futility, and I wouldn't want to lead them to think

that they were going through any exercise like that. At the

present time I see no changes, but if they can prove to me that

they've got some changes that will lead us to the same end,

then maybe we might look at them. We will look at them.

MR. FRASER: I can recommend one right now: get rid of the

Minister of Mines.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Well, they've been trying to get rid of me

for many years, but that's a little difficult to do. I remember

when the Social Credit celebrated for two weeks one time,

thinking that I was defeated, and I ended up by winning. So

it's pretty difficult to get rid of me. I guess, when the time

comes, when I get too old, I'll have to quit in order to give

you an opportunity to not have me in the House.

MR. CHABOT: Are you going to run next time?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: That will be considered in due course, Mr.

Member.

MR. FRASER: Just a month from now. Just a month from now:

that's all you've got.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I think that, as the Premier said, an

election this year if some situation came up — but otherwise

there will be no election this year. We've always believed that

a government should stay in for four years. I know Social

Credit had the idea that they could run every three years and

make it, but the last time they didn't make it.

MR. FRASER: The public figure that you've been here too

long, anyway.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I want to say that I'm quite certain that

the mining industry will be doing very well, once they are

convinced....

Interjections.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I want to thank you very much.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Speaker, I know that it's

traditional that Members, when they begin to speak in a debate

such as this, tell the people in the House that it's a pleasure

to be standing here in this debate. For me it's not so much of

a pleasure. In fact, I'm a little sad that I have to consider

this kind of a budget and sad that our Finance Minister is

attempting to pull the wool over the eyes of the people of

British Columbia by presenting a budget that not only fails in

every major area of need but in many areas is a slap in the

face of the taxpayers who are going to have to dig deeper and

deeper and deeper into their pockets to pay for the

government's folly.

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the Finance Minister has lost

control of the economy of this province, that fiscal planning

in this province is now nothing but a fond dream, and that the

Finance Minister is building the hopes of this province on a

cloud of inflationary promises.

Premier Barrett calls this budget a "job-security budget."

What a cruel joke that is on the 107,000 people who are

officially out of work in this province. What a cruel joke, Mr.

Speaker, on the taxpayers who have to pick up an

ever-increasing share of the spending load of this wildly

inflationary $3.2 billion budget — a 48 per cent increase in

spending by a Finance Minister who only weeks ago said that his

government was practising restraint. Some restraint, Mr.

Speaker.

The lack of restraint is particularly shameful because of

the staggering rate of inflation. Instead of presenting any

kind of an example and recognizing the dangers of pushing

inflation to greater heights, this government instead has built

its future revenue hopes on the continuation of the

inflationary spiral.

[ Page 619 ]

Without inflation this budget will not work; the revenues

won't be available to meet these unbelievable increases in

spending.

An example of the spending which is out of control is in the

Minister of Human Resources' (Hon. Mr. Levi'

s) department. Its

$516 million is up almost $250 million from last year's

estimates. If we see another $100 million overrun, that figure

goes up to $350 million. It is significant that one of the

largest increases in revenue estimated in this budget is the

$211 million from the federal government, a large portion of

which will no doubt be for the increased costs of welfare. In

effect, that's a clear admission that this government is

forcing more and more people onto social assistance by its lack

of real job opportunity policies.

Some job-security budget! Instead it is spend, spend, spend,

with no guidelines, no planning and no programme. The cruelest

joke of all is that the government is planning on a

continuation of inflation to make its spending proposals

work.

During debate earlier, Mr. Speaker, on the non-confidence

motion that the official opposition put forward, we had the

opportunity to outline many of the failings of this budget: its

failure to stimulate job opportunities; the bitter pill that

the Finance Minister is forcing and jamming down the throats of

the municipalities, with no assistance. I won't repeat the

arguments we used there in advancing that expression of no

confidence in the Finance Minister, but I do wish to respond

briefly, at least, to a few of the remarks made by previous

speakers in this debate.

First of all, all of us, I am sure, were extremely

disappointed in the lack of attention focused in the budget on

the desperate need for an expansion of intermediate-care

facilities — not one nickel in the budget earmarked for

intermediate care.

It is great for the Health Minister (Hon. Mr. Cocke) to

stand in this debate and brag about the millions of dollars

he's going to spend on the B.C. Medical Centre. That's fine.

But there's not a nickel for the thousands of British

Columbians who have been cut out of the health-care delivery

system through no fault of their own.

It's fine for the Minister to talk about an expanded

home-care programme. That programme is a good programme (it was

started by the previous government), but the intermediate-care

facilities must be developed in conjunction with the home-care

services and not in isolation, as the Minister seems to want to

do. Even in the last budget there was a token $1 million

earmarked for intermediate care, but not one nickel in this

budget. Once again, it's a cruel joke played on those people

who are penalized both financially and psychologically because

they are caught in that vast grey area, the twilight zone of

health services.

Nobody expects, as the Minister himself said in the House, to develop a system

overnight. But there was a good start with the pilot programme of intermediate-care

facilities started, again, by the previous government with, I believe, 550 beds

now on stream.

We don't expect that system to be developed overnight, but

this government has been in power for going on to three years

and absolutely nothing has been done to alleviate the critical

need in the intermediate-care area, despite the promises and

despite the urgent recommendations of an all-party committee of

this House. There's not one nickel in this budget to fill an

urgent social need that should be top priority but has drawn a

total blank in the NDP's priority list.

I found it incredible, too, that the Municipal Affairs

Minister used his time in this budget debate to threaten local

government — threaten local government. It's even more

unbelievable, considering the slap in the face that local

government has been given in the budget. But there he was,

praising a budget that completely and totally ignores municipal

needs, praising the government that refuses to accept the

municipalities as partners in the growth of this province —

smiling, joking and cracking one-liners in the debate, all the

while kicking the municipalities square in the teeth. Some

Municipal Affairs Minister!

I'd like to have more to say about these specific problems

of our municipalities during the debate on the Minister's

estimates, but for now I will just express my deep concern

about that Minister's attitudes towards the municipalities to

whom he is responsible: laying on the wood, the big-stick

approach, rather than a cooperative approach to seek solutions

to urgent problems. Knock off the threats and start developing

some meaningful revenue-sharing proposals so that local

government can accept their fair share of programmes, like

housing proposals, so that they have the means with which to

accept those proposals without bankrupting the local

taxpayers.

All we've seen so far is an iffy pie-in-the-sky dream by the

Finance Minister built on a bed of quicksand, not on some solid

foundation that will ensure the continuation of benefits over

the long term for the municipal governments of this

province.

And the Housing Minister, Mr. Speaker.... None of the

Ministers are in the House today, and that's unfortunate.

MR. CHABOT: Emergency cabinet meeting.

MR. McCLELLAND: Emergency cabinet meeting on the follies of

the government. Some of the Ministers are here; I am sorry,

Madam Minister.

The Housing Minister (Hon. Mr. Nicolson) as well responds to

need with threats. In fact, that is becoming the habit of this

government. Ask the Housing Minister why his housing policy is

a disaster

[ Page 620 ]

and he pouts and retreats and rages and blames everybody but

himself and his government. The former government is to blame;

the federal government is to blame; the regional governments

are to blame; the local government is to blame. Well, I suggest

that it's time that that Minister stood up and accepted the

blame for himself and his government for the housing crisis in

British Columbia. Quit trying to hide behind phony excuses.

I've said many times in this House that too many programmes

are being advanced by this government because of the

ideological urges that overcome the Members of the government

from the Premier on down — even down as far as the Housing

Minister. And that's pretty far down. Consider the way the

Housing Minister responds to an innocent little question from a

person who wanted to know — and it's a legitimate question —

why licensed real estate agents weren't allowed to have the

opportunity to sell units in the Meadowbrook subdivision in the

Premier's home constituency of Coquitlam. That's a simple

question, and it could have been given a simple answer. Why

aren't licensed real estate agents allowed to sell some of

these units?

There was a letter sent to the Premier asking this, and the

Housing Minister answered the letter on February 25, 1975.

Here's what he said. Speaking of Meadowbrook:

"For your information, this innovative project was marketed by the Dunhill Development Corp.

Dunhill has an experienced, in-house marketing branch and it is

the Department of Housing's policy to utilize their experience

in marketing large developments produced under the leasehold

and conversion mortgage loan programme." That's okay so far.

Then he goes on to say:

"For your information, we find it unnecessary to have our dwellings or land marketed by

licensed real estate salesmen now or in the future. We feel

it's high time we took control of the real estate in this

province."

What kind of a statement is that from that Housing Minister?

If that isn't an ideological urge getting in the way of sound

programmes, then I don't know what it is. "It's high time we

took control of the real estate in this province." We no longer

have a democratic government in this province; we have

government by threat, government by coercion and government by

blackmail.

I would like to speak for just a moment about a serious

problem which is disturbing more and more British Columbians.

It's a problem which the Human Resources Minister (Hon. Mr.

Levi) seems either unable or unwilling to tackle. The problem

has to do with juvenile delinquency.

In Surrey, for instance, according to a recent survey which was done by the

community, young people of 16 and under in 1974 committed 1,325 offences. That's

compared to just over 1,900 offences by adults in the same year. Those are alarming

figures which will be preliminary to some very serious crime problems in the

future if nothing is done. And nothing is being done.

The government's efforts to rehabilitate young people in the

community are commendable, but those efforts are going to fail,

sure as anything, unless this government recognizes that there

is a very hard-core element of juvenile delinquency which does

exist in this province and that certain juvenile delinquents

cannot be rehabilitated outside of some structured environment.

This government forces those young people back into the very

environment which spawned their problems to begin with, an

environment with which they cannot cope.

There's a perfect example in the constituency of South Peace

River where two young girls were released back into the

community from Willingdon School for Girls when it was closed

down. When it had already been proved that they couldn't cope

with that environment, they were sent back into that community,

burned down two schools and, presumably, still are not being

dealt with adequately.

MR. PHILLIPS: The taxpayers had to pay.

MR. McCLELLAND: The taxpayers had to pay for those schools,

and the question might be to the Human Resources Minister: is

this budget large enough to enable him to reimburse the

community for the $3 million in damage that those young people

caused?

We heard just this morning of the mayor of Duncan having to

take the serious action of threatening to sue the Human

Resources Minister because of the wave of vandalism in his

community. Nothing is being done.

Some time ago I asked the Minister for Human Resources in

this House about juvenile delinquents being housed in the

Empress Hotel, and I was ridiculed for even asking the

question. The Minister never answered my question. He said only

that there was no evidence contained in some out-of-date public

accounts — public accounts which did not, and do not, reflect

the period for which I was concerned. No answer from the

Minister, Mr. Speaker. No answer whatsoever.

Regardless of whether or not juveniles have been housed in

the Empress Hotel, or in a motel up in Cranbrook, or in

Penticton, or in Courtenay, or in Duncan, or in a hotel

somewhere else, or any other kind of a facility like that, the

point is that there is no facility to deal with the minority of

young people who are considered to be hard-core delinquents.

Facilities don't exist, and that means that we're not living

up, as a government, to the responsibilities we

[ Page 621 ]

have toward those young people. It's as simple as that.

I'd like to take a few moments to read to you from some of

the comments made by various lower mainland elected officials

who gathered together this last month to discuss this urgent

problem. These aren't rednecks who want to lock juveniles away

in a dungeon; these are concerned citizens who see a problem

and want some solutions.

The mayor of Chilliwack says:

"A holding unit for the troublesome few must be an urgent priority for the government. The police

need some support to be able to put some teeth into the

laws."

Here's another one. An alderman from Burnaby, Doreen Lawson,

wife of the Senator, the Member for Columbia River's (Mr.

Chabot'

s) friend....

AN HON. MEMBER: Order! (Laughter.)

MR. McCLELLAND: Her recommendation is that there must be a

short-term closed remand home on the lower mainland and more

court sentences resulting in responsible retributive services

to their victims. Says Mrs. Lawson:

"Juvenile delinquency in Burnaby has increased in 1973 and again in 1974. I am very concerned

that our present system has not been able to cope with the

increasing degree of violence and the high rate of

recidivism."

Here's the acting chief constable, Kiery, of the Corporation

of the City of New Westminster. He said he's been arguing for

some time for the need for a remand home for juveniles.

"My concern is for the recidivist, the one we arrest for breaking and entering, and he's let go only to

steal a car, and again let go, only to smash up some community

facility." That's what we're talking about, Mr. Speaker.

Here's the mayor of West Vancouver:

"....the need for positive preventative service and,

secondly, the need for remand homes to cope with those

juveniles who are dangerous in one way or another to themselves

or to the community."

The mayor of the City of Langley: need for remand homes for

hard-core delinquents. No jail, he says, for delinquents. He

doesn't want jails but he does want some facility to deal with

those young people who need help.

Over and over again. Phil Ranger is an alderman from Port

Moody, I believe.

"Juvenile age should be lowered. Restitution should be made. Remand facilities are inadequate. The police

and the authorities are powerless to deal with the

juvenile."

Here's the district judge, Judge Goulet, of the Provincial

Court of British Columbia.

"As a member of the judiciary I must resist the temptation

to express my personal views as to the kind of legislation, but

I might say that from the point of view of a judge the prospect

of dealing more effectively with juvenile delinquency lies in

more and better resources and programmes, particularly for the

hardened 15- or 16-year-old repeater, rather than changing the

legislation."

So once again we see the judge, too, concerned about the

problem and wanting to develop the kind of facilities that we

need desperately in this province and which, instead of

providing, we are closing down. Closing it down.

There's another serious problem in this province. It is what

I consider to be the contempt that the Members of this

government are showing for the legislative process and for the

need to respond honestly and straightforwardly to questions

from Members of the opposition. The contempt starts at the

Premier's desk and permeates the entire cabinet.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member

if he's implying by his remarks that the Hon. Members of this

House have been dishonest in their responses.

MR. McCLELLAND: I've said, Mr. Speaker, and I'll repeat it

for you, that there is a need for Members of this government to

respond straightforwardly and honestly to questions asked by

the opposition Members.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I'm asking the Hon. Member if

he's suggesting that Hon. Members have been dishonest.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, it's on the record. I have

said, and I'll say it again, that there's a need to respond

honestly and straightforwardly to the questions by the

opposition.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will the Hon. Member continue?

MR. McCLELLAND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have also said

that there is contempt on the part of many of those Members of

government.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): On a point of order. I would like

to know how that Member would expect anyone to respond

straightforwardly to a question when the type of question he

puts forward is always innuendo....

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, it starts at the Premier's desk

and goes all the way through the cabinet.

[ Page 622 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. On the point of order, I would

point out to the Hon. Member that I'm taking it for granted that the

Hon. Member for Langley is not suggesting there have been any dishonest

answers to date. He's merely calling for honest answers. As long as the

Hon. Member does not impute that any of the answers have been dishonest

in the past, then I would ask him to continue.

MR. McCLELLAND: I would suggest that you wait until I

continue. I've said only so far that there

is a need to respond honestly and straightforwardly. I believe that is

correct and I'm sure that you agree with that as the Deputy Speaker of

this House.

The contempt that I speak about starts with the outrageous treatment

by the Premier of this province in the so-called chicken-and-egg war.

That Premier has placed a cloud of suspicion over the highest position

in this province for the first time in my memory. In that same debate

the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) was forced to develop a

case of selective amnesia to protect the excesses of his Premier. The

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

flip-flopped around a phony issue in connection with the Columbia River

treaty until his credibility was in a shambles.

The Housing Minister (Hon. Mr. Nicolson), who has a different answer

every day to the same question, is a Minister whose performance would

be a joke if his job wasn't so important to the people of this province

— people who need housing and need it desperately.

I must not conclude without mentioning the Minister of Transport and

Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan), who has completely and irrevocably

lost the confidence of every thinking British Columbian. I wish he had

stayed in the House just a moment longer because I wish to ask him to

apologize to a fine Canadian company which he maliciously maligned the

other evening in this House. First of all, I would ask him to

apologize. Secondly, I want to lay some facts on the table about the

company which was maligned by that Minister — Premier Cablevision.

Columbia Broadcasting System of the United States owns 18.999 per cent of Premier

Cablevision, and it's prohibited by federal law from owning any more. The Minister

of Transport and Communications knew that, yet he stood in this House and tried

to mislead the people of this House into believing that Premier Cablevision

was owned and controlled by an American....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The Hon. Member is truly out of order

in imputing an improper motive to the assembly. I would ask him to withdraw

the imputation that the Minister was misleading the House or attempting to mislead

the House.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, he was clearly misleading the

House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I've asked the Hon. Member...and the Hon. Member understands the rules of parliament —

that you may not impute an improper motive to any other Member

of this assembly. I would ask him to withdraw any imputation

that he was attempting to or did mislead his House.

AN HON. MEMBER: But he did.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I'm addressing the Hon. Member

for Langley.

MR. McCLELLAND: I'll withdraw that, Mr. Speaker. I'll

withdraw it, but I must tell the House that that Minister did

create a cloud of doubt about this company by saying in this

House, implying in his House, that Premier Cablevision was

controlled by an American company. Mr. Speaker, that isn't fair

to that company, and it's false. Yet the Minister stood in this

House and gave that information out.

The Welsh group of companies which is Canadian —

Vancouver-based, Vancouver-born, Vancouver-built — owns 28 per

cent of Premier Cablevision, based against the 18.9 per cent

base owned by Columbia Broadcasting System. That's 28 per cent

owned by the Welsh group.

And who are the directors of this company — some American

bogey men? Sidney Welsh: chairman of the board, country of

residence — Canada; Bud Shepherd, president, Canada; Gordon

Gillie, director, Canada; Patrick Keeley, director, Canada;

Robert Sutherland, director, Canada; George McKeyne, director,

Canada; W. Garth Pither, director, Canada; John M. Byrd,

director, Canada.

MR. PHILLIPS: How many American directors on Can-Cel?

MR. McCLELLAND: How many American directors on Can-Cel, the

government-owned corporation? And through whom do we market our

pulp in this province? A black-marketeering profiteer in New

York! By the province's own corporation!

There's not an American on that board of directors, Mr.

Speaker. Sure, the company is expanding all over the world. The

Minister stood up and said they are expanding in Ireland,

expanding in Hawaii. Of course they are. That company developed

cablevision for the world. It developed it in Vancouver. It was

the first company, I believe, along with another company in the

United States which ever even heard of cablevision. The name

"cablevision" was invented by that company. Sure, they are

expanding all over the world. Are you, Mr.

[ Page 623 ]

Speaker, against a pioneering British Columbia company

exporting its technological expertise to other parts of the

world?

AN HON. MEMBER: I guess they are.

MR. McCLELLAND: If they are, what a selfish, insular

attitude that would be.

MR. PHILLIPS: If it creates employment in British Columbia,

they are against it.

MR. McCLELLAND: This company which the Minister attempted to

tell us was controlled by Americans.... Listen to this in

their most recent report from the board of directors:

"Premier also acquired 100,000 shares of Northwest Sports

Enterprises Ltd., a holding company for the wholly-owned

Vancouver Canucks NHL hockey club. These shares were part of a

controlled block..." I hope you are listening to this, Mr.

Speaker, because it is important.

"...acquired to effect repatriation of controlling

ownership of the Vancouver Canucks from the United States."

That is the Canadian company that that Minister maligned in

this House, Mr. Speaker.

And still it goes on. The whole fiasco was an irresponsible

attack...I won't say it was by an irresponsible Minister. It

goes on and on. With respect to the future policy on policy cancellations at

ICBC, which I raised in this House some time ago as well, I

asked that Minister whether or not ICBC had ever cancelled any

policies of renters who were single, unemployed, living common

law, under 30, or any combination of those. The Minister said

that ICBC has not cancelled any tenant package policies because

of an insured person being unmarried and under the age of 30.

"I am informed that ICBC has never cancelled the insurance of

any person who is unemployed. I am informed that ICBC has never

cancelled the insurance policy of anyone who is married and

living common-law."

I happen to have a notice of cancellation here, Mr. Speaker,

for two people in Fort Langley who were living common-law and

who were unemployed and who had their insurance cancelled,

their tenant package cancelled. I happen to have a notice of

cancellation here.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): What for?

MRS. D. WEBSTER (Vancouver South): What reason?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. McCLELLAND: I would like to use up my own time, please,

if you don't mind.

It's a policy which was cancelled — on a young person, under

the age of 30 and single. That company is afraid to come

forward and tell its name because it is afraid of the

retribution that government might place upon that company. That

is what the state of this government has come to.

I also have a policy which was returned. This gentleman

isn't afraid to have his name used. It is Frank Rogers

Insurance Agency. He has a policy which was returned, not

cancelled but returned. It says:

" As agreed in our telephone conversation of

yesterday's date, we are returning the above application which we are

unable to accept.

(Signed) Bob Johnson."

The letter from Frank Rogers Insurance Agency says:

"After sending in a tenant's package application to ICBC, I received a phone call from Bob Johnson..."

Bob Johnson is in the general underwriting department of

ICBC in Vancouver in the head office.

"...telling me that the corporation's new policy was

not to accept any single people who are tenants and under age 30, that

I would be getting a memo to this effect shortly."

He said that if he allowed the application to go through, it

would only be cancelled anyway. From Bob Johnson of ICBC.

The contempt for this Legislature by this government is

clear. I say that the people of this province are fed up with

that kind of action. They want this government to stop

stick-handling around the truth and start telling us some

answers to questions.

HON. MR. LEA: File the letter. File the letter.

MR. McCLELLAND: The most shameful example of them all is the

action today of the Human Resources Minister (Hon. Mr. Levi).

That Minister accepted $200 as a campaign donation from a

person, a source, with a very questionable background. The

Minister had a week's time to reveal to this House that that

donation was made after he was told by the radio hotliner that

that information was in his hands. He had a week's time. He

went to the Premier. He didn't tell this House at that time. He

involved the Premier.

The question we want to ask is: was there a conspiracy of

silence between the Minister of Human Resources and the

Premier? The cancelled cheques that that Minister sent as his

political donation to somebody else don't have anything to do

with anything. The only conclusion — at least, the most

innocent conclusion — that we can come to in this whole affair

is that the Minister of Human Resources

[ Page 624 ]

is as stupid in the handling of his own affairs as he is in

the handling of his department. That is the most innocent

conclusion, Mr. Speaker. But the most serious conclusion we can

come to is that there was a violation of the elections Act,

section 172.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

It would seem to me that there is a pretty fair argument for that

Minister to clear up that question, or for at least a judicial inquiry

into the whole mess to make sure that question, above all, is cleared

up.

But there are other questions as well, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think the Hon. Member knows

that, first of all, this question was referred to me by the

Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams)

and, secondly, that a personal attack on a Minister or any

Member of this House is not permitted in the fashion on which

the Hon. Member is embarking.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I am stating facts, and that is

all I am stating.

MR. SPEAKER: You are obviously not stating facts.

MR. McCLELLAND: The documents were tabled in this House; of

course they are facts.

HON. MR. LEA: Table those!

MR. McCLELLAND: The Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr.

Levi), by his own admission in this House today, accepted that

$200 donation after the election. Then after a telegram was

sent....

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member is not....

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, will you allow me to continue

with my speech, please?

MR. SPEAKER: No, I will not allow you to continue making

attacks on another Member unless you are prepared to make a

motion.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker....

MR. SPEAKER: You know the rule. I have recited it in this

House many times.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, you don't know the rule. I am

talking about admissions that were made in this House today. I

am making no attacks on anyone. The Minister admitted today

that he accepted a $200 donation after the election was

over.

MR. PHILLIPS: That's right. You can read it in

Hansard .

MR. McCLELLAND: Right. It's in Hansard .

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member is saying that it had to do with

a provincial election, and there was federal election on at the

time. He stated in his statement that it referred to the

federal election.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, you are more mixed up than the

Minister is.

MR. SPEAKER: Now the Hon. Member is attempting to do

indirectly what he cannot do, except by a motion, in this

House.

MR. McCLELLAND: You are not the Minister of defence in this

House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I have the duty....

MR. McCLELLAND: This is a shocking attempt by you, Mr.

Speaker, to stifle free speech in this House.

MR. SPEAKER: And I don't propose to do so. I do say that the

Hon. Member cannot make charges of a personal character against

any other Member in this House in the fashion you are embarking

upon.

MR. McCLELLAND: I have made no charges against that Member.

Now Mr. Speaker, I hope you are counting this on my time.

MR. SPEAKER: You have just finished stating that this Hon.

Member of the House had received some money for a provincial

election....

MR. McCLELLAND: He admitted it.

MR. PHILLIPS: Sure he did. He said it himself in this

House.

MR. SPEAKER: That is not my understanding of the statement.

I have looked at his statement because I am studying the

question raised by the Hon. Member for West Vancouver-Howe

Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams).

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, it was accepted after the

provincial election; the money was accepted after the

provincial election, immediately after. The Minister has

accepted that, hasn't he? Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: I would suggest that the Hon. Members abstain

from personal attacks ...

[ Page 625 ]

MR. McCLELLAND: Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: ...in this manner and that the speaker do what

I've asked him to do on this question before you start

embarking on this course, which is only fair to any other

Member of this House.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, this is an important issue to

the people of British Columbia, a very important issue.

MR. SPEAKER: Then please address yourself to it according to

the rules.

MR. McCLELLAND: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: And that doesn't mean the way you are

doing.

MR. McCLELLAND: Because, Mr. Speaker, that money was

accepted after the election, the provincial election, it is no

longer a political donation but an effort to gain favour.

MR. LEWIS: Shame!

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, the donor deliberately held off

making that donation until he was sure the candidate was

elected and it seemed as if he would be a Minister. He

deliberately held off making that, and we can only assume that

if the candidate had not been elected to this provincial

Legislature that donation would never have been made. So there

are two steps that the official opposition insist on happening.

The first is that the Minister must resign as a Minister. There

is no choice until it's clear. There is ample opportunity for

the Minister to study what has happened in other jurisdictions,

ample precedent for that. The Minister must resign.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about the Sommers case?

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, that Member mentions the

Sommers case. That case involved some carpeting, I believe — I

wasn't here then — $500 or something. The company involved

never got the government contract, but that Member went to jail

and he served his time and paid his penalty. And that should be

the end of it. He has paid his penalty.

Interjections.

MR. McCLELLAND: That's right, and during that time the NDP

was very vocal in asking for a judicial inquiry.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out that I wish to deal with this

question, and you are starting in on a course which I say,

under the rules, would not be accepted. And it won't be

accepted for the simple reason that the proper way, if you are

laying any charges and asserting any facts, is that you must do

so in accordance with the rules.

MR. McCLELLAND: Can we no longer ask for a judicial inquiry

in this House?

MR. SPEAKER: That means you must make a motion, and do it at

the proper time, on a question of privilege. You haven't done

that.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, am I correct that you have now

discovered a rule which says that a Member can no longer ask

for a judicial inquiry into an affair which is of vital

interest to everyone in this province?

MR. SPEAKER: Not if it includes allegations against an Hon.

Member of this House, because it only becomes secondary about

the inquiry. The proper way to do it is to put a motion on the

order paper, a substantive motion in relation to the conduct of

another Member. In the meantime, until you....

MR. McCLELLAND: The allegations were made outside this

House. I have two requests of the Minister: first of all the

official opposition wishes him to resign, and we think he must.

We want a judicial inquiry into this whole matter. But resign

he must or he, too, shows complete contempt for this House and

for the people of British Columbia.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, gee whiz,

I thought we were on a motion dealing with the budget, but I

find that the opposition speakers don't really seem to have too

much interest in the motion before the House, a motion which

has provoked a wide variety of responses from the opposition.

I've listened with great interest to the comments the

opposition Members have made, both inside the House and

out.

First of all, before commenting on some of the speeches I've

heard in the House, I'd like to give some views on what I think

of the budget. I think it's a very, very excellent budget, one

that, as the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) indicated,

is designed to serve the needs of people.

The opposition, I think, supports the old Keynesian economic

theory that when times get tough and there's a recession

looming, that's the time to subsidize big business — their

friends in industry — or the rather archaic theory that some of

the benefits will trickle down to the people who are hardest

hit by unemployment and by recessions, high inflation

[ Page 626 ]

periods and so on.

We, I think, for the first time in Canada have reversed that

approach to a time of high unemployment, one which is being

witnessed throughout the world, not only in Canada. We have

brought in a budget which gave the lie to the allegations and

suggestions made by the opposition that the province, in fact,

was on the rocks, that the Minister of Finance was in trouble

and had squandered away surpluses and so on.

Quite the contrary, we come in with a very, very strong

budget, a budget designed to serve people, to create employment

programmes, to increase assistance to education, to health care

and so on. The poor opposition is kind of in a bind — they

don't know where to turn, then — so we get a variety of

inconsistent responses.

Mr. Speaker, some of the statements that have been made are

that the surplus which this government found in 1972

when we were elected has been depleted. We had something like

$95 million in reserve, which the former Minister of

Finance (Hon. Mr. Bennett) — and I give him due credit —

secured for this province. But far from that amount being

depleted, we now have a surplus which has increased to

$157 million in reserve. Yet even though it's

contained in black and white in the budget, the opposition

refuses to acknowledge that and makes rather wild statements to

the effect that the province is in trouble financially.

MR. LEWIS: Shame!

HON. MR. KING: I think what's even more significant than a

surplus of some millions of dollars is the position we find

ourselves in with respect to the demand parity bonds that were

outstanding when we assumed office as a new government in

1972. The budget states on page 7: "During

the past 12 months, we have further reduced the amount

of the parity demand debt by $36 million, from $179.5

million to a total of $141.5 million." That is the kind of

sound fiscal management that this government was elected to

bring to the province; that is the kind of sound management we

have achieved.

MR. PHILLIPS: You don't recall — those people bought it

back.

HON. MR. KING: I can understand the wild opposition

screaming — the leather-lunged Member for South Peace River

(Mr. Phillips) doesn't like to see this kind of thing. He

thinks wild statements will erase it.

MR. PHILLIPS: The people bring them back.

HON. MR. KING: Unfortunately, there is a day of reckoning. The truth

does have to be met, and the truth will out.

Now, of course, I'm rather amused by the opposition. I'm

used to their wild reactions. I think they're amusing.

MR. PHILLIPS: The taxpayers don't think it's amusing.

HON. MR. KING: I think the Premier categorized them in a way. He called them "gloom-and-doom boys." I disagree with him. I

think he was right on the budget completely, except in

categorizing those people as "gloom-and-doom boys." I thought

of them as a funeral procession on the way out. Then, in

thinking more about it, I decided that perhaps that wasn't the

most appropriate description either. I wonder now if they

wouldn't be best referred to as a wedding ceremony, because

when I look at that party I think of something old, something

new, something borrowed and something blue.

Something old: obviously little Danny Campbell's still in there, still cranking

the economic handle. Something new: well, Billy-boy — I guess that's new. Something

borrowed: the Member for Saanich (Mr. Curtis), I think, would fit that categorization

— he's been around. Something blue, of course: the last speaker from Langley

(Mr. McClelland) was pretty blue after the last convention. I think that's perhaps

the best description of them.

HON. MR. LEA: You thought you could buy that nomination.

HON. MR. KING: We've found a very negative response from the

opposition, and I regret that because I think the people of the

province really do expect a rational discussion of the economic

state of the province and of what's contained in the

budget.

Interjection.

HON. MR. KING: Well, the Liberal leader (Mr. D.A. Anderson)

mustered the integrity and the courtesy to say it's the first

honest budget that the province has ever seen. He made that

statement, and so did the leader of the Conservative Party (Mr.

Wallace). Yet we have the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland),

the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) and the Leader of

the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) saying it's contempt of the House

because it misleads the people.

That is the kind of phrase they rely on, Mr. Speaker, but it

just shows you the inconsistency of the response. It's very

difficult for them to come to grips with any deep and searching

criticism of this budget, basically because it is a budget that

does provide for the needs of the people in a time of

[ Page 627 ]

difficult economic circumstances throughout the world,

unquestionably.

I would like to make some points in dealing with the budget

insofar as my own riding of Revelstoke-Slocan is concerned. For

the first time the small communities in the rural areas of

British Columbia are receiving some attention in terms of

recreational opportunities which are equitable with the major

urban areas. For the first time the small municipalities are

receiving assistance with the costly sewer setups that they are

being obliged to build. For the first time, although some

people like to avoid it and to bypass it, the municipalities

have had their formula for developing the per capita amended so

that it can be computed on a current basis. This is providing

real help to the communities, to say nothing of the revenue

that will flow to them as a result of, for the first time,

participating in direct revenue-sharing with the provincial

government in terms of our resources.

MR. McCLELLAND: Where is the money this year?

HON. MR. KING: I always enjoy the Member for Columbia River

(Mr. Chabot). I think he is one of the nicest little chaps on

that side of the House because at least, when he makes the wild

statements, he has a twinkle in his eye. He has a sense of

humour,

whereas the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland)....

You know, I really think he believes it, and that's a bit

frightening.

MR. McCLELLAND: Right on!

HON. MR. KING: But the Member for Columbia River at least

has a twinkle in his eye and a sense o humour, and he knows

that he's had service in his constituency that was never

possible before. I think he would disagree with the Member for

Langley when he makes the charge that this government

intimidates and blackmails municipalities. I would object to

that if any of my colleagues indulged in that kind of conduct

because I remember all too well....

MR. GARDOM: You'd kick the blank out of them!

HON. MR. KING: Do you want to come to my office?

(Laughter.)

I remember all too well the dissertations of the former Premier (Hon. Mr. Bennett)

when, once every two and a half years preceding the election, he used to make

his rural tour in grand style in the black Cadillac. He used to pop his head

out and say to the chamber of commerce: "So long as you have an opposition Member,

the roads are not going to be fixed. You're not going to get this ferry or this

road until you get a Member on the government team." And you people now have

the colossal gall and the brass to stand here and tell us that we intimidate

municipalities? Shame on you, I say. Shame on you! You've got short memories

and a number of other afflictions that I won't mention today.

Mr. Speaker, I think the municipalities in this province are

getting a good service today, contrasted with what they had

just two and a half short years ago. It intrigues me that on

the one hand we are attacked for an inflationary budget — too

much money. They say we are calling upon money that can't

possibly be anticipated and projected. Well, that shows a lack

of confidence in the strength of the economy of British

Columbia. I say that any political party which puts forward

that view is not fit to govern in this province, and I think

they will remain in opposition.

But the point is that we do have a strong economy, and

investment is up in this province. The work force for the first

time has exceeded one million workers; we are, in fact, the

highest-paid province in this nation. I think these are things

to be proud of. We have an excellent standard of living. While

it is true that we are experiencing a soft lumber market

created mainly by a lull in construction projects south of the

border, at least we are mounting immediate programmes to

mitigate the impact of the unemployment in that sector.

I'd just like to mention this question again of

expenditures. I think it was the Member for North

Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) who got up and made the point

about huge departmental increases. That's quite true. I think

it is worthwhile to note those increases. Certainly there has

been a tremendous increase in the Department of Labour, although it is one of the smaller budgeted departments in

government. But do you know that we have succeeded in

increasing the number of young people under apprenticeship

training by some 6,000 in the two and a half years that we have

been in office? We have almost doubled the number of people

under apprenticeship training, and that requires facilities to

house them. It requires teachers to teach, and so on. This

cannot be accomplished without increased expenditures.

When we had a government that was just confounded with

inertia for 20 years and failed to keep pace with the needs for

training in all of the areas of government, then, of course, it

requires large capital outlays initially to develop the

facilities to accommodate the needs of industry today.

Now another aspect of the training dollars that I don't

think is commonly known — and yet it's quite significant in

terms of our budget and in terms of our obligation to provide

skilled workers in the province — relates to the empty-chair

policy that used to be witnessed in this province as far as

federal /provincial

[ Page 628 ]

cooperation was concerned. Somebody talked about arrogance

in this House. Not only did the former Premier and most of his

cabinet Ministers turn their backs on questioners, but he

wouldn't even deign to sit down with the Prime Minister of

Canada and discuss the interests of British Columbia. I say

that you have short memories. You have very short memories.

Nevertheless, we did find in my own department — and I

suspect that this runs the whole gamut of government — that

because of the inertia of that gang over there we are losing

literally millions of dollars for federal funding that we

should have been entitled to.

MR. PHILLIPS: How about the DREE programme?

HON. MR. KING: As a matter of fact, of the total budget for

training in this nation, British Columbia was only receiving 8

per cent compared to some 30 and 40 per cent in Ontario and

Quebec. It was simply because of, well, either the inertia or

perhaps the ignorance of those Ministers who should have been

asserting British Columbia's interests and demanding equality

of treatment. So we have been able to improve the formula for

provincial funding and we are, as a result, realizing a greater

inflow of federal dollars for the purposes of training in this

province.

The opposition seem to come back frequently to an overrun in

the Minister of Human Resources' (Hon. Mr. Levi'

s) department —

$103 million. That's a lot of money. I would expect the

opposition to question it. Nevertheless, it's been explained

adequately quite a number of times. But they seem to be rather

obsessed by that overrun, despite the fact that their own

former Minister (Mr. Gaglardi) of — I forget what they called

it under that group over there....

MR. LEWIS: What was his name?

HON. MR. KING: Somebody suggested to me a while ago that

when they conducted a war on poverty, the former Minister

started throwing rocks at beggars. But whatever it was, he

admitted to an overrun in his department. Yet they find it

absolutely abhorrent that we witness the same thing.

I wonder how it is that an overrun of $103 million, fully accounted for on

new programmes, good programmes, to assist old-age people.... I wonder how

it is that that bothers them so much, while at the same time an expenditure

of $800 million on the Columbia River treaty dams to provide storage, mainly,

and the generation of electricity south of the border for the Americans — one

which the Premier and Minister of Finance of that day assured the people of

British Columbia would cost them nothing — I wonder how they can remain mute

on that. In fact, a couple of them sat in that cabinet and

were a party to that agreement.

The Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) is sensitive

about it, but I think he's perhaps oversensitive. It seems to

me all the time that whenever the Columbia River disaster is

brought up, the Member for Columbia River takes it personally.

He thinks they're talking about him. I want to assure him that

Frank Greenwood never developed that phrase, "The Columbia

River disaster." That refers to the treaty rather than to the

Member.

This is the kind of double standard we've come to expect

from the official opposition. I think it's regrettable. I think

it would have been much more positive had they addressed

themselves to really taking a detailed look at the budget,

considering the programmes that are provided therein and

perhaps suggesting some change of priority, some change of

thrust. That would have been a reasonable and a responsible

approach to take; but it seems that we haven't got a hope of

really expecting anything too rational or too responsible from

the Social Credit Party.

There's one other area of my own department that I think is

significant in terms of the approach the opposition is taking,

where they condemn the large increases in salaries, in the

provision of staff, for the various departments. We should just

analyse that for a bit. I think that my own department, as I

say, is easy to analyse; it's very small. It's not too

complicated in terms of financing, and so on. So it is

interesting that we have expanded our budget from some $7

million when we took over in 1972 to $18 million in the current

year.

and more efficient service.

We have not only provided the staff to give effect to the

laws that protect minimum standards for workers but we've

certainly amended those laws to a degree that requires more

sophisticated training to determine noise levels; more training

which allows the kind of expertise which can investigate and

determine whether toxic materials, new acids and processes

[ Page 629 ]

industry are in any way injurious to workers' health. All

this, of course, costs dollars. But when you have to put an

evaluation on the health of workers of British Columbia and,

indeed, the citizens of British Columbia, as opposed to

straight dollar value, why, this government makes no apology

for ensuring that we are providing the very, very best level in

inspection and the standards of care in the province.

Mr. Speaker, the Members across the way have talked about

the government's responsibility in terms of creating high

expectations by wage demands that were negotiated with our

public employees. I want to say that all of those contracts are

not completed as yet, and it's a fundamental rule of industrial

relations to anyone familiar with the area that it serves no

one too well to develop the rumour mill and to reveal

information before a total programme is put together and all

contracts in an industry are settled. That's the kind of

climate that can create whipsawing. It's the kind of climate

which the Members are expressing concern about and yet helping

to generate. I really don't think that's too responsible.

The average increases are not available as yet, but I would

suggest that some of the statements that have been made by

opposition Members are really not too thoughtful and not too

well researched. Of course, that's the usual.

But, you know, in the private sector this past year, to

mention Burrard for just one, we had settlements that were

pretty spectacular. Yet I didn't find any of the opposition

Members expressing concern that the private sector had

developed a new benchmark for wages in this province that could

be held as inflationary. I didn't find, indeed, representatives

of the employers council publicly condemning those inflationary

wage increases. Not only at Burrard Drydocks, Mr. Speaker, but

in the service area, which is certainly not traditionally one

of the pacesetters, we found very, very spectacular wage

increases in the last year. So I just wonder if the

preoccupation with the levels of wages in the public service is

to some degree a political motivation rather than an economic

one.

Mr. Speaker, these are the kinds of things that I think it

helps to discuss and put into perspective after we listen to

the rather wild and rather — oh, I don't know what I'd describe

them as — rather wild and rather woolly statements of the

people on that other side.

Now there are a number of other things I would like to mention again. The Member

for Langley (Mr. McClelland), particularly, does bother me by the language he

uses in this House. I suppose we should come to expect it, and personally I

don't bother with points of order to ask him to be a bit more respectful or

to respect the parliamentary process any more. I think that shouldn't have to

be drawn to the attention of Members of this House; they should have enough

respect for each other's views, whether or not you agree.

Yet it seems he's always on the verge of imputing something

illicit, something improper to various Members of the

government. I want to suggest to Members of the opposition

that this is hardly a way to build up your political fortunes

in the province. I doubt whether the people of the province

will be attracted to that kind of an innuendo campaign.

MR. LEWIS: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. KING : Someone suggested — I think it was the Member

for Langley (Mr. McClelland) — after questioning the motivation

and the integrity of the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr.

Levi), the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr.

Strachan), the Premier, and various other assorted Ministers,

that he was very concerned with law and order in this province.

Indeed, that was the main thrust of his speech — law and order.

Directed at whom? The juveniles.

He wants the institutionalized approach back; presumably

Brannan Lake, Willingdon School for Girls, and the whole lot.

Perhaps he wasn't in the House in the days when Members of our

party raised pretty hair-raising stories about the kind of

treatment that young people got in those institutions.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): And some Social Credit

backbenchers.

HON. MR. KING: And some Social Credit backbenchers who were

concerned.

I wonder about his perspective when he advocates that kind

of approach. At the same time, through his conduct and through

his whole delivery in this House, he seeks to discredit and

besmirch the character and the integrity of Members of the

government. I think that one has to question the perspective

and the attitude of someone who takes that approach.

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to sit down here, before dealing with

other areas of my department that I could mention. I think

rather I'll wait and talk about the policies and the precise

expenditures of the Department of Labour in a more detailed way

in the estimates.

Before I do sit down I would like to just deliver to the

House my impression of the Social Credit Party.

MRS. JORDAN: Start talking about what your department's

doing, instead of mudslinging. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. KING: We'll be considering that, Mr. Speaker, when

my estimates are considered. I'm looking forward to a really

searching analysis by the Member for North Okanagan. I'm really

looking

[ Page 630 ]

forward to a searching analysis from her.

You know, I didn't want to be too severe or too harsh with

the opposition. Therefore in describing them and giving my

reaction to the total scene, I thought I'd wax a bit poetic,

just so no one would take it too seriously. I have looked at

them, and I've listened to them in the House, and I've heard

all their criticism, Mr. Speaker, and this was the best

reaction that I could come up with:

They sprang up from the outback, this Social Credit crew, And

printed funny money — now Major Douglas do eschew.

With fundamentalist vigour and financial theories fine, They

abandoned cold Alberta for B.C.'s sunny clime.

First maxi-WAC, then mini, combined the old and new To harangue

B.C.'s good people with Flying Phil and crew.

With great financial vision and Axel Wenner-Gren They squandered

our resources — and seek the chance again.

But the people want no replay, need our water, wood and coal

The great Columbia sell-out put them 800 million in the hole.

Make no mistake about them, they're the same old jaded gang —

From Mac-Blob's ex-directors to Boy Wonder, son of Fang! (Laughter.)

MRS. JORDAN: I'd just like to say how much I appreciated the

Minister's poetry, but I wonder if he thinks it's worth ...

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Are you on a point of order?

MRS. JORDAN: ...his $50,000 a year salary and his

$25,000-a-year expense account!

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): You had your chance and

you blew it.

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the

opportunity to participate in this debate on the budget and to

present some of the views and concerns of the people in Alberni

riding concerning the budget. I must admit that the Minister of

Labour is a tough act to follow, and I don't have anywhere near

the kind of poetry and poetic sentiment he has expressed.

MRS. JORDAN: Let's try being a responsible Member.

MR. SKELLY: I'm very happy that the Member for North

Okanagan got up in between, because she's no problem at

all.

As far as the budget is concerned, Mr. Speaker, the people

of my riding appreciate that for the first time in 23 years

this budget is honest and direct. There are none of the

attempts to overstate expenditures and to underestimate

revenues in order to create the illusion — in fact the lie — of

good fiscal management. This budget comes closer than any other

in the past 23 years to making realistic projections about

provincial income and drawing the line on government spending

in relation to that realistic projection of income.

We've been criticized, Mr. Speaker, for presenting an

inflationary budget in a period when we should be holding the

line on expenditures, but this budget does hold the line, Mr.

Speaker, in spite of the criticism from some Members opposite

that we are increasing people's taxes: taxes on such things as

social services, income tax, hotel room taxes and taxes on

cigarettes and liquor. There has been no increase whatsoever in

the rate of taxation in those areas. Certainly revenues in

those areas of the economy have increased dramatically, but

those increases are a consequence either of growth in the

economy or of higher prices, not of a higher tax burden.

For example, the average gross weekly wage of a British

Columbian in 1971 was $152.50. In 1974 it increased to about

$200, an increase of about 33 per cent. Over the same period

the labour force has increased by approximately 150,000 people.

As the Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) well knows, if there is

more take-home pay to tax, then obviously, logically, there is

going to be more revenue to the province.

The nu