1973 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 1973

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 589 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

An Act to Amend the Social Assistance Act (Bill No. 33)

Hon. Mr. Levi. Introduction and first reading — 589

A Stimulation of Employment Act (Bill No. 94) Mr. Curtis. Introduction and

first reading — 589

Budget debate (continued)

Hon. Mr. Hall — 590

Mr. Chabot — 594

Ms. Brown — 600

Mr. Nunweiler — 606

Mr. Gorst — 614

Motions No. 19 (Hon. Mr. Hall) Recording of debates — 619

Mr. Smith — 620

Mr. McGeer — 620

Mr. Curtis — 620

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 620

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 620

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 621

Mr. Williams — 621

No. 20 (Hon. Mr. Stupich) Study of food cooperatives — 622

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 1973

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

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

Sound.

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

it is an annual event for the Women's Study Group from North

Vancouver to come to the assembly and to witness the

proceedings here. I would like, on behalf of the Member for

North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Brousson), to have the Members

welcome this group of ladies here today.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Saanich and the

Islands.

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

would ask the House to welcome students today from the Gulf

Islands, comprising the Capital Regional District, students

from Gulf Islands Secondary, grades 11 and 12.

The school is in Ganges but the House will realize that a

number of students travel from other islands to attend this

secondary school in Ganges. They are accompanied by teachers,

Mr. Harrison and Mr. Curmi. Also in the group, Mr. Speaker, is

a student from Hastings, New Zealand, who is attending the

school as an exchange student.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Mines and Petroleum

Resources.

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

we have in the galleries today three important representatives from the City

of Kimberley: Mayor Ogilvie, Alderman Banks and Alderman Reid, I hope the House

will welcome them.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point

Grey.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, in the

gallery or shortly to come into the gallery are a number of

students of Point Grey Secondary School in Vancouver. I'd like

all of the Members to join with me in a hearty welcome to

them.

Introduction of bills.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement.

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement): Mr.

Speaker, I have the honour to present a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE ACT

MR. SPEAKER: His Honour the Lieutenant Governor transmits

herewith a bill intituled

An Act to Amend the Social

Assistance Act and recommends the same to the Legislative

Assembly. Government House, February 16, 1973.

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

the bill accompanying the same be referred to the Committee of

the Whole House forthwith.

Motion approved.

House in committee on Bill No. 33; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

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

recommending the introduction of the bill.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Second Member for

Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether

the Minister would indicate whether this deals with

Mincome.

HON. MR. LEVI: No, it doesn't.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 33 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be

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

sitting of the House after today.

A STIMULATION OF EMPLOYMENT ACT

Mr. Curtis moves introduction and first reading of Bill No.

94 intituled A Stimulation of Employment Act .

Motion approved.

Bill No. 94 read a first time and ordered to be placed on

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

House after today.

Orders of the day.

[ Page 590 ]

ON THE BUDGET

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Surrey.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary and Minister of Travel Industry):

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The budget debate, now in its closing stages, has been

interesting so far at least in that over the last week-and-a-half two facts,

I think, have become self-evident.

The first is that the budget, in its size, in its

apportionment of dollars and the programmes it represents, has

made it somewhat difficult for the Opposition to attack it as a

budget. So they don't talk about it. They talk about, in fact,

what they would like to see in a budget, which I suppose is the

honoured role of an Opposition. They talk about what's not in

it.

It's interesting to note that as you go through the list — and now we have the benefit of these printouts each day — we

can check more closely than hitherto to see what they're saying

about it. I want to pay full credit to the two official

spokesmen of the two larger Opposition parties who dealt

entirely with the budget: the Member for Victoria (Mr.

Morrison) and the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr.

McGeer).

The Member for Oak Bay, (Mr. Wallace) however, had two

qualities to his speech. It was a little bit like the parson's

egg. I'm not sure which part he wrote and which part he didn't

write, but I'll leave it to the House to judge which one was

which.

Certainly the Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) again

excelled himself in his contribution by extolling the virtues

of the budget as far as expenditure was concerned. He praised

us. He said the new expenditure proposals were exciting,

stimulating and — I don't want to put too many words in that

Member's mouth. He appears to have a somewhat unlimited supply

of them himself. (Laughter).

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): Thank you, thank you.

HON. MR. HALL: But, however, when he came to revenue, he was

very disappointed, I'm not entirely certain from where one

should get the money for new programmes if you don't readjust

some of your revenue proposals and make it more fair and

equitable for everybody to take a piece of the action, to feel

the bite of it. He also conveniently forgot five increased tax

bills two years ago that his own group brought in and I

remember the Member for Cowichan-Malahat (Hon. Mr. Strachan),

the Minister of Highways, having a bit of a field day that day.

Maybe that was one of the speeches that you should have turned

up but you didn't and so you will have to wait for the

estimates, I suppose, to do that research.

The other Members have thrashed around — and that's fair

enough — telling us they would like to see a bit more money

here and a bit more money there. The interesting thing was

really on budget day itself when we noticed the House Leader of

the Opposition saying that it was a Social Credit budget. And

how are you going to vote on this one? You voted for 20 of them

I think, over the last few years. That should be interesting.

The member in the gallery, the leader of the Progressive

Conservative Party, called it a social workers budget — I think

he might have a few letters about that from the various groups

in the community. The leader of the Liberal Party called it a

good budget — so we will be watching that vote again with

interest.

The second point that I wish to raise, and this is not quite

so light-hearted. In the course of the last 10 days, I feel

that we should be really addressing ourselves to one feature

and that is the growing need for more responsibility in the

criticisms of the budget — I don't mind criticisms at all.

Frankly the prophets of gloom on the other side aren't doing

anybody any favours. I think it has been rather irresponsible

of some Members of the Opposition to be a prophet of despair

and I suggest you have a couple of days left to repent — to

make up your minds.

I am reminded that the Progressive Conservative Party has a

leader that is counseling that kind of gloom, that kind of

despair — telling people not to come here. The Member for South

Peace River (Mr. Phillips) — the same kind of activity and I

think that really shows a need for responsibility in

Opposition. The kind of responsibility, I will say quite

proudly, that used to be over there in the years that the

Member for Coquitlam (Hon. Mr. Barrett) and the Member for

Cowichan-Malahat (Hon. Mr. Strachan) were leading affairs over

there.

Mr. Speaker, the budget is a plan — the dictionary

definition would indicate this is so — is a plan, a

schedule of

adjusting expenses during a certain period to the estimated or

fixed income for that period. The budget is to "provide" — another meaning of the word. This motion, Mr. Speaker, that you

leave the chair for the House to go into committee of supply

was moved by the Minister of Finance who then presented us with

the details of the financial plan that this socialist

government has designed to realign the priorities inherited

from the old government to those that we wish to see operating

in the future.

I think that that should be noted by all Members of the

House. Because it's even more important, Mr. Speaker, than the

simple arithmetical facts of the budget, the cold analysis so

lengthily undertaken by the financial critic of the Liberal

Party, even more important than that is the simple

understanding of the real purpose, the real thrust that

represents the desire and the will of the Government.

[ Page 591 ]

This debate has gone on and cabinet Ministers have stood up,

and I particularly refer to the Minister of Education (Hon.

Mrs. Dailly) and the Minister of Health Services and Hospital

Insurance (Hon. Mr. Cocke) who eloquently spoke of that thrust

and that desire in their contributions to date. The Minister of

Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams) will be

doing so again tomorrow.

I think we should observe in the budget how some of these

plans can be noted by anybody looking at the document. The

first document was placed on everybody's desk and it was the 26

point, 1973 budget speech excerpt list. Mr. Speaker, that list

of proposals, of expenditures, would be sufficient reason alone

for us to applaud and to vote for this budget. The fact that

there is no increase in general provincial tax rates for people

of this province and yet we have seen a record — a "block

busting budget" was one headline of one newspaper. We don't

normally expect to get the kind of headlines on all budgets

that perhaps Ottawa does or previous administrations have

done.

The basic annual homeowner grant has been raised. That has

put something to rest. Surely to goodness that has been around

these chambers for long enough. It is the same increase to

homeowners over 65. Municipal per capita grants made

unconditional.

How many of us remember the speeches that used to go about

the ridiculous analysis that the Minister of Municipal Affairs,

the then Member for Comox used to go through when he used to

sit over here. How every year he used to say the municipalities

were misspending their money. None of that this time. How the

figures were always forced; how by some peculiar state of

affairs the municipalities reported that they always spent the

dollar in the right place at the right time. And you and I know

how ridiculous that kind of stricture was, and how we voted

against those strings.

The provision of nearly $65 million to keep up the Mincome

programme. The operating grant structure. The increased

expenditures for the educational system. The medicare payments

and the funds that have been set up. The provincial home

acquisition fund to be continued even though we are going into

whether or not it should be made applicable to more people.

Even though we want to know exactly what the full impact of

those large amounts of money have been on the mortgage market.

Then a list of the tax adjustments that are being made in terms

of utilized capital, petroleum royalties, a reduction of tax on

liquefied petroleum and gas — and the other remaining items of

the 26.

The revenue side of the picture, Mr. Speaker, an increase of over a quarter

of a billion dollars in this year. All without a single penny increase in general

provincial taxation. All still keeping the time honoured boast of the previous

administration — with the lowest personal income taxes, the same corporation

income taxes, other industrial promises, the lowest gas tax, the lowest diesel

tax and next to the lowest motor vehicle licence fee. How can you vote against

that?

I think we should see what others have said about the

budget. My own area, Surrey, is served by one of the large

daily newspapers in the province, T he

Columbian . See what the headline is in that — "The

budget basically sound, a little for everyone." What's fairer

than that? "As a demonstration of fiscal responsibility,

Finance Minister David Barrett's first full scale budget is a

masterpiece."

Mr. Speaker, the pages of the newspapers have been full of

conjecture. The industry spokesmen say they are split. Well

that's not unusual. Part of the trouble is they don't believe

what they really have heard with their own ears over the last

four or five months. So I suppose if you are schizophrenic in

your listening you would be schizophrenic in your observation

about what is going on.

But let's look at the other facts that have been outlined in

the speech. Over 1,000 jobs, if you add up those figures. Not

all of them, jobs that were promised in the throne speech by

any stretch of the imagination. The 1,000 promised in the

throne speech refer entirely to new programmes — but three

times the increase that we saw in the last budget speech, if

you care to do your homework. Three times the increase in

personnel relative to the starting point that we saw in the

last budget speech. Look at the four or five items that I would

like to go into with you in my own department, that of

Provincial Secretary.

We in the Provincial Secretary's department have a budget,

it's not one of the big spenders of the Government, if I may

jokingly refer to my good colleagues in health and education

and rehabilitation. But it does have some programmes which

eventually will grow as indeed is the time honoured history of

this portfolio, and will likely grow into full scale portfolios

as we have seen over the passage of time.

Not only must we be concerned with the health and security

of our people, we have to increase some of the other things,

the cultural side of things — with the arts and recreation, and

so on. One item alone, library development commission, which is

under my jurisdiction, is now moving into a province-wide

organization of public library services. Haven't heard a word

about that?

This includes a provincial resource centre upon which all

libraries will be able to draw — and a communications network

to enable them to do so. The increase in grants for libraries

in the province from $750,000 to $900,000 will enable the

commission to finance the next phase of its plan, Mr. Speaker, that particular vote has been starved

[ Page 592 ]

in previous years. The personnel has been increased

dramatically. And we will be able to provide a public library

service fully funded by the province for those residents who do

not have a local tax supported library service. I think that,

Mr. Speaker, in one small way is the beginning of something

that shows the thrust and desire behind these cold facts. I

think it was, to paraphrase the Member for Victoria or the

Member for Chilliwack, that's no "big deal" either. But then

putting people to work in this way as guiders, as leaders, as

beginners may not be a big deal in your language. But it's a

big deal in our language when you know where those programmes

lead to.

The need to supply adequate and comfortable housing for all

our senior citizens is recognized by the Government, And we

shall continue to provide financial aid towards the capital

cost of construction throughout the province. In the coming

year a record $4.5 million dollars is allocated for use in this

area — senior citizens housing projects in every part of the

province. Utilizing the local effort by local people to do

something for the senior citizens of this province and we match

it on the formula basis.

In the area of special care — $2 million dollars allotted to

the Provincial Government's cost sharing programme for special

care homes. Grants in the amount of 35 per cent of the total

construction are being made as each application comes

through.

Mr. Speaker, there again, while not in the 69 per cent of

the budget field, that's the kind of thing this Government is

committed to and again shows the fact this is an action budget

as well as a people's budget.

Let's take our own temporary home in Victoria where all of

us have to spend these days as we go through these legislative

sessions. "The Bengal Room is a good place to start,"

says the Member for Point Grey — the Second Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom).

Starting on that conducted tour, we will eventually find the

capital city and of course the Capital District Improvement

Commission. And we all know that this city, the seat of

Government — the capital city — should be occupying a special

place in our affairs and in out hearts, Victoria, as the

capital comes within this general description I'm sure. And the

Government gives expression to this concept through the work of

the C.I.D.C. Again, we've improved that particular

situation.

I should, I think, at this time pay tribute to the local elected members who

sit on that commission and the staff people who sit on the commission. And to

say that while we may have some arguments in the House, the Member for Saanich

and the Islands (Mr. Curtis) and I at least come to a meeting of the minds on

that particular district commission. In the course of its existence it's done

a lot. New ideas are coming forward all the time. I think that that again shows

the kind of sensitivity, the kind of responsiveness of this Government to get

on with that kind of job with even more vigor than that we've seen before.

Mr. Speaker, the Provincial Library is under your control

while we are in session, and when we depart it floats back

under my door as it were, as the Provincial Secretary. Those of

us who have been working here for six to seven years know that

the Provincial Library has not been the kind of library that we

really wanted it to be. Those of us who've been working here

for 20 years are convinced that it's not the library it should

be.

For some time this function has been under review with the

view to expanding not only its physical facilities, but

up-dating the quality of services offered to the Members of the

House, the departments of government, and the general public. I

think it's fair to say, Mr. Speaker, the current estimates

reflect the implementation of those new objectives and those

new thrusts of government.

Not only the expenditures in terms of the ability to go and

buy something; to get some books and to expand our facilities,

but to put some staff in there that can catch up with the work

that's been left undone, year after year after year. And I

should say, Mr. Speaker, ditto, for the Provincial

Archives.

It's one of the finest institutions of its kind in Canada,

not only in terms of the richness of its resources, of the

material in print relevant to B.C., of the manuscripts, the

paintings, the photographs. But in terms of the service, it's

falling behind on the job again. And first class people doing

first class pieces of work — asking for copies, for information

- requests are stacked up on the desks this high because we

haven't provided people to do the job.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I commend you to examine that particular

vote and to see that that kind of work is continued and

improved.

Mr. Speaker, the same with the last but one item I want to

deal with in my own department — which is the Superannuation

Commission.

Mr. Speaker, the Superannuation Commission has in its

charge, millions and millions of dollars worth of securities.

It's charged with the operation of the pension funds. And

again, we find that in that department the work load has

substantially without any corresponding increase in

appropriation. The obvious result of this inattention has been

a deterioration of the services provided to pensioners and

contributors to the various funds — which, Mr. Speaker, in my

opinion those contributors have had every right to expect.

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you that we've had four months

of intensive work in that department — the results of which I'm

hoping to be able to introduce and table before the House in a

not too distant future. But the degree of cooperation that all

Members have had — and I'm sure I'm speaking for most Members,

if not all Members, they have cer-

[ Page 593 ]

tainly expressed this desire to me. The appreciation of us

all goes to that particular department in the full and frank

and forthright way that department is handling enquiries for

MLA's and other people.

Mr. Speaker, the last subject in my department is that of

the civil service. The province, I think is fortunate to have

in its employ 30,000-odd people that are a credit to us. Like

any group of 30,000-odd people there will be excellence, and

there will be less than excellence.

One way in which we can improve the civil service is to make

sure that it keeps abreast of rapidly changing conditions and

technology. One thing we can be sure we can expect from a

growing civil service is to allow it to employ trained people

and to engage in forthright discussions with other

jurisdictions and with the ranks of organized labour. All of

these things have happened in the last four months.

Civil Service Commissioner — and here may I add in a

light-hearted way that due to some incredible argument between

the chairman of the Civil Service Commission and the Queen's

Printer, $8 appears to have been taken off Art Richardson's

salary. I think there's going to be a lot of argument later on

but Ken MacDonald assures me that the $8 can be penciled back

into your estimates.

I'm not too sure, Mr. Speaker, whether we're going to need a

very formal resolution of the House, but certainly there is no

intention at this time of reducing the chairman of the Civil

Service Commission's wages by $8. I nearly said it was a

typographical error. But if I say that, I know I have the

typographical union on my neck in the morning. If I say it's a

clerical error, I'll have the B.C.G.E.U. on my neck in the

morning. I think, because I outweigh Ken MacDonald — I'll call

it his fault and please pencil the $8 in.

Mr. Speaker, the Civil Service Commission will be asked of

course to be instrumental in, and part of the collective

bargaining process that this Government is committed to. The

study which we got from the five commissioners at Christmas

time is being actively pursued by the department. If it is at

all possible, legislation will be introduced this session.

A number of proposals have come in since the report was

tabled. I feel it only fair and proper that now the report has

had full investigation — we've had orders for this report from

all over the world — that we allow the affected people to have

a response to that report. But I can assure you, Mr. Speaker,

that the Government's intentions are to introduce collective

bargaining for the civil service as soon as we can.

We intend to keep the civil service in first place and to encourage our employees

to up-date their skills and to keep abreast of changes. And to that end, Mr.

Speaker, the Civil Service Commissioner and his assistants have been encouraged

— not denied — encouraged to communicate with other jurisdictions and to go and

visit other jurisdictions — to go and see other parts of the world to find out

how they can best be helpful in this continuing period of change as we give

our employees that to which every person has a right.

But look at the other facts that are outlined in the speech.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to point out, for instance, the kind of

change in atmosphere that is so obvious if one looks at the

Department of Labour, a subject that you all know I've spoken

about many, many times in this House. The simple increase in

industrial relations officers — I think in that particular vote

it was from 91 to 105 employees — shows the kind of desire that

that Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) has to get on with this

job, to show that we are determined to build a new climate.

We're determined to put a new emphasis and a new direction in

the labour matters of this province.

Mr. Speaker, that's no big dollar deal either. The wages of

20-odd people are no big dollar deal. But when you consider the

abject performance over 15 months of the previous Minister (Mr.

Chabot), you've all got to bang your desks in applause of that.

He brought a bill in here he couldn't even explain and took it

away a week after to try and reshuffle it.

Twenty-three recruits in that department, Mr. Speaker, in

apprenticeship in industrial training. If there's one thing

that we all know, it's the problems that are bedeviling the

young people in the work force today. Our unemployed figures

have a higher percentage of young people than ever before.

People remain unemployed longer than ever before. Mr. Speaker,

any assistance we can give — and that's one way, recruiting

people to the apprenticeship in industrial training branch — shows that there's a desire there for a new deal and a new day.

And so it is, Mr. Speaker, with department after

department.

The Ministers, as we go through estimates, will be outlining

in even greater detail those budgetary and personnel changes

that are represented in those cold figures.

Mr. Speaker, I want to echo the words again of the editorial

of the newspaper in my home community. The final paragraph in

that editorial in the Columbian of Saturday, February 10, says:

"And despite the absence of the pizzazz we've become accustomed

to over the past 20 years, we believe Mr. Barrett's budget to

be basically sound.

"Still, and he said as much on Friday, there's more to come before the

year is through. We should, perhaps, see the Premier's first attempt as the

first of several steps in the right direction" — that's what I said when I wound

up the throne speech debate the other Thursday — "rather than as one giant leap

forward. Perhaps, after all, that's the way it should be."

That's why this budget should be supported by both sides of

the House, Mr. Speaker. Because to vote against it is to vote

against the future and to vote for it is to vote for the

various proposals that we've

[ Page 594 ]

outlined — for education, for health care, for more money

for housing, for more money for the senior citizens, for the

building programmes that are contained in the various pieces of

legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say that we've been taking advantage

of the weekends and the evenings in a way which would recommend

itself to the Opposition — going out to find out what the people

in the community are saying. Mr. Speaker, I want to say this:

everybody I've spoken to says that they are optimistic, says

that they can detect in this budget a realistic approach to

this, the first stage in our term of office. People you talk to

tell you that they like the sound of the way we're doing

things. People you speak to tell you that they are confident

with the announcements that are coming from the Treasury

benches and that we are, indeed, on track and on line with the

various proposals that we're making.

So I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that there's just two days

left for the people on the other side of the House to really

get down to their homework and look at this budget

intelligently and to realize that to vote against it is not to

face the future, but is to just hang on to the past. That's a

posture that is getting awfully tedious, looking at you from

this side of the House. Thank you very much.

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

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Speaker, it is again a

pleasure for me to take my place in this historic debate to

speak on what is essentially the first socialist budget to ever

be presented in the Province of British Columbia.

We have just listened to the Provincial Secretary make his

remarks relative to the budget.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't forget the travel industry as

well.

MR. CHABOT: Well, he has spoken on it. I'll be fair. He has

spoken on travel industry. He said a few words.

But I thought for a moment that he was making a pitch for

the position of the Minister of Labour. Everyone knows in this

assembly, I'm sure, that he was the choice of the B.C.

Federation of Labour. The B.C. Federation of Labour apparently

are having some form of battle at this time with the present

Minister (Hon. Mr. King). I think he was hoping to catch the

attention of the Premier by making the suggestions he made this

afternoon.

I do want to say that it has been refreshing for me, who has

been in this House for a few years — not very long, when one

looks back …

AN HON. MEMBER: Too long. (Laughter).

MR. CHABOT: It's been refreshing listening to new ideas

coming from the backbench. It's given us an opportunity to have

new input, new ideas — not that I necessarily agree.

Yes, for the first time, Mr. Minister, because the speeches

from those former Opposition Members who are now Ministers were

stale indeed, very stale. Year after year we kept hearing the

same old song. So it's been refreshing. I'm going to

congratulate the backbench for their new ideas that they've

brought forward into this assembly.

I'm not going to say that I agree with what they said, but

nevertheless it's refreshing. They do from time to time make a

minor point which I might be able to agree with. But I've

detected something else from that backbench.

AN HON. MEMBER: What's that? What's that?

MR. CHABOT: I've detected something else. There is a very

apparent restraint in what they're saying. It's quite obvious.

You can see it in their speeches. There's restraint. They're on

their best behavior, Mr. Speaker, because they recognize that

there is a rainbow over the horizon and at the end of the

rainbow there are three or four little pots of gold.

(Laughter). They're most anxious to pick up those pots of

gold.

Three or four of you are going to be able to get those pots

of gold but not all of you. Some are going to be disappointed.

I hope you'll show your restraint on the question of

disappointment. At least you'll show your true expression of

opinions on matters of public importance in the future, after

we've gone through this business of allowing three or four more

to go into the cabinet.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): He went over the

rainbow. (Laughter).

MR. CHABOT: Now, the former leader of the Liberal Party (Mr.

McGeer), who has been thoroughly discredited by the Liberal

organization in this province…

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh! Oh! (Laughter).

MR. CHABOT: They've sent a man from Ottawa to replace him

because they knew that the Liberal party was going to end up

with exactly zero Members in this House. That's why they've

brought on from high. Where is he? Where is he? Where is your

illustrious leader?

AN HON. MEMBER: Where's yours? (Laughter).

MR. CHABOT: He's with yours. (Laughter). They've lost faith

in that leader there. Now he's a

[ Page 595 ]

quiet backbencher presenting the same old usual shadow

budget speech that he's presented over the years. That's the

only place he'll ever present a budget speech from — that

little five enclave over there.

AN HON. MEMBER: What a vicious attack.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, just a couple of days ago the

Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) had this to say

about the Members speaking in this House. He said:

"I'd like to talk briefly about the budget. Perhaps not too

briefly — I understand the Whip's having trouble getting

Members of the official Opposition to speak. So he has asked me

to speak for some time to sort of fill things in here. I don't

know why they don't speak, Mr. Speaker. The only thing I can

assume is that they don't have any time or that they don't have

anything to say."

I want to say that's the worst speech I've ever heard

delivered by that particular Member. It was strictly filler

material. That's all he had in that particular speech, I'll

tell you. It didn't deal with the anxieties of the Department

of Agriculture, I assure you. It was strictly filler

material, It's quite obvious to me that he hasn't been speaking to his

Whip as well, because we've never, never denied the Whip a

speaker on request and in fact we've always had our speakers

available to him far in advance. Every individual Member of the

official Opposition has taken his place in this assembly during

the throne debate and during the budget debate, as far as it

has gone, and we all intend to speak. We'll be heard.

But what do we hear from the treasury benches and from the

cabinet over here? What have we heard from the Minister of

Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley)? Absolutely nothing. He hasn't

spoken in the throne debate, and he hasn't expressed his

opinion in the budget debate.

What about that silent Minister who is not in his seat at

this time? We haven't heard from the Minister of Lands (Hon.

Mr. Williams). We haven't heard from the Minister of Forests

(Hon. Mr. Williams). We haven't heard from the Minister of

Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams). We haven't heard from the

Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Williams). We

haven't heard from the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr.

Hartley).

The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) hasn't

spoken in this debate. Unfortunately I lost my programme

because I had others listed. The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr.

King) has not spoken in this budget debate.

Then they say they're having difficulty finding speakers! No, Mr. Whip, if

you're having problems finding speakers, look over there, Look over there, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, I think you're straying quite a

way from the budget debate. You could go through 54 Members on

that line and ask what they were doing but it doesn't deal with

the budget.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHABOT: Oh, are you insinuating the Speaker can speak

now? He's always speaking.

MR. SPEAKER: I want to speak tight now. Would you get on

with the debate?

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): He's closer to the point than

usual, Mr. Speaker. (Laughter).

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I'm getting to the budget. This

session will long be remembered in British Columbia as the

"take over and squeeze out budget" of the socialist

government.

It will also be remembered as a budget that's brought about

punitive taxation against industry and the small businessman in

this province.

No, the people of this province will never forget this

budget. Those people that are looking for jobs will never

forget this budget as well.

I never forget that the now Premier, when he was in

Opposition not too long ago, said that it was a simplistic

formula that was used by the former government relative to

financing in British Columbia. "All you have to do," he

says, "is underestimate your revenue and overestimate your

expenditures. It's a very simple way of financing."

I want to assure you that he has adopted the underestimation

of revenue and overestimation of expenditures to a far greater

degree than it was ever done by the former government.

I want to say that this little group here will not sit idly

by while that large 38 Member steamroller Government tries to

destroy private enterprise in British Columbia, We will fight

at every turn in the road against that steamroller government

that is trying to squeeze out and penalize all industry in this

province. We won't sit idly by.

This budget that we're talking about, Mr. Speaker, is a

budget of slogans. It talks about the "new era." It talks about

the "just and open era." Where have I heard that before? I've

heard that from the national government. The just and open

society — they've just changed one word. What has happened to

that government? That will be the fate of this government as

well. They talk about just and open era. I'll talk about that a

little later.

"New deal for people." Where is the new deal for the

municipalities, when you've cut back on their

[ Page 596 ]

allowances? The amount of the percentage of the budget has

been cut back. Where is the new deal for municipalities that

was outlined by the Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) just

yesterday afternoon?

You talk about open government. The silent Minister of

Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley), who has left his chair again,

released answers to questions on a question asked on the order

paper by the Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser). 1) "Did the

provincial government purchase the property in Victoria at 606

Douglas Street?" — that was the question, a very simple,

straightforward question. 2) "If the answer to No. 1 is yes,

what was the purchase price?" Very simple.

Then he held a big Press conference to announce the purchase

of this particular property on December 15. Yet 60 days after

that Press conference, it's not possible for Members of this

assembly to get an answer on that question.

Perhaps he didn't reveal the price to the Press at that

time, but he did say that it was slightly under $1 million, and

that they were in the hotel business. Yet 60 days later, we ask

on the order paper, "Has the hotel been purchased, and if so,

for how much?" The answer comes back, and the answer is," 1)

yes, it has been purchased; 2) price not available at this

time, due to continuing property negotiations."

How can you purchase the thing in the first instance and

say, "Yes, it has been purchased," and say, "There is no

price "? There has to be a price. I don't understand that kind

of an answer.

Where is that philosophy of open government? Why are you

denying the Members of this assembly the right to know 60 days

after you made a formal announcement through a press conference

that you'd purchased the hotel? It's impossible for Members of

this assembly to secure the price. That's a poor example of

your philosophy of open government, I want to assure you.

Now, I talked last time on the question of land banks and

the obsession which the Government has to purchase land, almost

at any price. So I want to say that there's a possibility, I

have to suspect that there is a possibility, that that

Government might want to establish a Ministry of Housing. I

don't know whether this is the direction in which they want to

go. If it is, I want to give them some advice as to who they

should not put in charge of this particular Ministry.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Block Brothers.

MR. CHABOT: One is the Minister of Lands, Forests, Water

Resources, Recreation, Conservation (Hon. Mr. Williams) and

Condominiums. Don't make that silent Member the Minister,

because he is the man who knew all along where the gravy train

was.

He is the man who has stood in this House and said that the forest industry

are a bunch of robber barons and that they're ripping off the people of this

province, those robber barons. We give away our resources at one cent an acre

on tree farm licenses. No, he knows where the gravy train is.

He said this, "If there is one area justified to tax" — and

he was saying this in 1972, in this Legislature he was saying

this — "it is right where the gravy train is, in the increased

value in property." That's where he figures the gravy train

is.

Then he went on in his accusation on the floor of this

House. He said, "Fine, fine, go to it boys, feed in the growth

communities. Make a fast buck in housing." Little did we know

that when he was saying this, he was out peddling his $77,000

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, on a point of order, personal

attacks on the personal business of Members of the assembly are

unparliamentary and I refer you to May, if you doubt my

statement.

What a Member does outside of the assembly is generally his

own business. He is here representing his constituency and if

he's employed as a Government Member in this assembly, you can

attack his Ministry and the way he operates his Ministry. But

personal attacks are not acceptable in this chamber.

MR. CHABOT: It's not a personal attack. I've listened to

that little Opposition over here, that little Government over

there, and that big backbench over there, use the same type of

speeches that I'm using now. Absolutely. He says, "Fine, fine,

go to it boys." No, this Member had property, certainly, and he

peddled his property….

MR. SPEAKER: That is his own business, Hon. Member, just as

your property is your business, but to discuss it in this

chamber is not the reason you were sent here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.

MR. SPEAKER: You want the ruling? I'll give you the full

ruling on it from May.

MR. CHABOT: Now don't start arguing with me.

MR. SPEAKER: Will you accept my ruling? I'm not arguing with

you. I'm asking you, will you accept my ruling?

MR. CHABOT: No, we know where the robber barons are, Mr.

Speaker. We know where they are. Yes, we do. He's still

peddling property.

I'll tell you another Member of that Government over there

that shouldn't be made Minister of Housing; and that's the

Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich), because he's a real

estate promoter.

[ Page 597 ]

That's what he is, Mr. Speaker, a real estate promoter. I

listened in this assembly to that Minister on February 2 make this

statement:

"… and one of the most serious wastes in our community

has been the way in which we have wasted farmland. It is not

the first time the Members opposite have heard of this waste.

The Government is extremely concerned about this problem of

preserving farmland and about the farmer's right to enjoy

living on that farmland. The fact that the Premier has been

sitting here all evening I think is good evidence of that.

"When I wrote this document a year ago…

He was

delivering this on February 2, 1973.

"… I recalled my remarks of 1964. I started out by

saying that waste of renewable resource, such as trees, is

serious. Even more serious, however, is waste of non-renewable

resource. And when you plant houses and industry on farmland,

you have wasted a non-renewable resource."

This is his statement of 1964. In 1964 he said that "it's

tragic to put houses on farmland." Yet we find that he has put

houses on farmland in the Nanaimo area — just on the outskirts

of Nanaimo. He's a promoter of a real estate firm talking this

way in this assembly that he's concerned about farmland. He is

involved in the development of the Spencer Heights subdivision

just on the outskirts of Nanaimo.

He's issued a prospectus of A & B Homes Ltd., phase 2,

which indicates who the officers and directors of Spencer

Heights subdivision are. There's a president and director, a

director, secretary and a treasurer. It's all done under the

Real Estate Act , under sections 51 and

Section 52

says:

"Every prospectus to which

section 51 relates shall be a

statement in writing dated and signed by every person who is,

at the time of the filing of the prospectus, a promoter or a

director of a corporate promoter of the subdivided lands

referred to therein, and the prospectus shall contain a full

truth and plain disclosure relating to the real estate proposed

to be sold or leased, including the particulars set forth in

Schedule 1."

So he's not listed on the prospectus as a director. I have

to assume that he and his business partner are the promoters of

this particular real estate subdivision.

This is on the outskirts of Nanaimo. No doubt the reason why

the subdivision didn't take place inside the City of Nanaimo

was because they might have to adhere to some municipal bylaws

that would have made it necessary for the subdivision to

provide greater services than were necessary in this particular

subdivision, It's approximately one-half mile west of Nanaimo

city boundary in the Northfield Fire Protection District,

County of Nanaimo.

There are people on that subdivision. It's a subdivision of

33 homes. It's a $1 million promotion.

There are people that are complaining about the improper

drainage, and they're complaining also of the fact that they

have no recourse because of the wording of the prospectus.

The prospectus says that the land is not subject to flooding

and no arrangements for any drainage have been made except for

ditches along side roads, as required by the regulated areas.

They are complaining this very day that they have no recourse

for the devastation that has taken place on their land.

This was initially farmland, small holdings, 5 to 7-acre

farmlands put together to make a subdivision — Spencer Heights

subdivision. This isn't the only….

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Farmland?

MR. CHABOT: Yes, farmland, on which he said in 1964 he has

been concerned about the resource and the subdivision of

farmland.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHABOT: No, agricultural land. There are other

subdivisions he's been involved in as well, farmland

subdivisions, which he's turned into real estate promotions as

well. But I'm not going to speak about all those promotions

today.

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): A point of

privilege, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order?

MR. CHABOT: Have you cleared it with the Speaker yet?

MR. SPEAKER: Would you sit down while we deal with the

question of privilege. The Hon. Member wants to know if he

could interrupt you on a question of privilege and I said that

he could.

HON. MR. STUPICH: On the question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.

I've been named as a person involved in a subdivision in

Nanaimo. I have absolutely no personal interest in the company

that was doing that subdivision. My name appeared as a signing

officer of the corporation only. I own no shares in it, and I

never did at any time. As an auditor of the company, from the

point of view of convenience I am, and still am, a signing

officer of that corporation.

MR. CHABOT: I don't think that as a signing officer of the

corporation, A & B Homes, that you should lend your name to

a promotion of farmland that's been turned into a subdivision.

Under the Real Estate Act

section 52, as I read before

and I'll read again, it says: "Every prospectus to which

Section 51 relates shall be a statement in writing dated

and

[ Page 598 ]

signed by every person who is, at the time of the filing of

the prospectus, a promoter or a director of a corporate

promoter of the subdivided lands."

So you're either a promoter or a corporate promoter of

farmland. I'm shocked to hear the Minister of Agriculture lend

his support — I don't know whether it's financial support or

community standing or what it is — for the devastation of

farmland; and then to come in this House on February 2 and say

that he's extremely concerned about the preservation of

farmland, when he was a party to the desecration of farmland in

the Nanaimo area. It's most shocking.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's a smear.

MR. CHABOT: It's not a smear. It's the facts.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Point of privilege, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: On the point — yes.

HON. MR. STUPICH: The land in question to the best of my

knowledge — and I was born in the community 51 years ago — has

never been farmed.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHABOT: That's not a point of privilege. These were

small and …

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, on a point of order. When you

bring the personal affairs of a Member onto the floor of the

House it is a matter of privilege. He has the right at that

time to contradict you.

If you're going to discuss the private affairs of the

Members …

MR. CHABOT: I accept, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

MR. CHABOT: But I'll say this — that farmland and the old

Pova farm as well — which I didn't mention a little earlier — is land that would be frozen under this farm freeze.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right.

MR. CHABOT: Absolutely — five to seven-acre blocks of land

that were lumped together for subdivision purposes.

HON.

MR. STUPICH : That was classified for tax purposes as

farmland, and that land wasn't.

[ Page 599 ]

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHABOT: Oh., There's a difference now. These are small

farm holdings. Some of these are VLA land holdings too and sold

as farmland.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHABOT: No, Mr. Speaker, if the Premier over there,

who's shaking his head and smiling about the thing and thinking

it's not serious…I want to say about the Ministry of

Housing, if he's considering one, that there are two Members

that I have suggested that shouldn't take over those

portfolios.

On the question of land bank and the accumulation of land — and the obsession which the Government has to buy land at

almost any cost; in fact, at $82,000 an acre…I think that

it's necessary sometimes on certain issues, unless you're

politically opposed to the ideas that are put forward, such as

the land bank, to bring about constructive, alternative

proposals. That's what I hope to do this afternoon on the

question of land banks.

I know the prime objective really of the Government in

accumulating the land at almost any cost is to ensure that

low-cost housing will be available to people of lesser means.

I'm not opposed to that philosophy. But I am opposed to the

approach which the Government is taking on this most important

matter.

I would suggest that the Government take that $10 million

that's been allocated in the budget and invest it in B.C.

Railway, B.C. Hydro, or schools and hospitals. I'm sure they

could invest it at a return of about 7 per cent, which would

bring about $700,000 interest per year that they could help

needy families with.

If they were to use the interest alone from the $ 10 million

they could subsidize rents of $100 per month for 583 families

in British Columbia. Let's say that rents are an average of

$175 to $200 per month. You could effectively reduce the rents

for those people of low income down to a range of $75 to $100

per month.

Also it is going to take capital and I am sure the

Government has ideas on capital allotment for the construction

of these low-cost housing complexes.

I would suggest that they take that allocation — I have

heard the figure of $50 million so let us suppose that it is

$40 million — and put that in a perpetual fund as well. Fifty

million dollars in a perpetual fund at 7 per cent would bring

you $3.5 million a year. You could effectively subsidize rents

to the extent of $100 per month for 2,915 needy families in

British Columbia.

If you wanted the programme to be more flexible, because certainly there must

be people who wouldn't qualify for the full $100, you could make it on the basis

of need, basis of income; you could subsidize the rents from $25 up to $ 100.

Through a programme that is flexible and that meets the

needs of families — and this programme should be geared to

families and assistance to families on low-income — you could

effectively help 5,000 families in the Province of British

Columbia that basically need some help on housing.

The proposal I am making is one which would also allow for

the integration of low-income families with other families of

greater income or greater affluence. You would effectively, in

my opinion, remove the stigma of living in low-income ghettos

that leave children with a lifelong complex created by their

surroundings in early life.

It would not be necessary for low-income people to live in

slums any longer. I am sure if this suggestion is accepted it

could effectively mean the end of slums and ghettos. This

concept is one which I am sure that even with your socialist

philosophy you can accept as being a reasonable proposal, I see that the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) is

not in his chair. Oh, he is here, The Minister of Highways is

busy at the moment. I want to congratulate him for having a

change of heart on the firing of the Department of Highways'

employees in the middle of the winter.

But what bothers me is that the Minister should openly admit

that he made a mistake and reinstate these workers now. When

unemployment is 10 per cent in British Columbia as it is now,

these people have to eat and there are no jobs available.

Why wait till April 1? The Minister should swallow his pride

and make an announcement today that he will reinstate these

employees forthwith so that they can have some income too. You

have stated many times that you are concerned about jobs; show

your concern and show it now.

The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) has had a lot of

difficulties with his labour inquiry commission. As I stated a

couple of weeks ago, on January 1 he was supposed to release

the names of those people who would serve on the labour inquiry

commission and that went on and on and on. On February 6, it

was announced in the House that he would make the announcement

the following day. That never came about.

I suggested to him at that time that it would be difficult

indeed for him to resurrect the labour inquiry commission because of the statements made by his

friends in the B.C. Federation of Labour. But his friends who helped him and helped all these people

morally, financially and physically in the last election, have

come home to embarrass your Minister of Labour on his labour

inquiry commission. You closest friends have embarrassed your

government.

I am however gratified at least that he was able to salvage as much as he could

out of the labour inquiry commission by the appointment of three special advisors.

I am a little concerned about the fact that there is a lack of public participation

in the inquiry or the meetings that will be carried out by these three commissioners.

The Minister has said very vaguely that the public can mail

briefs. I don't know if he said to mail them to him or to the

three advisors. I want to know whether the Minister is going to

advertise to the public and let the public realize that their

points of view are going to be accepted by these commissioners

and their assessment of what the labour laws of British

Columbia should be.

We know that the Vancouver District Labour Council has

stated very publicly that they didn't want to hear from any

kooks on the changing of labour laws in British Columbia.

Unless the Minister makes a genuine effort to involve the

public in this review of the labour laws I have to come to the

conclusion that he subscribes to the statements made by the

Vancouver District Labour Council.

I think that he should make a genuine effort to involve the

public and unless he does I think he will have failed very

miserably in involving what I consider a most important segment

of our society and that is the general public.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I am going to turn to game management. I

am not going to speak on it too lengthily because there will be

another opportunity in this House.

We listened to the Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) who

suggested that we should close the hunting season on the female

species. This would have an adverse effect; it would discourage

many hunters from going hunting because, you know, most of them

are not all quite so proficient as you are at shooting the

bull. (Laughter).

MR. SPEAKER: I think that is just a bit vulgar and I

would…

MR. CHABOT: I don't consider it vulgar when talking about

bull moose.

MR. SPEAKER: I know you don't consider it vulgar.

MR. CHABOT: Oh no, never mind the facetious remarks, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Will the Member please be seated. Any

indication of an attack on the Speaker is disrespect for the

House. I ask the Member, politely, to withdraw a statement he

made. I am sure he didn't mean it in a vulgar sense and he will

clear that up with the House.

[ Page 600 ]

MR. CHABOT: It was not meant in a vulgar sense whatsoever,

the statement that I am making now …

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

MR. CHABOT: However, I hope that you didn't think it was

vulgar for suggesting that I wouldn't know the difference, We have heard suggestions from, for instance, the Member for

Vancouver South (Mr. Radford) that we go to permit hunting and

the fee be between $100 and $200 per hunter to hunt. He said it

this way: "…for a permit would be in the area of $100 or

$200 but hunters would be virtually guaranteed an animal. As I

just mentioned previously, the average cost to hunters in B.C.

is $290 a year, so actually they would be getting a better deal

out of this situation than they would in the way we run the

fish and game situation in B.C. today."

Really, many of their costs would still be there, so what in

effect you are suggesting…I'm not going to say you are

suggesting it but, in effect, the suggestion of this nature

would be to make hunting the exclusive right of those people

who can afford to hunt. As the Member for North Peace River

(Mr. Smith) says, "landed gentry".

I think we should make hunting available to all those people

who can hunt regardless of their financial means. I think that

if we do ever consider the matter of going to permit hunting,

it should be done only after public hearings have taken

place.

I know that it might come as a shock to many people but

there are many hunters who go into the bush and into the

outdoors without the express purpose of killing. I have been a

hunter for many many years and I go in the bush and I am always

hoping that I won't see any game because if I do see some game

and shoot a doe or a buck that would end my hunting season. So

I go out there mostly for the peace and solitude that I can get

in the outdoors and the enjoyment of the fresh air.

(Laughter).

Really I don't think that we should consider game management

as a money making proposition when it's a question of the

survival of game. We should be gearing our laws to the

protection of wildlife. And I want to congratulate the

Government in providing additional staff for the enforcement of

our game laws in British Columbia — the provision of more

biologists and more conservation officers. It's a good move in

the right direction.

I think what we really need, of course, is more intensive

management of the game and the habitat. The key to game

survival is management of habitat. This budget unfortunately

makes no provisions for this.

I think that most of the biologists in this province recognize which areas

are prime game habitat, and I think that there should be an extensive survey

carried out to set aside those areas that are prime to ensure that our game

will continue to survive.

I'm not going to dwell on this any more. I have certain

opinions on game management and what I think is required. As I

said a little earlier, I'll have another opportunity to speak,

and I will do so during the estimates.

Getting back to the budget now, Mr. Speaker, the cabinet

Ministers by their own admissions have indicated in this

assembly that the budget is shallow and devoid of substance.

They've confirmed on numerous occasions that what should be in

the budget is, in effect, in the legislation.

Your budget might, in my opinion make provisions for jobs — certainly it does. But whether it makes sufficient provisions

is another matter. I want to assure you that if the legislation

you have so far introduced in this House is any indication of

what is to follow then you'll destroy more jobs in British

Columbia than you'll create with the budget.

The people of British Columbia will find themselves as the

picture so amply shows it in the budget on page 21 — it shows a

dry creek. I want to assure you that if your legislation

continues the way it has, the people of British Columbia will

be up that dry creek without a paddle.

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): That's a dry

squeak.

MR. CHABOT: I'd hoped, Mr. Speaker, to be able to support

this budget. However, it fails to deal with the critical areas

of unemployment and inflation. It's an illusory budget and it's

a vacant budget. It will not contribute to the desired

well-being of people in the Province of British Columbia.

For this reason, Mr. Speaker, I will be voting against the

budget. Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for

Vancouver-Burrard.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I

rise to support this budget, Mr. Speaker. Before doing so I

would like to make a couple of statements in an aside.

I feel that we have witnessed today one of the most murky

attempts at character assassination in my living memory. I

don't feel that it's necessary for me, or for any Member of the

Government, really, to get up and speak in support of either

the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich), or the Minister

of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams)

because I feel that the assassin suffered more from his

attempts than did the victims.

I'm very new at this game, Mr. Speaker. This is the first

time I've ever served in a Government anywhere in the world in

my entire life, and in a lot of ways I

[ Page 601 ]

guess I'm very naive. But I came here under the impression

that we were not here to crucify each other, but to get on with

the people's business. So with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I

would like to get on with the people's business.

I rise to support the budget brought down by the Premier of

this Province, on February 9, 1973. As you may have heard, Mr.

Speaker, politicians are sometimes accused of making promises

and not keeping them. I know that prior to the election of

August 30 the NDP made many promises to the people of this

province. And now, I am pleased to see that in this budget and

through this budget we are taking steps to implement many of

these promises.

I would like to quote from our mini-programme, Mr. Speaker.

Everyone else does, and I'm certainly very proud of it, so I

think I will too. And this has to do with land reform:

"Land is a basic natural resource to be preserved. Not a commodity to

be bought and sold. An NDP Government will establish an aggressive land bank

programme around urban centres, financed by senior governments in conjunction

with a policy of leaseholds. It will also confine new urban areas to those lands

unsuited for economic, agriculture, recreation, and conservation. It will also

preserve and extend the greenbelts in the cities." Through the allotment of

the $ 10 million to set up a provincial land acquisition fund to purchase future

housing sites and through our farmland freeze policy, we are well on our way

to making good on these promises which were made to the voters of this province.

This Government has been attacked for entering the land bank

and farmland preservation fields. We have been attacked by the

developers, by the real estate brokers, and by the Opposition.

One realtor from Langley asks us in a page 5

article in the

Province on Friday, February 16:

"Why should humans be strung dripping on the rain-drenched

slopes of the North Shore, while saving the entire valley with

its gentle undulating topography for animals and rows of

vegetables which do not have a vote."

First of all, Mr. Speaker, I think that's a very unkind way

to refer to the North Shore. But then he goes on to tell us

that there are over 2,800 acres of farmland in Langley which

presently hold 3 farms. He tells us that if this land were

subdivided into quarter-acre lots it would give us 11,520 lots.

And if allowed each of these lots to be inhabited by an average

of four persons per lot, we would add 46,000 people to this

part of the province overnight.

May I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this is precisely the kind of growth which

this Government does not want to see happen. It was precisely that kind of thinking

which forced the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) to institute the

freeze on farmland immediately, and not wait for public debate.

I know that most people in Canada would love to live in

British Columbia. And I know that this Government knows that

the population of this province is increasing and will continue

to do so. Even more so now that the word has been passed around

that we have good Government here.

We also know, Mr. Speaker, that this increase, coupled with

the land freeze, is going to put an additional burden on the

housing facilities of our urban areas. We know of many young

couples who were able to purchase new homes in the Delta area

for as little as $1,300 down. I'm using this figure because

this is a sign which I pass on the way to Tsawwassen Ferry

every Monday morning, Mr. Speaker — it says "$1,300 down." We

also know that these young couples will no longer be able to do

so. We also know that it will not be possible for them to

purchase a home anywhere in the City of Vancouver for as little

as $1,300 down. So the dilemma of housing at a reasonable cost

is a reality.

Two things have happened in Vancouver since the freeze: 1)

Rents have gone up; 2) The cost of purchasing a home has gone

up. Now, if we want to come to grips with these two problems,

Mr. Speaker, it would seem that we have no choice but to go

into the housing business.

The provincial government must become actively involved in

the business of meeting the housing needs of the people in

urban areas. This of course is part of our policy. Again I

would like to quote from our mini-programme on housing reforms.

It states:

"Housing is a basic right, and must be provided on the basis of need rather than profit. An NDP government

will institute a major programme of socially owned housing

available to all, regardless of income, and serving a wide

variety of social and human needs, with the full participation

of the residents and neighbourhood concerned. We would also see

that this would involve the full participation of the

municipalities."

The policies of land freeze and housing have to interlock

and complement each other. For if we're going to freeze

farmlands, we're also going to have to explore ways of making

farming more viable and better able to support the farmer. If

we're going to bank our land and develop greenbelts, then we're

going to have to plan and develop our cities in ways to better

house the people who must live in them. If people must be hung

dripping from the rainy slopes of the North Shore, Mr. Speaker,

it must be at least at prices that they can afford.

There are other reasons, of course, why we must get into the

housing business. For one, as has been said before, land is a

non-renewable resource and we have to husband it. It has to be

preserved. We have to work towards a commitment of planning,

developing and leasing of land for the good of all people and

not

[ Page 602 ]

for just a few — no speculation, no rip-offs, neither by

people nor municipalities. Land belongs to all of us and is

here to benefit all of us. The Government has to take

responsibility for administering this resource. The private

sector has proven itself to be too irresponsible for this

priceless resource to be left in its hands.

Might I add, Mr. Speaker, that this is not a new idea. As

early as 1884 a Royal Commission on Housing in London, England,

recognized that the private sector could not adequately cope

with the housing needs of people and recommended at that time

that government should get into this field.

The Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Brousson),

Mr. Speaker, told us again yesterday of some of the grave

abuses by some members of the private sector in the mortgage

business. He called, and rightly so, for something to be done

to prevent these abuses in the future. He very kindly outlined

a four-point programme for ensuring that this was done.

Well, I thought about his four-point programme, Mr. Speaker,

and I think that it was a good one. However, I do not think

that it will have the effect that he is looking for. It is my

belief that the devious free enterprise mind of so many of the

entrepreneurs in the mortgage business out there, and the

devious free enterprise mind of so many of their lawyers, would

find ways around his recommendations. In four years or eight

years or 20 years from now, he would again be able to stand up

in this House and list the abuses of mortgage companies

perpetrated against the gullible or just plain desperate

public.

I came to this conclusion, Mr. Speaker, not because of the

abuses itemized by the Hon. Member that were perpetrated by the

charlatans and dishonest brokers in the mortgage business, but

because some of these same abuses are, by his own words, being

practised — albeit in a lesser degree — by the large,

respectable members of the mortgage community — the respectable

members who not only turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to the

practices of their more dishonorable members, but who indulge

in and participate in these immoral deals themselves.

These deals may be legal, Mr. Speaker. They may be

absolutely clean by the books, but they are immoral. This has

always been the area in which the free enterprise system has

failed — in its lack of corporate morality. So I think that

this Government has no alternative but to seriously consider

entering the mortgage field. I would like to add, Mr. Speaker,

that the mortgage field is just one area of the whole credit

field that is presently under scrutiny. But the whole area of

the credit field has to come under scrutiny.

Frank Mazko of the Vancouver Legal Aid Society stated in a broadcast on the

CBC this morning that next to divorce, debt and credit problems ranked second

among the problems that were being brought to the attention of the Legal Aid

Society. The purchase of a home is probably the largest single purchase that

a person will make in her lifetime. The establishment of credit is probably

one of the most vital steps that we will ever be called upon to make, even more

important than insuring our car. If the abuses of the car insurance industry

led us to participate in this field, then surely the credit area has more than

earned our attention.

So once again I would like to urge the Government to get

into the mortgage field. I would like to say to the Premier and

his Government, through you, Mr. Speaker, that this matter must

be given special attention and that research must begin with

all deliberate speed into the feasibility of such a

proposal.

The Opposition is always speaking, Mr. Speaker, about the

"heavy hand of socialism." I wonder how far they think a soft

and gentle hand would get in dealing with those vicious

vultures in the mortgage business. The hand of socialism has to

be as heavy or as light as it has to be. I for one hope that it

will be very heavy indeed when it locks horns with the mortgage

brokers and the credit brokers of this province. Their

practices must indeed have been very despicable, Mr. Speaker,

when even a free-enterpriser such as the Hon. Member for North

Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Brousson) was outraged by them. The

recommendations of the Hon. Member, although creditable, were

just band-aids and will not serve to give the consumers the

kind of protection that they must have.

Before leaving the matter of housing, Mr. Speaker, I would

like to say a few words about the landlord and tenant

situation. It is terrible. I am still getting complaints about

unconscionable raises in rent, about buildings changing hands

in land assembly deals, and about rents being raised twice in

six months, et cetera.

Vancouver-Burrard is in a state of transition at this time.

Many single homes are being demolished and are being replaced

by highrises, condominiums, et cetera — not just Burrard but

throughout the city. More people are becoming tenants, and they

need to have some changes made in the L andlord and Tenant

Act .

My feeling about this Act, Mr. Speaker, I know is shared by

many of the Members of this Government. Like most of the

Members of the backbench, I received a Christmas card from the

Hon. Member for Fort George (Mr. Nunweiler). When I opened it,

it turned out to be a copy of the Alberta Landlord and

Tenants Act . It said: "Merry Christmas. Read this before

the House opens." So this is something that is of major concern

to people living not only in the more urban areas but

everywhere throughout this province.

[ Page 603 ]

Before the election we made two promises to these people.

They were — and again I would like to quote from our

mini-programme — that we would recognize the rights of tenants'

associations to be certified as bargaining agents, and that we

would establish rental review boards composed of

representatives of tenants' associations and local governments

to act as mediators and arbitrators, if necessary, on complaint

from either tenants or landlords. I think it is time that we

got on with the business of keeping those promises.

In addition, I would like to ask that the rights of tenants

in housing be extended to cover the rights of tenants in

commercial premises. We had a very interesting experience in

Burrard recently, when a group of store owners decided that

Broadway between Blenheim and McDonald needed to be beautified.

The residents in that area mobilized against this move when

they realized that their homes were going to be demolished in

the interest of giving additional parking space to the

shopkeepers.

The really interesting fact that emerged was that 70 per

cent of the stores in that area were owned by one man. As a

matter of fact, he owned some of those city blocks outright,

and it was he who wanted to get this project through because of

the increased revenue that would accrue to him. I am referring

to Mr. Orr of Orr Stores, of course.

What he did at that point was to raise the rent quite

sharply in his stores. Many of the smaller businesses were

forced to move out. Then he appeared before city council and

quoted the number of vacancies in his building as reason for

wanting this project to go through. What this highlighted, of

course, was that tenants in commercial buildings have virtually

no rights. So I would like to see the landlord and tenant

legislation amended to include this sector of the

population.

One of the great concerns that I have as an NDP MLA from

Vancouver, the major urban centre in B.C., is the quality of

life available in our cities. It is a fact supported by the

Plunkett Report, which the former Social Credit government

abandoned, that our municipalities are being starved

financially.

You may recall, Mr. Speaker, that the Plunkett Report was

commissioned jointly by the former Minister of Municipal

Affairs, Mr. Dan Campbell, and the Union of B.C.

Municipalities. After the data gathering stage had been

completed, the Minister withdrew provincial support from the

analysis and recommendation stage and forced the UBCM to

continue the final stages of this report on their own

resources. The former Government withdrew its support when it

became obvious that the report would expose the Socreds for

maltreating the cities.

We cannot hope to deal with this problem in one session. But

we must be aware that the cities can only hope to have a

reasonable standard of amenities if they have financial

resources.

We are committed in the long run to removing the costs of

education, welfare and hospitals from property and to giving

the cities an increased share in the wealth of this

province.

There is no argument with this long-range policy. The

Vancouver NDP MLA's have, however, been concerned since the

budget speech about immediate assistance that can be offered to

the cities. We have been meeting to discuss this problem for

the past week-and-a-half and have concluded that it is our duty

to put forward a strong case on behalf of an increase in the

per capita grants to the municipalities.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MS. BROWN: A friend across the hall, Mr. Speaker.

We know that Vancouver presently gets the largest chunk of

the pie. We also know that Vancouver will be receiving

additional funds to cover additional transportation costs, et

cetera.

Nonetheless, Mr. Speaker, it is the opinion of the NDP MLA's

from Vancouver that municipalities should receive a per capita

increase of at least $6 rather than the $2 that has been

proposed in the budget.

In making this recommendation we are taking into account the

fact that the per capita grant should be viewed as an interim

means of transferring money from the provincial to the

municipal governments and that what is really called for is a

review of the taxation procedures in this province, especially

as they relate to development and municipal financing.

Obviously this type of review cannot be accomplished

overnight. It is also obvious that the federal government has

to become more generous in its sharing. In the final analysis

the financial problems of the city are not going to be solved

until the federal government gives them a share of the federal

taxes.

We also believe that it is incumbent upon the municipalities

to make their tax systems more equitable by shifting taxes from

residential to the business sector.

The president of the Vancouver area council of the NDP has

met with us and expressed his concern on this matter. We have

agreed to continue cooperating in putting forward the best

possible case for the City of Vancouver and all other

municipalities.

We have met with the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr.

Lorimer) and we are also arranging to meet with the Minister of

Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) in order to discuss an increase in

the per capita grants. To this extent, Mr. Speaker, we were

indeed pleased and happy to see that the mayor of Vancouver is

interested in meeting with us to discuss this matter. We look

forward to meeting with him whenever he is in Victoria.

I can assure him, however, through you, that the

[ Page 604 ]

Vancouver NDP MLA's and the Vancouver Area Council have the

affairs of Vancouver and the needs of Vancouver at heart and

our efforts in this regard will be ongoing.

Other Vancouver NDP MLA's will be speaking later in this

debate, Mr. Speaker, and giving more precise financial

information on the impact of taxes on Vancouver's

development.

At this point, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words

about services to children. First I would like to quote from

the annual report of the Department of Rehabilitation and

Social Improvement. The child welfare superintendent, Mr.

Belknap states:

"The children of British Columbia generally enjoy the privileges and benefits of our affluent state.

They are richly endowed when compared to many millions of

children in other parts of our world. The society which

encompasses them provides a setting which generally respects

their special place and is concerned and aware of what is

essential to their basic needs."

As an aside, Mr. Speaker, I

would like to say that I certainly am proud to identify myself

beautiful.

He goes on to state that:

"Our general reflect the needs of all people in our province

and that is what the department is attempting to provide. We have been told

further that the large allotment of funds to the social services in this province

is to be paid largely for programmes and services and not for buildings and

things."

We have to come to grips, Mr. Speaker, with the whole area of poverty and people.

Poverty is never so tragic as when it affects the lives of children.

Every time that I use the word "affluent" to describe this

province, or I heart the word "affluent" used to describe this

province, I feel that I have to add a rider to it. When we say

"affluent" we are referring to the resources. We are certainly

not referring to the people.

In point of fact, 60 per cent of the people in this province

earn less than $5,000 a year annually. In cold, unadjusted

figures, that adds up to 493,000 people.

85,000 children in this province under the age of 16 fit

into this category of people living below the poverty line. To

that we'll have to add 25,000 status and 30,000 non-status

Indian children.

I hope we'll think twice if we ever refer to this as an

affluent province again. Surely there can be no justification

for this province, as affluent as it calls itself, to

shortchange its children in this way.

Like the Hon. Member for Comox (Ms. Sanford), I would like to say that I too

am not impressed by surpluses being handed down in a budget if those surpluses

occur at the expense of the children of our province, or if indeed they occur

at the expense of services to any one of its people.

When I speak of services to children, Mr. Speaker, I speak

not only of children on welfare but of all children. In many

instances the suffering of the children of the working poor is

as harsh as that of the children on welfare.

I would like to put it to you that maybe we should start

thinking in terms of a guaranteed minimum income for children,

i.e., an income below which no family with children should be

allowed to fall.

I know that research is being done in other cities as to

the financial needs of children. I know that our own Minister

of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement (Hon. Mr. Levi) is

very interested in this area, as am 1. I would like to see this

area explored, possibly by the legislative committee on health

and welfare.

Of course, there is more to services to children than money.

What we need most of all at this point is a co-ordination of

services to all children, from infancy through high school.

In the olden days, Mr. Speaker, when we had Well Baby

Clinics — and when I say the "olden days," I am talking

about the days when I still used to have babies — before MSA.

It was possible through the Well Baby Clinics to some extent to

have this kind of coordination. It is my hope that the

community health clinics, when they become a reality, will fill

the gap that was left by the demise of those Well Baby

Clinics.

Health needs, recreational needs, educational needs,

cultural needs, financial needs — all needs — should be

co-ordinated. And again I repeat for all children and not just

for the children on welfare.

The child welfare report goes on to talk of the "battered"

child. The battered baby may be difficult to detect, Mr.

Speaker, but the battered child could be identified quite

easily in the schools if we had either social workers or

psychologists working in them. The early stages of emotional

problems as well as problems in the home could be detected and

treated before they were blown up to crisis proportions. In

today's system it is not until a child's behaviour becomes

flagrantly aberrant that the school will notify the Children's

Aid Society, and by then it is too late.

We are thinking in terms of prevention in health care. We

are thinking in terms of prevention in dental care. We must

think in terms of prevention in our children's mental health

needs.

We all know of young people who are using drugs, or who have

had a brush with the law for shoplifting or some other

antisocial act, who could have been stopped and turned around

if the danger signals had been detected in their early stages.

Our children deserve the very best that we have to offer them.

I hope that this Government will ensure that the days of

second-best education, second-best day care centres and

second-best services to our children are

[ Page 605 ]

over.

Our children are more important to us than our roads, our

natural resources, our industries or anything else. I am proud

that the largest chunk of this budget will be going to provide

services for them, because this demonstrates to me that this

Government endorses the children's charter of the Children's

Aid Society of Vancouver.

I'll read just the beginning of it for you, Mr. Speaker. It

says: "Each child must be assured that his basic needs for

food, shelter, education, clothing, medical and dental care be

met in a manner consistent with good mental and physical

health; that he be valued as a unique, responsible human being

and be nurtured and cherished by a family of his own; that is,

supported and preserved by community services…" and it

goes on to list them.

Children, Mr. Speaker, grow up to be young adults. It is

probably in the area of young adults that the problem of

unemployment is most acute. I am glad that this Government, in

looking into the whole field of creating employment for all

people, has not overlooked the area of retraining and educating

for today's job market. I am glad that the technical schools

and the vocational schools have been issued directives, and

that they're going to be addressing themselves precisely to the

job needs which now exist. The needs for more people in the

services which are crying out for employment, such as the ferry

service — the ferry service which on Friday nights never has

enough waitresses, and half the dining room has to be closed

down because of that.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MS. BROWN: More friends across the hall. I hope that the

Government is really going to address itself to these facts — and more and more — because as more and more of our young

people are entering the job market at a younger and younger

age, they are finding that most of them are just not able to

secure employment, One of the difficulties that was brought to my attention — and this has to do with the Minimum Wage Act which was

introduced in the last session — was provided by the difference

in salary scale for people below the age of 18 and those above.

It was brought to my attention that in some department stores — some large department stores in the City of Vancouver, for

example — many people, most of them women, were being laid off

when the minimum wage was introduced. They were being replaced

by teenagers who could have been paid at a lower rate. Certainly this is an area that we have to look into. We

cannot permit a situation to go on where the labour force is

divided against itself and where our young people are being

used to exploit the labour of older people. I hope that the

Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) is going to address himself

to this.

I would like to add that I am very pleased that there is a

cabinet committee which concerns itself with the overlapping

and co-ordinating of services to children. I'm glad that the

Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance (Hon. Mr.

Cocke), the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) and the

Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement (Hon. Mr.

Levi) are working closely together in this area. I would like

to suggest, however, that services to children go beyond this,

and I think the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich)

should be involved.

We still have in this province, as rich as it is, children

who are suffering from malnutrition. They are not suffering

from malnutrition through choice, but through necessity. The

cost of basic important foods such as milk and fresh fruit is

just too expensive for their parents to afford. We have to find

some way of getting foods into these children without

bankrupting their parents.

We recently had a visit from the fruitgrowers. They brought

with them large boxes of beautiful Okanagan apples. You and I

know that there are many children in our cities who cannot

afford these apples, even though they're grown right here.

I think that the Minister of Agriculture should be a part of

this committee to explore ways in which he can assure that our

children do get these basic nutritional needs in their diets,

such as fresh fruit and milk. In underdeveloped countries, I

realize that this is done very effectively simply by serving a

meal in the school at lunchtime. This is supposed to be a

developed country, and we do not do that sort of thing here.

But if we are too proud to do it this way, then we will have to

explore other ways to see that it is done. We cannot continue

to tolerate that in our society today there are children with

nutritional deficiencies, while apples and fresh fruit are

rotting.

I would also like to see involved in this coordinating

cabinet committee the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall), as

he is responsible for cultural development. Among the things in

cultural development, I would just like to touch on one thing.

That is the whole area of TV advertising zoomed at children. I

deplore this and I certainly hope that the Government is going

to, in the very near future, take steps to remove this type of

advertising from our TV.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that this

budget has been called many names, that this budget has even

had a benediction wreaked upon it by the Hon. Member for

Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder). So I would like to add my

assessment to all the others that have gone before, and to say

that it seems to me that the people's Government has handed

down a people's budget. I say "right on."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I recognize the Hon. Member for Fort George.

[ Page 606 ]

MR. A.A. NUNWEILER (Fort George): Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker. I just happen to have received a note, which is a

newspaper clipping from my hometown paper that does make an

observation on our open Government. It reads like this: "This

morning a Prince George Citizen reporter called the Attorney

General, Alex Macdonald's office in Victoria. Expecting the

usual Government runaround, he was a bit startled to have the

Attorney General answer the phone, usually answered by a

secretary on the first ring."

Well, they call it a "people's party" and indeed it is an

open Government. I think we should all try to work together to

keep it that way.

This is the first budget by the new Government, Mr. Speaker.

It's a real pleasure to be part of this new Government, with

its first budget. To me it appears as an all-people's budget,

like the former speaker has explained — an all-people's budget

for all British Columbia. I know, however, that some Members

from the official Opposition have called it a Social Credit

budget. I believe it was from the Social Credit Members, or

some of them. I have to presume that this means that they will

approve of it. Accordingly, I would invite them to vote in

favour of it.

The first budget of this new Government, to me, sets a stage

for the people of British Columbia. It is the beginning of a

long pull forward for this province. I read into it additional

allocations that will start to upgrade the services in the

interior and the northern areas that have been skimped on for

so long. I think this is the beginning.

Even with no increase in general provincial taxes for the

people, we still have many new allocations. I see the upgrading

of health services, with $54 million additional revenue

earmarked for public health, for mental health and for

hospitals and other services throughout our area.

In spite of complaints from one Member of the official

Opposition about the additional funds aimed towards health

care, I want to say that these additional funds will mean, in

my riding, a beginning to relieve the pressure from a hospital

operating at 125 per cent, a start on extended care units, the

beginning of chronic care service and an upgrading of public

health and mental health services. Our hospital has 11

psychiatric beds, when provincial standards there call for

Air ambulance services for our remote areas would bring

people much closer to the best facilities available. I

congratulate the Hon. Member for Atlin, the Minister without

Portfolio (Mr. Calder), for so well explaining the need for it.

Mr. Speaker, there is a long-standing need to bring adequate

health services to our region, a region which is so rapidly

growing. I know that our Hon. Minister of Health Services and

Hospital Insurance (Hon. Mr. Cocke) has a big job ahead of him

to do this job. I'm confident that he will do his best to

achieve it.

Mr. Speaker, I'm also very happy to see a community recreational facilities

fund set up to share financing of recreational projects for communities throughout

the province. Good recreational facilities become an asset and a pride and joy

of any community.

A recreational centre becomes the pillar of a community.

Without that pillar, we too often find another facility that

becomes the pillar of the community. That usually results in

the most costly social consequences of all. This is none other

than our oversized beer parlours.

The lack of recreational outlets so often result in over-use

of alcohol. Lack of recreation does not give opportunity for

physical and social development for young people and our old

people's needs and $10 million for this fund will be money well

spent, well invested. Although I doubt whether it will be

enough, it is a real good start, We realize that the liquor profits last year were about $85

million — so we will spend the $10 million for this project.

The other $75 million from our liquor profits can readily go

towards rehabilitation of alcohol problems.

I sincerely hope that the day is not far off when the child,

or a family, that cannot afford the expense for admission fees

to participate in recreation will in fact be able to

participate in recreational facilities. I think this fund will

be a step toward that direction.

I hope also that municipal boards and school boards will

work closer together in the future in planning their

community's recreational needs and services in a joint and

cooperative manner.

In addition to active recreation we must also preserve the

passive recreation. We don't always appreciate and consider

seriously enough the landscape which has always been at our

doorstep and which we tend to take for granted. I am referring

to the natural landscape of British Columbia — the abundance of

wilderness areas accessible to the public. We should underline

the fact that the landscape as it is today presents the

greatest resource that we have. But it may not always be here

if we do not safeguard and preserve its natural order. That is,

the natural order of the land. If we wait until we deface it,

it will never be restored. I am not talking here only of

wilderness reserves or park recreation but the careful

preservation of streams, rivers, and forest areas.

When we consider the land actually used for urbanization, it

is only something in the vicinity of 0.25 per cent in central

British Columbia and there remains tremendous uninhabited land

where a compatibility between extraction of resources and

nature must be maintained. We must employ good reforestation

practices. We must maintain green strips along streams and keep

the rivers and streams clean in order to keep the wilderness in

a good state of preservation for the next generation and so

that we have it for our own enjoyment and for the perpetuation

of the fish and the wildlife in their natural environment. If

large urban areas, and small urban areas for that matter,

[ Page 607 ]

their housekeeping and leave the other 99 per cent land area

in a natural healthy state, a balance of nature may yet be

worked out. On the subject of pollution control little mention

is being made of pollution that affects the olfactory sense.

The smell and the stench — thinking of our area mainly, the odour of pulp mills. No records of this can be kept by

mechanical means because no one has yet devised a machine that

records bad smells. On one occasion the usual bad smell of pulp

mills in our area became so pronounced that many residents

complained and subsequently a letter of complaint was sent to

the management of the industry by the city council. The reply

was that they were had no knowledge of any unusual

emission.

A greater stress must be put on devising some better method

for eliminating the air pollution problem. A well-planned town

with developed parks and pleasant surroundings tends to have

its beauty and its pleasantness so often defeated by air

pollutant odours. Research programmes to combat air pollution

should be escalated. Also the locating of industry should be

placed well away from populated areas.

Gasoline prices, Mr. Speaker, in the northern areas are from

10 to 20 per cent higher than they are in the lower mainland.

Yet the oil from the north is transported by pipeline to the

lower mainland. Prince George has an oil refinery and so has

the Peace River, yet gas prices in those areas are much higher

than they are here. People in those areas are heavily dependent

upon transportation and it is unjust and unfair to have this

disparity in gasoline prices, particularly when we have

refineries on our doorstep.

I feel, Mr. Speaker, that fuel should be looked at as a

public utility like city water, like your telephone, like your

power, your hydro, and your railway system. Mr. Speaker, I

propose that we set up a committee of this House to examine the

Morrow Commission on gasoline prices and investigate a way to

implement equal prices throughout the province.

Mr. Speaker, on the question of labour-management relations;

it is very important in our area for industrial stability. We

have a large sawmill industry that feeds its waste in chips

into five pulp mills in my riding. We have also a

transportation, construction, and service industry, and various

other smaller industries. Twenty years of labour confrontation

was enough for our area. Removal of the compulsory mediation

commission was a good beginning toward equitable negotiation

procedure. But, Mr. Speaker, we must expedite many more changes

to establish a truly amiable labour-management relations

atmosphere.

Both labour and management in my area have expressed hope

and faith in this new Government to come up with progressive

legislation that both sides can live with and avoid the

devastating and regrettable work stoppages of the past.

I would also urge in addition to all that that some unions with far-flung membership,

in our area, examine their job dispatching procedures. It is not a pleasant

feeling for a family when a husband is dispatched from his Prince George residence

to a job on Vancouver Island, when at the same time another member is dispatched

from his Vancouver residence to a job in Prince George, Mr. Speaker, our area

is a heavily travelled area. Being as it is a transportation centre, it is a

crossroads of the northern area with two major highways and two major railways.

Transportation problems with highways has been a burning issue with the previous

Social Credit government administration in our area for many years. Traffic

density has been escalating along with rapid population growth to the point

in many cases where the capacity is bursting at the seams.

School children mixed with logging trucks; heavy vehicle

traffic in either direction from the city; long hills with no

passing lanes exist, and have existed from the beginning of

time. There has been little or no change in dispersal of both

heavy vehicle and heavy industrial traffic from the original

main highway routes.

The population of the city in the area has literally tripled

in the past 8 to 10 years. Highway planning has seen little or

no change in many respects. I think planning by highways, by

school boards, municipalities and regional districts has been

in conflict with one another many, many times. Each doing their

own thing in isolation most of the time.

We have schools placed on major highway routes, schools with

500 to 1500 enrolment. Hazards have developed and have been

ignored resulting in many accidents and fatalities. City

councils have often found it impossible to know what highway

policy is. They have had a hard time to know what Highways will

approve and what they will not approve. They have had a hard

time to know what Highways' policy on planning is, or whether

Highways has even got a policy.

In the past, highways decisions so often seem to have been

made at the whim of an individual Minister or official from

Victoria who was planning in isolation. This has often resulted

in a municipality wasting many man hours in drafting and

planning procedures for long-term and short-term projects which

often had to be scrapped after long and tedious waiting for

highways to make up their mind and then coming back with a

decision that says, "No."

I can tell you when a municipal council gets an arrogant

letter from a Highways official with an arrogant flat "no" that

has no reasonable explanation behind it, it is enough to set

any city council into orbit. The highways department is neither

God nor Government. It is there to serve the people, to

communicate with the towns and cities, and with school boards

and regional districts, and help to fulfill the community

needs. That's what it should be there for.

There is no reason why the Department of

[ Page 608 ]

Highways officials cannot keep a close liaison with local

civic governments and participate in joint efforts so that

everyone can be tuned in on the same wavelength at all

times.

The highways, the municipality, the regional district, the

school board, all of them can get together and do this, and

thus permit the entire community to benefit.

I have had discussions, about problems experienced from the

previous administration, with the Hon. Minister of Highways

(Hon. Mr. Strachan). I am happy to say that we can expect

substantial improvements from his department to develop better

relationships with local communities.

Winter conditions are always a factor, not visible from down

here in Victoria. Quite often when one telephones the office in

Victoria one gets the feeling that the person that's answering

the phone at the other end of the line has a hard time

believing you when you're trying to tell him it's 10 or 20

degrees below zero and there are two or three feet of snow. At

the time, down here it could be 40 above. They just don't have

a very easy time to believe what you're trying to explain to

them. It is understandable, I suppose, to a point, human nature

being what it is. But it is certainly a problem.

One month ago we had 85 logging trucks parked on our

Department of Highways yard in Prince George protesting the

snow-clearing services. Of course, that was really not

surprising. This developed after many months of

frustration.

We should remember, first of all, that the logging in our

area is the life-blood of our economy. After investigating the

particular problem it turned out that, although the conditions

were bad, a large part of the problem was that snow-clearing

equipment was inadequate and had frequently been breaking down.

Consequently it was often in the back shops when it should have

been out clearing snow.

It was noted on further investigation that the B.C.

Department of Highways has approximately $50 million invested

in equipment in British Columbia. Less than 7 per cent a year

has been spent by the former Government during those years

replacing the equipment. Now, 7 per cent can hardly keep up

with the depreciation and inflation, let alone additional roads

every year. A survey on the equipment in our area works out

that the equipment is, on the average, 13 years old and some of

it is 25 years old. So it is no wonder that we had logging

trucks parked in front of the Department of Highways.

It should also be remembered that one accident can cost the

loss of a life and expense equal to the price of one good piece

of heavy equipment.

Mr. Speaker, there is a big job ahead for the Department of

Highways to catch up with this responsibility in our area and

many other areas throughout the interior and the north.

Mr. Speaker, speaking about the need for Department of Highways planning, which

should be in close liaison with municipalities, school boards, regional districts

and so on, I also want to reiterate further on resource planning, which must

go hand-in-hand with energy resources, transportation, railways, community and

regional needs. This requires a joint effort by all the agencies in a position

to serve, such as highways, hydro, provincial and federal governments — in order

to provide the amenities for primary and secondary industry and to benefit from

our resources, to create the jobs and the facilities for medical, educational

and community services.

Industrial people agree this is what is needed to provide a

climate for investment. We do not need the kind of investment

like the one I mentioned the other day — a corporation from the

U.S. who set up a subsidiary in British Columbia to take over

existing well-operated sawmills and plywood plants just to get

the timber quota, cream the operations, shut them down and walk

out. This is what happened in one case in my constituency,

leaving behind a community scarred with unemployment and all

kinds of social consequences.

In 1969 a Valemount resident by the name of William Osadchuk

sold Yellowhead Sawmills to Goldfield Lumber Enterprises of

Vancouver, which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Goldfield

Corporation of New York. Goldfield at the same time acquired

Canadian Plywood Corporation of New Westminster and also

Hedburg Veneer Ltd., of Valemount. These three forest companies

were operated by Goldfield for less than a year — until

approximately the end of February 1970.

During this period of time they logged approximately 11

million feet of logs, mostly Yellowhead. timber, the bulk of

which, at the end of February, 1970, was stockpiled at Cedar

Siding near Valemount in the mill sites of both Hedburg and

Yellowhead.

At this time there was an outstanding forestry account of

something in excess of $90,000 and numerous other accounts

incurred in the name of Yellowhead. During this time also,

early in March, 1970, while Yellowhead was still under the

control of the Goldfield people, they borrowed money against

the log inventory, which in actual fact belonged to Yellowhead,

in the amount of $246,000. They pledged the log inventory by

way of warehouse receipts and collateral promissory notes to a

firm called Jatel Holdings that was incorporated in the

meantime.

The money borrowed was used not to pay off the accounts of

Yellowhead, but was advanced to Canadian Plywood Corporation.

At this time, March 1970, Goldfield was in default with

Osadchuk and his mortgage. Not one mortgage payment had been

made to Osadchuk. Ultimately steps were taken by him to try to

repossess Yellowhead.

He was not able to accomplish this because of legal wrangles

until later in July of 1970. In the meantime, however, some of

the loggers had filed liens to collect

[ Page 609 ]

their accounts, and one of them, Robson Logging Ltd., had

placed Yellowhead in bankruptcy.

Robson was incorporated at the time that Goldfield bought

out Yellowhead. Osadchuk, who had still received no mortgage

payment, in order to avoid losing all his assets and security,

was forced to pay approximately $ 100,000 to pay off bills

owing, plus another $5,000 to get Robson to get them to agree

to lift the bankruptcy proceedings.

Yellowhead, when Osadchuk repossessed it, was stuck with an

agreement where it had to dispose of the inventory of logs to

Canadian Plywood to continue the original commitment. The

purpose of this was to effect funds to pay off the $246,000 to

Jatel Holdings and also to pay off other creditors.

Canadian Plywood commenced taking the logs and it soon

became evident to Osadchuk that they were creaming the log

inventory and were leaving the logs that were of inferior

quality. Furthermore, it was ascertained at this time that they

were not scaling the logs in accordance with the cubic

measurement.

The result was that Canadian Plywood was not paying for all

the logs they were taking, Spot checks were taken on a sum of

cars shipped by Canadian Plywood and they revealed that

Canadian Plywood were only paying for about two-thirds of the

logs they were taking out.

At this time Goldfield still had control of Yellowhead,

since Osadchuk was not able to finalize his legal procedures.

As soon as he got control of Yellowhead he was able to

supervise it in the usual manner, which was not until July

The log sale to Canadian Plywood was immediately terminated.

But he still had Jatel Holdings on his back, because the major

part of the logs that were supposedly being sold to Canadian

Plywood had somehow disappeared.

Ultimately Osadchuk mortgaged the mill to get the Jatel debt

off his back, and in order to save the operation and the timber

license, which was finalized only about two months ago.

Goldfield created the same situation with Hedburg Brothers

of Valemount, who also had to repossess their mill, Hedburg

Veneer Ltd. the same time as Osadchuk.

Both repossessions took place on the same day which was in July, 1970. Goldfield

Corporation of New York had been de-listed from the American stock exchange.

Goldfield Lumber Enterprises Limited was incorporated in British Columbia in

June, 1969, and changed its name to Goldfield Pacific Resources in November,

1969. The vice-president and director of Goldfield Pacific was Burton Lindberner

Sr. of Vancouver. The New York directors were J.M. Wigley, H. Becker Fluegel

and G. Warnock. These four were also directors of Yellowhead, Canadian Plywood

and Heglburg Veneer. During the period that Goldfield operated these three forest

companies, the director of Robson Logging was Burton Lindberner Junior.

Mr. Speaker, it is these kind of investors exploiting the

people of British Columbia that we can do well without. It was

the forest policy of our former government that permitted this

form of exploitation of people and permitted trafficking with

the public's timber resource from one area to another at the

expense of individuals and local communities.

Mr. Speaker, I urge that these cases be investigated to

determine wrongdoings, be they fraud, conspiracy or whatever

other wrongdoing there may have been.

Mr. Speaker, the British Columbia Railway is another

transportation system in our area and it is a large network

that plays a very important role to the north, relative to

resource planning that so many resource-oriented communities

are dependent upon. The British Columbia Railway is the third

largest railway in Canada. It is the largest railway operating

in British Columbia. It has approximately 1,300 miles of

railway line — 460 miles of it between Vancouver and Prince

George and the balance of about 840 miles beyond Prince

George.

This is a very exciting and important transportation system

to which the north has oriented itself and upon which it is

heavily dependent. The success of this railway is vital to the

success of northern and interior development for people, for

communities, for resource allocation and for industrial

planning.

The quality of this railway, however, leaves a great deal to

be desired. It has many indications of extravagance, waste and

management problems of low morale among employees which this

government has inherited from the former Social Credit

administration. I would like to think that the — staff

employees and management — are working as a team, but it is a

long way from that.

The object has to be to bring this railway, particularly in

the north, up to standard in order to give the service the

public and industry deserve. This includes the roadbed itself,

its operation and the morale of employees. During the past

several years the condition of the roadbed has resulted in

countless derailments and wrecks. Sometimes two to three wrecks

a day were reported in the media which resulted in damage to

hundreds of pieces of railway equipment, railway cars,

locomotives. There were damaged freight claims, injuries and

fatalities, running into millions of dollars of expense to the

people of British Columbia.

Some time ago I asked questions for information on

derailments and wrecks north of Prince George for last year,

and it is significant that it is taking so long for the

management to provide the information. This is an indication of

a large number of accidents that have to be documented.

Prince George is in the middle of the British Columbia

railway system where accidents are regularly reported in the

media whenever they occur.

[ Page 610 ]

I have also received complaints from the media in my area

and in the Peace River area who claim they often have

difficulty in getting news and information on accidents from

the management. As an example, one day a derailment occurred in

Prince George adjacent to the highway, fully exposed to public

view. The next day the media phoned the Prince George railway

management about the derailment and were told that they knew

nothing about it. If they wanted to find out anything they

would have to phone Vancouver. Certainly a very strange and

peculiar way to treat the local media. I have received the same

complaint from the Fort St. John media on a recent incident

involving the Blueberry bridge accident.

I have noted that there has been considerable overextension

of payments on some major British Columbia Railway contracts in

the Fort Nelson extension. According to the prospectus of Keen

Industries Limited, one contract issued on September 20, 1969,

was for $1,808,000 for the Beeton River-Niteal Creek portion.

Payment received was $3,422,000.

Another contract issued on September 29, 1967, was for

$4,101,000 for the Niteal to Fort Nelson portion. Payment

received was $7,722,000. Total contract tenders work out to

$5,909,000; total received, $11,145,000. Which works out to

payment of $5,236,000 over and above the contract tendered.

Mr. Speaker, in spite of almost double the tendered cost

paid out in the Fort Nelson subdivision, the railway is still

paying dearly in costly derailments and wrecks from

inadequately constructed roadbeds. I urge a complete review of

these contracts and the calibre of engineering work and to find

out why the contractor was paid almost double the tender amount

and why the costly consequences exist today.

This railway is also not without its other problems. There

is, as I mentioned, low morale among employees. Good morale is

an asset in any industry. Low morale is a costly liability. The

morale of employees is a reflection of management and

leadership. It is always a pleasure to work for a reasonable

boss but it is a disaster to work for an unreasonable and

inhumane boss.

I have received many complaints from many people and from

the newspaper, some that were very valid and some that were not

valid, that indicate the low morale among employees that exists

today on this government-owned railway which we have inherited

from the Social Credit administration.

Speaking of safety, a man was killed when hit by a train while driving a track-motor

car. He was blamed for his own death for not properly interpreting the track

lineup which is issued by the train dispatcher. It turned out that he could

had instructed him to operate a motor car and risk his own life and other people's

lives. It is an indication that training programmes for people in responsible

positions are either ineffective or do not exist.

Another example on safety involves blue flags. The intent of

the rule is to protect workers working on inspection and

maintenance of railway cars while switching in the yards. So

that nobody gets run over while he is working underneath a car.

The procedure is for a blue flag to be placed at each end of

the car by the employee who is to work on these cars. When he

is finished working on them, he alone is permitted to remove

this blue flag. I personally have seen a man killed — cut in

half — many years ago. Someone else lifted the blue flag, a

switch engine came along and moved the car while the man was

working under it.

In this system here, the guy that is working under the car

or doing the inspection of the cars, is told that it is O.K.,

he doesn't have to worry about the blue flag, the switch engine

can take it down. If a train starts to move he just steps aside

or if he moves to the other end of the yard he just rides it

down and then carries on with his operation again. I suggest,

Mr. Speaker, that enforcement of safety on the British Columbia

Railway system is most inadequate.

Another example involves a fellow who happened to get fired.

He's got three small children. The reason he got fired is that

he was unable to come to work one day when his wife had to go

to the hospital for emergency treatment and he could not leave

the children. He was told that he did not have his full

six-month probation in and they don't have to consider him as a

regular employee. They don't need to give reason for firing

someone who is on probation.

He was a very experienced and capable man in his trade. The

other railway subsequently wanted to hire him. Because of red

tape they were not permitted to do so. It turned out that

because he was labeled as having been fired for leave without

proper authority, he was not able to get a job on another

railway system. Indeed, a ruthless and unjust act such as I

have never seen practised in any other company in my over 20

years of railroading.

Another case reported involved a locomotive engineer, with

15 years' railway experience as a locomotive engineer, who had

gone on a Canadian government overseas mission on the CUSO plan

to Africa on a mechanical assignment. On his return he received

a certificate of excellence on his overseas work in mechanical

services. After he completed his overseas work, he resumed in

his trade as locomotive engineer on the British Columbia

Railway. He subsequently got fired by a junior official, after

writing a letter to senior management explaining the severe bad

track condition on the Fort Nelson subdivision and making

suggestions for improvements. His suggestions to junior

management had been ignored.

[ Page 611 ]

He was told that the reason for firing was that he did not

have six months' probation in and that they did not need to

give reason to fire a man on probation.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Pretty near as bad as

the Department of Highways.

MR. NUNWEILER: Senior management later would not agree to

change or reverse the decision of the junior official. Mr.

Speaker, this man today is also labeled by red tape, which will

not let him get another job on his trade on another railway,

even though the officials would like to hire him. It seems that

the bureaucracy is more important than people. I know one other

employee, a labourer