1976 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 31st 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)

MONDAY, APRIL 12, 1976

Morning Sitting

[ Page

825 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Budget debate (continued)

Hon. Mr. Williams — 825

Mr. Kerster — 829

Mr. Barber — 831

MONDAY, APRIL 12, 1976

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

Orders of the day .

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, it is

with great pleasure that I rise to take my place in this debate. It's

the first opportunity I have had to engage in discussions in this House

formally, Mr. Speaker. I would like to extend to you my congratulations

on your election to the difficult and challenging position which you

hold. I think that experiences to date will clearly indicate the wisdom

of this House in selecting you for the post of Speaker, and I extend

the same congratulations and accord the same respect to the Deputy

Speaker (Mr. Schroeder).

This has been an interesting debate so far. I find myself indebted

to the members of the press for the attention that they have paid to

budgetary matters and to the affairs of the province. The reason that I

am particularly indebted to them is that I find that if one reads the

papers very carefully, one can know one or two days in advance

precisely what the members of the opposition are going to say when they

rise in their place in the debate. I think that the debate of the NDP

has been distinctly improved since the press has become their speech

writers. (Laughter.)

The obvious position being taken by the NDP is that somehow or other

the fiscal actions which have had to be taken by this government as a

result of the dereliction of duty on the part of the former

administration were an attempt to chastise the people of this province

for having dared to vote for the NDP in 1972. Mr. Speaker, I wish to

assure you that this is not the case. This government is not in any way

attempting to chastise the people of this province but rather to give

them the opportunity to return to a control of their own destiny, which

they were in danger of losing during the three years that the NDP were

in government. I think it is also appropriate to recognize that this

suggestion that somehow or other the public is being chastised by this

government is only another attempt to cloak the actions of the NDP and

to hide from the public the responsibility which is theirs for the

fiscal position in which this province finds itself today.

I think it is of particular significance, as we engage in this debate, to consider

the other debates that have gone on in tandem with the budget debate: the question

as to whether this House would give the government the borrowing authority which

it must have in order to overcome the difficulties created by the former government,

and, in company with that, the clear indication from the official opposition

that somehow or other the people of British Columbia should turn to techniques

of deficit financing which have been foreign to this province for decades.

These are matters that should not go unnoticed, in particular

because of the recent statements of other socialist Premiers and

leaders of government. I was fortunate enough to obtain a copy of the

remarks which were made by Prime Minister Callaghan of Great Britain

upon becoming Prime Minister of that country. We all recognize the

serious problems which that great country faces and has faced over the

past years. I think it is interesting, and I commend to the official

opposition the very careful reading of Mr. Callaghan's full address.

But I would refer these specific remarks, Mr. Speaker, to you. Mr.

Callaghan said, in a television broadcast to the people of Great

Britain: "I therefore emphasize at the outset that the new government's

aim will be to drive on with the vital job of bringing down the rate of

inflation. I emphasize to you that if we fail to bring down inflation

we shall never succeed in overcoming unemployment."

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Did he mention the cut in sales tax?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, Mr. Member, for North

Vancouver–Capilano, he did not mention the cut in sales tax. But he did

go on to say something which should be of particular significance to

the member for North Vancouver–Capilano, in view of his concern about

the resource industries in this province. I quote again: "We cannot

have a prosperous industry in this country if we are unable to sell our

goods overseas. No one owes Britain a living." And I say to you, Mr.

Speaker, that we can substitute "British Columbia" for "Britain" in

that sentence. No one owes British Columbia a living either, and the

sooner we recognize it and the sooner that we in the province are

prepared to live within our means and support the industries which make

it possible for this province to prosper, the sooner we will achieve

some equity for all people in this province.

Mr. Callaghan goes on to say: "Let me say to you, quite bluntly,

that despite the measures of the last 12 months we are still not

earning the standard of life we are enjoying." Mr. Speaker, that is

exactly the problem which we face in British Columbia today because of

the activities of the government over the previous three years. We are

not earning the standard of living which we are today enjoying, and the

people of British Columbia, with this budget, will recognize that this

government will return to the standards of service of government to the

people which we earn in this province, because it has been said by

members on

[ Page 826 ]

this side and said by the Premier of this province

during the recent campaign that government has no moneys of its own.

Government can only spend that which the taxpayer is prepared to give.

The standard of living which is ours is therefore the standard of

living which we in this province can earn.

Mr. Callaghan went on to say, and I commend this specifically to the official

opposition: "We are only keeping up our standards by borrowing, and this

cannot go on indefinitely."

Mr. Speaker, what we have seen in British Columbia in its fiscal

management over the past three years is a use, indeed an abuse, of the

treasury of this province, putting us in the position that for the

first time in over two decades this province must borrow in order to

meet its current-account responsibilities.

As Mr. Callaghan said: "This cannot go on indefinitely for Great

Britain." Mr. Speaker, it cannot go on at all for British Columbia.

Mr. Callaghan continued, and I say this to the official opposition: "There

is no soft option. I don't promise you any real easement for some time to

come. There can be no lasting improvement in your living standards until we

can achieve it without going deeper and deeper into debt as a nation."

That's the message which Mr. Callaghan gave to the people of Great

Britain upon succeeding Prime Minister Harold Wilson at the head of

that nation. And we can learn from what Mr. Callaghan said. There can

be no relief. There can be no achievement if it is our intention to go

deeper and deeper into debt in order to provide the services which are

the responsibility of government to provide.

I think it must be clear to all who have listened to the debates

from the official opposition, recognizing that somehow or other they

attend to the Galbraithian model so far as government economics is

concerned — a model which would deny the function of the marketplace

and which would inevitably deny the marketplace altogether, a model

which ignores the responsibility and the role of government itself in

matters of economics and the control of inflation.

Mr. Speaker, the obvious result of following the Galbraithian model

is to bring the people of the province into greater and greater control

of government, to increase their expectations from government in the

way of service. Then, by destroying the marketplace, increase the

dependency of those people on government for those services, until

finally all of the control of all of the things which we must

accomplish in this province are in the hands of government. Surely the

official opposition will recognize that the end result of such an

attempt must be to destroy the democratic part of what they call social

democracy — when all matters eventually come into the control of

government.

Mr. Speaker, in supporting this budget, I say to the members of this House,

to my constituents and the people of British Columbia: this government does

not accept the Galbraithian model. We believe that the marketplace has its place.

We believe that the rights of the individual to achieve his or her own destiny

is a responsibility of government. Government is here to serve the individual,

not to be its master.

In the budget presented by the Hon. Minister of Finance, through the

restraints which were therein included and the demands — yes, the

increasing demands placed upon the citizens by government in order to

meet the obligations of the budget — we wish to make it certain to the

people of British Columbia that this move is taken because it is not a

soft option, but it is the one option that must be taken if we are to

return to them the right to achieve their own destiny.

It must be clear to the members, as they look at the budget and at

the estimate books which I made available to them, that in the major

spending departments of government — Human Resources, Education and

Health — the moneys which are made available to those departments are

not within the control of government but within the control of agencies

outside of government but which are responsible to government. The

control which we exercise over those major expenditures is indeed

limited and can only be brought into order if government places

restraints and controls on the direction those other agencies must take.

All people, all public employers, all those in the public sector

must pay attention to the fact that if we do not bring about control in

the public sector the ability of government to manage its affairs and

to provide services to the people is thereby diminished. Mr. Speaker,

it is the intention, it is the commitment of this government to ensure

that that does not occur.

Success will be achieved not this year, perhaps not next, but

success will be achieved. Under these budgetary approaches with

responsible attention to the financial affairs of this province, we

will succeed in two things. One, we will return to the people that

which is theirs, and we will provide them with a government capable,

within the resources of this province, of making available those

services upon which government is — entitled to be called to provide.

We have major responsibilities, growing responsibilities. We face

obligations today which are not the making of this government. One may

question, when we talk about restraints, when we talk about the

responsibility of government, when we talk about its role in the

inflationary process, why we are faced today with a budget that is

greater than last year. It has increased, and if you look at the

breakdown department by department you will see where those increases

are being applied.

But, Mr. Speaker, I assure you that when we came to government we found that commitments had been

[ Page 827 ]

made by the former administration which we had to

solve, commitments that we could not change. I can assure you that it

is with some regret that the members of the government find each day

new commitments not easily recognized in the course of one's

examination, department by department. Those are commitments that were

made by the previous government apparently in the belief that there was

no end to the fund of money which the taxpayers of this province had

made and could in the future make available to government to spend.

Theirs was a spendthrift government, Mr. Speaker, ours will be a

thrift-save government, one which will permit us to do a job but which

will leave in the hands of the individual the maximum amount of what he

or she earns, so that they can enjoy the standard of living which they

wish to make for themselves.

It's a great budget, because it will restore a balance, an

equilibrium which has been lost in this province in the past three

years. I am happy to say that I support the motion which we are today

considering.

Mr. Speaker, I commend to the members the brief, but telling,

comments on page 24 of the budget address dealing with the increases of

the budget in the Department of Labour and the reason why those

additional expenditures are being made this year. I will have more to

say about that specific matter and the responsibilities which are cast

upon me with the Labour portfolio in other debates of this House during

the course of the estimates.

I would like to address myself for a few moments, Mr. Speaker, to

that other obligation which this government has and which the hon.

Premier was kind enough to place in my hands, and that is the

resolution of those matters which affect the native Indian citizens of

this province.

I think that there is a growing awareness in British Columbia if

not, indeed, in all of Canada, that the several governments over the

years have failed to give the attention to those problems which the

native people are entitled to have, and which the problems themselves

dictate.

In the province of British Columbia, as I study the course of

history since this province joined Confederation, indeed before that

time, there has been an obvious reluctance, if not in some case a

complete refusal, on the part of British Columbia to address itself to

its responsibilities to our Indian citizens — and they are citizens of

this province; make no doubt about that. They are entitled to all the

benefits that citizenship in British Columbia extends to us.

It is the stated position of this government that it will address

itself to those problems and take every measure appropriate to the

times to bring about the earliest resolution of those difficulties and

to bring the Indians in our province into equal, full status in this

province.

The problems of the native people are vast and diverse. They seem to

fall into three main areas at the moment. One is the so-called land

claims problems. It is easy to say "the land claims problem," but I

assure you, Mr. Speaker, that it is difficult to define precisely what

is meant by the land claims problems. There has been no attempt on the

part of anyone in government to understand the nature of such claims

and the details which go into a land claim and therefore the matter in

which they might be resolved.

On January 12, as has been reported before, this government met with

the national government in New Aiyansh to sit with the Nishgas, and to

start on that long, difficult road which must be travelled if the

claims presented by the Nishgas are to reach resolution. Those meetings

continue and they will continue, with this government at the table with

the national government and the Nishgas, and playing its full role on

behalf of those Indian citizens of the province.

Hopefully, from those discussions, exploratory as they may be at

this stage, we will achieve the formula by which similar claims can be

addressed by the other native bands in this province. Because while

there have been attempts in other jurisdictions, with some more or less

success, to resolve the land claims problem — in Alaska and Quebec and

ongoing in some other provinces of Canada — it is not possible to take

what Alaska did and to transplant it to British Columbia. It is not

possible to take what was done in Quebec and translate it directly into

British Columbia. Indeed, when resolution of the Nishga claim is

reached, it may be impossible to take that resolution and transplant it

into the solution for other native bands within this very province. But

this government will continue its efforts to find a means whereby this

problem will be resolved for all time, for the benefit of our native

citizens and, indeed, for the benefit of this province, because they

have a major contribution to make to this province, and they have been

ignored.

Now there was another aspect of the problem, that of the so-called

cutoff lands. I wish to report to the House that progress is being

made, that British Columbia is now meeting with the national government

to settle with the national government the respective obligations of

the two levels of government in achieving the earliest possible

settlement of the cutoff land problem in British Columbia.

There is now a clear understanding between Ottawa and Victoria,

between Canada and British Columbia, as to what the relative

responsibilities of the two levels of government are in settling the

cutoff land situation. I expect in the next few weeks that discussions

will commence directly with the Indian bands for whom the cutoff land

is a particular problem. Negotiations will be carried on with them

[ Page 828 ]

on the basis that those cutoff lands are Indian

lands. We are not talking about lands which are those of this

government or of the national government. We are talking about the

mechanism by which we return those cutoff lands to those Indian bands.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: We will treat the Indian bands involved in

the same way as if you were settling negotiations with your next-door

neighbour dealing with his land. There will be no settlement dictated

by government to the Indians. That settlement will come about with fair

negotiations carried on between government and the Indians whose land

it is we are to return to them.

It all started many years ago, and British Columbia's position with

regard to cutoff lands is quite clear. In the McKenna-McBride

Commission report it was provided that no lands should be cut off

without the consent of the Indian bands. That consent was never

obtained, and British Columbia says it should have been obtained before

the lands were cut off. The national government, in the resolution of

this problem, will have to recognize that the legislation which denied

the right of consent was legislation passed by the federal government

of Canada.

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): And approved by B.C.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: That's not so, Mr. Member.

MR. LEVI: Oh yes, it is.

MR. GIBSON: An order-in-council was passed.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, I know there was an order-in-council passed...

MR. LEVI: Yes, it was.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: …but correspondence between the two levels

of government makes it quite clear that the position of British

Columbia is that the decision to move without the consent was that of

the federal government. But anyway, as the members point out, actions

were taken by British Columbia and it is for that reason that we are

today actively involved in redressing that problem. It does us no good.

We gain no honour from relying upon what may have happened in the past.

We recognize that the solution must be found, and found in direct

consultation with the Indians themselves. The lands should not have

been cut off. They must be returned. For those which cannot be

returned, there must be adequate redress, and that adequate redress

will be settled with the Indians themselves.

It has been suggested that the commission which was established by

the previous government has been disbanded. That is not true. In

discussions with the members of that commission, they recognize that

certain steps had to be taken by the governments themselves before

anyone could approach the Indian people for the resolution of the

problem. That is a step which is being taken. If there is need to use

the services of those people who were appointed to the commission —

Judge Colville, Chief Adam Eneas or Mr. Squires — then this government

will reinstitute that commission and the authority which it needs in

order to assist in the resolution of the problem. If the problem can be

solved between the governments and the Indians directly, then the need

to call upon the services of those men will be avoided.

There is another problem that affects the native people. There is

their desire to retain — indeed, to recall and improve upon — the

culture which is that of the Indian people. This government also

recognizes, however, that to enable them to retain their culture and to

build upon it — indeed, even to do the simple work of recalling what is

their past history — they must be given the opportunity to develop

economically in this province, too. I find, as I talk to

representatives of Indian bands who come to Victoria for this specific

purpose, that it is their desire to cease to be a burden, if that's

what they are, upon the governments of this nation.

They say that they wish to make their own way in the economy of this

province and of this nation and they need to be assisted by government

in so doing. We find that there have been some attempts by the

Government of British Columbia in this regard, fragmented attempts. We

also find that there have been attempts by the national government to

allow the Indians to achieve their economic destiny, but they have been

fragmented.

What is required, Mr. Speaker, is for the governments on an

organized basis to establish means of assistance to the Indian bands to

allow them to engage in economic development and to achieve their own

initiative on a long-range basis, so that once embarked upon action

which brings them into the economic life of this province they don't

find themselves frustrated because some particular programme comes to

an end and then they're looking again for some other programme of

government. Only by long-range planning, only by organizing programmes

on a basis that will allow the Indians to achieve economic equality in

this province can we hope to solve that area of the Indians' concern.

This is the direction upon which this government is embarked.

I will be meeting with the hon. Judd Buchanan, Minister of Indian Affairs, later this month for the

[ Page 829 ]

purpose of discussing this particular problem among

specific legal and moral responsibility to the Indians, will not sit

down with the government and develop a long-range programme for

economic development for the Indian people of British Columbia, so that

they can make their own way without interference, without being

suddenly left in the difficulties, the doldrums, when the programme is

dropped, so that moneys are not wasted as they have been in the past.

There have been moneys wasted, and therefore apparently a criticism of

the Indians themselves, when really it is a criticism of government for

failing to address itself in a positive way to the resolution of this

most fundamental problem.

Mr. Speaker, the Indians in British Columbia and in Canada have

shown remarkable patience over a hundred years. They are still

displaying that patience, and I'm satisfied that responsible Indian

leaders in this province will recognize that once embarked upon a

course of action which is intended to achieve the resolution of the

difficulties as quickly as possible...that they will be patient. But

what they need is the assurance of governments at both levels that we

are serious about our concern and that we will not be distracted from

the direction upon which we are now embarked.

I wish to make it perfectly clear that this government is serious in

its concern and is prepared to pursue the objective of full, final

solution of the Indian problems in British Columbia which will allow

them to obtain and achieve and enjoy full citizenship rights in British

Columbia and in Canada.

MR. G.H. KERSTER (Coquitlam): Mr. Speaker, why did the people

of British Columbia speak out so strongly against the socialists in

December of 1975? Hadn't the former Premier promised a new era for the

people of our province, an era where the rights of the individual were

to be supreme? He said just that in his 1973 budget address in this

House. He promised the end of recession, the end of unemployment, the

end of social injustice, the end of fiscal irresponsibility. He forgot

to mention which end. (Laughter.)

The former Premier called politicians irresponsible who said his government would be unwise in their spending habits.

On page 3 of the 1974 budget speech he stated: "Irresponsible

politicians suggested that the previous government's accumulated cash

surplus would disappear."

Well, time has proven those critics completely accurate, Mr.

Speaker. They knew which end and the people knew which end he meant,

and that's why they kicked the socialists out.

British Columbia demanded good leadership. They had felt the absence

of any form of leadership in the past three and a half years. They

demanded a man acquainted with the wants of the people — not only with

the requirements of the hour, but with the demands of the future. They

demanded a man broad enough to comprehend the relations of this

government with the other provinces and with the federal government.

They demanded a man who would preserve the financial honour of this

province; one who knows enough to know that the provincial debt must be

paid through the prosperity of the people; one who knows enough to know

that all the financial theories in the world can't redeem the mistakes

of the past administration; one who knows enough to know that taxes

must be raised not by law but by labour; one who knows enough to know

that the people of British Columbia have the industry and the honour to

bring our province through these troubled times.

The people of this province chose wisely December 11. They picked a

man with a heart, a conscience and a brain. They picked a man that does

not shrink from seeing the province undertake its new duties.

A host of unemployed citizens faced a grim problem of existence and

an equal number worked with little return. Now only a foolish optimist

can deny the dark realities of the moment — the moment we're faced with

now. Our distress comes from no failure of substance. Our distress

comes from the previous administration's failure through their own

incompetence and stubbornness. They stand indicted in the court of

public opinion and rejected in the hearts and minds of man today. They

had no vision; where there is no vision men perish. That government

perished.

The measure of restoration ties in the extent to which we apply

social values rather than monetary profit. The stimulation of work must

not be forgotten in the mad chase for ever-rising profits. But the dark

days we are now experiencing will be worth all the cost if they teach

us one thing, and that is that our true destiny is not to be ministered

unto, but to minister to ourselves and to our fellow man.

Restoration calls for action and it calls for action now. Our first

task is to put people to work. This problem isn't unsolvable. We must

face it wisely; we must face it courageously. There are many ways in

which this problem can be resolved, but it can never be resolved by

merely talking about it. We must act and we must act now. Together we

can't fail.

We must never go back to the kind of government we have just

witnessed — power-hungry, arrogant, irresponsible people who could not

manage the affairs of this province. Now they return talking only of

revenge, indulging in innuendo and implied threats in an effort to

disrupt, acting in opposition as they did in government, with a total

lack of responsibility. This session has been marred by the

irresponsible

[ Page 830 ]

nit-picking, delaying tactics of the opposition .

In order to clear up this situation, we should get the facts

straight — I hope you're listening. The budget is sound, the budget is

explicit and the budget is businesslike. There can be no mistaking what

it means and British Columbians know the promises so definitely made

are made to be kept — not evaded, not broken. We shall keep our

promises by performance, by achievement, by proving our capacity to

conduct the administration of this province in the spirit of our

declarations with the firmness and sagacity of practical men who

propose to do what is sensible and effective, not irresponsible.

Government is not a warfare of interests. We shall not gain our ends

by heat and bitterness which make it impossible for either side to

think either calmly or fairly, but if the opposition decline frank

conference, then they must take the consequences and blame only

themselves if they are in the end badly served.

It's necessary now that we act in the right spirit, and the right

spirit is not one of hostility. Stability will only return to this

province when we've done some careful thinking as to the exact things

that are needed in the public interest and then using the most simple,

direct and effective way of creating an atmosphere conducive to a

better way of life for all British Columbians.

We didn't call upon the voters to support us merely because we call

ourselves Social Crediters. Our commitment ran deeper than that. We

mean to serve them like honest men, public-spirited men, because the

common interests we share are interests that we share with every man,

woman and child in this province. We are the servants of no special

group and no special interest. The future is not for parties playing

politics, but for measures conceived in the largest spirit, enacted by

governments whose leaders are statesmen, not demagogues, who love not

their office but their duty and their opportunity for service.

We are witnessing a renewal of an interest in politics by the

public, a revival of sober political opinion. We look to a new age of

thoughtful reconstruction, and a restitution of the values all British

Columbians once held so high.

The socialists came to power through an election that was won on the

strength of their promises. It's true they never carried out all of

these promises, or many of these promises; in fact, an example might be

the $25 automobile insurance plan. That is deception, and deception is

always a pretty contemptible device, but to deceive the poor is the

meanest of all crimes.

The day-care service is in a mess. Mincome payments to senior

citizens have not kept pace with the increase in the cost of living.

The real needs were not being met for welfare recipients, and too many

were abusing the system at the expense of the people who really needed

the help.

Few of the services to people were really effective. Do you know

why? Mainly because there was no direction from the former government.

A giant, monolithic, bureaucratic system had taken over, and Band-aid

measures were being applied to each mounting crisis.

There is no doubt that the socialists left this province in a

deplorable state; the only things they excelled in were mismanagement

and conversation. In order to put the affairs of this province in good

standing we are forced now to borrow money for the first time in 21

years. While the opposition agrees that the bills must be paid, they

say: "Perfectly true, somebody has to pay. But we would rather that

somebody be somebody else."

We've started rebuilding. We need money for that rebuilding

programme. We must remind you, and unfortunately we must keep reminding

you, that the budget was brought down not merely for the purpose of

raising barren taxes, but taxes that are fertile taxes, taxes that will

bring forth fruit — the security of this province which is paramount in

the midst of all, the provision for the aged and the poor. You know, it

is time it was done. It's a shame that a rich country such as ours

should allow those who have toiled all their days to end in penury and

in despair.

We intend to cut a new path, an easier one, a pleasanter one. But we

need money to make this new road, and, yes, even broaden that road. We

propose to do more by means of this budget. We're raising money to

provide against the evils of suffering that follow unemployment, to

provide for the sick and the disadvantaged, to provide for everyone who

really needs help, not those who don't need it and are looking for a

handout.

I don't believe that any fair-minded man would challenge the justice

and fairness which we have in view in raising this money through this

budget. No province or country, however rich, can permanently afford to

have quartered upon its revenue a class which declines to do the duties

it is called upon to perform.

The opposition has menaced and delayed before. They seem to think

that it's in their interest to carry out these futile objections. They

are protesting against paying their fair share of taxation, and they're

doing so by saying: "You're burdening the community. You're putting

burdens upon people they can't bear." Well, they're not thinking of

themselves, oh no! We're placing the burden on broad shoulders, and

those shoulders will see us through — those are the shoulders of very

proud British Columbians.

I believe that while we have the means no cupboard will be bare; no

one will suffer because of this budget. But it is time for all British

Columbians, and that means people over there too, to pull together

until we are free of the morass we inherited from the previous

administration, and this is the test.

[ Page 831 ]

I challenge them to logically judge this budget. Thank you.

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I wish to start, if I

may, by speaking to the remarks made by the Minister of Labour (Hon.

Mr. Williams) earlier in this debate, and by telling him, in his

absence — but he might read it in the Blues — that I found that part of

his address which spoke to the problems of native Indians in this

province a very agreeable part of his address. I think his analysis was

excellent. I support that content and that direction, and I tell that

minister that if he is able to produce the goods, as he outlined today

he intends to produce, he will go down in our history as very likely a

man of deserved merit and stature.

The problems of native Indian matters, especially those of land

claims and the cutoff lands, have perplexed governments since those

original agreements were signed and then promptly broken. I really want

him to know, and as a member of our opposition, to express generally to

the people our pleasure at their willingness to confront those problems

as directly as they have.

However, when speaking to the other part of his budget address, I

find it not quite so agreeable. I must, in beginning my remarks, ask

you in some seriousness, Mr. Speaker, for a ruling. Are we discussing

the first budget or the second budget — the first edition or the second

edition? Hansard may note that the Speaker did not reply.

Well, I expect that the Minister of Labour was quite happy that the Minister of Finance was not in his seat.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, there is one budget before the House, which you're discussing. You're in order to discuss that budget.

I have no comment to make from the chair other than the fact that we

are on the budget debate. It's a wide-open debate; you are entitled

to discuss whatever subject matter you wish to put before this House in

this particular debate.

MR. BARBER: The problem is, of course, as you know, that the

ending is slightly different in one budget than in another. I would

have to presume that the Minister of Labour....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

MR. BARBER: Well....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The hon. member for Victoria has the floor.

MR. BARBER: It's really clear that I am making my point anyway, Mr. Speaker. I thank you for the objections.

I expect that the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) was quite

delighted when the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) was not in his

seat when he made his remarks, because once again the coalition

government is showing signs of falling apart. The Minister of Labour in

his remarks took the opportunity to single out for special pleasure —

for special support and commendation — the socialist government of the

United Kingdom.

He went on at some length quoting admiringly from the new Prime

Minister of the United Kingdom, Mr. Callaghan, and addressed to this

House certain remarks that Mr. Callaghan had made. The problem is that

one would presume he was doing so in the spirit of the second ending to

the budget and not the first. Because when we read the first, their

earlier opinion of the government of the United Kingdom was somewhat

different.

If I might remind the House, through you, Mr. Speaker, in the first

edition of the budget they said: "Mr. Speaker, the parties that expound

this irresponsible use of public funds are on the skids everywhere in

the world. The people have thrown the socialists out in Australia. They

have been thrown out in New Zealand. They are hanging on the ropes in

Britain, and their leader has quit." Now this morning the Minister of

Labour quotes admiringly the Prime Minister of the socialist

government of the United Kingdom. They are not very consistent, are

they, Mr. Speaker? When it serves their purpose they quote themselves

to attack a sister nation in the British Commonwealth. When it does not

serve their purpose they ignore that attack and quote someone else — in

this case, Mr. Callaghan.

I expect....

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: I expect that, indeed, the Minister of Finance

was glad that he wasn't in his place when his remarks were attacked by

the Minister of Labour because we see again another instance — not the

first and surely not the last — that when a coalition government is in

disarray, as they surely have been these last two and three weeks, they

cannot, in their disarray, fall back upon principle. They cannot fall

back upon philosophy and they certainly cannot fall back upon one

another, because they don't trust one another.

We have seen the Premier waltz the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr.

McGeer) out of an ICBC press conference. We have seen the Premier waltz

the Minister of Finance out of a brief conference with the members of

the press in the back corridor. Now we see the Minister of Labour

attacking the remarks that the Minister of Finance made but two and a

half weeks ago in the first edition of the budget, now

[ Page 832 ]

quoting the now-admitted socialist government in the United Kingdom.

It's not very consistent, and that, I think, is the principal

problem we have with the budget as a whole as well. It is unclear to me

what principal direction this government is taking.

I want to speak more literally to the several parts of this budget....

MR. E.N. VEITCH (Burnaby-Willingdon): Liberally?

MR. BARBER: Literally, more closely. I want to point out, if

I may again, that the remarks, which on the one hand take pleasure in

the position of a socialist government in the United Kingdom, can only

be considered as grotesque and ludicrous when compared with the remarks

of the Minister of Finance discussing just two and a half weeks ago the

same socialist government. It's really a bit weird, Mr. Speaker; it's a

bit peculiar. I'm sure the people in the galleries are wondering just

what's going on as well.

My remarks about this budget are largely the remarks of the people

of Victoria who have, since it was introduced, written and phoned,

visited and called and told me that there are a number of facets in it

that they find objectionable. It's no doubt that this has easily within

the shortest period of time imaginable been as unpopular a first

budget as any new government has brought in.

I mentioned it a few days ago, and I'd like to remind the House, Mr.

Speaker, that as far as I can tell most new governments do enjoy a

period of good will, a period of affection and a period of popular

support immediately after their successful victory in an election

campaign. This is generally referred to as the honeymoon period.

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Municipal Affairs): And yours was a divorce three years later.

MR. BARBER: Three? Well, we'll see, we'll see. I have different expectations, Mr. Minister.

In any case, though, it's pretty clear that this honeymoon has been

as short as any on record. One wonders whether or not it's too late for

an annulment, eh, Mr. Minister?

It's pretty clear to me that the temporary label affixed to this

budget, that affixed by the Minister of Finance when he called it a

recovery budget, has not succeeded in staying fixed. It has, in fact,

in popular opinion and public esteem come to be regarded as a revenge

budget. The reason that label has stuck is because it's the more

accurate label; the reason it will stick in the future is because it

will become clear that the political motivation behind this budget is

one not of recovery nor of a renaissance of any sort, but of simple,

strict, arbitrary, predictable political revenge.

There are areas of this budget which are hopelessly inconsistent

with the government's commitment to reduce what they call "wasteful

government expenditures". As a member of this Legislature, I'd like to

point out one of them, Mr. Speaker, to ask whether or not this House

has ever said anything about it. It may interest the public to know

that the taxpayers subsidize in the amount of $50,000 a year the

parliamentary dining room — the one, Mr. Speaker, which you and I and

the rest of the members of this Legislature enjoy. That figure was not

reduced in this budget. It's a tiny figure, but we are frequently

called upon to find examples of larger principles and I think that one

holds. Mr. Speaker, $50,000 a year is committed by the taxpayers of

British Columbia to the subsidy of your lunch and mine. The government

of the day, which tells us that it is cutting back wasteful

expenditures, did not tell us that they were cutting that back. In

fact, the figure this year is precisely the same as last year.

I for one, Mr. Speaker, would be quite happy to see that reduced to

zero dollars, to see those $50,000 put to some more beneficial purpose.

Mincome would be a good one.

The problem with this budget, essentially, is that it tries to do

simultaneously two antithetical and opposing things. On the one hand,

it tells us that the province of British Columbia is beset with a

shattered economy, hopelessly wrecked and ruined, and, on the other

hand, it is a great place to invest and everything's great, marvelous;

the future is rosy and it's in good hands now.

The problem is that — and the fact that we now have a second edition

of the budget demonstrates it — it is impossible to go to the investors

and the capital markets of the world with those mixed messages. You

cannot, in the first edition of the budget, tell them that the economy

of British Columbia is shattered and ruined and in the second ask for

their further investment. You can't do it; it doesn't work. No one

believes it; no one buys it. It hasn't worked, and you had to rewrite

the budget. You had to rewrite it, and that's why we have a second

edition.

The government, Mr. Speaker, attacked member nations of the British

Commonwealth. That was an offence. The government told the people that

the economy was ruined in British Columbia. That was another offence.

The third is that the budget, as a whole, attempts to do two opposing

and antithetical things simultaneously. They can't do it — they just

can't do it.

I think what that betrays most basically is that we see in this coalition government basic lack of leadership.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Where's your leader?

MR. BARBER: There is no firm, no clear, no

[ Page 833 ]

purposeful direction, no wit and imagination — nothing new. We see

in this budget a failed attempt by the government to persuade the

people of British Columbia that as of midnight on March 31 we were

hopelessly bankrupt, a fact which was contradicted by a decision that

government took in the face of our evident hopeless bankruptcy to write

a cheque in the amount of $181 million just two days before the end of

the fiscal year — a cheque which, as it turns out, will not be cashed

and, when cashed, will be loaned back to the government in the first

place. A not very persuasive argument, Mr. Speaker, in favour of the

alleged fiscal responsibility of the coalition government. It betrays,

I think, a lack of leadership, clear purpose and fundamental political

principle.

I want to speak, if I may, about several departments whose estimates

are discussed in general terms within the budget. I'd like to start, if

I may, Mr. Speaker, by talking about certain of the failures of

leadership within the department of the Attorney-General. We see in the

willingness of the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) to permit the

gradual decay and dismemberment of the legal services programmes of

this province — legal aid and the community law offices — an apparently

silent commitment to allow the poor to go unrepresented in court. That

commitment, of course, will never be spoken, but its actions will be

clear evidence for anyone.

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned in my maiden speech address that we opened

in Victoria, about a month ago, a community services office. That

office, opened a month ago by Mayor Mike Young of the city of Victoria,

has in that month seen more than 150 persons come through requesting

help and assistance of many kinds. Since the Attorney-General made it

clear that they did not intend to continue with the previous

government's policy of granting legal aid to people whose incomes would

not provide it themselves, the increase in the demand on legal

counselling and services at our community office has doubled — has

absolutely, simply, clearly, doubled — and I presume that that trend

will continue. I deplore the fact very much that when we do see

belt-tightening on the part of the coalition government, the first

thing to go is the system of legal aid and community law services,

invented as the result of need by the previous government and, in the

face of clear need, diminished by the present. It's a shame; I wish

they wouldn't do it. They don't have to do it; it does them no honour

and no good at all. Primarily, of course, it does no good to the people

of British Columbia who require it.

I wish to speak, briefly, Mr. Speaker, to the ombudsman. As I've

mentioned before and will again, this is one of — if I may say it — the

few shows of wit and imagination, new principle and new conception,

that the coalition government has brought forward. I support the

ombudsman. I support that principle; I support that office. I have

offered to turn over to the ombudsman, when that office starts, the

records, files, documents and experiences of our own community services

office, and I hope that it might prove of some practical assistance.

There is in the budget speech no mention whatsoever of a financial

commitment to the office of the ombudsman. I presume this does not mean

that we will have to wait until the next budget speech to see the

evidence of that government's commitment to the ombudsman. But I note

with some concern, Mr. Speaker, that nowhere in the budget is there

even a penny committed. This may again betray what some of us have

observed to be the lack of principled leadership on the part of the

coalition government.

In the Department of Education we have a minister whose work is

legendary — the good doctor, who has, I think, in again as short a

period, in as quick a honeymoon as any new government has seen, thrown

away the good will, the good faith, the affection and the loyalty that

was otherwise his. I have received — and I am a very junior member of

our caucus — more than 20 letters about the education portion of the

budget speech. I wish, Mr. Speaker, if I may, to read parts of three of

them into the record, because I think that one of the jobs of an MLA is

simply to pass on, as fairly and as objectively as he can, what his own

constituents say.

In discussing education, I can do no better than to read into the

record, and thereby to the minister, in his absence, what some of the

people in Victoria have said about the education elements of the budget

speech. The first is from a gentleman who wrote:

"Dear Sir:

I am writing to express my concern over the government's

total disregard for the ordinary people of this province, as indicated by their

budget. I feel most strongly that we are victims of a government's political

machinations, and I resent this.

"I am most concerned about the education portion of

the budget. It is most unreasonable for the government to cause school

taxes to rise by their failure to provide the funds necessary to

maintain the status quo. The government should accept the fact of

inflation that is beyond the control of the boards.

"Most importantly, I feel that the cutbacks that will

occur will cost the society dearly in the end as the problems of the

young people are ignored by the removal of special programmes if funds

are not available for them. I urge you to do what you can to make the

government aware of their real responsibility for people."

Another letter, also concerned about the plight of special programmes within the Department of

[ Page 834 ]

Education.

"Dear Sir:

I wish to express my frustration over the proposed budget restrictions

in education. In my own school I feel we are finally making progress in dealing

with youngsters who require special guidance for academic, social or emotional

problems.

"The services of learning-assistance teachers and

counsellors are essential to our programme. We are already working with

classes in the mid-to-high 30s. In classes of this size it is

impossible to give as much individual instruction as some children

require. The public seems concerned over instruction in basic subjects.

One of the government ministers made headlines recently when he

revealed the social ills among young people in Victoria. Solutions to

these problems will not be found by cutting back education costs. We

need smaller classes and stronger support staff. To increase class size

and reduce services would be disastrous to the school system."

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: I may point out to the interjector that, to my

knowledge, Mr. Speaker, not a single one of these authors is a member

of my party or, possibly, of any other party. They are people who, as

professionals, as parents, as persons concerned with the educational

system, have taken the time, shown the interest and taken the trouble

to tell, through their MLA, this Legislature what they feel is the case

regarding the education budget.

If I may continue, another person wrote:

"I am a learning-assistance teacher presently employed

by School District No. 62. Recently I was reappointed as a

supernumerary teacher in my school in order that I may perform a wider

range of duties at a lower wage. I feel that this is a valid cutback as

my school board is trying to cut budget costs for next year.

"However, Mr. McGeer has now placed a much greater

burden on the students, parents, teachers and board members by making

it necessary to cut back the number of teachers to such an extent by

limiting the province's education budget to such a degree. This will

only prove to cause problems in the future.

"I work with learning-disabled children who require

special education programmes if they are to find success in the regular

classroom. If cutbacks occur, I will be cut as a frill, as will my

special-education programme. These children, if no longer able to

receive special attention, will find the regular school programme too

difficult to cope with and in two to six years will become our dropouts.

"Of course, as our number of dropouts increases, so

does the rate of juvenile delinquency and crime. If they find no

success in school or in finding employment, what will they do with

their time? Will Mr. McGeer provide special programmes for them after

they have committed the crimes?

"Therefore, Mr. Barber, please pass this letter along

and my sentiments to Mr. McGeer and ask him to look to the future.

Special-education programmes and teachers are as essential to the

school system as our textbooks. However, if cutbacks do occur, these

programmes will be the first to go. As a result, future problems will

be compounded as many students will not receive the extra attention

they require."

That author, by the way, works in the Sooke school district.

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): That's not true in School district 62 — you tell them to go to the board and find out.

MR. BARBER: Regarding the Department of Environment, Mr.

Speaker, once again we see further evidence of the failure of

leadership on the part of the coalition government.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member for Victoria has the floor.

MR. BARBER: There appear to be rather arcane and peculiar

rules about question period, Mr. Speaker. You may recall that on two

occasions I put a question to the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr.

Nielsen) about the recycling depot in Victoria, and both were ruled out

of order, so I have tried to find other ways to ask my questions.

But the one I want to put today — based again on the observation

that there is an apparent lack of principle and leadership on the part

of this government to do anything new, witty, original or imaginative —

stems from the failure of the Minister of Environment to even lift a

finger on behalf of the recycling depot in the city of Victoria. This

recycling depot serves more than 30,000 citizens in a community of

220,000. It is a false economy to reduce the budget by 25 per cent — as

to their great, I hope, future embarrassment the Capital Regional

District board has now done.

It's not, I think, Mr. Speaker, so important that we point out how

successful the recycling depot is, how many volunteers work freely for

hours and hours and hours on its behalf. It is not essential to point

out

[ Page 835 ]

that this is the most successful, the largest in scope and the most

significant recycling operation in all of Canada. It is essential in

this debate to point out that the Minister of Environment did nothing,

said nothing, inquired of nothing and has achieved nothing on behalf of

this recycling depot. This is very disappointing.

He may be a new minister; he's certainly new to the Legislature and,

obviously, like everyone else, has to learn the ropes, and it takes

time to do so. But on an issue as clear cut as this, where the

questions are so simple and so direct, why is it that the Minister of

Environment did nothing on behalf of the greater Victoria recycling

depot? He did nothing — absolutely nothing.

I have received dozens of phone calls from the hundreds of

volunteers who labour freely, on their own initiative, for the Victoria

recycling depot and have asked, some of them again and again, when the

provincial government is going to step in. I have been unable to give a

serious answer because the Minister of Environment has been unable to

make a serious statement. A recycling depot in Victoria is on the verge

of folding and the Minister of Environment does nothing.

I wish the Minister of Environment would take the leadership that

belongs properly in his hands. He could certainly do so in this

Legislature itself. What the paper products of our government must be I

can't imagine, but surely some leadership could be shown by that

Minister. Surely some investment could be made by that department in

recycling depots handling not just the rubbish that results from our

debates and the work of the government generally, but encouraging the

people of Victoria to move into the 21st century. We cannot afford to

continue to use once only otherwise irreplaceable natural resources. We

can't afford it.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: You may have, Mr. Minister, after I have finished

my notes, and I invite you to join me at Borden Street. You and I

together may work as volunteers in the recycling depot for the days it

has left.

That's what we can do with the rubbish — something creative and positive, rather than just adding to it here all the time.

Speaking if I may to the Department of Finance, Mr. Speaker, I think

it's clear again that the fundamental problem a coalition government

has is evidenced in what we see within the budget speech. The increase

in the sales tax by 40 per cent is immensely unpopular. The increase in

medicare premiums by 50 per cent is immensely unpopular. That

government knows that, and it's fairly clear from the delicate choice

of words within the budget speech why they've chosen not to make too

much a point of this one.

Bill 3 clearly has persuaded no one. The bill that was allegedly

required by midnight at the end of the fiscal year turned out not to be

required after all and many of the amounts within the $400 million

turned out themselves to have been in considerable dispute. One of

them, the $7.5 million for the universities council, was put in dispute

by the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer), who tabled documents

that demonstrated that the money was neither due nor requested and when

spent will not be spent until July of this fiscal year.

I wish again, if I may, Mr. Speaker, to read briefly into the record

another letter. This is from a gentleman concerned about one aspect of

the social services tax. I raised this briefly before when we were

discussing this. The letter is concerned about not only the principle

but as well the impact of the increase in the social services tax for

persons who, because of their income in life, are required to live in

mobile homes. Because of their income position they find it impossible

to purchase homes that stay still. They buy mobile homes.

If I may read from the letter:

"Dear Sir:

"There are many people who are forced into modest

homes due to low-income positions. These homes are, in many cases,

mobile or travel trailers, purchased with the express purpose of

providing a 'home'.

"Persons capable of buying real estate for a home are

exempt from the social services tax. Those forced into mobile-type

homes are being taxed, and indeed are penalized for their inability to

spend or finance big money purchases.

"The social services tax Act in concept is to exempt

the necessary items of life and to tax the amenities. This further

points out the inequity. The distinction is that any home that you

move, including brick, frame, pre-fab, mobile or travel trailer,

becomes tangible, personal property and is taxable, even to the extent

that if your land should be expropriated and you choose to move your

home you are also liable for social services tax.

"There are many of us here on Seymour Street and

elsewhere who feel we have purchased homes — a permanent residence no

matter how modest — and have been subject to sales tax on one of the

basic needs of life, a place to live."

I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that if the government had shown

leadership, examined the horizon, asked the right questions, they would

not simply be increasing from 5 to 7 per cent the onerous burden

through the social services tax on people who

[ Page 836 ]

can ill afford it. They would be eliminating outright that 7 per

cent tax on persons who, because of their income, are required to buy a

mobile rather than a fixed home in order to live.

I've asked the Minister of Finance before and I will do so

repeatedly in the debates on estimates whether or not this government

will give an undertaking to remove outright the sales tax on mobile

homes, the purchase for which is intended principally to provide

accommodation for their owners.

In conclusion on the finance estimates, as discussed in the budget

speech, I wish to support the recommendation made by the Social Credit

member of the government, the hon. member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Mr.

Loewen), who asked the Minister of Finance and the Premier to indicate

to the people of British Columbia that immediately the additional $200

million which are to be raised by the social services tax are raised,

that tax be once again returned to its original 5 per cent level.

When that particular backbencher made that particular point, there

was no visible response from the government. I don't know what that

means in terms of that guy's future. I don't know whether or not that

means he'll never make it into the cabinet, but I do hope his

suggestion is taken seriously. It would be a great deal more bearable

to the people of British Columbia if they knew that there was an end in

sight and that 7 per cent was not fixed and here to stay, and I'm happy

to support the recommendation of the Member for Burnaby-Edmonds that

the Premier and the Minister of Finance give an undertaking that this

tax will be reduced again as soon as possible to the 5 per cent level

that it was before they came to power.

Looking at the Department of Health, Mr. Speaker, there are many

senior citizens in Victoria who are enormously concerned about the

inevitable cutbacks in the ambulance service.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, before the New Democratic government came

to power, ambulances throughout British Columbia were largely in the

hands of private citizens who would, as often as they could, make a

profit out of the sickness, the immediate illness and disease of human

beings,

I'm very happy that the NDP government made an ambulance service

part of the health service — included it in the structure of hospital

services and health-care services within the province of British

Columbia.

There are senior citizens in the city of Victoria who are very concerned today,

Mr. Speaker, about the possibility of an increase in the cost and a cutback

in the service of ambulances in greater Victoria. These are seniors who themselves

have had a history of emergent disease, strokes, heart attacks and other ailments.

They are not much reassured in their old age and their disease by a government

that talks about cutting back ambulance service. It does not tend to help them

along the road to recovery very much. In fact, it is very bad medicine for those

people. On their behalf, I put to you, Mr. Speaker, the observation that this

is the falsest sort of economy to try and attempt to save a nickel or a dime

at the expense of the morale, the health and the well-being of sick people,

especially old sick people. It's a very serious mistake. I hope they reconsider.

I hope they take one of the famous second looks and state to the people of greater

Victoria, and especially to its senior citizens, that they do not intend to

make dangerous cutbacks in the field of ambulance services.

There is another kind of cutback, Mr. Speaker, that could be made in

the Department of Health. I pointed it out in correspondence which I've

had with the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) and have yet

received no satisfactory answer. The Victoria Times did an

article and

an editorial on the subject after that correspondence.

There is in my constituency a woman by the name of Mary McFadden.

She's married, and happily two and a half weeks ago had a young boy.

Mrs. McFadden came to me and said that she had learned that it was

impossible for her, if she chose to have birth outside a hospital, to

take advantage of the after-birth nursing services offered in this

province. She thought that was a bit peculiar. She was offering to save

the people of British Columbia hundreds of tax dollars by not taking up

a valuable bed in an acute hospital and was simply asking that, in

return for that saving, she have an opportunity to take advantage of

what is available to every other nursing mother, after-birth service.

Mrs. McFadden and I wrote several times to the Minister of Health and pointed

out the obvious inconsistency and the paradox. The Minister of Health wrote

back and said in so many words: "Well, those are the rules and I'm

not prepared to change them." The member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) has

also pointed out this inconsistency and I wish again, if I might, to suggest

to the Minister of Health, through you, Mr. Speaker, that if the government

wishes to save some money and to set an example, change the rules. Make it possible

for young women to choose to give birth outside the hospital not to have to

go into the hospital in order to get what they really wanted, which was after-birth

nursing care. Mrs. McFadden offered to do that. Mrs. McFadden offered to go

into hospital for a day in order to meet the rules and in order to save the

taxpayers of British Columbia some money. That too was proven to be against

the rules and she was unable to do this and today is still able to take no advantage

at all of the nursing services at home.

It's really silly, Mr. Speaker, that a government should be so

concerned with bureaucratic rules and procedures that, having prided

themselves on their

[ Page 837 ]

initiative in saving money, they decline to save money when they

clearly could in this instance. Perhaps if it had been a member of the

government and not a member of the opposition that had made the point,

they would have been a little quicker to take advantage of it. But all

the same, we'll continue to make the point. We'll continue to make the

point that, had they been willing to change the rules and cut through

the red tape, they would have saved hundreds of dollars in just one

case, and having changed the rules, many other cases would save many

more dollars.

I wish now, if I may, Mr. Speaker, to speak to what we see in the

budget speech about the Departments of Highways and Public Works. It's

known in the province that these budgets have been cut back very

considerably. I would like to know, Mr. Speaker, if ever we might hear

from the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) about a problem that

has perplexed the first Social Credit government, that perplexed the

first NDP government, that is perplexing the second coalition

government and that I hope will not end up perplexing the second NDP

government after the next election. This is the problem of the

Blanshard Street extension. This is a notorious problem in the city of

Victoria. We have a four-lane highway, six in parts, which goes

nowhere, which stops at a municipal boundary after you bound over a

hill because the bump's so great.

The Blanshard Street extension has gone nowhere. The Blanshard

Street extension is an embarrassment to every government, if I may say

it, including the one whose party I represent. For many, many years,

the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Curtis), when he served as

the mayor of Saanich, was well aware of this problem and I hope that in

his capacity as a member of the cabinet he will attempt on our behalf,

as the previous Social Credit government failed to, as we failed to,

and as I hope you don't fail to, to do something. The problem of a

highway that goes nowhere and ends in nothing is an embarrassment to

everyone. On behalf of hundreds and hundreds of motorists and cyclists

who have to make it somehow past Tolmie Street there to Woodward's

where the highway stops, I urge you to take a look at it. I urge the

Minister of Highways and Public Works to take a look at it. Give us

some kind of a solution. There are at least, I'm sure, three or four on

the drawing boards. Make a decision, commit some money and end this

problem. It's been around for more than a decade, Mr. Speaker.

Something surely can be done about it.

I would like as well, if I might, Mr. Speaker, to mention the

restoration of the parliament buildings, which also comes under the

purview of the Minister of Public Works. This is a restoration which,

as you know, began under the previous administration and which is

happily, I report, anyway continuing under the present. The Department

of Public Works is attempting to restore a building that was rotting in

the lower parts and in the upper, leaking. This too was another

embarrassment to the people of Victoria for whom this is probably the

most handsome and outstanding of any of our architectural works. I hope

to hear later, Mr. Speaker, during his estimates, from the Minister of

Public Works that he intends to proceed, as I understand it will take

another two or three years to complete them, with all of the

renovations and restorations presently planned for the parliament

buildings. This is, indeed, the most valuable historical building

probably in British Columbia — certainly in greater Victoria. I very

much hope to hear from the Minister of Public Works that he intends to

continue with this. If he does he shall have my praise and thanks, and

he shall have also — and deserve — the praise and thanks of the people

of Victoria and likely of the whole province.

There is another matter, Mr. Speaker, regarding the Minister of

Public Works, and that's the matter of a report called Precinct '75.

This report was prepared by staff under his predecessor and was

released to the public shortly before Christmas. It contains a number

of very imaginative, very unusual and very bold proposals for the

substantial rebuilding of the legislative precinct area.

I am not myself in a position to know, because the report doesn't

disclose it, how much these — any of them or all of them — innovations

would cost, but I do hope that the Minister of Public Works doesn't

simply ignore that report. It is not a partisan document. It is not a

political document. It is rather a report prepared by planners and

technicians, by architects and by persons concerned with the future of

the capital city, that suggests a number of very unusual and very

exciting ways to rebuild what we have here in the legislative precinct.

It proposes, Mr. Speaker, a broad swath of — in archaic language —

greensward descending down from Beacon Hill Park, through the public

grounds where St. Ann's Academy used to be housed, up along Belleville

and Superior Streets into the grounds of the Legislature itself. It's a

marvelous idea. It's an extremely attractive idea. The Minister of

Public Works will do himself proud if he's able to take that, and some

of the other ideas contained in this report, and take action on them as

well. In the future, I will continue to be asking the Minister of

Public Works, through yourself, Mr. Speaker, whether or not he's

familiar with this report, whether or not he's willing to act on any or

all of its contents, what kinds of deadlines he's willing to set. I

should like to repeat, Mr. Speaker, that if he's able to act on some of

these remarkable ideas contained in that report he will earn the praise

of this assembly, and I expect he will get it, too.

Finally, regarding that minister's estimates, I wish

[ Page 838 ]

to talk briefly about highway construction. Apart from lamenting the

fact that the Blanshard Street highway goes nowhere, I would also like

to point out that I believe it incumbent on the Minister of Highways to

have some new thoughts, to take some new directions, to undertake some

new approaches in regard to mass transportation as provided by cement

and asphalt in British Columbia.

One of them I would like to point out is what's been pointed out and

underway in Europe for the last 30 years: that's the construction of

bicycle paths, Mr. Speaker. In every civilized nation in western Europe

bicycle paths are a fact of life, as is cycling itself.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): Some of the uncivilized, too.

MR. BARBER: And I suppose some of the uncivilized ones, Mr. Attorney-General.

In the city of Eugene, Oregon, population 60,000, the people there

have more than 250 miles of bicycle paths at their disposal. In a town

of 60,000 they have more than 250 miles of constructed and designated

bicycle paths. I hope that the Minister of Highways is aware that there

are other ways to transport people than simply within the four walls of

a four-wheeled vehicle.

In the city of Ottawa, funded by all of us as federal taxpayers,

there are now more than 60 miles of bicycle paths travelling the canal,

the Ottawa River and into the beautiful low hills that surround Ottawa.

I hope that the Minister of Highways will at some time during his

estimates be prepared to give a commitment to this House that he is

willing to look at the construction of more than just auto roadways, but

bicycle roadways as well. They are, Mr. Speaker, cheap. They are very

cheap. They are efficient. They are very efficient. They are healthy,

certainly far more so than travel in automobiles is, and they lead the

way into the future. I would predict, Mr. Speaker, that by the year

2,000 the private automobile will be banned in the downtown core of

Victoria and Vancouver cities. It will be an offence to drive a private

automobile in those cores.

Provision must be made now for alternative means of transportation.

We'll be looking at mass transit. We'll be looking at other forms of

light rail and transport throughout the great cities, but we must also

be prepared to look after the needs of people who are cycling now. I

would propose to the Minister of Highways that he would become a

minister capable of exercising great leadership if he led this province

into the 21st century by developing, throughout the province, a network

of commuter and recreational bicycle paths.

He can, Mr. Speaker, use rail rights-of-way, he can use sidewalks,

he can use lanes along major highways, and he can do things that have

never been done before. I earnestly hope that the Minister of Highways

considers those new things.

Finally, if I may, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to comment about the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. I'm concerned about mass transit.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, may I point out to you that you have two minutes left?

MR. BARBER: Thank you.

I am concerned that on December 8, 1975, the present Premier said to

one Jack Webster that he, if he became Premier, would have the

municipalities or regions sharing 75-25 on capital costs and 50-50 on

losses. I will be, during the Municipal Affairs estimates, reminding

the Minister of Municipal Affairs of this.

I would like simply before I conclude, though, Mr. Speaker, to point

out that if in 1975-76 that formula had been in operation, as proposed

and promised by the present Premier, the city of Victoria — the greater

Victoria area generally — would have been required to share in

operating deficits of $3.5 million. In capital costs they would have

been required to share $4.4 million. The present Premier said on

December 8 — I would be happy to table the document, as is the habit in

the House — that he would intend upon election to engage in a system of

sharing 75-25 on capital costs and 50-50 on losses.

Mr. Speaker, the people of Victoria would not abide by such a

suggestion; the mayors of Victoria, Saanich, Oak Bay and Esquimalt

would never abide by such a suggestion. I hope the Minister of

Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Curtis) in this case, at least discreetly

within the cabinet, succeeds in repudiating the Premier. This is a

grotesque and unhappy prospect and is one which I hope goes nowhere.

Thank you for your attention, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Curtis moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:40 a.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1976, 2001, 2011, 2013, 2013: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada