1977 Legislative Session: 2nd 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)

THURSDAY, JANUARY 27, 1977

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

391 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

BCR settlement with M.E.L. Paving. Mr. King — 391

Motion

Adjournment of the House to discuss a matter of public importance.

Mr. Gibson — 394

Mr. Speaker's ruling — 395

Mr. Lauk — 395

Mr. Speaker — 395

Mr. Gibson — 395

Routine proceedings

Budget debate (continued)

Hon. Mr. Hewitt — 395

Mr. Cocke — 402

Mr. Haddad — 408

Mr. Lockstead — 410

Mr. Kahl — 417

Petitions

Vancouver Stock Exchange petition. Mr. Shelford — 422

City of Vancouver petition. Mr. Strongman — 422

Society of Industrial Accountants of B.C. petition. Mr. Veitch —

Institute of Accredited Public Accountants of B.C. petition. Mr. Veitch —

THURSDAY, JANUARY 27, 1977

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. G.H. KERSTER (Coquitlam): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery

today are two gentlemen from the Coquitlam constituency, Alan Sinclair

and Roger Purdy. Would the House join me in making Mr. Sinclair and Mr.

Purdy welcome?

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): In the gallery today from the

constituency of Omineca are Pauline and Doug Stelling. Mr. and Mrs.

Stelling are involved in the mining industry. They are here to see the

government that has turned the tide in that industry in this province

in action. I wish the House to bid them welcome.

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): In the gallery today is a group of

students from Belmont Senior Secondary School. They are accompanied by

Mr. Batis. They have been in the precincts since 11 this morning and I

would like the House to bid them welcome, please.

Oral questions.

BCR SETTLEMENT WITH M.E.L. PAVING

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): A question to the Premier:

could the Premier advise the House on what date he was informed of the

BCR board's decision to settle the M.E.L. Paving dispute out of court?

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I am trying to

recall exactly. It was somewhere around just before I left for my

Christmas vacation. I think it was somewhere around December 22. I'm

not sure. I will just check and make sure of that but it was somewhere

in that neighbourhood.

MR. KING: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I thank the Premier

for his information and look forward to a precise answer. I wonder if

he could also tell me precisely who — which person or persons —

informed him of the decision.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I was informed by the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips).

MR. KING: Supplementary. I understand the B.C. Rail board is meeting

this very moment. I want to ask if it is the decision to settle the current

dispute with the KRM and Keen Construction companies out of court in the same

manner as that agreed upon with M.E.L. Paving.

HON. MR. BENNETT: If the question is still directed to me,

I'm not a director of the board and I have not been consulted, as I

wasn't consulted on the other decisions.

MR. KING: On a supplementary, then: may I direct that

question to the Minister of Economic Development, as he is a director

of the board, and ask that he communicate with this House as well as

the Premier?

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Economic Development): Mr.

Speaker, in answer to the member's question: yes, there is a board

meeting of the directors of the British Columbia Railway taking place

at this time. I had intended to be there and left my slate clean this

morning so I could be there. However, Mother Nature intervened and I

was not able to get over to Vancouver this morning. The meeting is

going on at the present time. I was just talking to the chairman. No

decisions had been reached but I understand that they will be issuing a

press release when the meeting is completed, if a decision is indeed

reached at this board meeting.

MR. KING: On a final supplementary, Mr. Speaker, I thank the

minister for that advice and I would ask him whether or not the

government has transmitted a position with regard to this question to

the board of directors.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the member's

questions: this government has stated quite emphatically that we have

put in a board of directors with sufficient experience to run the

railway, complete and apart from political interference. I further want

to state that I have every confidence in that great board. I further

want to state that for the first time in a number of years the railway

is running like a clock, and serving the great industry of British

Columbia which it was meant to serve.

I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that the decision made by that board of

directors will be in the best interest of the citizens of British

Columbia whose responsibility they have to serve.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. I simply asked

whether or not the government had transmitted to the board a position

for the government. The Minister of Economic Development is a director

of the board, and I don't wish to get into a debate as to whether or

not he plays a political role as a director. But if his performance in

the House is any indication, he is not silent on that board and

[ Page 392 ]

therefore he must be part and party to some of the

decisions made. Now has he advised his colleagues on the board of

directors of what position he would take incident to this proposed

settlement out of court?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, not knowing all of the

ramifications of the contract and having missed the last two board

meetings, I am not aware of all the ramifications. But I'll state again

that I have not relayed any position on behalf of the government or

given them any instructions as to whether they should settle in court,

or out of court, or what settlement.... As I said before, I have every

confidence in that board of the railway. I am sure the decision they

make will be made after lengthy deliberations, which I understand they

are having today. Again, I want to state that I have every confidence

in the decision they will make.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): A supplementary to the

Minister of Economic Development. Does the board not consult the

Attorney-General of British Columbia (Hon. Mr. Gardom) before making

settlements which could involve the taxpayer in a very considerable

impost?

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Under a case that is now under investigation by the Attorney-General?

MR. MACDONALD: Do you not consult that department at all?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'm not aware that there are any

allegations with regard to the Keen contract or the KRM contract that

are under investigation. I am not aware of that.

MR. MACDONALD: You don't discuss it.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): A supplementary to the Premier

on the same subject. The government has said over and over again that

they want to run this province in a businesslike way. It is my

understanding that the board of directors of any corporation is

responsible to the shareholders. The shareholders of the BCR are the

people of this province, represented through their government, which is

you. Are you telling this Legislature that the board of directors is

not responsible to the shareholders represented by this government? Are

you saying they are not responsible to the shareholders?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, as the member for Prince

Rupert knows, the directors are accountable to the shareholders, which

are not just the government, but the Legislature, on behalf of the

people of B.C. That's why the minister will be accountable to this

assembly for decisions made by that board of directors. However, we do

not give them the decisions in advance. They've been asked to direct

the company — that's the function of a director.

Mr. Speaker, I know that that member knows full well that in private

companies, such as corporations, the shareholders elect once a year a

board of directors, and during that year those directors direct the

company. They call annual meetings of the shareholders in which they

are accountable to them. Again, in this assembly we meet, and the

directors are accountable through a director to this assembly of the

shareholders.

We represent the shareholders with the same accountability that

directors of all companies have to their shareholders in what are

called annual meetings, meetings they must call by regulation and law

in this country. That is the type of accountability there is. But it

would be folly indeed to continue the practice we witnessed when we

came in, where there were directors who were taking political

direction. I think that it is wrong and that practice has been

discontinued.

MR. BARRETT: To the Premier: A political decision was made to

extend the line to Dease Lake. As a consequence a fraud case was

launched in court and now an unique situation exists, unlike any other

in a Crown corporation. Does the Premier not consider, in view of the

fact the Attorney-General is investigating this fraud situation at this

moment, that it is highly improper to settle related cases at a board

of directors' meeting without the government being directly

represented, or for the government to state a position on the

settlement of these contracts while the Attorney-General is conducting

an investigation he announced?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition,

who used to be president of the railway, knows how he used to operate

it and deal with it. I would say that the Attorney-General's department

has been asked to review a transcript of a trial. That's what they've

been asked to review: evidence given in a transcript.

AN HON. MEMBER: Too late!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. Premier has the floor.

HON. MR. BENNETT: They've been asked to review the transcript...

MR. BARRETT: Call all the witnesses.

[ Page 393 ]

HON. MR. BENNETT: ...the same sort of review that went on under the former Attorney-General.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for North Vancouver–Capilano.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: I've recognized the hon. member for North

Vancouver–Capilano. I'll listen to your point of order immediately

following my recognition of him.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Supplementary to

the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips). Mr. Speaker,

if, as the minister has said today, the BCR is free of politics, why

has that minister put a gag rule on the corporation? Why is it that

when we phone up to get simple information on the Dease Lake extension,

we are told by the BCR that we have to go through the minister's office?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I want to tell you that this minister has put no gag rule on the board of directors of the British Columbia Railway.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I want to tell you this, Mr. Speaker, and

I want all of the citizens of British Columbia to know this: That board

of directors told me that if there were any political interference with

their actions on that railway I would be looking for a new board of

directors. I want all of the citizens of British Columbia to know that.

MR. GIBSON: On a supplementary to that, Mr. Speaker, the

minister may say there's no gag rule, but since I can't obtain this

information from the railroad, would he be good enough to obtain for me

a list of all the contracts on the Dease Lake extension, the signing

date, and the value of any amendments to those contracts?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, that is public information.

However, since I'm having the same data prepared for myself at the

present time, I'd be most happy to supply the member with it once I am

in receipt of it.

MR. KING: Another supplementary to the Minister of Economic

Development: When he is tabling those documents with the House, would

he be good enough to table also with the House copies of all the board

of director minutes relating to the Dease Lake extension from its

inception?

AN HON. MEMBER: I'm willing.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'll give that matter some consideration, although the minutes of the board meetings are not normally public knowledge.

Mr. Speaker, I think the members should well know that we have a

public accounts committee of the Legislature and the representatives of

the railway are accountable to that public accounts committee. Any

questions with regard to any matters pertaining to the railway — fiscal

or otherwise — can be asked of the railway. I'll tell you right now,

Mr. Speaker, the board of directors are going to be accountable not

only to the opposition, but the board of directors are going to be

accountable to the government and to the people of British Columbia.

MR. LEA: A supplementary to the Minister of Economic

Development: As the representative of the shareholders of the BCR on

that board, will you, as the representative of the shareholders on that

board, instruct that board to make those minutes that the hon. member

for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) has asked for available to the public?

Will you ask the railway to do that?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. That's a repetition of the same question previously asked by the hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan.

MR. LEA: I am asking whether he will so instruct the board of the wishes of the stockholders that those minutes be made available.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. It's a matter of stating the same

question in a slightly different terminology. It's the same question,

hon. member.

MR. LEA: No, it isn't.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I wish to

correct what the Premier said. Under the NDP administration, the

Department of the Attorney-General was always consulted and gave an

opinion before cases were settled against....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. MACDONALD: No, he said the opposite. I have a right to correct the record.

AN HON. MEMBER: He didn't tell the truth.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, can I not...?

MR. SPEAKER: I must draw to your attention

[ Page 394 ]

that that is not a proper point of order, as you well know.

MR. MACDONALD: I'm correcting a false statement made on the

floor of the House about our administration and the practice. We were

always consulted because we represented the people, and the people have

a right to protection of their legal interests and their tax pockets.

We were consulted first before M.E.L. settlements were made or before a

Keen settlement would be made.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! This is not your turn in the debate, hon. member.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, I want it corrected. It's not true, what he said.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, under the terms of standing order

35, I ask leave to make a motion for the adjournment of the House to

debate a definite matter of urgent public importance.

MR. SPEAKER: Would you state the matter, please?

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, the subject matter is undoubtedly of

importance, namely the attitude of the government of B.C. to national

unity, separatism and the challenges raised by the new government in

Quebec. The matter is definite, Mr. Speaker, relating, as it does,

specifically to the remarks of the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr.

McGeer) in this House...

AN HON. MEMBER: Telephone call from Ottawa.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Allow the hon. member to make his point.

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: ...and yesterday to the press, where the Minister

of Education advocated policies which would quite clearly lead to the

breakup of Canada, and the refusal of the Premier yesterday to

repudiate those statements.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Resign!

MR. GIBSON: That the matter is urgent is demonstrated by a

previous similar case, namely the damage done to national unity and the

image of the Government of British Columbia within a very few days by

statements made by the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander

Zalm) immediately after the Quebec election.

Mr. Speaker, the urgency is that unless there is an immediate

opportunity to clarify this matter as to whether or not the Government

of B.C. supports a separatist stand of its minister, irreversible

damage may be done.

MR. R.L. LOEWEN (Burnaby-Edmonds): Direct call from Trudeau!

MR. LAUK: You're going to laugh your way right out of Confederation!

MR. GIBSON: That's right.

MR. LAUK: You people are so stupid you don't know that!

MR. GIBSON: You think that's funny?

AN HON. MEMBER: That's some joke?

AN HON. MEMBER: McGeer's a joke!

MR. LAUK: Talk about bunglers. I really believe, Pat, you didn't know what you were saying.

MR. GIBSON: He knew what he was saying! It was all written out in advance. That was no accident.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. Members, the hon. member for

North Vancouver–Capilano has risen in his place under standing order

35, requesting a debate on a matter which he considers to be of urgent

public importance.

In dealing with his request for a debate, I must point out to the

hon. member, and to all of the members of the House, that one of the

requirements — and only one of them, among others — is the fact that

for the motion to qualify under standing order 35, it must be raised at

its earliest opportunity. There are numerous authorities, hon. member,

on this matter, including Beauchesne , page 39; May , 16th edition, page 369; Journals of the House, 1955 and 1959.

On that one point, I'd like to quote from the Journals of the

House, 1959, when a motion of urgent public importance was put before

the House. Speaker Shantz brought to the attention of the members on

page 64 of our Journals , 1959, that: "The matter requested for discussion, in my opinion, has not been brought up at the earliest possible moment."

I would like to refresh the memory of all of the members of the

House that the subject matter to which this motion refers was certainly

a matter of discussion at some length yesterday, as I recall, in

question period. It would follow, therefore, that if it was the

member's intent to move a motion under

[ Page 395 ]

standing order 35, the earliest opportunity would have been immediately after the question period.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I concede the fact that if you,

at that particular moment in time, were not prepared to make the motion

or avail yourself of that opportunity, because it was immediately

following question period and the time interval was not great, there

was another opportunity, hon. member, yesterday, and that was last

evening when we started debate again after the supper recess. That

would certainly have been the time to have moved your motion at the

earliest opportunity available to you.

Would the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) please take his seat until the Speaker is finished?

That would have been the earliest opportunity. Certainly there would

have been sufficient time by then to prepare such a statement. So it

does appear, hon. member, on that basis alone that the motion fails to

qualify as one of urgent public importance. There may be other reasons

other than the matter of time, but on that alone the motion fails, and

I so rule.

MR. LAUK: I am loath to speak after your honour has made a

decision, but I would ask for certain clarifications. Standing order 35

states, inter alia, that the definite matter of urgent public

importance must be asked after the ordinary daily routine of business,

pursuant to standing order 25. Standing order 25 states: "The ordinary

daily routine business in the House shall be as follows: prayers,

presenting petitions, reading and receiving petitions, presenting

reports...motions and adjourned debates on motions, questions put by

members, introduction of bills" — and order of business." After that

are the precedence motions that we were considering, and so on. As soon

as this House entered precedent motion debate, no hon. member was

allowed to make any such motion under standing order 35(1) .

What I'm suggestion to you, Mr. Speaker, is that if there are other

reasons for finding this motion out of order, you should state those,

because the first one, with respect, is not correct, as I see clearly

set out in standing order 35 and standing order 25.

MR. SPEAKER: In replying to the point raised by the first

member for Vancouver Centre, I must point out to the hon. member that

we have to interpret the rule in light of routine business and before

the entry into orders of the day. This is why I suggest — and I say to

the hon. member — that the earliest opportunity for the member to raise

the matter on the floor of the House would have been immediately after

question period yesterday, before orders of the day were entered into;

failing that, last night when we were back in session.

MR. LAUK: He's not entitled to, though, Mr. Speaker.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, you've ruled and, naturally, that's

that. I just want to make this explication. You may have noted in my

statement that I refer to press statements as well as to what happened

in this House. The Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) is

importantly quoted in press statements which were first published this

morning.

Hon. Mr. Davis tables the 36th annual report of the Motor Carrier Commission covering the licence year ending February 29, 1976.

Orders of the day.

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

HON. J.J. HEWITT (Minister of Agriculture): I was rather

concerned that I wasn't going to get the opportunity to speak this

afternoon, with all the points of order that were being raised a few

minutes ago.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to rise on this first occasion that I've

had to speak in this House at this session, and to take

part in the

budget debate. It's nice to be back, and it's nice to see that

everybody's in good shape. The beards are getting a little greyer, Mr.

Speaker, but we appear to have survived the summer vacation and the

fall and the winter enjoyment that we've had in our ridings. I'd like

to compliment the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson), who is

sporting a new beard to join the rest of us who like to grow hair on

our faces, along with the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs

(Hon. Mr. Mair). One of my colleagues said I have to grow it where I

can, Mr. Speaker. I think that's highly unfair!

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to take this opportunity, in my first speech

in this House, to compliment the mover and the seconder of the throne

speech — I thought they did an excellent job in explaining the concerns

of their riding, and their concerns for this province — and also the

other members in this House who spoke during that debate. I'm sure that

their comments will give guidance to the ministers in setting the

policies for this province.

I read over Hansard , as all of us do now and again, and I

recalled the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) last year handed

out some awards to the government members. So I thought I would take

the liberty of handing out two awards today to the members of the

opposition.

[ Page 396 ]

The first award is what I've entitled the Chuckle Award, and that is

to the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber), who stated in his

speech the other night that "with tripping tongue" he ran through his

speech. It almost sounded like he was tiptoeing through the tulips and

I have dubbed him with the name of Tiny Tim.

Then, Mr. Speaker, there was the other award, which is the highest

award, I think, that can be given to a member of the opposition. I've

entitled that the NDP Award, and that award goes to the member for

Alberni (Mr. Skelly) for his ability to make up facts.

Mr. Speaker, in a serious vein, the member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr.

Gibson), to whom I very much enjoy listening because he is very concise and

attempts to get his points across, quoted Sam Rayburn in his speech the other

day and stated: "The stand you take depends on where you sit in the House."

And I believe John Diefenbaker once said: "The role of the opposition is

to oppose." I suppose those comments are probably valid, but it is unfortunate

that sometimes when tempers flare in this House in the heat of debate and we

get a little carried away, we have to go. through the unnecessary debate which

sometimes takes place. I hope, as we progress through this session, that we

can come out with some mutual agreement without too much unnecessary, irrelevant

debate. I hope we can proceed to get the province's business done in the

quickest possible order.

An example of that, Mr. Speaker, is the selection of the

auditor-general selection committee. I would just like to take a minute

to comment on that as I have been appointed chairman of that committee

which was appointed in June, 1976. It is a four-party committee made up

of representatives of the Liberal, Conservative, Social Credit and New

Democratic parties. I would like to thank and compliment the members of

that committee for their effort and interest in trying to deal with a

difficult task, and I would like to especially thank the secretary of

that committee, the member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Veitch), for his

efforts in arranging the meetings, dealing with correspondence and

doing an excellent job in keeping the committee informed. Up to this

date in the meetings we have had agreement in that committee; we have

had good discussion. I think and hope it will continue and I hope to

have a recommendation from that committee before this House recesses

this spring.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

I would also like to compliment the Minister of Finance for presenting his

budget in the House. It is a forward-looking budget, a budget on which we can

build this province. Last year we talked about restraint; this year we talk

about cautious optimism. This government will build a sound foundation, a foundation

which in the coming years will encourage investment and development, exploration

and expansion and full employment for the people of British Columbia.

The result of those efforts, Mr. Speaker, will further improve the

social benefits to those people who are in need and who are

handicapped, and it will provide better education and better health

services for the people of the province. Without the expansion, without

the development, without the employment you can't have those social

benefits, you can't have those additional education and health services.

The government, Mr. Speaker, is not made up of car dealers, of

millionaires and of Liberals, as the opposition sometimes would lead

you to believe. This government is made up of builders — builders of a

great province concerned with all citizens and not just

special-interest groups. At the end of our current mandate I am sure

the people of British Columbia will be able to see the efforts and will

be able to see the results of this party, and this party will be

re-elected with an even greater majority.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few minutes to comment as an MLA

for Boundary-Similkameen and express my thanks to a few of the

ministers who have worked and who have listened to some of the problems

in my riding over the past year. To the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr.

Fraser), who has made a tremendous effort in our area to improve the

roads, I can say to you that the people of Kaleden, Keremeos and Grand

Forks appreciate the efforts you have made. I know that you are dealing

with the Penticton bypass, and that there is an Indian land problem

there, but I am sure that can be resolved and we will see that coming

in the future.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Take a bow, Alex.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to compliment

the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis)

for hearing and dealing with the concerns of the people in the rural

area of my riding who were looking for assistance under the rural

electrification programme, and the expansion of that programme.

There's one other point, Mr. Speaker, which is very small — a very

minor item which probably hasn't taken too much space in the newspapers

— but I would like to compliment the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom)

and the RCMP in dealing with a situation we had in a small community

called Hedley, in my riding. You may recall last year in the spring

session that I brought it to the floor of this House because of the

vandalism and the delinquency that was taking place in that small

community. I can say

[ Page

397 ]

to you today, Mr. Speaker, that the problem has

been resolved. The effort that was put in, the communication that was

made between the RCMP and the Attorney-General's department, led that

community to get together and last week they opened up a community

skating rink. That's a big event for that small community, but it was

done strictly by a community effort, an effort of a number of people

getting together and recognizing the concerns their young people had,

and the skating rink came about. I wish to publicly compliment them on

their efforts.

Mr. Speaker, to the man who looks after people, the hon. Minister of Human

Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), the people-man, the man who provides the

people services: in Grand Forks we have Broadacres Training Centre for retarded

children and adults; the assistance his department gave to that community group

was very much appreciated. It is an environment which, I am pleased to say,

allows for young people and adults who are handicapped to live out a somewhat

fruitful life, as opposed to being locked away. I have visited that area and

I visited the Broadacres Training Centre, and it is an environment of which,

I am sure, the parents of those children are most appreciative.

The South Okanagan Human Resources Society, Mr. Minister, is most

appreciative of the efforts you have made there. It is also

appreciative of the efforts of the ministers of Health (Hon. Mr.

McClelland) and of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) that they've

put in to establish a medical clinic in the small community of Rock

Creek.

Mr. Speaker, those are small items that never get the headlines in

the press. But in my.community, which is a rural riding, those are big

items. I can only say that this government recognizes the concerns of

the small communities and the small groups of people who live in our

rural ridings and who really are the backbone, I feel, of this province.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to compliment all the ministers. As

an MLA, I would like to compliment them for their open-door policy that

they've had since this government was formed. I would like to say, as a

new minister, I hope I can live up to and match the efforts of my

colleagues in the years to come.

Before I comment on the budget in general, I would like to spend some time

dealing with agriculture, Mr. Speaker. As minister, I feel it is important that

I make some comments on the speech that the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs.

Wallace) made a few days ago. The member stated that she was shocked to hear

my statements that I was proposing the discontinuance of farm income assurance.

The second member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi) also stated that I was

telling the farmers that they will probably lose their Farm

Income Assurance Programme. In question period, Mr. Speaker, my

response to the member for Cowichan-Malahat was: "I would like to make

the comment that the contracts are five-year contracts and they will be

reviewed, and at the time they come due we will have something to

present to agriculture." In response to that, the member replied: "They

don't want something to be presented to them. They want to be part of

the negotiations."

Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote from the address I gave at the B.C. Fruit

Growers Association meeting in Vernon a few weeks ago. The member was there,

Mr. Speaker, because I happened to introduce her, and she thanked me for that

and said I was very much the gentleman. What I said, Mr. Speaker, was this:

"Briefly, your industry is under a five-year programme

which expires in 1978. I would advise you that nothing has changed. You

had a five-year agreement with the previous administration and that

agreement is still in effect. You will undoubtedly ask — as many other

commodity groups have — what happens at the end of the five-year

programme. I can assure you that during the coming year the programme

will be reviewed by my ministry in consultation with your

organization," — and that was the B.C. Tree Fruits organization — "and

the Federation of Agriculture. As your Minister of Agriculture, I can

advise that if the need is there at the end of the five-year programme,

my ministry will have a programme to offer your industry. It is hoped,

whatever new plan is developed, it will be compatible with, and

support, the federal agricultural stabilization programme."

Madam Member, your government introduced that plan. It was a

five-year programme, and I would suggest to you that at the end of that

five years they would be reviewing it as well. Now, Madam Member, is

the time to review because we have time to look at it, to evaluate it,

to determine what the future is going to hold. We have a year in which

to do that. It's good planning to give yourself that much lead time. I

would say to you that the industry will be involved in those

discussions.

The member for Malichan-Cowahat...Malichan-Cowahat? That sounds

good. That's a new riding — Malichan-Cowahat. (Laughter.) We'll have to

remember that name when we get to redistribution, hon. member. But the

member stated:

"If we think we are paying high costs for food right

now, we don't even know what we are talking about, because now we are

in the area where there is competition — good healthy competition. This

is to the benefit of the consumer."

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that that member is in

[ Page 398 ]

the wrong party. She stated: "If the control of our

agricultural production falls completely into the hands of the large

vertically integrated concerns, then we are going to be in trouble."

Mr. Speaker, she talks about vertical integration and I would ask her: what

about Panco Poultry, Madam Member? It has the farms, the hatching eggs, the

birds, the feed plant, and the quota — the quota in excess of the amount allowed

to other producers. It is a government-owned operation, and your government

bought it. You got into the chicken business. It's rather unfortunate, because

I feel that creates a conflict of interest. It's pretty difficult when the

government sets the regulations that look after business and they also deal

in business. What is the effect on the family farm with that kind of competition?

Madam Member, the point I want to get across here this afternoon is that it

isn't just vertical integration or it isn't just Panco Poultry.

There are members on that side of the House — and if you refer to Hansard

I'm sure you'll see it — who have stated in the past week that they are

socialists. I would like, for your benefit, Madam Member, to read you a

definition of what socialism is. It is

"any of various economic and political theories

advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of

the means of production and distribution of goods; a system of society

or group living in which there is no private property; a system or

condition of society in which the means of production are owned and

controlled by the state."

Madam Member, that's the definition of socialism,

and the members of that side of the House have quoted that they are

socialists.

I would suggest maybe you should refer to what is known as the

Waffle Manifesto of years ago. Madam Member, you are on the fringe of

that party. You should get the experts to explain your objectives —

their true, long-term objectives. If they do, they will tell you that

they are buying into business to save jobs.

There are other ways of saving jobs, Madam Member, than buying into

it and going into competition with the farmer, the proprietor or the

small business in this province. When you buy equity, you're buying it

with the tax dollars that are put up by the people of the province, and

you are going into competition with those very same people.

I would like to quote to you, Mr. Speaker, one sentence from page 24 of the

budget, which states: "This government recognizes that continued investment

by private business is much preferred to investment by governments." That

one sentence, I think, sums up the feelings of this government. The government

can and does regulate industry to allow and encourage competition. But where

is the competition when the government owns the business? Where is the incentive

to the individual to develop a new process or product, or to provide a new service?

Madam Member, through you, Mr. Speaker, I'm sure the Leader of the Opposition

(Mr. Barrett) would explain the long-term objectives of the NDP. Maybe after

hearing those, Madam Member, you'll join us, or possibly join the member

for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson), as he is a little closer to you.

Mr. Speaker, in Hansard in

1973, the member for Nanaimo, the former Minister of Agriculture (Mr.

Stupich), stated that he wanted to make agriculture economically viable

in this province. I concur with him in that statement. As minister he

did bring in some good programmes — the ALDA programme, the

Agricultural Credit Act — but he did not accomplish the economic

viability he worked for, probably because, I would imagine, he was too

busy explaining finance to the Minister of Finance, the former Premier.

It is difficult, Mr. Speaker, to make agriculture viable in the

province of British Columbia. We are faced with imports from across the

line, and those are a federal responsibility. I quote to you from a

newspaper item; the quotation is from the manager of B.C. Tree Fruits.

He stated:

"Sixteen million pounds of cherries were imported into

Canada in 1976, equivalent to the entire Canadian cherry crop.

Ever-increasing quantities of fruit from the United States are flooding

the Canadian market ahead of the harvesting and marketing of B.C. soft

fruits. The first cherries arrived in Canada from California last May,

and we did not have ample supply of cherries until July.

"The prices on the incoming fruit also seriously

affect the Canadian product. The U.S. cherry prices started at $9 and

up when they first arrived in Canada last year; by the time the B.C.

cherries hit the market, the U.S. cherries were selling at $6.50,

resulting in depressed prices for the B.C. fruit."

Mr. Speaker, that is one of the things that is facing the

agriculture industry in this province, not just with fruit but with

other products as well. The high cost of labour and the cost of

materials are problems in this province when you compare them to the

imports. We also have in many parts of this province the geographic

problem, the problem of small family holdings as opposed to big

holdings in land where you don't have small pockets and small, narrow

valleys where you can only have 10- or 20-acre plots. So that presents

a problem, because you still need the equipment to run that farm,

regardless of its size.

I want to ensure, even with the U.S. competition, the geographic

problems that we have and the high cost of labour, that my goal and the

goal of this

[ Page

399 ]

government is to make agriculture economically viable in this province.

With those comments, Mr. Speaker, I would like to deal with the

speech that was made by Mr. Barichello, the president of the B.C.

Federation of Agriculture. He made this speech in Vernon. I would say

that Mr. Barichello is an excellent spokesman for the B.C. Federation

of Agriculture, a man with whom I've dealt on a number of occasions. He

demands a great deal of respect. This speech also deals with farm

income assurance, which really seems to be the main concern of the

agricultural industry today. I have met with the federation on several

occasions, and I will be meeting with them again, to discuss our

long-term approach to solving the problems facing the industry. I hope

to achieve the goal of economic stability for the industry.

Mr. Barichello made a number of statements. One was: "The end of a programme

is traditionally a time to reflect on its value." I agree with that statement.

That is what we intend to do, and that is why, Madam Member, through you, Mr.

Speaker, we are starting now — so that we will have a programme available.

Mr. Barichello stated: "The government should initiate a programme of

transfer payments to cope with the deficiency, a programme which will guarantee

an adequate income to the farmer on a continuing basis." I cannot agree

with the concept of guaranteed income. I don't really think the farmers

agree with the concept of guaranteed income because the farmers are individualists,

they are enterprisers and they are the people who are closest to the

land.

They need and require protection against depressed market prices;

they need to get out of the concept of boom-and-bust because they are

dealing with a perishable product. We should be able to be there and to

help them when there is a deflated market, a depressed market, where

the cyclical aspect of their industry affects their income. They want

that assistance, they need that assistance at times, but they also want

the freedom to achieve good returns when the market improves. They do

not want increased dependence on government.

Mr. Barichello stated that, "It is in the interest of everyone

involved in the food chain, from the producer down to the consumer,

that the B.C. agriculture remain a viable and competitive industry." I

agree with that statement, Mr. Speaker. But today it is not

competitive, mainly through no fault of the farmer, but again through

those problems Of imports, high cost of production and other items.

Regarding imports, Mr. Speaker, to give you an idea in the beef

industry how we're affected, I want to quote to you from an Ottawa

press release dated December 23, 1976:

"Following from the recent actions of the United States

regarding import limits of beef and veal in 1977, Mr. Whelan said it is a matter

of concern that there should be an orderly and stable situation in the Canadian

market. The understanding reached with our trading partners ensures this will

be the case. The arrangements provide for imports from the United States, Australia

and New Zealand of up to 144.75 million pounds of beef and veal in 1977."

In relation to that, Mr. Speaker, the United States envisions

imports from Canada in the order of 75 million pounds. Mr. Speaker,

we're getting a tremendous amount of import in the beef industry into

Canada, and I think we should make every effort to curtail some of that.

Another item, Mr. Speaker, is potatoes. The United States, in the

states just south of the border, got involved in over-production of

their potato crop and our potato industry has been affected by what is

known as the "stripper potato." It is a potato that comes below the

grading classification in the United States, and it is literally dumped

on our market and it affects our market price. Mr. Speaker, I am well

aware, as the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) is aware, that

it is a federal responsibility, to regulate imports. But I can assure

you, and I can assure the members of this House, that my ministry is

going to every effort to try and change some of [illegible] thinking at

the federal level so the agricultural industry in this province isn't

affected by American imports.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Barichello is concerned about the future of the

agricultural industry in this province, and I am concerned. I think — I

know — we need a long-term plan to improve the viability of farmland in

the province. In essence, the intent of my ministry is to work toward

long-range planning, not by ourselves, but in concert with the

Federation of Agriculture and the commodity groups. I hope, Mr.

Speaker, that what we come up with are not just five-year programmes,

not just programmes that are in constant negotiation, but with a

long-term answer to the problem that the farmers face.

I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that in the very short period of time

that I've been Minister of Agriculture, the negotiations are one of the

biggest problems that I can see affecting my staff. What happens is

that during these negotiations my staff are put on one side of the

bargaining table and the commodity group is put on the other side. When

my ministry's prime function is to support and to complement the

industry, my staff — really, truly — cannot maintain their role of

support one day, providing information and guidance to improve the

viability of farmland, and then be in conflict the next day trying to

determine what is the true cost of production of farm products.

The Farm Income Assurance Programme, I feel

[ Page 400 ]

strongly, should be reviewed. It has to have some

long-term approaches to it. Just to give you an idea of what is

involved, Mr. Speaker, it was first brought in in 1973 and at present

there are 10 commodity groups in place: beef producers, sheep

producers, tree fruits, blueberries, broiler-hatching eggs, commercial

eggs, dairy, field tomatoes, greenhouse producers and swine producers;

and we are at the present time discussing potatoes and raspberries. I

understand from the federation that there are a number of other

commodity groups that are looking to come on the plan.

The cost of this programme, Mr. Speaker, throughout the years: The

first payments were made in 1974-75. In the first year payments were

only $28,000, but that's not too comparable since only a few items had

come on the programme. In 1975-76, the actual expenditures were

$26,831,000. Our estimate for 1976-77 — since the payouts haven't been

completed, nor have we finished our fiscal year — was $27,088,000. In

1977-78, the year through which we are moving, the estimate is

$36,553,000. Mr. Speaker, the costs of that programme are costs to the

taxpayer and are costs to the consumer. If you take the market price

and you add the cost of that programme, you get the true cost of your

product.

I am not saying, Mr. Speaker — and I want to make it clear — that

farm income assurance is not a good thing. What I am saying is that we

should have a programme that is there when the need is there, that is

based on a constant, on something that we can relate to, rather than

get into negotiations. I am hopeful that any provincial plan that we

arrive at, in consultation, I hope, with the Federation of Agriculture,

will be in concert with, and will supplement, the federal agricultural

stability programme.

The viability, of the industry, Mr. Speaker, should not be in farm

income assurance alone. It should be on proving new markets and getting

stability in the agricultural industry. It should be one, Mr. Speaker,

that is determined by working with the industry and one that will put

the industry finally in a competitive and viable position.

There are a few projects, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to comment on. They

are again minor projects possibly, but they're efforts I'd like to make

the members aware of in order to show how the ministry is trying to

assist in improving or developing the industry, improving efficiency,

the expansion of it, and making it financially stable.

We have a programme called the AGMA programme — the Agricultural and

Food Products Market Development Assistance Programme — and the

programme's objective is to develop a co-ordinated marketing effort for

B.C. products. One most recent to be introduced to that programme is

the raspberry crop, and the purpose of the programme relating to that

crop is to increase the per capita consumption of raspberries in North

America and to provide, through that increased consumption, an increase

of returns to the growers. We are involved in a three-way, cost-sharing

basis with the grower, who is putting up some dollars, the federal

government and the provincial government.

For your information, Mr. Speaker, we have 300 growers in the

province of British Columbia growing raspberries and a crop of 10

million pounds a year with a farm cash value of $5 million. We are the

only area in Canada that grows raspberries commercially, and the funds

out of this programme to provide for the expansion of this commodity

group will be used for hiring a market development officer to have

raspberry promotion through the news media, to promote local sales on

the fresh market, to promote and to develop a juice programme for the

United States and eastern Canada, and to develop further product and

market research.

Mr. Speaker, another item in regard to efficiency and of benefit to

the consumer in the province is that of our provincial meat inspection

service. We are attempting to have some of our abattoirs in the

province go under federal inspection. At the present time we have six

abattoirs — there are five in the lower mainland and one in the

metropolitan area of Victoria — and at least four of these provincial

plants are sufficiently large whereby they could qualify for the

federal meat inspection. They would only need minor alterations in

their plants to provide for that. I have approved a special incentive

programme to help those abattoirs qualify for the federal inspection

with the effect, Mr. Speaker, that after those were under federal

inspection, we could move out and our training staff could provide meat

inspection in other areas in the province of British Columbia. The

programme really provides, Mr. Speaker, for the backing of a loan at

the bank for construction purposes with a low interest rate on that

loan.

Mr. Speaker, the government and industry must work together to

ensure a viable industry, and I would quote from Mr. Barichello's

speech once again in regard to the objectives that are outlined by the

Federation of Agriculture. They are:

"To encourage the production to meet domestic requirements;

to enhance market opportunities; to encourage the processing of B.C. agricultural

commodities; to encourage optimum, utilization of B.C.'s soil and climate

conditions; to minimize the farm input costs; and to protect the viability of

the B.C. farmer."

To accomplish the long-term goals, Mr. Speaker, we need the combined

effort of the farmer, the federation, the government and the consumer,

and it's not going to be easy. It's going to take some time, but if we

have that cooperative effort, if we have the support of all segments of

the industry, I think we

[ Page 401 ]

can achieve economic viability in the agriculture industry in this province.

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of items that we are going to do

throughout the coming year 1977-1978 in the Agriculture ministry, and

one that I have been asked about on several occasions is that of a

marketing board review. Again, Mr. Speaker, for the information of the

members of this House, I would just like to list the marketing boards

that are in place at this time. We have the Broiler Marketing Board,

the Cranberry Marketing Board, the Egg Marketing Board, the Tree Fruit

Marketing Board, the Grape Marketing Board, the Mushroom Marketing

Board, the Oyster Marketing Board, the Turkey Marketing Board, the

Coast Vegetable Marketing Board, the Interior Vegetable Marketing

Board, and the Sheep and Wool Commission.

Mr. Speaker, I intend to work with the Minister of Consumer and

Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair) to review the efficiency of marketing

boards, to analyse the effect — if any — on the market price, and the

effect on the consumer and the producer.

Mr. Speaker, in light of consumer reaction which we have seen in the

last few months — I have noticed it in the paper on a number of

occasions — I felt strongly that this review should be carried out. We

have many, many consumers going to the U.S. to purchase food. A lot of

consumers say it's because of our marketing system increasing the

costs. I can't necessarily say that's correct, and that's why the

review is to be carried out: to determine whether or not the marketing

board system is the best way. Is there a better way? Can we make it

more efficient? Is the administration of those boards adequate? Are

their marketing practices the best that can be had? And would the

consumer be worse off without them? I'm hopeful, Mr. Speaker, that this

review will answer some of those questions.

Mr. Speaker, another programme we are looking at is the negotiation

of a new agreement with ARDA, and we are going into a programme of

co-ordinated resource management in this province for the development

and redevelopment of range land to provide seeding, drainage and

irrigation in order that we can have better forage for our livestock

industry and in order that we can provide for the finishing of our beef

products rather than shipping them to the east so they can only return

to us as finished product. I think we are making efforts to allow for a

new feedlot up in the Kamloops area, and I'm hopeful that there will be

one down in the Boundary-Similkameen country too, hon. minister. In

that way, Mr. Speaker, we will improve the viability of our beef

industry because, as I understand it now, we are only supplying 17 per

cent of our market by B.C.-finished product.

Another programme I'd like to research, and hopefully come back with

a recommendation to this government, is that of assistance to young

people or new farmers who wish to farm. I've had my staff begin their

research and their planning to see if we can develop a programme, and I

would hope to have such a programme to be presented to the cabinet by

the end of this coming year.

Mr. Speaker, another one that we are looking at, of course, is an

ongoing one — one that the former Minister of Agriculture and Economic

Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) brought in last year — the promotion of

B.C. quality products. We are making every effort to co-ordinate this

programme with the industry. I have met with the commodity groups over

the past months and I will be meeting with the retailers to try and get

a co-ordinated effort between the producer, the wholesaler and the

retailer to promote B.C. quality products.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. minister, you have three minutes left in your time.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I didn't think I was talking that long, Mr. Speaker. I'll try and speed it up.

AN HON. MEMBER: Time passes quickly when you're having a good time. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr; Speaker, the throne speech suggested

cautious optimism and the budget stated: let us pause and let our

trading partners catch up — the reason being that we are part of a

global family; we rely on imports and we rely on exports. I think the

first indication to this province, and probably to this country, that

things are changing is a quote I will give you from The Vancouver Sun

January 12, regarding the United States: "The good news was offset by

another sharp jump in wholesale prices in the United States,

particularly in food. Coffee," — which of course we can't compete in —

"pork and poultry costs were the chief ingredients in the biggest rise

in farm and food prices."

If we pause now it gives us a chance to get into that competitive

position if we allow those others to catch up to us. But it's not just

in food, Mr. Speaker, it's in all our commodities.

MR. LEA: Did you read that in the Sun ?

HON. MR. HEWITT: It's in all our commodities, Mr. Member,

whether it be clothing, whether it be food, whether it be furniture or

whether it be appliances. We've got to pause and let the competition

catch up. Once our products become more competitive in price, we can

obtain new markets, we can create new jobs and our provincial revenues

will be increased, and through that our social programmes will be

improved.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to echo quickly the

[ Page 402 ]

comments of the Minister of Finance in his budget

speech regarding the year 1977 and the fact that it is a year for union

negotiations. If we are to be competitive in the world marketplace, if

we are to complete with the foreign imports, this year we cannot afford

work stoppages, and we cannot afford excessive increases in the cost of

production of our products.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to paraphrase the late John F. Kennedy. It

probably is a phrase that has been used many times, but I've changed it

a bit: ask not what your government can do for you, but ask what you

can do for the future of your province.

Mr. Speaker, it's a 5.9 per cent increase in the budget. It deals

with controlled spending, but it deals with people, people in the fact

that health, human resources and education make up 65 per cent of our

total budget.

Mr. Speaker, I notice the red light is on. I had a number of other comments,

but I would just like to say in closing that it is a balanced budget, and it

is a balanced budget at a time when the people of this country and of this province

are saying to all governments: "Control your spending." At all government

levels — federal, provincial and municipal — we must set an example to control

our spending. I think this government is setting the example through good fiscal

management as the trustees of the public funds. I would say once again, in closing,

that this budget will set in place a sound foundation on which to build a better

province, and I'm pleased to support it.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, I'm delighted

to be in the House representing the people of New Westminster, and

talking to the people of the province about this budget.

I would like to ask on behalf of the opposition if you would take a

message from us to the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) . We

understand that he's not well. We wish him a speedy recovery. Tell him

that we'll all be here when he gets back.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture, who is rather a new boy

here, pointed out that he wondered if he was ever going to speak this

afternoon because of points of order. I wish he'd been here during the

period of 1972 to 1975. There was never a greater bunch of

point-of-orderers to enter this chamber than stood here, over on this

side, during that period.

MR. LEA: The longest speech he ever made was on a point of order,

MR. COCKE: That's right. The only time he ever made sense was one time when he said: "I had to leave on a point of order."

Mr. Speaker, that minister defined socialism as he understood it and as he

saw it written down in some book.

AN HON. MEMBER: A dictionary.

MR. COCKE: I'm sure that some of your relations wrote that dictionary.

But, Mr. Speaker, a democratic socialist or a social democrat is one

thing.... It's understood by those who are ones, not by those who

write...wherever he gets his description. A democratic socialist

believes in the greatest good for the greatest number — nothing else,

nothing more and nothing less!

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture was vague during his

dissertation, but he was no more vague than the budget. The only thing

that he really seemed to get excited about was feedlots. I remember

that minister when he was a member supporting a feedlot right in the

middle of a little town in the Okanagan. Ten thousand cows were doing

all they could do to drown that little town in effluent. I hope that

when he starts making decisions in his department, which I'm sure will

be some day, he makes decisions that are better thought out than that

decision.

Mr. Speaker, it's becoming obvious that this coalition government

has returned to the old Social Credit government's belief that

insurance policies should be used to skin the public, not protect it.

There are two glaring visible signs that the bad old days are here

again. The bad old days are here again for the car owners of British

Columbia. Everyone knows that they have been stung badly by ICBC by

those rate increases, Mr. Speaker. But what are those huge boosts for?

Well, they were for protection against the cost of accident repairs —

that's what we're told. Were they? Or were they just intended to fill a

Crown corporation's coffers full and overflowing?

AN HON. MEMBER: Here today, gone to Maui!

MR. COCKE: Have you looked around the streets lately? Have

you noticed the steadily increasing number of bashed-up vehicles on the

roads during the past year? Look around the local parking lots; look

around the precinct. You don't have to go very far, Mr. Minister of

Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer), to see some of the havoc that you've

wrecked on this province. Are those cars, some of them probably

dangerous, not being fixed because the vehicle repair shops are swamped

with work? No. It's not so, Mr. Speaker, because the car repair

industry is in the worst slump in its history. In this province 200 or

300 repairmen have been reported laid off during 1976.

MR. KING: "Let them sell their cars."

[ Page 403 ]

MR. COCKE: Let them sell their cars. Well, why in the world

are our citizens paying double and trebled rates if they can't get

their cars fixed after an accident? It's happening in your

constituency, too, Mr. Minister, as in mine.

You know, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Education, who is responsible

for ICBC rates, wants our kids to go back to the old math. He sure is

applying the old Socred arithmetic to ICBC customers.

MR. LEA: One plus one plus two....

MR. COCKE: A plus B. What he's saying, in effect, is: "I'll

collect $400 from Mr. A and Mr. B. If Mr. A doesn't have an accident,

I'll be able to keep his $400. When Mr. B has an accident, I'll tell

him he hasn't got a claim, so I'll keep his $400 too, except that I'll

take 17.5 per cent of it and give it back to Mr. A as a rebate for not

having an accident." It sort of reminds you of the good old A-plus-B

theorem.

MR. KING: Major Douglas!

MR. COCKE: That's right — Major Douglas, complete with a

social dividend, Mr. Speaker. Where is Aberhart, now that we need him?

What about old Ernie LeCours? Ernie LeCours would be proud of that

Liberal-turned-Socred coalition member.

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): I thought you were going to call me a PQ. (Laughter.)

MR. COCKE: I never thought the Minister of Education believed

in that funny-money stuff, because he used to laugh at it so much when

he was a Liberal.

MR. LEA: You're a perfect case of you become what you hate.

MR. COCKE: It's a whale of a story though, isn't it, Mr. Member?

MR. LEA: You become what you hate if you hate hard enough.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are what you hate.

MR. COCKE: I guess I should have realized that his

perceptions of reality had changed when he tried to convince us last

year that a reported drop of 20,000 cars from the total of insured

vehicles actually meant more people were covered than ever before; at

the gasoline pumps, sales were higher. Well, Mr. Speaker, through you

to that minister, I guess that he's been using his government credit

card. He didn't notice that gas prices have increased quite a bit in

recent times, as if it wasn't bad enough when he tried to persuade

everyone that he could give rebates because everyone was driving more

safely, despite his own government's report that accidents are up.

MR. BARRETT: Selective reading.

MR. COCKE: That's right.

MR. BARRETT: That's not core studies.

MR. COCKE: We predicted a year ago that the exorbitant

premium increases would give ICBC an enormous profit, He denied it, and

he said he doubted it very much if there'd be rebates even. The

minister knew he'd be swimming in money after gouging the car owners in

the way he did. I believe that he was sincere when he said he didn't

expect to give any back. That's when he was sincere. This government

never intended to give any of its overcharge back. It was forced to do

so, Mr. Speaker.

Last November when ICBC announced the rebates it acknowledged that

the decision was made after intensive discussion with the provincial

anti-inflation officials who have the job of applying the national

guidelines.

MR. LEA: Oh, oh!

MR. COCKE: You know, Mr. Speaker, that's especially

interesting because ICBC was specifically exempted from those AIB

guidelines. But it had run up such a huge surplus on one year that even

its own officials had to warn it that the premium hoist was just too

brazen a caper, in view of the federal AIB insistence on some limit

being placed on private insurance company profits. That's why ICBC

revealed its estimated distributable surplus of $52 million — after

those intensive discussions about the guidelines. But when you consider

the corporation's arithmetic, under the Minister of Education's

supervision, you have to be very suspicious, because all his

predictions in public on accident numbers, on claims, on deficits, have

been so far from reality that one wonders if the real surplus isn't two

or three times as high as the sum that he's deemed distributable.

Well, Mr. Speaker, nobody'd be surprised if the minister is hiding

things. He has a record of doing that. For instance, he's hiding the

real reason for staggering the Autoplan renewals — the policies — in

1978. That move will smooth out some workflows, of course, but not by

much. It'll not reduce the amount of work involved, but it'll increase

the proportion of year-round full-time employees needed, particularly

in the marketing end for both independent agents and the corporation.

The relatively minor benefits of that move to the operation are nowhere

as important in this government's mind as the hidden fact that

[ Page 404 ]

returning auto insurance premium renewals to a

staggered basis is absolutely essential if the private industry is to

be brought back in to cream off the market. Twenty million a year....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Oh, the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Chabot) has woken up, Mr. Speaker.

MR. BARRETT: He just got back from Calgary.

MR. COCKE: You made the same speech last year. Mr. Speaker, I

listened to his job speech for so long that I even know how to

pronounce it — "Chops!"

Mr. Speaker, it's no accident that the Royal Insurance Co., one of

the biggest multinational branches operating in this country, announced

it was re-entering the province in auto insurance business, shortly

after the ICBC decision was made to stagger the renewals from now on.

It's the thin edge of the wedge, Mr. Speaker. The Royal is only coming

in on a limited basis this year, just to get a toehold and set up for

the bonanza in 1978. I predicted that there'll be lots of other private

firms racing back into B.C. In 1978 to get in on the gravy.

You know, that wouldn't have happened if the annual licence

insurance renewal method had continued, because private industry is

geared to the staggered system — always has been — and wouldn't change

easily, even after the Minister of Education brought in the rates that

made the private firms lick their lips hungrily. It's difficult for

them to change their system. But now that he's given them everything on

a silver platter, those millions are certainly becoming very

attractive. Those were two steps that were absolutely essential to make

it feasible for the private industry to come back into this province to

fleece the citizens again. The ICBC rates had to be boosted to such

high levels that matching competition could make a substantial profit,

and the technical requirement of staggered policies had to be

introduced so that private companies could function.

MR. LEA: Shame!

MR. COCKE: You know, those are the hidden reasons for the

minister's amazing difficulty in simple arithmetic when trying to

publicly rationalize his actions. Think of it: a university egghead,

Mr. Speaker, so woefully and obviously unable to add or subtract that

even the press couldn't swallow his answer.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the minister's pose is as phony as

his figuring. The hidden reasons for all of his actions lie buried in a

series of closed meetings he held with representatives of various

multinational insurance companies last year. The minister still has not

made public the content of those discussions, but private industry has.

The men have talked. The men you talked to have talked, and where did

they do their talking? They did their talking in Toronto, not in New

Westminster, or even in Burnaby-Edmonds, that constituency that you

have never heard of.

Mr. Speaker, that minister still has not made public the content of those discussions. However, the Financial Post has. They inter-viewed some of them, and here are a few published comments. Let's hear what they say.

"Insurers are looking hungrily at the $400

million-plus in automobile premiums available in B.C. Before they go

back some have made it clear that they want more than the crumbs in

that business. Alan Horsford, president of the Royal Insurance group,

is emphatic that his company wants the business, but the terms will be

tough. 'We would want to compete across the board, and if we couldn't

because a certain element of the business was reserved for the ICBC, we

would want a large slice of the business available.' "

The

article also quotes Gerald Fournier, president of Allstate

Insurance, as saying that his company is taking out a company licence,

but it wants firm guarantees from the government. The

article goes on:

"So it remains to be seen whether private insurers will be back in B.C.

In '77. Some are saying they will need good rate increases to be able

to build up capacity to handle the large B.C. business. But it looks as

if both sides are serious." That's what it says in Toronto.

MR. BARRETT: There it is — the old sellout.

MR. COCKE: Yes, they certainly are serious, Mr. Speaker. They

are serious, and that's why private industry helped finance that

coalition election campaign, and that's why the minister has relicensed

every private company that has applied to do auto business here.

MR. KING: Thanks for the memories.

MR. COCKE: Every one of them. That's why he deliberately

overcharged Autoplan customers, using, as an excuse, the phony argument

about startup deficits that should be amortized for several years.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: That's right. One of your honest members over

there, the member for Shuswap (Mr. Bawtree), said that they had to put

the premium up

[ Page 405 ]

high enough so the private industry would be attracted back. That's why they are staggering the renewal dates, too, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LAUK: Political chaos!

MR. COCKE: That's why we are all staggering under the load they put on us — all but the millionaires, Mr. Speaker!

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

That's why that member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Mr. Loewen) is going

around making his great announcements. That's why he scrapped plans for

building a permanent ICBC headquarters in New Westminster — he wants to

undermine it. I'm talking about undermining ICBC in order to get more

re-election campaign slush funds. Mr. Speaker, that's why the citizens

of this province will lose this valuable, home-grown public corporation

if this coalition is re-elected.

To get to another subject: we are here to debate a budget which has

been described by the Minister of Finance and other government

spokesmen as providing a growth in expenditures of 5.9 per cent. We

heard the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) say that. Everybody

in this room witnessed it today. But you know, Mr. Speaker, that's

false advertising. It's false advertising on a scale far more damaging

than any conducted by, for example, a hardware store — far more

damaging. We have to contrast March 31, 1976, dollars with those of

March 31, 1977. Of course, the data isn't in yet, but the best

approximation I can get from Statistics Canada....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: You wouldn't understand, Mr. Member, so why don't you just keep quiet?

The best approximation I can get from Statistics Canada is that from

March to March the dollar will have deflated 7.5 per cent to 8 per cent

— somewhere in there — so let's use the 7.75 per cent as a deflator

figure. By my arithmetic we have budgeted expenditures of $3.53 billion

in March, 1976, dollars, down from last year's $3.615 billion. You

know, that's the fact of life.

Mr. Speaker, a very considerable portion of the budget is spent on

services to a growing population. The vital statistics branch of the

Department of Health estimates that the current growth is at 2 per

cent, or about 46,000 more people per year. A 2 per cent increase is

the estimate.

Whereas in the government's last budget they were

spending about $1,570 per capita — that's March, 1976, dollars per

capita — this year they are proposing to spend about $1,500 1976

dollars per capita. What a boon! What a blessing! That is a decline in

real dollars, and it is a greater decline in real dollars per capita.

Furthermore, for any of the programmes for seniors the figures will

be worse. Let me tell you why. That

section of the population is

growing at about twice the rate of the general population. In the

health field particularly, these figures are especially ominous, Mr.

Speaker, even if general morbidity remains equal, for the older segment

of the population requires more intensive and expensive treatment, and

more frequently. So to compound the problem health services, the cost

of constructing health facilities and equipment and materials

associated with sophisticated treatment are all increasing in cost at a

rate considerably greater than the overall rate.

Now the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer), who has abandoned

his responsibilities to build a monument to himself out at UBC, will be

well aware of that.

You know, Mr. Speaker, I think it runs in the family. Remember Uncle

Gerry? He first read the Riot Act, and then he built a monument to

himself. Remember the house that Gerry built — that great city hall in

Vancouver? Now we've got a Minister of Education who read the Riot Act

to everybody who drives a car in this province, and now he's building a

monument to himself out at UBC.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COCKE: Gerry-built, Mr. Speaker — they're all Gerry-built.

This is an ominous budget....

AN HON. MEMBER: Did Yvonne tell you that?

MR. COCKE: Yes, Yvonne told me that. (Laughter.)

This is an ominous budget, Mr. Speaker, for all British Columbians,

save coupon-clippers, large estate-holders and large estate-inheritors.

It is especially ominous for the elderly in this province.

The Minister of Finance calls for restraint. He has the audacity to

call for restraint. He calls for restraint on the part of the

wage-earners; indeed, he calls on them to accept settlements. We just

heard the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) a minute ago accept

settlements below the national guidelines which are set at the

inflation rate. So he's proposing that while some millionaires receive

bonanzas of $400,000 or $500,000 or more, the working people in the

province are expected to endure not only a decline in publicly financed

services, but also a decline in the purchasing power of their incomes.

MR. BARRETT: Shame!

[ Page 406 ]

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, it's beyond endurance to hear this millionaire car dealer lecturing to the people on the need for restraint.

MR. BARRETT: After they've bought a car.

MR. COCKE: They — and I'm talking about the people — practise

restraint as a matter of survival! That they are alive today is an

illustration that they know a lot more about it than you do, Mr.

Speaker. I even read the speech that member made in this House a few

days ago before he made it.

MR. BARRETT: What are you, a masochist?

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, what more precisely is his advice to

those people? Should they fly to Hawaii less often? Would that be the

advice we give them? Or should they stop attending $100-a-plate

political dinners? Should we advise them like that? You know, I'll

advise them. I'll say: you guys out there stop lighting your cigarettes

with $5 bills! That's what we'll tell the people of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance says that.

Mr. Speaker, listen to this: the national welfare council produces from time

to time model budgets for families in various income groups. None are recent

enough to include the massive effects of this government's fiscal activities,

so may I propose to the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Consumer and

Corporate Affairs that they get together and update those budgets, then give

us specific advice about restraint.

The budget confesses that the economy needs stimulus. Yesterday's Province article, page 18 — some of you saw it — they ran a story and I think they made it clear. Incidentally, I won't give The Province too much credit; it appeared in The Province , but it was actually a Financial Times

article which they reprinted. It was: "Faced with conflicting economic

statistics and forecasts, executives and managers polled for Financial Times

have taken a big sigh of discontentment. At 61, the latest index of

business confidence is the lowest in two years." I could go on quoting

from that, but I think we all know the situation we are in.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) was pleased

to ramble along with the depressing effects of the AIB programme a

couple of days ago. Incidentally, during that turgid address the

Minister of Labour took some comfort from the fact that there was a

higher unemployment rate during the summer of 1975 — you know, during

the summer of 1975 when there was a massive industrial-relations

dispute. And in the summer of 1976 there was not. His own people in his

own department know better than to take any comfort from that. So if he

can be spared from his diligent search for a Workers' Compensation

Board chairman, maybe he should spend some more time with the people in

his own department and get a little education.

If anything more about the depressed state of our economy — about

its need for stimulus, and about the total absence of it in the budget

— was said by the member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford), it was by the

Minister of Labour. Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour sounded more

like the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) — remember that wise sage from

Omineca? What did he say, Mr. Speaker? He said and I'll just read part

of this

article very quickly:

"At least one Social Credit backbencher isn't sure

where the provincial government is trying to lead B, C. during the next

three years.

"Cyril Shelford, Socred for Skeena, shied away from

expressing that concern about his leaders in the Legislature Tuesday,

but said outside the House that he was worried about the lack of

cabinet strategy: 'Contrary to many reports on the economy of the

northwest, it's got progressively worse.'"

Mr. Speaker, he knows what he's talking about. When

the present decline began in late 1974 and 1975, we drew down on $140

million of reserves. That was one decision which created the fanatical,

right-wing hysteria of this government and was used as part of an

excuse to drown the province in taxes.

I'm not going to prolong the debate about the accounting process or

about whether moneys received. during a fiscal year can be spent during

that year without creating a deficit. That matter can be explored in a

public debate between the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) and the

member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) . What concerns me now, Mr. Speaker,

is that it makes simple common sense to do that in times of economic

stress, and no sense at all — except crass political sense — for any

government to add to the decline, as this government is doing with this

budget.

Mr. Speaker, the decline was caused, as everyone but the Minister of

Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) knows, by the decline in demand and prices

for our natural resources. It will continue until the effects of

President Carter's expansionary measures, and like influences, overcome

this government's determination to strangle our economy. The decline

will meanwhile have been made far, far worse than it need be by our own

government's position that they want to make some gain out of it.

Mr. Speaker, there is nothing written in stone about March to March

balances. This is an accountant's convenience, with all deference to

the member for Nanaimo. But it is; it's an accountant's convenience —

nothing more. It represents nothing of economic significance. It might

as well be four months or 16 1/2 months. There is an economically

significant unit of time, Mr. Speaker, and it's called

[ Page 407 ]

the business or economic cycle.

For decades, Mr. Speaker, governments across the western world have

recognized that their responsibility to provide economic prosperity, to

even out roller coaster dips and raises in the economy, required them

to spend more during downturns and less during upturns — fairly

rational. It does not take an economist to understand that, Mr.

Speaker. Governments should make use of idle resources during

recessions, thereby alleviating unemployment and stimulating the

economy. It's just as simple as that. Even the member for Omineca (Mr.

Kempf) could understand that, if he would listen.

Governments should not compete heavily for labour, capital, and

material during upswings. They should, during these periods, reduce the

inflationary effect of competing for scarce resources. The Member for

Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) knows that, Mr. Speaker, and yet this

government is proceeding down the opposite path. It's strangulating the

economy when it should be stimulating, and it's precisely at the time

when it should be dampening an overheated economy that it will go on a

spending spree. You just wait and see.

MR. BARRETT: I believe you.

MR. COCKE: It's a course of action deliberately calculated to

sacrifice our economic well-being for this government's own political

gain, Mr. Speaker.

The member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) was wrong. There is a plan;

there is a strategy; and it's to proceed with a fiscal policy that is

the precise opposite of every sound and tested principle of public

finance, Mr. Speaker, and to do so for their own political ends — for

the political ends of the coalition government.

MR. BARRETT: Shame!

MR. COCKE: It is a shame. Mr. Speaker, if you ask the average

person in this province where we're going, you'll get the automatic

response: "We're in trouble." Mr. Speaker, any of those backbenchers

that deny that aren't listening, aren't going home to their

constituencies. The member for Dewdney flies his plane too high. He's

not hearing what people are saying. After listening to the budget

speech and the excuses made for the budget since by the ministers and

the backbenchers, we all know why we're in trouble, Mr. Speaker.

If one were forgiving one might say: "Forgive them, O Lord, for they

know not what they do." Forgive them we might, but continue to accept

their ignorance we can't. Mr. Speaker, there is suffering, and it's

being ignored; there is poverty, and it's being ignored; there is

unemployment and it's being ignored.

Mr. Speaker, that new coalition lived on excuses for a while. Do you

remember what those excuses were? "The bad old NDP" — that's what those

excuses were. Excuses, excuses! But what have they got now? They can no

longer use that. No longer can these pathetic bleatings by the faithful

34 over there be accepted as anything more than just pathetic, empty

rhetoric.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: You know, Mr. Speaker, the new chairman of their

caucus (Mr. Kahl) sits there — that great leader among children, that

school teacher — making empty remarks on a very serious subject. I

listened to his speeches in this House, and I just can't believe that

the children of this province are in the hands of that kind of

leadership.

Mr. Speaker, just to show the convoluted coverup for what it is,

let's look at one example. Even the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr.

Hewitt) could understand this one. Think in terms of the student

opportunity in B.C.

First, we heard a mighty hosanna from across there when $15 million

was allocated for a work study programme. Do you remember that? It was

a few days ago. That's what it's called in-House; that's the $15

million student programme. They're calling it a "work study," despite

the fact that in the face of the problem, the figure is miserably low.

Compare that to the NDP: $20 million in '73; $30 million in '74; and

$20 million in '75, in times that weren't so difficult. Yet their

mighty hosannas over this $15 million....

Mr. Speaker, last year they spent about $8 million; now this year

it's $15 million. But let's look at it closely. Let's look at the

estimates on Education. It would do some of you some good to read those

estimates. You see an increase of about $0.5 million in the student-aid

programme, right? Okay. That brings it up to about $11 million, down

from oui $12.5 million when we were government. I charge, however, that

that allocation is window dressing. It's not being spent. The criteria

are so tough that the kids are not taking advantage of that programme

so the money sits gathering dust in the treasury.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: No. Wait a minute! It's gathering dust waiting for a political ploy.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, no!

MR, COCKE: Oh, yes. The ploy is to spend it on a work programme and get the credit twice.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh no!

[ Page 408 ]

MR. COCKE: Oh, yes.

There are more publicity stunts from that group, Mr. Speaker. They

have more stunts in there than Barnum and Bailey ever had. It's no

wonder you hire every editor and PR man that you can get your hands on.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. COCKE: Oh, oh! Yes, we say "oh!" every time we pick up

the orders-in-council: another editor from some paper is being hired as

an executive assistant.

Mr. Speaker, there's a vacuum in government and it's slowly being

filled by hot air. I can see one of the best examples of that sitting

right across from me. The government of B.C. has a game plan: do

nothing but look after its millionaire friends. That's their game plan.

The byword is: govern by press release; govern by appearance.

Let's not forget the magnanimous statement by the Minister of

Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) regarding the basic mill rate for school

purposes. Do you remember that? "Open up the purses," he intimated.

"Instructional units are going to increase 16.4 per cent, the mill

rate's up five mills. We're going to do some educating in this

province." But now that the budget is down, the estimate is that the

province will be paying 42 per cent, so they will dump 58 per cent of

the cost on the school districts, on the local taxpayers. This

government was going to do so much to take the costs off the shoulders

of the local taxpayers in the municipalities. How can you hold your

heads up when you go home? How can you go to Kamloops, Mr. Minister?

MR. BARRETT: Take it off their shoulders and put it on their backs.

MR. COCKE: Oh, your direction is clear: pick up whatever

kudos you can; call the shot at all times — centralization is the

objective of that government, Mr. Speaker — but dump financial

responsibility wherever you can. Your record is deplorable, absolutely

deplorable. I'll ask you: when will you repent, you sinners? When will

you repent over there?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I must draw your attention to the fact that you are on your last three minutes.

MR. COCKE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I watch the lights very carefully.

Now that ICBC is dripping in the car drivers' money, you have again

shown your true colours. You are misleading "your people," as they are

described by the monarch of Omineca. Do you remember yesterday? "Our

people, my people."

Look at page 19 of the budget.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: I'm quoting the budget now. Listen carefully,

because you all heard the promise last year: "Responsibility for the

automobile insurance refund programme has been transferred to the

Insurance Corporation of British Columbia."

MR. BARRETT: They use the next speaker to make it disappear.

MR. COCKE: That's right. A promise to take it out of general

revenue — another promise broken. ICBC's just dripping in money —

another way to cover up.

Mr. Speaker, even the backbenchers toy with truth. Recall the member

for Burnaby-Edmonds (Mr. Loewen), who has done so much for his own

constituency, making all those glorious announcements about what

they're going to do with ICBC property in its future development. He

has got a free-enterprise government building hotels and, oh,

everything else. It's the strangest thing I have ever heard in my life.

However, when I asked the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr.

Phillips), about it, what did that minister say?

MR. LAUK: He left the House.

MR. COCKE: Gobbledegook is all he said. He wouldn't make an

announcement out of it, Mr. Speaker. They have no credibility. Their

credibility is terrible with us, and it's going to become a greater and

greater problem with the public because, you know, you can fool less

and less people as you go along because more and more catch on to you.

No, Mr. Speaker, we're not going to support this budget — this excuse

for a budget, Mr. Speaker. The contradiction that we are watching is

that a group of self-righteous people in this House can. That's the

contradiction: the self-righteous group over there can support this

budget. We can't.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for Kootenay.

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): Stand up, George!

MR. G. HADDAD (Kootenay): Mr. Speaker, if I may, I'd like to

tell the members in the House that where I come from they don't measure

a man from the ground up, they measure him from the shoulders up.

(Laughter.)

MR. BARRETT: You had that so spontaneously rehearsed! (Laughter.)

[ Page

409 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you a friend of Tommy Hunter's?

MR. HADDAD: Oh, I think Tommy is a great guy.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start off by saying that things are

certainly very quiet around here — I haven't seen any books being

thrown around. However, I appreciate the privilege of attending my

second legislative session and I must say the experience is less

frightening than the first session. There just don't seem to be the

squabbles going around. It appears that everybody is quite friendly.

I would like to thank, once again, the constituents of the riding of

Kootenay for placing their confidence and trust in me as their elected

member to the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: They're going to regret that mistake, George.

MR. HADDAD: They never made a mistake.

Mr. Speaker, through you, I would like to congratulate the Premier on the manner

in which he and his cabinet have brought us through the past critical months.

I would also like to congratulate our three new ministers whose appointments

will be a great asset to the cabinet: the Hon. Sam Bawlf, Minister of Recreation

and Conservation, who will assuredly use his expertise to the benefit of all

British Columbians; the member for Boundary-Similkameen, the Hon. James Hewitt,

our new Minister of Agriculture, who, I am sure, will take good care of the

B.C. fruit growers, cattle ranchers and produce farmers, and will once more

make agriculture a productive industry that we can all take pride in; and, last

but not least, my good friend from Columbia River, the Hon. James Chabot, the

Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources. I trust that everyone who heard the

travelogue in my maiden speech now knows that the largest mining activity in

the province of British Columbia is centred in my constituency — the largest

lead and zinc mine in the world at Cominco in Kimberley, and the coal mines

at Sparwood and Elkford. The new minister will have his work cut out inducing

capital investment to open up new mines throughout the province.

MR. LAUK: Quebec has a better chance.

MR. HADDAD: I know that he will do a good job. The people of

my area were as delighted with his appointment as I am. To each of you,

I wish much success in your areas of endeavour.

Mr. Speaker, before I comment on the budget I would like to commend the Premier

for his efforts and excellent progress that he and the cabinet have made in

the first year of the new Social Credit government. I would like to commend

the Premier and the cabinet ministers on their decision to hold cabinet meetings

throughout the province.

MR. LAUK: In camera.

MR. HADDAD: It is most gratifying that they met in my constituency of Kootenay.

MR. LAUK: How did you hear about it?

MR. HADDAD: The citizens of Cranbrook were very proud to have

the cabinet in their city and pleased to have the opportunity to meet

with the various members of the executive council. Many briefs were

presented and the opportunity to discuss problems was extended, and

gratefully accepted, by the citizens. The ministers were considerate of

everyone who approached them.

It was also gratifying to me that several of the ministers visited

neighbouring cities, attending luncheons and meetings with people. The

hon. Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser), along with senior

officials of his ministry, accompanied me on a tour of the majority of

my riding. We established priorities regarding bridges, highway

construction and upgrading. We in the Kootenays appreciated the

personal attention we received, and still are receiving, from this

minister and the cabinet as a whole.

Mr. Speaker, the good reverend, Captain Garnet Cassell of the

Salvation Army, in giving his blessings on January 24, 1977, stated

that this assembly would need the wisdom of Solomon. I say to you that

members of this assembly will not only require the wisdom of Solomon,

but will need to develop the hide of a rhinoceros, as it appears we

have another tough year ahead of us.

Mr. Speaker, I now turn my attention to the hon. Minister of

Finance. I would like to state here and now, Mr. Minister, that you are

to be highly commended for the job you have done in your first year. I

was pleased to learn that your budget balanced in your first year as

minister. That also proves that a car dealer has what it takes.

Our Minister of Finance has made an excellent start in his second

budget, the one covering 1977-78, by removing the succession duties and

the Gift Tax Act. Investors will be coming into the province of British

Columbia and reversing the trend of investors leaving. I am sure that

he will see many new commercial and industrial developments opening up

in the very near future. Mining and exploration companies will return.

New investment capital will again help to create new jobs for our

people.

I have received many letters from my constituents with regard to the

tax on propane gas. I am sure that those users who rely upon propane

gas will be delighted with the reduction of the tax from 7 per cent to

0.5 per cent. This will mean a saving of

[ Page 410 ]

approximately $34 a year through this tax

reduction. The total allocation of $180 million for highway

construction will certainly create many jobs. I am sure that the

Minister of Highways will be spending much of this in my riding of

Kootenay on bridges and highway construction.

I am sure that the allocation of $15 million for the youth seasonal

employment programme will assist more students than before in all areas

of British Columbia. I know the students in my area will be pleased

with this announcement, as there was just not enough work for them last

year.

The change in the Corporation Capital Tax Act to allow mining

companies more flexibility in writing off exploration expenses will be

a great boon in my area. This will create more investments and more

jobs.

Mr. Speaker, the reduction in sales tax on mobile homes used for

residential purposes is a move in the right direction. An estimated

saving of $500 per home will be much appreciated by those who are

buying mobile homes.

Our senior citizens will benefit with an increase in the homeowner

grant. They will now receive $430, an increase of $50. This is positive

action by a government that cares.

I was happy to note that community recreational facility development

has been given an additional $8 million for the forthcoming fiscal year.

The Economic Development budget is up by 18.5 per cent to allow an

expansion of export development activities, which will lead to

increased job potential for the people of our province.

Mr. Speaker, we are in a tight world economic squeeze where

restraint must be the watchword. It is my firm belief that this is the

right budget at the right time.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on!

MR. HADDAD: The coming year will be difficult, make no

mistake about that. But through you, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to

this House that this budget is the foundation on which we will build a

better province for all of our people.

Mr. Speaker, much has already been said about the removal of succession duties

and gift tax, the main thought being: robbing the poor to pay the millionaire.

Let me tell you that this is hogwash. The removal of these taxes should have

been done years ago. In my opinion, the investment dollars that have left this

province, on account of government's greed for taxes from investors, should

have remained in British Columbia. Had this happened, I am sure that our unemployment

figures would be at an acceptable level, even with the increase of population.

Mr. Speaker, I have some thoughts in regard to B.C. Hydro. The continual high

increases of electrical rates are hard to accept when you consider that the

power is developed by water generation. Qualified people in my constituency

are well aware of the waste in productivity in the work forces of B.C. Hydro

and are continually informing me of this. My constituents want B.C. Hydro more

accountable to the people of British Columbia. I would like to suggest to our

government that more public information be given to the people of British Columbia

before huge amounts of money are committed and large borrowings are made. And

then the rates are raised to cover the loan. This neglect has been made by all

past governments.

I am also informed that B.C. Hydro is continuing with feasibility

studies of the diversion of the Kootenay River into the Columbia River.

The people of the Kootenays are very much opposed to this for many

reasons.

Briefly, this will cause unacceptable ecological and social

disruption. It will also cause higher water levels on the Columbia

River between Canal Flats and Golden and lower levels downstream on the

Kootenay River. Depending on the volume of water diverted, diversion

could be expected to flood wetlands between Columbia Lake and Golden

that are used by waterfowl as nesting grounds, the village of

Athelmere, some summer cottages, sawmills, and portions of the CPR

tracks beside the Columbia River. These might have to be relocated to

escape flooding. Water pollution problems in the Kootenay River,

downstream from Canal Flats to below the United States border, could be

aggravated by the reduced flow, since the Skookumchuck pulp mill and

Cominco mining operations at Kimberley both discharge waste to this

river.

Mr. Speaker, we are in a tight world economic squeeze where

restraint must be the watchword. It is my firm belief that this is the

right budget at the right time. The coming year will be difficult, make

no mistake about that. But through you, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to

this House that this budget is the foundation on which we will build a

better province for all of our people.

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): I'm shocked at such a short speech from the hon. member from Kootenay, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: How long is yours?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Oh, about 15 minutes.

I'm pleased to take my place again in this budget speech. I spoke

briefly in the throne speech debate, but I neglected to congratulate

the member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) on his election to post of

Deputy Speaker. He did such a fine job last year, Mr. Speaker, and I

know he'll do a good job this year, so I congratulate him.

[ Page

411 ]

Other speakers have congratulated the government for budgetary

measures that we are now debating, and they said they are proud of the

budget speech. Well, I can't see much to be proud of, Mr. Speaker:

penalizing of the poor, our handicapped, our senior citizens and just

about all of the working people in this province. There's not too much

to be proud of, in my opinion, Mr. Speaker.

I think I'll take a bit of the time of this House to discuss a few

constituency items, like highways, and I'm pleased to see the Minister

of Highways and Public Works (Hon. Mr. Fraser) in his seat today, this

afternoon, anyway.

Mr. Speaker, when we were the government we had started a programme of reconstruction of Highway 101 up the Sunshine

Coast leading to Powell River. In any event, for some unknown reason

that highway project came to a sudden halt last year, the year of 1976.

My constituents would like to know, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr.

Speaker, when that project is going to start again. I know that there

are no contracts being called or let. I know that your budget is being

increased significantly this year. So I'm asking you now, on behalf of

my constituents, to upgrade and to continue the reconstruction of 101

up through theSunshine Coast to Powell River.

I would like you as well, Mr. Minister, to consider the upgrading of

some of the major sideroads that have been neglected in the last year.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: No, we did a good job in three years. We got a

lot of work done in my riding, Mr. Minister. For the first time in 26

years we got some work done in my riding — a reasonable amount in the

three years that the NDP were in office.

In any event, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, I would ask

the minister that your department look at some of the major sideroads

in my riding.

I understand that all of the hospitals in my riding are feeling the

pinch because of government cutbacks, Mr. Speaker. The health of our

people in this province is of prime importance. If the health of our

people is going to suffer because hospitals do have to cut back because

of this government's fiscal policies — I don't think there's anything

that can be said about that except that it's shameful.

There will probably be a 5 mill increase in school taxes again this

year in all of my school districts. This will amount to a total of $56

million throughout the whole province. An increase in taxes that should

be paid by the provincial government. Once again, the heavy burden of

taxation is being placed on the people and the individual taxpayers,

instead of being applied where it should be, Mr. Speaker.

There's another matter, Mr. Speaker, that is of great concern to a

number of people, and that is the availability of Crown land. We have

literally thousands and thousands of acres of Crown land in my riding,

Mr. Speaker. But the problem is that, first of all, people don't know

where to apply. You know they can apply for a piece of land. But 90 per

cent of the time when they apply for a piece of Crown land — after

waiting up to two and a half years for their applications to be

processed — they're finally rejected. Ninety per cent of the

applications are rejected. So I'm suggesting that the Department of

Lands move into the 20th century and computerize the system that they

have over in that department. Now I'm not necessarily blaming the

people in that department because I know that they do not have the

staff or the facilities. But I am suggesting a computerized system

where all departments or all agencies, such as municipalities, regional

districts, Health, Highways, and any other ministry that has to rule on

an application, will have that information at hand. People should not

have to wait two and a half years — three years in some cases, but

generally speaking two years — to find out whether their application

has been accepted or rejected. The NDP government was moving in that

direction, Mr. Speaker, but I understand that this present government

seems to be going back to the bad old days under W.A.C. where there was

really very little being done in this regard. Our government was moving.

Mr. Speaker, no discussion of the state of the economy — a

discussion prompted by the presentation of the government's budget in

this House — would be complete without consideration of the state of

transportation, for indeed there is no economy without facilities for

the movement of goods and people. Today I ask the House to consider the

state of transportation in this province, to witness how it affects the

whole economy, including the building and maintaining of strong,

healthy communities. In particular I want to draw the attention of the

members and the government to the relationship between transportation

and the present serious economic troubles of British Columbia.

The hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) described these troubles

very well at the beginning of this debate in this House. No doubt every

member of the House, on both sides, if allowed to speak from his own

conscience and experience, could describe the troubles which beset this

province today. Unemployment, bankruptcies, loan failures, rising costs

and declining revenues are part of the real experience of all the

people. Indeed, there is hardly a family in the entire province that is

not touched in some way by these economic and therefore human troubles.

Previous speakers in this House have discussed the effect on the business community of Vancouver

[ Page 412 ]

Island as a result of fare increases — increases in

some cases up to 200 and 300 per cent. The dollars lost to Vancouver

Island, as a member pointed out earlier, were an estimated $65 million

to $90 million — depending on from whom you are getting the figures. On

theSun shine Coast it's $10 million to $20 million. Would you believe

$10 million to $20 million in revenue — lost to businesses on theSunshine Coast, to those people in those communities?

A small-business operator, service station and restaurant operator

here on Vancouver Island told me that during the peak month during the

tourist season in 1975 he made slightly over $15,000, which was fairly

good for him in that type of business. But in 1976 he lost money and he

blames it on the direct increase in fares on the ferries.

On Vancouver Island the occupancy rate is down by an average of 10.5

per cent. This last summer it was down over 20 per cent — after fare

increases. Four years ago the occupancy rate was 80 per cent for

December; this year it was 60 per cent for the month of December. Hotel

beverage revenue is up only 2.5 per cent; food is up 3.1 per cent for

the year. The problem is that their costs have risen well over the IS

per cent, for a net loss of 12.5 per cent in beverages, and 13.9 per

cent in food.

I think in this House we are all aware of the effects of the ferry

fare increases, Mr. Speaker, so I won't dwell on that. What I am now

requesting of this government and the minister — and I'm glad to see

he's in the House — is for an immediate 30 per cent reduction in ferry

fares. I think if we went that route, we would stimulate the economy in

areas, primarily Vancouver Island and theSun shine Coast. An immediate

30 per cent decrease in fares — I would very much appreciate it if you

would consider that proposal, Mr. Minister.

I wish to take a minute, while the minister is in the House, to

discuss another problem. It's not an overall, big problem for the whole

province, but it is a problem that affects my riding, and it's to do

with rescheduling on route 3, Horseshoe Bay to Langdale.

The people living in that area, Mr. Speaker — right up to Powell

River — are not too happy. While we are pleased that the Queen of New

Westminster has replaced an older vessel, the fact of the matter is,

because the bigger vessel was put on — and the minister tells us that

it is capable of handling the anticipated traffic in the area — the

schedule was changed, and changed quite significantly.

The minister said on January 17 that people are happy with the

service. The ferries are better, is what he says. I am reading from the

Victoria Times . But let me see

what the people say. Here is an article, dated December 15, which

appeared in one of the local newspapers — five weeklies in that area.

I'm quoting from the Peninsula Times , Mr. Speaker:

"Local opposition is growing to the new B.C. Ferries schedules

for Howe Sound. Under changes, effective December 13, several sailings have

been completely eliminated, and the departure times changed for others.

"Two larger vessels are now serving the Sun shine Coast,

and the ferry corporation maintains that these are adequate to maintain passenger

demands."

I must agree at this point, Mr. Speaker, that the two vessels to

date have met passenger demands; it's the scheduling we're talking

about now. Here is what's happening to people, and I want you to listen

to this, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, if you would because

I'd really like you to know what's happening to the people in that area

at the moment.

What has upset most people is the elimination of the 7:40 a.m.

commuter run from Langdale to Horseshoe Bay. Now people working in

Vancouver will either have to catch the 6:45 a.m. sailing — which means

they'll have to get up about 5 or 5:30 in the morning — or the 9 a.m.

sailing, which will make them late for work. As the 6 p.m. return

sailing has also been cancelled, most commuters will wait until 7:30

p.m. to get back home, which means that they don't get home until — at

the earliest — 8:30, many at 9 if they live farther up the peninsula.

The Lower Gibsons Merchants Association has decided to send a letter

of protest. At the last association meeting, Bill Edney, of Ken's Lucky

Dollar store, told the other members that his produce trucks used to

catch the 7:40 morning ferry and return at 2:40 in the afternoon. Now,

he says, they will spend hours sitting in ferry lineups due to poor

connections. His sentiments were supported by Robert Christopher,

president of Peninsula Transport Ltd. Christopher said: "Reduction in

service will mean later deliveries to our customers on the peninsula

and add to the cost of transportation in that area." And he goes on to

list the reasons why.

Sechelt Motor Transport Coach Lines runs the bus service between

Powell River and Vancouver. Under the regulations of the Motor

Transport Commission, they must give 30 days' notice to their customers

before any change in schedule. "But," says Sechelt depot manager George

Hopkins, "I was only informed on December 3 about the new ferry times."

Not only that, but the bus line had 30,000 timetables printed after

being told by the government last May of the proposed winter sailings.

But what the Sechelt Motor Transport was told and what the ferries

announced were different schedules. And this is a problem for them, Mr.

Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker.

People travelling by bus now from Powell River have an added wait of

about one and a half hours at the Langdale terminal because of ferry

connections across Jervis Inlet. I think you're familiar with the

problem. In any event, I wish to draw this once again

[ Page 413 ]

to your attention and hope that you will take steps to improve scheduling on that particular route.

While we're discussing some of the problems on the ferries, Mr.

Speaker, there's one other item that I'd like to raise, and that is the

matter of the board of directors for the B.C. Ferries Corporation. At

present, I think, there are six directors on the board, as you well

know, Mr. Minister. You're a member. In fact I think you're chairman of

that board, if I'm not mistaken. These people come from the lower

mainland, West Vancouver and two from Vancouver Island. And that's fair

enough. But there are vacancies on that board. My constituency happens

to have, from Howe Sound to the Powell River area, between 45,000 and

50,000 people, a large tourist industry and quite a large business

community. There must be one person who is capable of serving on that

board of directors and putting forward the views of the people in my

riding. You have received, Mr. Minister, correspondence from people in

the area suggesting just what I have suggested: that somebody from our

riding be placed on the board of directors. You have received

correspondence from the business community, the chamber of commerce,

the regional district and others. And I hope, once again, Mr. Minister,

that you will seriously consider having someone. If you need a

recommendation I've got a couple of names I can give you.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to look at some specific cases of

unemployment and some of the consequences of the current situation in

regard to coast transportation problems. Let us look at a specific case

in which unemployment and all the unhappy social consequences are only

a symptom. Let us look at the case of 250 merchant seamen, citizens of

British Columbia, people who have paid their taxes, built their homes,

have honest ambitions for themselves and for their families — 250

seamen, Mr. Speaker, who are today out of work. They were employed

until recently by Northland Navigation, a private company which

operated on the coast for many years and was the successor to the old

Union Steamship Company. Northland Navigation cancelled its service

last year, laying off these 250 seamen and ending a service that

extends back to the early history of our country, following a series of

very sad events which I would like to review just very quickly, Mr.

Speaker, here.

Northland has been able to maintain its service until 1976 because

of subsidies paid to it by the federal government. As early as 1974, it

was known that the federal government was anxious to get out of paying

these subsidies, consistent not so much with a general policy of

subsidization on coastal shipping, I believe, as on general

discrimination against British Columbia. As has been noted widely,

subsidies to east coast shipping are being maintained and are very

hefty.

In August, 1976, the federal government announced finally and

definitely that they were ceasing paying the subsidies to Northland as

of October 31. Many of us recognized what this would mean to the many,

many communities and people living in those areas — the central and

northern coast of this province.

I wrote to our Minister of Transport (Hon. Mr. Davis) on August 20,

as soon as the federal government announced its withdrawal of the

subsidy. I wrote to the federal minister, as well, on the same date,

Mr. Speaker, and I received a reply. The minister did say that he had

had several discussions with the Hon. Otto Lang on this subject, and

that's really about it. He said that shipping is primarily a national

responsibility.

Frankly, Mr. Speaker, while I understand that shipping on this coast

is primarily a federal responsibility, or that the federal government

should have some responsibility in this matter, I firmly believe that a

provincial government that was elected to represent the people of this

province should represent those people property and perhaps provide

alternative service. I know that negotiations are taking place, but

negotiations in terms of federal subsidies have been taking place for

many, many years — 30 that I'm aware of. Do these people on the coast

have to wait another 30 years while negotiations are going on?

The Hon. Otto Lang replied as well. fie said that he would be

pleased to enter into discussions with the provincial government. It

goes on: "This is primarily a provincial responsibility, " when we just

decided here that it wasn't necessarily.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, October 31 rolled around. Northland did

terminate its service, and there was quite a hullabaloo. Some of the

MPs representing the areas I'm describing — Mackenzie, Prince Rupert

and North Island — were crying, "Sweetheart deals!" because of a

private company's determination to try and provide service to the north

and central coast. That company was Rivtow, by the way. One MP cried,

"Sweetheart deals!"; another threatened to resign. I notice she hasn't,

but she threatened to, in spite of the fact that the service is worse

now than it was even two months ago.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Yes, he's a cabinet minister — that's right.

What did the government do to create an interim service? Not much.

Rivtow Straits, which said they could adequately perform the same

service as did Northland, without subsidy, took over the routes

formerly served by Northland.

In regard to the freight service provided by Rivtow Straits, this

was an open tug-and-barge system. I don't wish this to be a reflection

on the people in the

[ Page 414 ]

towboat industry. These are sincere, hard-working

people. In fact, most of the goods that move up and down this coast are

moved by tug-and-barge people. I know many of them well, and have had

the opportunity to work with a heck of a lot of them. But the fact is

that on that particular route, crossing Queen Charlotte Sound, there's

no way a tug and barge could maintain a schedule. It's as simple as

that, Mr. Speaker. So the result of that was that goods are arriving

into these communities damaged, spoiled, rotten, unfit to eat and that

type of thing. We're all familiar with that. There are many, many

accounts in all of the papers about this.

Further, the Malibu Princess, a vessel that was designed for inland

waters, was sent under subsidy to serve Masset and the Masset-Prince

Rupert route, where the winds can blow up to 100 miles an hour.

Everybody who knew the vessel and knew the waters agreed that that

vessel was unsafe.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: It was sent by the federal government but subsidized provincially for a time.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The Lumba Lumba. Okay, I'll accept that from the minister, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: I wouldn't accept it.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: No, I think he may be right on that. I don 't have it in front of me.

In any event, Mr. Speaker, that terrible vessel.... It's not a bad

vessel for inside waters, as a matter of fact — I've been on it — but

out there it was definitely unsafe; people wouldn't use it. It was, in

fact, a laughing stock. I understand it's been taken off that

particular route now. It's still up there somewhere — nobody knows

where exactly. It doesn't have a schedule. In any event, it's been

taken off that particular route, and I'm sure nobody will miss it. But

I suggest that that route will have to be taken over by an adequate

vessel, hopefully in the near future.

The other vessel that was involved in all of this was the Lumba Lumba.

AN HON. MEMBER: The whata-whata?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The Lumba L