1973 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 1973

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 457 ]

CONTENTS

Statement Statement by Hon. Mr. Barrett on Alaska pipeline — 457

Mr. Smith — 458

Mr. D.A. Anderson I — 458

Mr. Wallace — 459

Routine proceedings

An Act to Amend the Municipalities Aid Act (Bill No. 87) Mr.

Curtis.

Introduction and first reading — 459

Budget debate (continued)

Hon. Mr. Calder — 459

Mr. McClelland — 464

Mr. Williams — 471

Mr. Nicolson — 477

Mr. Liden — 484

Statement Statement by Hon. Mr. Cocke on the British Columbia Medical Association

and the Vietnam hospital project — 487

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Attorney General.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I want

to introduce to the Legislature the Hon. Bill Petley who is the

Minister of Financial Institutions for the Province of Quebec.

I may say, very briefly, that he is holding a national

conference of all the provinces of Canada in April or May on

consumer and company affairs, in the City of Quebec. And we in

British Columbia will be very glad to participate.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Labour.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have the distinct honour today to welcome to the House Miss

Revelstoke, a very beautiful young lady representing a very

beautiful alpine city. And I'd ask the House to join with me in

welcoming to the galleries Miss Judy Kukura, Miss Revelstoke,

and her chaperon, Mrs. Marlene McQuarrie.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Education.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, I

have the pleasure of welcoming right here on the floor of the

House today another very lovely lady, Mrs. Lois Haggen, who

served here in the Legislature with great distinction for 10

years. I'm sure the House will join in welcoming her.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Public Works.

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): Mr. Speaker, I

have the privilege to introduce to the House a young man in his

91st year. This young man hewed a farm in the Fraser Valley out

of the primeval forest, and he's still enjoying very good life.

He did have a young lady drive him down today — so, Mr. Hugh

MacDonald and Mrs. Winter.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Premier.

HON, D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I beg leave of the

House to make a statement on an important public matter.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, this morning it was brought to my attention

that President Nixon, in private talks with Rogers Morton, the Interior Secretary

of the United States, said he preferred the Alaska pipeline over any Canadian

alternative.

It is reported that Mr. Nixon said the pipeline will provide

10 per cent of the U.S. consumed oil in 1985 and, "We'd better

get on with it." Morton said legislation will be prepared and

presented to Congress to overcome the court ruling to hold up

the Alaska line. Secretary Morton said all options have been

considered. The Mackenzie Valley pipeline is less likely now

than a year ago because of problems with the service road and

environmental restrictions.

This was a report received by my office. I immediately

contacted the Prime Minister's office and informed the Prime

Minister's office that I was going to attempt to contact the

President or presidential aide. I did indeed contact the

President's office. I was unsuccessful in speaking to the

President but I did speak to an aide. As a result of that

conversation, I wired the Prime Minister the following

telegram:

DEAR MR. PRIME MINISTER:

THIS MORNING I LEARNED THAT UNITED STATES PRESIDENT NIXON IS

CONSIDERING TAKING LEGISLATIVE STEPS TO PROCEED WITH THE ALASKAN PIPELINE. AS

YOU KNOW, THE GOVERNMENT IS UNALTERABLY OPPOSED TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE ALASKA

PIPELINE SINCE IT WOULD RESULT IN SHIPPING MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF OIL PAST OUR COASTLINE.

UPON LEARNING OF PRESIDENT NIXON'S ACTIONS, I DISCUSSED THE MATTER

WITH ONE OF HIS WASHINGTON AIDES, MR. FAIRBANKS, WHO INFORMED ME BY TELEPHONE

THAT THE PROBLEM OF U.S. OIL SUPPLIES WAS BROUGHT TO THE PRESIDENT'S ATTENTION

AT A MEETING OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT'S RESOURCE COMMITTEE THIS VERY MORNING.

MR. FAIRBANKS SAID THE PRESIDENT IS SEEKING WAYS TO BREAK THE

LEGAL IMPASSE RESULTING FROM LAST WEEK'S COURT DECISION WHICH IS HOLDING BACK

THE ALASKA PIPELINE. I UNDERSTAND THE PRESIDENT'S INTERIOR SECRETARY, MR. ROGERS

MORTON, IS DISCUSSING THE POSSIBILITY OF PREPARING LEGISLATION THAT WILL BE

PRESENTED TO CONGRESS TO OVERCOME THE COURT RULING. MR. FAIRBANKS ALSO INFORMED

ME THAT THE PRESIDENT EXPECTS BOTH THE ALASKA PIPELINE ROUTE, AS WELL AS THE

MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINE ROUTE, TO BE IN OPERATION IN THE FUTURE.

REGARDING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE ALASKA PIPELINE, I INFORMED

MR. FAIRBANKS THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS DESIROUS OF MAKING DIRECT REPRESENTATION

ON THIS MATTER TO MR. MORTON ON THE DETAILS OF SUCH A MEETING. I MUST SAY THAT

IT APPEARS THAT SUCH A MEETING CAN BE ARRANGED.

To go on with the telegram:

IF SUCH A MEETING DOES TAKE PLACE, I WOULD BE PLEASED, MR. PRIME

MINISTER, TO HAVE YOU OR A REPRESENTATIVE JOIN US IN

[ Page 458 ]

SUCH A VISIT TO WASHINGTON. ALSO, I'M SURE THE PEOPLE WOULD WELCOME A STATEMENT FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

OPPOSING THE ALASKA PIPELINE AND THE SHIPPING OF OIL DOWN FROM BRITISH COLUMBIA'S

COAST.

I expect, Mr. Speaker, to hear back from Secretary Morton's

office within 24 hours. I hope that if we are faced with

legislative action by the United States Government, the federal

government will join us in putting our opposition directly to

the political decision-makers in Washington, D.C.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North Peace River.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Thank you, Mr. Speaker,

I just want to say in reply for the official Opposition that we

welcome the statement of the Premier regarding his opposition

to the movement of crude oil through a pipeline, to the Alaska

coast, and then down the coast of the Province of British

Columbia by boat.

I would hope, in your discussions with the Prime Minister of

Canada, you're able, on an international level, to convince the

United States that this would indeed be a very retrogressive

step. I would hope further that the Premier of our province, if

necessary, is prepared to take this matter to the courts, if

that is the only way that we can protect the rights of the

Province of British Columbia in making sure that our coastline

is protected and not left open to exploitation by tankers

plying up and down.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. leader of the Liberal Party.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, earlier on I was

going to welcome a group of students from Reynolds School here

with Mrs. Thelma Pleckett and Miss Brown, their teachers. I'm

sure all the Members of the House would like to welcome them. I

would also like to join in the welcome of my friend Mr. Tetley

from the Province of Quebec, who was a very kind and generous

host to myself and other Members of the House of all parties

when we visited that province in our trip last fall.

Mr. Speaker, in dealing with the statement of the Premier a

number of matters I believe must be put in perspective.

parliament of Canada, has already passed a resolution

condemning the west coast tanker proposals. Therefore there is

a fairly clear indication on the part of the federal government

that they have no wish for — I should not just say the federal

government; I should say all parties in the House — this to

take place.

The statement came out, Mr. Speaker. Unfortunately, I don't

have a copy here. I've made some very rough and quick notes. I

was unaware that it would be made at this time. Nevertheless,

the statement referred to by the Premier was a press report

dealing with the legislative proposals of Rogers Morton and, of

course, President Nixon arising out of the victory of three

American environmental groups; the Fishermen's Union of

Cordova, Alaska; the Canadian Wildlife Federation and myself

last Friday.

We expected that this step would be taken. It was a logical

step. We'd been told that it would be taken if we won on these

grounds. I should simply inform the House, Mr. Speaker, that I

did put the position to Rogers Morton in June, I believe, of

1971, personally to him at hearings in the Interior Department

in Washington, D.C. He has been informed constantly of Canadian

government position, in particular by a letter dated May 4,

1972, with respect to the Mackenzie line. I think he has all

along been kept pretty well up to date on developments in

Canada on this.

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned that the decision to go to Congress

with proposed legislation was taken by Nixon and was not

unexpected. It's no cause for alarm for British Columbians.

It's perfectly expected, had this matter been followed more

closely by the Attorney General, Mr. Speaker. The question, of

course is that in Congress itself the President will find that

there have been 86 Members of the House of Representatives and

23 senators, all of whom less than a year ago wrote letters to

the President requesting consideration of the Canadian route

prior to any decision on the Alaska route.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, generally these statements are by

leave of the House and are not to be used for the purpose of

debate. Therefore, in any essential statement on the matter,

each party leader is invited by courtesy of the House to make a

short statement. Please remember for the future.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm trying to be fair to each group in this

House in order of their precedence here in party numbers.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Certainly, Mr. Speaker, I accept your

comments there. I am curious, of course, that President Nixon

finds it necessary to take steps today as a result of our

victory on Friday last and my personal one, as I am the only

individual named in that suit apart from the Secretary of the

Interior. If, however, you wish me to cut short my remarks, I

will simply repeat that this step taken by Nixon was perfectly

expected and I would suggest that instead

[ Page 459 ]

of telegrams back and forward between Premiers and the Prime

Minister, neither of whom are as aware on this matter as others

in this country, we try and see what best can be done to

preserve the British Columbia interest.

It was along these lines I was commenting on the statement.

We have friends in Congress. We have supporters of various

political persuasions. We know that the energy crisis is in the

Midwest and not on the west coast, where of course the Alaska

pipeline would deliver the oil. I just fear, Mr. Speaker, that

precipitous action, which has occurred before, by people who

are not aware of the details or intricacies of this problem,

will not further the Canadian or British Columbian

interest.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: If it's not possible for me to outline

this at this time, I will resume my seat. But I do feel that it

is important.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance):

Are you opposing this position?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I find it difficult that the Minister of

Health Services would smile so happily on a complicated matter

that has involved three years of study and a minimum of eight

trips to Washington, D.C., by me.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, there is a remedy for anything

that's an emergency and it's not by this means of a debate on

this subject. Just a simple statement from each party as to

where you stand on an important matter, if you have anything to

say.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The statement, Mr. Speaker….

MR. SPEAKER: I am not inviting a further conversation, Hon.

Member. I recognize the Hon. Member for Oak Bay on behalf of

the Conservative Party.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): On behalf of the Conservative

Party, there need be no doubt where we stand. We stand behind

the policy that we oppose oil tankers down the coast.

Now these comments about motherhood aren't very smart, I

don't think. But anyway, the point from our side of the House

is that this has now reached the crunch, as we see it, and that

the attitude of the Premier in taking the matter to the Prime

Minister of Canada and seeking the negotiations that he

mentioned, I think, will have our strongest support.

Introduction of bills.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

MUNICIPALITIES AID ACT

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

87 intituled

An Act to Amend the Municipalities Aid

Act.

Motion approved.

Bill No. 87 read a first time and ordered to be placed on

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

House after today.

Orders of the day.

ON THE BUDGET

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Atlin.

HON. F.A. CALDER (Minister without Portfolio): Mr. Speaker,

since my first election to this House in 1949 I have been

involved in many "firsts" as far as our native people of

British Columbia are concerned. At that time, I was the first

native Indian to be elected to a legislative body in Canada.

Today, Mr. Speaker, it gives me considerable satisfaction to be

speaking before you as a Minister of the Crown of British

Columbia — again the first such Minister of Indian ancestry in

a legislative assembly in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I mention this merely as an example of what may

be done by any other person of aboriginal ancestry in Canada

who chooses to set a goal in politics or business and is

willing to persevere and work to achieve these goals. I hope my

example has inspired and will inspire a similar feeling of

self-confidence in the many able Indian young people throughout

our country.

This may be the time to mention that the native people of

Canada do not appreciate being lumped together as a faceless

body known as "Indians." We would prefer to be recognized by

our own distinctive national, linguistic and cultural

characteristics. This is a common feeling with aboriginal

peoples in this country.

I am sure that all of you are aware now that I am a Nishga

from the Naas Valley, with a vested interest in this country.

At the same time, I would like to mention that my very able

executive assistant is Mr. Reginald Kelly, who is a Haida from

the Queen Charlotte Islands. We are both of northern peoples on

this coast who have a long history prehistorically of being

able, successful people, and we are both applying these

characteristics towards success in this modern society.

As Minister without Portfolio, my assignment from the

Premier is to investigate all matters pertai-

[ Page 460 ]

ning to provincial legislation and regulations which might

assist in extending more services to status Indians on reserves

who may now be deprived of such services. This also means

determining whether any legal barriers might exist in extending

such services and recommending any changes necessary.

Provincial voting rights were extended to Indians on

reserves in 1949. There has not been that much of a concerted

effort on the part of the provincial authorities to ensure that

all provincial services are available to that portion of the

electorate. This may be the first time that the so-called

"Indian problem" has been given official scrutiny with the

purpose of making constructive changes, if such things can be

done.

In order to be effective, Mr. Speaker, it has been necessary

to make the presence of my office known to all departments of

this government for the purpose of explaining the needs of the

Indian people as may be affected by any particular

department.

From long habit, the needs of Indians on reserves in this

province have been considered to be only within the orbit of

the federal Department of Indian Affairs without realizing that

provincial services should be extended to all citizens without

discrimination of jurisdiction.

The response from the various provincial departments has

been most encouraging and any discussions which have taken

place have been done with the proper spirit of finding

solutions when problems presented themselves.

My office has been involved in questions of land taxation,

education, municipal affairs; the Attorney General's department

in regard to court work; the Provincial Secretary's department

with its various cultural activities; roads and bridges under

the Department of Highways; various programmes under the ARDA

agreement of the Department of Agriculture; mineral rights on

Indian reserves under the Department of Mines. I have active

negotiations and dealings with these departments. In the near

future, Mr. Speaker, I will be involved in a similar way with

the Department of Lands, Forests and Water Resources; the

Department of Recreation and Conservation; the Department of

Travel Industry; the Department of Health Services and Hospital

Insurance; and the Department of Industry, Trade and

Commerce.

This list is given to merely indicate, Mr. Speaker, the varied involvements

of my office in educating the provincial departments as well as the Indian people

and their representatives who may have asked for

interpretations as they affect

them. The same effort has been made to conduct a liaison with the federal Department

of Indian Affairs to explain the provincial legislation and regulations as they

affect Indians, and in turn to acquire a better understanding of the federal

legislation which may have an effect on provincial legislation as well as the

lives of the Indian people on reserves.

This is the type of dialogue which is going on constantly

between my office and many departments and several levels of

government.

federal Department of Indian Affairs, has a constitutional

responsibility towards welfare of Indian people under the

British North American Act. This marks the necessity for

close continued cooperation between these two levels of

government in order to be effective as a force of change.

Through the efforts of my office there has been a sustained

friendly level of cooperation between the Department of Indian

Affairs and the various provincial government departments at a

level and with a spirit which has not been present in past

relationships.

This is mentioned to indicate that one of the purposes of my

office is to provide a bridge of dialogue between all levels of

government which affect the welfare of all native people in

this province.

Mr. Speaker, it seems to be a characteristic of British

Columbians to have a parochial outlook and feel that whatever

is done in British Columbia is quite different and far ahead of

other provinces in legislation and pertinent matters. I was

aware that there have been experiments on behalf of native

people by other provincial governments and I have written to

each province to determine what has been done on behalf of the

native people. For the information of the Members of this

House, I can mention a few of the things which are happening

elsewhere in Canada.

The government of Nova Scotia has stated that all services

provided by the provincial government are available to Indians

as to other citizens. That province also has a liaison

committee — composed of a representative of the federal

government, one from the provincial government and one from the

Union of Nova Scotia Indians — who meet regularly every month

to consider ways and means of improving services to the native

people.

In the Province of Ontario it has been a long established

practice since the late 1950's to amend various provincial Acts

from time to time in such a way that Indian bands, for the

purposes of specific Acts, are recognized as municipalities.

Under these arrangements many Indian bands have been spending

provincial funds for welfare assistance to residents on

reserves, by arrangements with the provincial department.

In reference to the Department of Highways of Ontario; the

provincial government offers a subsidy for the building of

roads on reserves up to 50 per cent of the cost and goes as

high as 80 per cent of the cost in construction of culverts and

bridges.

From the Province of Alberta, I have received a very

complete report on the establishment of a native counseling

service which provides some legal assistance to native people

involved in the judicial court

[ Page 461 ]

system. That service had its beginning from the intensive

desire and efforts of the native people in Alberta as early as

1964. It is just now becoming an effective system with the aid

and encouragement of the Department of the Attorney General of

Alberta and the Department of Indian Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, I am mentioning these merely as examples of

what has been done in other provinces because I have the

feeling that in British Columbia there has been the inference

that this provincial government is being generous in assigning

me as a Minister without Portfolio to study what could be done

for native people as though it were something which has not

been done elsewhere.

My advice to you, Mr. Speaker, is that you should be aware

that all native people in British Columbia are citizens who pay

all taxes except the provincial land tax and therefore are

people who contribute to all services which are provided under

legislation put through this House.

They are voters, taxpayers, and they support all political

parties according to their own individual tastes. In supporting

such services to native people and making them freely

available, you are merely opening your minds to the needs of

your constituents, Mr. Speaker, all of them.

Now that this survey has begun, I hope and expect that the

information which may be collected by my office on matters

pertaining to Indians will result in legislative changes for

assistance to Indian people and serve as a model for the rest

of Canada. This sentiment is in keeping with your outlook as

British Columbians.

Mr. Speaker, may I just add a note here. The recent Supreme

Court decision on the Nishga case has set in motion many

different sentiments and feelings both in the halls of

government and in the minds of Indian people who have been

advocating this recognition for several generations.

I noticed in this morning's news that the native people of

the Yukon territory have received a very favourable hearing

from the federal government concerning the possible settlement

of native lands in the Yukon. Mr. Speaker, I believe this to be

the direct outcome of the Nishga decision.

Mr. Speaker, since the early 1960's the Canadian public has

been deluged by discussions concerning the sacredness of

Canada in order to preserve the culture of the French Canadians

who are considered one of the founding nations.

If this assumption is generally accepted, then there is a

much greater need to consider the protection of the culture and

the languages of the aboriginal people of this country who are

really the founding people. They were here to meet the first

explorers who came from Europe. The preservation of the culture

of these people has been overlooked.

The strength of cultural identity is bound up in language as

well as in custom, Mr. Speaker. If the language disappears then

the cultural identity also disappears. Canada takes pride in

encouraging the mosaic of cultures of all people. I present to

you the fact that an effort should be made now to preserve the

cultural identity of the aboriginal people of this

province.

For this purpose, Mr. Speaker, my portfolio is recommending

to this Government that legislation should be brought in to

encourage and prepare for the teaching of the various

aboriginal languages in the different schools and communities

of British Columbia wherever such requests may be made.

In all my travels throughout British Columbia, there is the

constant comment of grandparents to the effect that their

grandchildren no longer understand their own tribal tongue. It

is estimated that in every community there are now relatively

few persons who are eloquent in their own language, especially

in areas which are adjacent to urban centres.

mandatory in order to compete. The native languages are

preserved in a greater proportion in the more remote parts of

the province.

Along with the cultural revival of interest in Indian arts

and customs, there has been a renewed interest in the learning

of Indian languages. Therefore, the introduction of legislation

to preserve Indian languages in this province would be of great

benefit to those Indian people who have a strong desire to pass

on their own language and a knowledge of their own culture to

their own children, so that the culture should not pass

away.

The teaching of these languages, with the financial support

and full sanction of the Department of Education, would go a

long way towards reestablishing a sense of pride in aboriginal

ancestry and the resulting feeling of dignity and self-worth

which were an inherent part of the Indian people before the

arrival of the European.

The establishment of such legislation could be the basis for

a better contribution from aboriginal peoples in British

Columbia who may feel a greater self-respect by recognition

being given to the teaching of their own language to their own

children — and to interested non-Indians, who may wish to learn

the language also.

The high schools in our province offer language courses for

credit in French, German, Italian, Latin and Spanish. In

addition, evening classes are available to interested adults in

many languages — for instance, Japanese, Russian and Chinese.

Undoubtedly, it is worthwhile to teach these languages in

British Columbia.

However, Mr. Speaker, all these languages and cultures would

be well-preserved in their own countries in Europe and Asia,

even if there was no effort

[ Page 462 ]

at all on our part. This is the point of fundamental

difference between these and other native cultures and

languages.

Unless we ourselves take steps in the very near future to

preserve and develop what there is left, our own native

languages and cultures will disappear completely within a

generation or two.

Mr. Speaker, there is nobody else on other continents who

can perform this task for us. There will be a motion introduced

towards an establishment of a language bill — bilingualism in

respective languages in Indian schools. This would be the first

in Canada. I'm very hopeful when this motion is introduced and

brought before the House that all Members will support it.

Here's an old subject, Mr. Speaker, that I have always

brought to the attention of this House, ever since I came to

the House. It has to do with air ambulance service. It's a

little different now because I used to bring this subject up

when I was on the other side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, ever since my election in 1949, I have

advocated continuously the establishment of an air ambulance

service in the Province of British Columbia. I represent, Mr.

Speaker, a very large constituency located in the northwest

comer of this province. So large that it's equivalent to the

size of five Vancouver Islands.

It is a very mountainous and rugged territory. There may not

be as large a population there as exists in the other

constituencies; however, it is an area that has one of the

greatest natural resource potentials in the whole of the

province.

It is a mineral belt. It is a forest area. It has water

power potential equal to other areas, but has yet to be

utilized. It is a well-known sports and commercial fishing

district. It has one of the biggest wild game areas in North

America. It is the most beautiful and picturesque part of the

province, to the extent that Atlin is known the world over as

the "Switzerland of British Columbia." It has a great tourist

potential and, when developed, it could be one of the most

outstanding recreation areas in the whole of British

Columbia.

And yet, with all these advantages, Mr. Speaker, it is still

a virgin territory and, even though in years back there was a

lack of services in terms of transportation, access roads and

communication, pioneers dared to enter the territory to become

frontier people.

As the years went by, these people continued to carve out an existence of their

own. Mr. Speaker, the results of their efforts have led to the gradual development

of mines, forestry, exploration and production. It is to these people and their

sons and daughters who have taken their places in developing the north country

that I speak in terms of public services.

What are these public services? Better education and

educational facilities, medical attention — and there has been

a tremendous lack up to now — access roads, hospitals, dental

clinics, and above all, a free air ambulance service.

Mr. Speaker, as one who was born and has lived and worked in

the area, I can truthfully say that I have witnessed or have

heard definite evidence of deaths and suffering of persons

because of this lack of fast medical aid. It is because of this

knowledge that, when I was elected to office, I vowed that I

would continually press for the establishment of an air

ambulance service.

Mr. Speaker, may I point out here that the earnings are

average in these remote areas — in most cases below average, as

is usual in a developing frontier. Even though there may be

private air services available, people cannot afford the

exorbitant rates that are charged. I know of many cases where

people cannot afford costs in the area of $200 to be flown out

of Telegraph Creek to the nearest hospital — and no doubt the

same amount when they return to the community.

I am speaking only for the area that I know best, Mr.

Speaker. However, since entering politics I have had the

opportunity of visiting other parts of the province and I find

that such service is becoming a necessary service.

In travelling to the west coast and on the coast of British

Columbia, the rest of the north of the province, and in talking

to people, I find that they are heartily in support of such a

service.

Mr. Speaker, immediately following my entry into this

Legislative Assembly, I began correspondence with the flying

doctor service of Australia and with the air ambulance service

authorities of Saskatchewan.

Following the study, I introduced a motion on the floor of

this House for very serious consideration. However, this motion

was given no consideration by the previous administration. It

is my pleasure at this time, because of our programme last

election, to reintroduce this motion for serious consideration,

not only on behalf of the Government, but for all Members of

the floor of this House. I have every confidence that this

motion will be adopted, and I will be most hopeful that this

will lead eventually to legislation in the near future.

Another point which we and many Members raised while we were

on the opposite side of the floor was the matter of

equalization grants. I am going to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that

this is one subject that is a sore point with the northern

people, the people who are located in remote or outlying areas.

It has to do with the equalization grants.

Again, ever since my term of office I have advocated this

educational requirement in the remote

[ Page 463 ]

and isolated areas of this province. I speak now for those

students in the outlying areas of the province who do not have

the local opportunity of higher education. I will remind the

Members of the House that these students of whom I speak are

sons and daughters of people who have pioneered the north, the

west coast, the interior and all other parts of the province

that are considered frontier country.

Because of less than average earnings, these young people

just do not have the opportunity of higher education. Mr.

Speaker, it is a most sad state of affairs in our wealthy

province when much of the revenue for the province is coming

from these outlying areas where many of these students live in

educational starvation.

It is my pleasure to announce that one of our Members will

be introducing a motion for all Members of this House to

seriously consider. If adopted, I am hopeful that this will

lead to greater equalization of educational opportunity where

it is needed so desperately.

May I say a word on northern development, Mr. Speaker. In

speaking of northern development — and all Members of the floor

of this House recognize that this is the subject that I have

been mentioning for the last 23 years — I would remind the

Members, and I want to make this point very clear, that the

previous two subjects, air ambulance service and equalization

grants to students in, remote areas, are part and parcel of

northern development.

These two important subjects are definite aspects of

northern development. It is because we know that these are

definite requirements, we placed it upon our agenda in the last

election. It was promised to the people of the north. And I

think I speak for the rest of the northern Members — Fort

George, Omineca, Prince Rupert, Skeena — I speak on your behalf

on this.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Peace River?

HON. MR. CALDER: Yes, my friend, I'll include you.

AN HON. MEMBER: He has to keep the Peace.

HON. MR. CALDER: Mr. Speaker, I'll remind the Government, it

was a promise to the people of the north; and as a MLA of the

north, I intend to remind the Government to fulfil our word to

the northern people.

I will not elaborate on every phase of northern development,

Mr. Speaker, as this I have done on numerous occasions in and

out of this House. I would just like to deal with the very

important subject of the Stewart-Watson Lake highway.

Concerning this most important highway, one thing stands out in my mind all

these years, Mr. Speaker, and many of my own associates in the north have all

reminded me of it. It is this: I recall back in May of 1949 as I sat in a small

motel located in the little community of Lower Post, which was then a Hudson's

Bay post, four prospectors appeared in the area. They announced to the world

the discovery of asbestos in what is now Cassiar.

Mr. Speaker, this was my first entry into politics and I was

on the campaigns. Two weeks after the appearance of these four

prospectors, two weeks later, I entered as my campaign

recommendation that an access road for transportation of

asbestos should have its terminus at the Canadian sea-port of

Stewart. As far as northern development is concerned, the

completion of this road has been one of my main points on the

floor of this House.

I would like to announce to the Members that this road,

after a great many years of construction, was completed last

October. What does this road mean to the economy of British

Columbia?

I would remind the Members that this road now has resulted

in the shortest link between the State of Alaska and the State

of Washington by 1,000 miles. When in full use, it will take at

least 50 per cent of the traffic away from the Alaska highway

and, Mr. Speaker, I think, on this basis, no longer will you

hear the demand to pave the Alaska Highway. This is the road

that is going to be paved. As of last October, 20 miles have

already been paved and the first destination is, of course,

Cassiar. That's a distance of 84 miles and no doubt it will

eventually end up in Terrace and Hazelton.

You will note, Mr. Speaker, on the budget that was presented

that $750,000 has been allocated to the Stewart-Watson Lake

highway, and the Department of Highways has notified me that

most of this money will be spent this year on further paving.

Mr. Speaker, because of my conviction that this road will be a

prime factor in northern development, I was happy indeed to

have been invited to witness the completion and the opening of

the Nass River Bridge last year, which resulted in the joining

of the Stewart-Watson Lake highway to that of the

Stewart-Terrace highway and to Highway 16.

I am inviting all you Members, through you, Mr. Speaker, to

visit my beautiful riding by way of this major access to the

State of Alaska. All of you should come when the Highway

Department announces the official opening of the Stewart-Watson

Lake highway, sometime in the latter part of June or early

July.

Mr. Speaker, as our Government policies are implemented, I

am looking forward to an orderly development of the whole north

of British Columbia. I am convinced that I will live to see the

day that these policies will be in terms of more equal

distribution of public services. Time and time again, Mr.

Speaker, I have accused the governments of

[ Page 464 ]

taking the wealth out of the north but not returning the

public services to the people of the north. Mr. Speaker,

northern development will not be complete until all public

services are brought to the people who are entitled to them,

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Langley.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I

appreciate the comments of the Member for Atlin (Hon. Mr.

Calder). I think that much of the shame of this country has

been the manner in which we have deliberately emasculated the

cultural values of our natives, and it's time we put an end to

it.

I should also mention, Mr. Speaker, since no one else has

and you were kind enough to inform us, that those flowers on

the opposite side are in recognition of the Minister of

Education's (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) birthday, and we'd like to

congratulate her and wish her well.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. McCLELLAND: Again. Mr. Speaker, if I could quote the

Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) slightly out of context,

I'd like to say that "this isn't such a hot budget and I don't

intend to support it."

I'd also like to make reference, Mr. Speaker, to another

comment that the Attorney General made yesterday, I believe,

with regard to the Bible and St. John the Divine's prophecy

about the pale horse — "Behold a pale horse, and the name of him

that sat on him was death"… et cetera.

My colleague from Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) then

recommended that the Attorney General should look further into

that reference and other references to the Bible that he made,

to find out about whom he was talking. Who was the person and

who were the persons who were riding on this pale horse to

Armageddon?

So I asked my colleague from Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) to

give me a short Bible lesson this morning, and he was kind

enough to do that. If I may, Mr. Speaker, I'd just read a bit

from the "good book" about these people who are riding to

Armageddon on the pale horse.

And it said: "…but I shall control you by putting My bit into your jaws

and bringing you and all your army, horsemen and cavalry all of them fully armed;

— a numerous host, with shields and bucklers, and trained to the use of swords;

— and Pars, Kush, and Phut, all of them with shield and helmet; — Gomer and all

his hordes; the house of Thorgarmah." (Laughter).

"All his hordes," that's right. And "from the far north and the whole

of his hordes…." Those are the people who rode those pale horses to Armageddon,

Mr. Speaker.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. McCLELLAND: Thank you, Mr. Member for Surrey. I

appreciate that. I had good writers.

Mr. Speaker, if this budget speech was designed to make the

investors of this province breathe a little easier, to allay

some of the fears that prevail among the people, perhaps it was

partially successful.

There is a message in that budget — a message that clearly

tells the people of British Columbia that the worst is yet to

come.

For I believe, despite all of the posturing by the Premier,

that this is basically a deceitful budget and that there is no

relationship between the figures in this budget and what will

actually happen to the expenditures in this province in the

coming fiscal year.

The first item, Mr. Speaker, in the list of expenditures in

our estimate book is proof enough of this — at least for someone

like myself who is basically unskilled in financial matters.

But I like two and two to make four most of the time, if it's

possible. In this budget I have difficulty making the figures

add up.

I was prepared, Mr. Speaker, being a new Member and no

financial wizard, to accept the Finance Minister's assessment

that this was an open and honest document. But on that very

first item in the budget we find the first item of deceit.

The

section is called "Legislation" and it's here that the

Members' salaries are listed. And I see under this category the

item "Sessional Allowances". And it says "Allowances", plural,

Mr. Speaker. I see that I've been given a $2,000 raise which is

pretty good. I never even had to ask my boss for it, which I

like too.

MR. PHILLIPS: Did he not discuss it with you?

MR. McCLELLAND: Never even asked me.

MR. PHILLIPS: Ah, shame!

MR. McCLELLAND: When I added up all these figures listed for

the Members' indemnities, Mr. Speaker, and multiplied that by

the number of MLA's that are in the House — from time to time — I arrived at a grand total of $660,000 and so did the Finance

Minister. So we agreed so far.

And I was under the impression that I'd been given a $2,000

raise, which isn't bad for a brand new boy with no previous

experience. Until I read the papers. The Vancouver Sun told me

that it wasn't a $2,000 raise at all. It was $14,000 a year

that I'd been raised, if we have a full session in the fall.

And the Finance Minister has confirmed, Mr. Speaker, that this

interpretation is completely correct. Now, you just don't

[ Page 465 ]

find bosses like that around very much.

The question I had, Mr. Speaker, is where is the provision

in the budget for the extra $12,000? It isn't there. At least I

can't find it.

And I'm getting a little worried because I saw what the

Government did, Mr. Speaker, to several hundred Highways

department workers when, according to the Government at any

rate, their money wasn't in the budget. I wonder if we're all

going to get fired or laid off. He will have to fire us too,

you know. If I were a backbencher I'd want to find out about

that one, Mr. Speaker, the matter of salaries for Members is only the

first deceit of many in this budget. It's not a document

detailing government spending intentions at all. It's simply a

sham.

Before I go on, Mr. Speaker, to talk about specific areas of

responsibility in the estimates, I'd like to commend the B.C.

Liberal Party for its shadow budget that the Hon. First Member

for Vancouver Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) delivered in the House the

other day.

Over the years, listening at home in Langley, I've heard all

kinds of things about the Liberal shadow budgets and I was most

anxious to hear one at first hand. It was great fun for all of

us, I'm sure — for the Liberals as well.

I don't blame the Liberals for wanting to have some fun

since there's very little chance they'll ever have the

opportunity to deliver a real budget. They might as well

deliver their shadow budget year after year — it's like an

extension, I suppose, of Older Boys' Parliament. (Laughter).

The Liberal approach, Mr. Speaker, to budgeting is clearly

discredited by the disastrous financial policies of the Liberal

Government in Ottawa.

If I may, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to look now specifically at

some of the estimates in this disappointing budget.

Incidentally, I was pleased to hear, and interested to hear,

the other evening the Hon. Member from channel 8, Mr. Bradbury,

talking on the television about the race for cabinet positions.

Perhaps some of those soon to be new cabinet Ministers can do

something about making future budgets more open and more honest

as they should be.

If we start under the Agriculture estimates, Mr. Speaker,

the only significant point I suppose, except for the regular

$4,000 increase for the Minister which is all over the

estimates, is really the very slight increase in that total

budget — certainly no provision for funds to provide any bold

new programmes; definitely no money for compensation to

farmers, although your Government has indicated all along that

it planned to fairly compensate the farmer for any losses

caused by your land use policy, or lack of it. But that money

is not in the budget, Mr. Speaker.

The Attorney General's departmental estimates are pretty straightforward. It

does appear that there's a hefty increase there in provision to provide for

staff in the land registry offices. For that we can commend the budget for there

was a desperate need to upgrade service in this department.

I would like to also commend the Attorney General for his

comments about the high-powered sales campaign to sell often

worthless land in Arizona to unsuspecting and quite often

elderly British Columbians.

I might if I may, Mr. Speaker, suggest further to the

Attorney General that perhaps even worse than those companies

operating inside B.C. are those companies operating the same

kind of programme by inviting British Columbians to come down

to those tough steak dinners in Blaine or Sumas, Washington, or

some other border town just outside the jurisdiction of British

Columbia and Canadian law, and peddling their shabby bill of

goods free of any control by us. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, since

this new Government is on such fine terms with the State of

Washington these days, the Attorney General might talk to his

counterpart across the line to put an end to this land

sharking.

And Ottawa should perhaps be advised as well, Mr. Speaker,

to put a stop to the use of Canadian mails for what amounts to

fraudulent purposes.

There isn't much to say, Mr. Speaker, about the estimates in

the Department of Commercial Transport except that there might

be a couple of million dollars available there for other

purposes soon since the Member for Skeena (Mr. Dent) is going

to kick all the trucks off the roads anyway.

Education is another matter however. And after all of these

years of bitter criticism, Mr. Speaker, of the Social Credit

money and input in other ways to education, what do we see in

this new budget? A $45 million increase, which is peanuts — enough to look after salary increases and very little more, if

anything.

This Government, Mr. Speaker, has portrayed itself as the

champion of educators, yet its contribution in this budget is

shameful.

The contribution to post-secondary education is close to an

insult to B.C.'s three universities they've cut back capital

funds, certainly. Seven million dollars extra in operating

grants is an expression of contempt for the university

community, especially, Mr. Speaker, from a Government which

insisted when it was in Opposition that it would provide a

better deal for B.C.'s universities.

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk just for a moment about

independent schools. I'll admit that during the election

campaign I took a fairly firm stand that while I was prepared

to look, I couldn't approve at that time of financial

assistance for independent schools. I have many of them in my

constituency of all denominations.

But I have taken a second look, Mr. Speaker, and I now

believe that the Government of British Columbia

[ Page 466 ]

must seriously consider sharing in the operating expenses of

independent schools throughout this province.

I've also told those people who have written me to ask for

support for independent schools that if the government supplies

funds then the schools must, of course, be prepared to conform

to provincial standards and must also be prepared to lose some

of the independence that they now enjoy.

But these schools do fulfill a basic service in our

community, Mr. Speaker, and I think we must recognize now that

we must offer them some help.

I'm disturbed, Mr. Speaker, about the Education Minister's

(Hon. Mrs. Dailly) comments about family life and sex education

in the school system. She says that she will encourage school

boards to develop and experiment with programmes in these

fields.

Well, I have an open mind about sex education in the schools

but certainly there is ample evidence in the California

experience that this matter can be a divisive force in the

community. Certainly if school boards are allowed to experiment

without any formula to follow, the community will be a victim

rather than a beneficiary.

I know that this Government, Mr. Speaker, and the education

Minister (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) are very high on experimentation

and new approaches, but I would urge her to travel that road

slowly. The B.C. School Trustees Association said some time

ago, Mr. Speaker, in their official magazine, The B.C.

School Trustee, that the innovation honeymoon is over, that

excitement generated by new technology and techniques has died

down, and that educators are taking a long hard look at what it

has produced. In many instances, the results are unnerving.

The same editorial points to a number of examples and I'll

use just one of them — the expensive and much-lauded Head Start

programme in the United States, a programme that began in 1965

and was aimed at helping educationally deprived children from

low income families.

The editorial says that a coast-to-coast survey showed that

despite pouring $1 billion into the project, it was not working

out. After five years of another expensive programme in New

York City, the Board of Education concluded that no significant

differences between students in schools with the programme and

similarly situated students in schools without the programme

could be found. In other areas, not only were there no

significant differences to be found, but in some cases those

students with the programme were in worse positions than they

were before.

This editorial in The B.C. School Trustee, Mr. Speaker, adds that tests found

an atmosphere of enthusiasm and interest and hope and a belief among staff members

that they worked in a setting in which they could function. This led the editorial

to conclude, and rightly so, that unfortunately, conditions which educators

consider more conducive to teachers are not necessarily more conducive to learning.

I would like to say further, Mr. Speaker, that the editorial

also stresses that it will not suggest, of course — nor do I — that innovations in education particularly be halted, or even

those that don't have good initial results should necessarily

be discontinued. But somewhere along the line we must develop

means of careful and continuous evaluation and, above all, some

clear-cut criteria prior to the introduction of any new

programme.

That's all we ask, Mr. Speaker, through you to the education

Minister, when we're setting up programmes of family life and

sex education.

Mr. Speaker, it's the position of the Social Credit Party in

this House that the reasons for the socialist Government's

inability to move more quickly towards the elimination of the

education tax from the land is unacceptable. The position of

the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) on this question is

remarkable on a number of counts.

First of all, he indicates that he has problems because of a

split in his cabinet on the matter of removing education tax

from the land.

AN HON. MEMBER: No — no cabinet split.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, even that statement is a

complete denial of the oath of secrecy that he took at

Government House on Friday, September 15,1972.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker….

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Nonsense, absolute

nonsense.

MR. McCLELLAND: Wait till you're in the cabinet before you

comment, Mr. Member.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's going to have a long wait.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. McCLELLAND: Secondly, Mr. Speaker, the inflationary

spiral which has grabbed hold of the assessment picture in B.C.

falls particularly hard on those people over 65. We

all recognize that. In many cases, it has already overridden

those benefits which they now have from Mincome, Thirdly, the inflationary effects of the devaluation of the

U.S. dollar are going to be increasingly felt in British

Columbia in the next few months.

So, Mr. Speaker, without any kind of basic interruption in

the bookkeeping procedures of the Department of Finance — which

are already set up and already operating, with their

relationship to

[ Page 467 ]

school districts throughout British Columbia — the homeowner

grant, Mr. Speaker, could have been amended to simply state

that the amount of the homeowner grant was the actual amount of

the school tax levied against property held by those over 65

less $1. Very simple. So that the pioneers of our country could

still retain a bona fide position as ratepayers and homeowners

and continue to contribute as taxpayers their wisdom in the

educational system.

It wouldn't have been a difficult legislative action, Mr.

Speaker, to have taken at this session. It would have been a

start. Certainly when the bill on the homeowner grant comes up

for discussion in this House, the Social Credit Party will try

to help your cabinet and your caucus make a move like this.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): They'd fumble around with

it for a year.

MR. McCLELLAND: It disturbs us, Mr. Speaker, that the

growing indications coming from that side of the House are that

even the simplest legislative programmes leave them

baffled.

Mr. Speaker, I was encouraged by the health Minister's (Hon.

Mr. Cocke) remarks concerning new directions for health care in

British Columbia. It's absolutely vital that we move into a

programme of intermediate and preventative health care in this

province just as quickly as possible, before the escalating

costs of health care in British Columbia bury us under a grave

of debt.

There is a good increase in this budget for the provision of

more health inspectors. I'd like to say, Mr. Speaker, that it's

my opinion that these people have been the most overworked

public servants in British Columbia for years. It's about time

they got some help.

Before I forget, Mr. Speaker, I would like to agree with the

health Minister's comments in the throne speech debate about

his staff in general. I'd like to say that those with whom I've

come in contact, and quite often in an emergency situation,

have been extremely competent and extremely effective.

I'd like to suggest to the health Minister, through you, Mr.

Speaker, that the responsibility for inspecting rest homes be

taken out of the hands of local public health inspectors. They

have enough to do, inspecting restaurants and septic tanks and

new subdivisions and swimming pools and answering a steady

stream of complaints day after day after day. They have enough

to do and they simply cannot keep up to it all. It's an

impossible situation, particularly in what is quite often a

short-staff situation.

The result often is that a substandard rest home continues

to operate for a far longer period than should be allowed. It's

my opinion, Mr. Speaker, that rest home inspection should be

completely separate

from the other local public health inspection services. I

have some other thoughts, Mr. Speaker, about rest home services

which can be left to the detailed examination of the

estimates.

Something else is really bothering me about this new

Government, Mr. Speaker. The NDP has been preparing

alternatives — at least so the party has been telling us — for

many years. I wonder where they are in this budget. Why the

need, for instance, for all of the surveys at this point?

Commissions of enquiries? We're rapidly developing into

government by survey, I'm afraid, and it's at an astronomical

cost to the taxpayer.

While we're on the subject of health department estimates,

the health security programme alone, Mr. Speaker, is costing

taxpayers of British Columbia at least $118,000 a year and

probably as much as $154,000 a year, and that's only to get

the answers to questions which you said you already had.

If I may, I'd like to skip along to municipal affairs for a

moment. One of the questions that I have and the people of

British Columbia have is this: Where is your increased aid to

local government? It certainly isn't in this budget.

B.C. municipalities who had expressed such optimism about

this new Government must now be wondering whatever happened.

Two dollars per capita, Mr. Speaker. The President of the Union

of B.C. Municipalities calls it "crumbs off the table, a

two-buck budget." No, it doesn't offer any hope for the

struggling local levels of government, and those are the levels

of government, Mr. Speaker, which need help the most but which

have been denied.

Mr. Speaker, you've given the municipalities crumbs when

what they really needed was a bigger slice of the loaf. You

could have offered some relief from the burden of

responsibility for welfare costs — the kind of burden, Mr.

Speaker, that should rightly belong to the provincial and

federal governments. Instead of that, you chose to ignore the

needs.

I haven't been reading your budget speech because it

certainly isn't in there. If it's true that municipalities are

indeed children of the provincial government, Mr. Speaker, then

this Government has abandoned its children and should now be

forced to provide some kind of child care support.

I'd like to say a few words too about the Department of

Rehabilitation and Social Improvement. I note with interest

first that the estimated costs for the Minister's office have

almost doubled, following, I guess, the already established

pattern of this Government of expanding its bureaucracy. "Give

all your friends good, cushy jobs at nice fat salaries" seems

to be the direction of this Government.

I also note with interest, Mr. Speaker, that some $25

million extra — and that's over and above the additional money

needed for Mincome — has been provided for social assistance.

Once again, I thought

[ Page 468 ]

that this government had the answers that would lower the

welfare rolls.

I'm really disturbed about the plans that the Hon. Minister

of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement (Hon. Mr. Levi) has

for all of this additional money. Will it go to the people

where it's needed, or will it be used to continue setting up

more arms of socialist bureaucracy?

The Minister's performance to date — his casual shut-down of

the Willingdon School for Girls and his callous approach to the

people involved in the Provincial Alliance of Businessmen — those actions have done nothing to instil any confidence in

the minds of our citizens and particularly those who depend on

him for their existence.

I would suggest to this Minister too, through you, Mr.

Speaker, that he slow down on his plans to rush us headlong

into state welfareism.

I'd like to commend to the Minister an interesting book

which was recently drawn to my attention. It's called

Welfare — Hidden Backlash. It's written by a great

socialist, I'm told — Maurice C. Shumiatcher, who was for five

years the assistant to the Premier of Saskatchewan at that

time, the Rt. Hon. Rev. Tommy C. Douglas. Mr. Shumiatcher is

also the author of, I'm told, the 1947 Saskatchewan Bill of

Rights.

It's interesting that on the cover of this book the beaver

is missing from the Canadian nickel. The beaver, of course, is

a symbol of industry and enterprise in Canada, and there is no

room in state socialism for industry and enterprise — I assume

that's why the beaver is off the nickel.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. McCLELLAND: Red flag? (Laughter).

If I could just make a few brief quotes from the book by

Maurice C. Shumiatcher, he says:

"Government 'wardocracy' is not only economically expensive

but it destroys personal incentive, removes vital areas of free

choice, and dispossesses the individual of his position of

pre-eminence in society. State aid is a crutch and those who

rely upon it seldom ever learn to walk alone."

Another quote

from the book:

"Personal freedom began to develop only when men rejected the status to which feudalism assigned them,

and the idea of freely making contracts with each other allowed

them to change and improve their condition. Welfareism and

stateism, although supported by those who would raise men's

standards of living, are in fact turning back the clock to a

society in which freedom is disappearing and status is being

reasserted so that the areas of free contract are fast

disappearing."

Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, two more short quotes — one for the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly),

which says:

"Demands made upon the young, the weak and the deprived are

more likely to secure a positive response than pity, money or

institutional concern. Personal relationships in which the

strong set examples of excellence are more likely to raise the

levels of intellect and performance of the weak and deprived

than laws and regulations, governmental departments and

bureaucracies or the expenditure of millions in money."

One final quote, Mr. Speaker:

"Unquestionably there exists an obligation upon this generation

to conserve our forests, husband our mineral wealth, maintain the beauty of

our rivers and our lakes, and preserve the purity of our atmosphere in order

that they may be enjoyed by generations yet unborn. Surely there exists no lesser

obligation to those generations of Canadians who are to follow us to save them

from the kind of national, economic debacle that built-in welfare schemes are

as certain to produce in Canada tomorrow as the Beveridge Plan upon which they

are based has already produced in the United Kingdom. The willful erosion of

the economy by political programmes that promote inflation, debase the currency,

compound the tax bite and saddle the public with an unconscionable burden of

debt, has become a scandal that ought to concern the citizen as much as the

depletion of natural resources, the pollution of air and water and the deterioration

of cities."

And that, Mr. Speaker, from a socialist, Maurice C.

Shumiatcher.

I'd like to ask a couple of questions, Mr. Speaker, about

Hansard and its provisions in the budget. I know that

this new Government championed the introduction of

Hansard and for that I commend the Government. But I

wonder why we don't want the people to read it? The

subscription price for Hansard , Mr. Speaker, is far too

high. Rather than being an encouragement for people to get

involved — however vicariously — through the reading of

verbatim accounts of this House, the $15 subscription fee is

instead a deterrent in my opinion to Hansard's wide

distribution.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, I wonder why MLA's cannot be given

the same consideration of free distribution for Hansard

as we are for the Votes and Proceedings and the orders of the

day. Certainly, Mr. Speaker, Hansard is already heavily

subsidized and it's a service worth subsidization — but only if

it can be made a …

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): If it won't sell,

they might as well give it away. (Laughter).

[ Page 469 ]

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, I'd be for that. Give it away and let

the people read it.

I said at the beginning of my remarks, Mr. Speaker, that

this is a deceitful budget, because of the things that it

doesn't tell us about.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, it's not customary, when you are

dealing with a speech of any other Member, to label it

"deceitful". I assume that you don't mean that the Minister of

Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) is deceitful for something he didn't

put in.

MR. McCLELLAND: Your presumption is correct. Thank you.

It seems to be deceitful though, Mr. Speaker, for its

implied threats — thank you, Mr. Member for Chilliwack (Mr.

Schroeder), for teaching me that one (Laughter) — to so many of

our corporate groups within our economy. It is certainly

cynical, because it indicates no increase in individual taxes

while, at the same time, initiating increases that ultimately

strike out at the modest wage earner, just as surely as a

personal income tax boost.

It appears to be deceitful for its implied threats to the

future of the perpetual funds established by the Social Credit

government. My advice in this area, Mr. Speaker, is not to

tinker with those funds. For they may be the only thing that

will save you from financial chaos after you get finished

tinkering with the rest of the economy.

The budget appears to be deceitful, Mr. Speaker, because of

its statements regarding the state of finance in British

Columbia under the Social Credit administration. Two sets of

books, it says.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): On a point of order,

the Hon. Member can't say indirectly what he can't say directly

…"seems to be deceitful". He might as well say "deceitful"

and then be ruled out of order.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: I've let it go several times, because of the

fact that he's a new Member. But it is not the practice to try

to attribute to other Members of the House deceit or cynicism.

If it's something that you would resent being said about you,

then you feel exactly the same to the other Hon. Member to whom

you attribute anything in the way of deceit or cynicism.

MR. McCLELLAND: Do you have a word I could use in place of

it, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: I'm barred from making speeches, unfortunately.

Thank you. (Laughter).

MR. McCLELLAND: Thank you for your and the Attorney General's

comments, Mr. Speaker.

There is a vacuum in this budget speech however, Mr.

Speaker, in its comments about the state of finance in British

Columbia under the Social Credit administration; its comments

about two sets of books and double bookkeeping; and "wait until

the Socreds are out of office and we'll see how they cooked the

books."

Well, Mr. Speaker, there has been over $500 million left

from that same administration and you've had, on the other side

of the House, five months to prove that the Socred claim to

sound fiscal management was untrue. But you haven't been able

to prove it and you won't be able to prove it. And you know

it.

Some on the other side of the House are trying to explain

away the success of the Socred administration by saying that

it's been just lucky that the Social Credit administration's

term of office coincided with the good times and the great

natural wealth of British Columbia. But you forget to mention

that no other province in Canada is in such a sound financial

position.

It took good Social Credit government management to bring

British Columbia to the financial position that it enjoys

today. And it took something else, Mr. Speaker. It took the

initiative and the enterprise of its people.

Sometimes, in our preoccupation with the details of this

budget presented by the new Government, we disregard the very

system that made it possible for the success of the Social

Credit government to leave over $500 million to make even this

budget a possibility. The individual enterprise system. The

very system, Mr. Speaker, that has enabled this socialist

Government to be "Saturday night rich" in the past five

months.

I'm a strong believer, Mr. Speaker, in the individual

enterprise system. Not because of any equations we might make

with motherhood but because it's the most effective and

efficient system of getting products and services to the most

people.

In British Columbia we enjoy one of the highest standards of

living in the world, in an economy whose total success is

predicated on the productivity of our people, the confidence of

our investors, and the concept that as you serve people better

you are successful in the individual enterprise system.

Mr. Speaker, the idea of individual enterprise is under

attack. In this province, according to the socialists, profit

is a dirty word and that is nonsense. Business and private

enterprisers and industry, Mr. Speaker, are being blamed every

day in this House for many of the things that they are not

responsible for. At the same time are given very little credit

if any for the things that they have done, and done very

well.

[ Page 470 ]

In pushing the state control philosophy we find that the

socialists have to discredit any organization or group that

makes a profit even when much of that profit is interpreted

into taxes to serve our people better. The socialists seem to

have a need, perhaps a commitment, to attack the integrity of

the so-called Establishment.

I wonder who the Establishment is? Well, a brief reference

to Statistics Canada's latest figures in British Columbia show

that in the manufacturing industries alone — and that is 47 per

cent of the industries in British Columbia — 50 per cent of the

jobs created fall in the category represented by manufacturing

concerns having less than 200 employees, Mr. Speaker. And of

those nearly 30,000 fall in the manufacturing firms having

between 5 and 49 employees. Now is that the Establishment? The

shoe repair shop, the little machine shop and the small

orchardist, the hardworking farmer and the little retail

businessman?

In attacking this so-called Establishment, Mr. Speaker, the

socialists attempt to divide the people with mistrust and

resentment for each other. Individual enterprise, Mr. Speaker,

has been proven far more successful in producing a decent

standard of living for the most people than any government monopoly.

The speech, Mr. Speaker, leaves a vacuum as well in that it

deliberately hides from the people of British Columbia just how

far down that road to state socialism we have already travelled

and how far we might be going. For example, this Government is

committed to changing the Revenue Act of the province to

allow B.C. to invest in the capital stock of any corporation

where previously such investment was restricted to

debentures.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, you are not allowed to anticipate

debate on that question. Do you wish to go on to something

else?

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, it is not for one Member of the House to

dictate policy of the House. It is for the House itself and the

rules of the House — and before the House debates the matter I

would ask the Member to ask the leave of the House. If that is

the way you want to conduct the rules of debate, you do it by leave of the House. If any Member objects to rules

being ignored then that Member can 'put his objection.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I only went by the comments of

the leader of this Government that he would allow full debate

in the House even though those bills were being tabled. I took

that in good faith and I wanted only to mention….

MR. SPEAKER: I still am here. My duty, as you know, is to

observe the rules.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I only wanted to mention it

briefly. May I ask for leave, then, to mention it briefly?

MR. SPEAKER: May he have leave to refer to a matter already

on the order paper?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No!

MR. SPEAKER: Apparently not everybody is in agreement. Every

Member is equal in the House and they can say "yes" or "no" as

they please.

MR. McCLELLAND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, this

Government seems committed, through he financial policies of

the Government and the Finance Minister, to squandering public

funds in failing Government enterprises in this province and

perhaps in Saskatchewan and Manitoba as well.

I may say, Mr. Speaker, that the order of buses from the

Western Flyer Company of Winnipeg is only he first step. I

would like to ask, Mr. Speaker, what the real reason was for

these buses being ordered from a Crown corporation in Manitoba

without any public tender. The real reason.

The real reason, Mr. Speaker, for not horsing around with

tenders, as the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr.

Lorimer) so quaintly put it, is that somebody was almost

certain to underbid that company. This Government, Mr. Speaker,

was committed to shoring up a sagging socialist enterprise in

Manitoba — a socialist enterprise, Mr. Speaker, that cost

$500,000 in 1971 and was probably in much worse shape in 1972.

Fortunately for Western Flyer, Mr. Speaker, they found a sugar

daddy in the Minister of Municipal Affairs in this Government

of British Columbia. Shoring up a sagging socialist enterprise

in Manitoba to provide new jobs for Manitoba workers while

including not one real measure in the budget for providing jobs

for British Columbians.

Mr. Speaker, I could understand the socialist obsession with

getting their hands on private enterprises if there was any

record of success, anywhere, with which to relate this

obsession. But contrary to that the record shows only a very

long history of waste and incompetence, as Crown corporations

first in Saskatchewan, more recently in Manitoba, have been a

blueprint for failure.

Mr. Speaker, the people of British Columbia want to know

where the hordes from the north are leading us.

AN HON. MEMBER: They're riding a pale horse.

MR. McCLELLAND: We cannot look at the

[ Page 471 ]

budget, Mr. Speaker, because it doesn't shown us

anything.

Perhaps we could listen to the backbenchers. The Member for

Comox (Ms. Sanford), Mr. Speaker, says we need to abolish

private ownership of land. The Member for Skeena (Mr. Dent)

says he is going to move people out of our cities and send them

somewhere else to live. Well, Mr. Speaker and Mr. Member, you

are not going to tell me where I can live in British Columbia

and where I cannot live.

Mr. Speaker, I tell the members of the public they should

listen to the Members of the New Democratic Party to find out

the real truth. To find out what isn't indicated in this

budget. It has been said before that the Members have already

told their Government that they want some action. They want

their Government to take over everything from B.C. Tel to

MacMillan Bloedel and from the corner gas station to the local

movie theatre.

In Saskatchewan, Mr. Speaker, this dabbling in private

enterprise has left that province with a sick economy and a

depleted population and the record shows just that.

AN HON. MEMBER: What did they say in their budget? They said

they were going to help bring population here!

MR. McCLELLAND: In Manitoba, Mr. Speaker, citizens now pay

the highest rates of income tax in Canada and are embarked on a

clearcut programme to drive private enterprise out of the

economic life of that province. In the NDP Manitoba manifesto,

proposals are made to enter into every kind of business from

the manufacture of baby food to soap, and the operation of

everything from hotels to used car lots. I have a great fear,

Mr. Speaker, that when we finally get these buses from Manitoba

they will only run in socialist-held ridings.

AN HON. MEMBER: On co-op gas.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, Lord help us. Lord help us from

socialist enterprise, Mr. Speaker.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk for a few

moments about promises — especially promises made in election

campaigns. I chose at random a brochure listed by the now

Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) and the now Minister of

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

other exotic departments, and profitable departments, Mr.

Speaker, during the election campaign just past. It is a

handsome brochure, Mr. Speaker, and it proudly promises a new

deal for the people in British Columbia.

In it the candidates promised "car insurance at cost" and they indicate that

this means less than $25 per year. Where does it say anything about that in

the budget? Where does it say anything about car insurance at cost in this budget

brought down by this Government of British Columbia? Nowhere, Mr. Speaker.

More jobs says the brochure. The NDP, it says, believes that

a job is not a privilege but a right. We believe that, but

where is the provision to fulfill that promise in this budget — nowhere, Mr. Speaker, nowhere.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that events have proved those

promises to be hollow, just as events will prove this budget

speech to be hollow. Thank you.

AN HON. MEMBER: Attaboy!

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

Sound.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Thank you,

Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, your chamber is so popular that it is

impossible at the 2 o'clock beginning to have in the galleries

all those people who wish to view what takes place here. As a

result, I would like to take the opportunity, on behalf of the

two Members for Vancouver–Point Grey (Messrs. McGeer and

Gardom) to welcome the boys from St. George's School who are

here and who have come in just lately.

They attend a school of long standing in this province,

offering university entrance courses. They qualify in every way

for the assistance that the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland)

just indicated that this Government should give, and which has

been part of the policy of the Liberal Party for a decade.

Mr. Speaker, I think I gather from the remarks of the Hon.

Member for Langley that he is opposed to the budget. I was

never quite sure. (Laughter). He delivered his remarks well and

his associates were well rehearsed in the right places to

applaud. But when he was complaining about a budget that didn't

have anything for employment and didn't have anything for this

and didn't have anything for that, I thought that maybe he had

been reading last year's budget.

As a matter of fact, as I read the budget speech this year,

I thought that if we have a new script writer he must have read

very carefully the old speeches, because we have the same

confusions here as before. For the official Opposition to

criticize this budget means that they are obviously criticizing

the style that the former Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr.

Bennett) grew to use so well.

Indeed, I think it's becoming increasingly difficult for

Members on the Government side to really, honestly support this

budget. I notice that the Attorney General (Hon. Mr.

Macdonald), when he made his remarks on Monday, began with the

very simple statement, clear, unequivocal: "Mr. Speaker, this

is a good budget and I intend to support it." I

[ Page 472 ]

notice that Hansard records that it was followed by

laughter. Obviously even the Members of his own party didn't

believe what he was saying.

I find that after speaking at some length and dealing not

one whit with any of the budgetary matters, he concluded with

exactly the same words. So obviously, it's kind of like a

Chinese meal — you have to keep reminding yourself how good it

is. If you keep saying it often enough you'll eventually get

the message.

Before turning to the budget matters themselves, I want to

raise with you, Mr. Speaker, a matter which flows from remarks

made by the Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain

(Ms. Young) yesterday, and the statement made by the Hon.

Premier at the opening of the sitting this afternoon.

The Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain, in

expressing her concern and giving her view as to the effect

which the recent international currency revaluations might have

upon this country and this province, suggested that it was her

hope and, from those people in positions of knowledge of whom

she had read, their belief that the Canadian dollar would float

upwards or downwards with the American dollar — maybe within

one or five points.

I would just like to remind you, Mr. Speaker, that for every

variation of one point between the Canadian and the American

dollar, our principal industry in this province, the forest

industry, suffers a loss of $15 million.

Therefore, if we're to deal with money so casually on just a

one or five point difference, you realize that one industry in

this province can sustain, at current market rates, revenue

losses of between $15 million and $75 million.

This is not an insignificant amount for the economy of a

province such as ours, even though our budget is approaching

$1.8 billion.

Therefore, we can't treat too lightly the problem which

faces our American friends; a problem which will only be

solved, at the best temporarily, by the currency revaluation

that has taken place in the last few days.

I think that we must be specifically concerned about this

aspect — that the revaluation is only a temporary measure and

that the United States of America, if it is to maintain its

position in the world economy, will be obliged to take other

steps. It is those other steps which should be of the greatest

concern to Canada, British Columbia in particular.

We don't know what they are. It has been suggested import

duties, restrictions on imports — all things which harbour

unsatisfactory results for us.

The Premier of this province today has suggested that the

Prime Minister of Canada should join with him in making

approaches to the President of the United States concerning

matters related to the petroleum energy resource. This is such

a sensitive matter that I hope the Hon. Premier, appreciating the

position in which we find ourselves with regard to

international trade, will recognize this before he goes too

far.

It should be clear, and every Member of this assembly should

appreciate, that the United States of America is the largest

single user of petroleum products in the world. They should

also recognize that as of today the U.S. net production of

petroleum resources within their own country falls short by

20 per cent of their requirements. They should also

recognize that it is forecast that by 1985 the United

States' demand will exceed its own production by 60 per

cent.

Even though we might wish to see our American cousins alter

their life style in such a way as to decrease the demand for

petroleum resources, it is almost impossible to expect that

they would adhere to the extent of reducing the demand by 60

per cent of their needs.

Therefore, they are placed in the position where, in order

to supply their petroleum and hydrocarbon energy resource

requirements, they must depend upon foreign sources. While

we're in a position to supply a minimal amount of what their

requirement may be, principally their petroleum crude

requirements will come from Saudi Arabia and South American

countries.

Those countries, appreciating the control that they have

over this particular resource, have already begun to increase

the price. Therefore, we see the position in which the

President of the United States and his advisors find themselves

today.

When we make moves in this province and through our federal

government to interfere with the realization by the United

States of the fullest benefit of oil production within its own

territories, we must appreciate how serious those implications

would be for the Americans if they were to give in to some of

our suggestions.

My worry is today, and it has always been, that unless we

deal sensitively with this problem, we will not be able to

succeed in stopping the transportation of oil along our

coastline — and of greater concern, through the narrow straits

to the south of us — unless we are forced into a position by

the United States of America where we are obliged to give some

other thing in return.

So I say, Mr. Speaker, to the Premier and to the Members,

before we move too precipitously in the approach to some of

these problems and their solutions, let us be quite certain of

the strength of the person with whom we must deal, and of some

of the demands which the Americans might wish to make upon us

as a quid pro quo for giving in to some of our desires.

We have had debates in this House and Members of the Official Opposition, as

they are now, and Members of the Government, have stood up and said there

[ Page 473 ]

are

certain things we will not give the Americans. One of them is water. But they

still need it. All I say is, not to give it to them, but just remember how badly

they need some of the things that we have to give. Before we start dealing too

quickly with them, let's count what the cost may really be.

I'm glad the Member raised this. You know the Government of

the Province of British Columbia, the previous government and

this Government, has ignored this problem of shipment of oil by

tankers along our coast, consistently. We have never had the

opportunity in this House of discussing this matter. We have

never had the opportunity in any committee of this House of

bringing before that committee people who really understand the

problem.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, if the Member wishes to know, that

what the Government of this province should be doing is

permitting the Members of this House to understand all the

complexities of the oil situation as it affects us and the

United States of America. When we have those facts before us,

then perhaps we can make the decisions which this Government

should make. That's the way this assembly should function. I'll

have more to say about that later in these remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Attorney General (Hon. Mr.

Macdonald). In the course of his remarks he mentioned the

provincial court system, and the changes that have already

taken place under the administration of this Government in the

operation of the provincial courts. Also, I welcome his

remarks, his suggestions, that steps are being taken to ensure

that the judges in the provincial courts, more and more of them

are legally trained.

But I wonder if the Attorney General would also consider

that while it is desirable that a judge have some understanding

of the law, some clear understanding of the law and a

comprehension of its intricacies, that it is perhaps more

desirable that a person who sits upon the bench of the

provincial court should possess qualities of wisdom and

compassion which would improve the judgments which might be

rendered. I'm sure the Hon. Attorney General would agree with

me that legal training alone does not necessarily give a person

those qualities which would improve his judgment and therefore

the justice which is dispensed through the provincial court

system.

I would hope that it would be possible in those areas where

we have men of wisdom, of deep experience and perhaps some

shortcomings so far as legal training is concerned, to train

them better in the letter of the law, but not replace them — rather to retain them for the quality of the judgment that they

already possess. I don't think that any member of the legal

profession would claim that his training alone makes him best

suited to sit in judgment upon those who come before him.

I also think that it might be wise when making the same examination, if the

Attorney General or the Chief Justice of the provincial court system might seriously

look at those members of the court who have legal training, but do not have

the qualities of which I speak. And there are some.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: What's the solution there?

MR. WILLIAMS: Replace them.

I don't want to say any more about that, Mr. Speaker, but I

just think it should be looked at very carefully because from

my experience, and I know that other members of the profession

have experienced that there are some judges who just aren't

that good, and we may have to deal….

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Should I have the power to replace

them?

MR. WILLIAMS: No, I think your Chief Justice could very

carefully look at that and decide what needs to be done in

certain circumstances.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WILLIAMS: No it's not. It is an attempt, Mr. Speaker — for the Hon. Lady Member if she would understand — only to

improve the calibre of justice that is administered by the

courts. You improve it two ways. You improve it by bringing

good men to it. You improve it by taking those away who are not

good.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. WILLIAMS: Oh well, the law's our responsibility and if

we can't improve it then some other people will tell us about

that at some other time.

However, I'm not going to write the legislation for the Hon.

Attorney General, he's capable of doing that. He can have

assistance from the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver Centre

(Mr. Lauk).

But I do want to raise one matter which deals with the

matter of justice with the Attorney General, Mr. Speaker. I'm

sorry the Hon. Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) is not here.

Because I am concerned that there is going on in this province

today, at this very moment indeed, discussions which indicate a

serious transgression of the law by one of our major unions in

this province. I speak of the International Woodworkers of

America. I trust the Hon. Attorney General will concern himself

with this because it would appear that actions have been taken

by that union, or one of the locals of that union, which are

illegal under the laws of the province and indeed may be in

breach of the Criminal Code. The

section I refer to is one

dealing with intimidation.

[ Page 474 ]

Mr. Speaker, the IWA, Local 185 at Port Alberni, on January

10 sent out to people who were engaged in sections of the

logging industry in this Province the following letter, by

registered mail:

"Please find enclosed, three copies of a memorandum of

agreement between yourself and Local 185 of the IWA. Would you

please sign them and return two to our office.

The reason for this procedure is that it has been brought to

our attention that the owner-operators are usually found to be working on or

with the various pieces of equipment they have purchased.

Needless to say, we do not intend to force these operators to

join the IWA, but we feel that some type of permit system must be established.

I understand that when a man purchases a piece of equipment it may not be economically

feasible for him to place another person on it, but rather must operate the

equipment himself. This memorandum is designed to accomplish this end.

Upon receipt of the two signed memorandums into our office, we

will send you a permit card and a sticker for your vehicle.

If you desire more information on this matter, please feel free

to contact me in my office at any time.

(Signed)

F.L. Larson, Second Vice President."

The memorandum of agreement, Mr. Speaker, already signed by

the local of the IWA and sent to the person to whom this letter

was sent reads as follows:

The owner-operator shall abide by all conditions as outlined in the current

Coast Master Agreement.

The owner-operator shall abide by all current conditions and agreements

as established between the local union and the parent company.

The owner-operator shall pay to the local union each month the amount established

by the local union.

In no case shall the amount exceed one month union dues as established

by the local union.

This agreement shall allow the owner-operator to work within the jurisdiction

boundaries of the local union.

This memorandum of agreement has now been changed slightly

by the IWA, and what they are now asking these owner-operators

to sign is one which has suggested that they must join the IWA.

This is against the law of this province.

The people to whom this letter has been addressed are

independent contractors who have fought for years with the

preceding government and with the holders of the tree farm

licences to ensure their right to continue to operate within

the contract clause of the tree farm licences.

This matter has been dealt with, Mr. Speaker, year after year by the Select

Standing Committee on Forestry and Fisheries of this House. Year after year,

the 30 — 50 contract clause in the timber farm licences has steadily been improved

to ensure that these independent operators could continue to carry on their

business in the locality which they wished.

Last year representations were made by the International

Woodworkers of America to the Select Standing Committee in

order to force these operators to join the IWA. The situation

was fully canvassed and the report in the Journals of 1972

indicates clearly that the Select Standing Committee on

Forestry without exception — and they were members of the

government party on that committee — rejected that suggestion

and allowed the independent contractors to carry on without

being obliged to subject themselves to the union agreement to

which the TFL holder was subject.

Now out of the blue, on January 10, 1972, this union,

without any dispute, without any right to unionize these

independent operators, sends a letter saying — in British

Columbia if you please, Mr. Speaker — sign this agreement and

we'll give you a permit to go to work within this local

jurisdiction.

And what is the threat? Here the Attorney General should

take note. The threat has been made to the owner of the TFL

that if these operators do not sign these agreements, they're

going to close down the operations in Port Alberni. And that's

intimidation.

Meetings have been going on yesterday and are still going on

today dealing with this particular matter.

The big company, MacMillan and Bloedel, which for its own

reasons might be happy to see the 30 — 50 contract clause struck

out of the TFL licence, has suggested to the independent

operators, "Well, I guess you're going to have to sign or we're

going to have to cancel our contract with you." More pressure

upon these independent owner-operators who have their own

pieces of equipment and are under the laws of this province,

entitled to operate within the tree farm licences.

I thought the day would never come when in British Columbia

we would have to get a work permit from our government, and I

certainly never believed that we would be in a position where

we'd have to get a work permit from a union to which you do not

belong, and to which under the laws you need not belong. The

IWA know it's illegal.

I say to the Attorney General now that I ask him to

investigate this case — to determine whether there has been a

breach of the statutes of this province or indeed, whether

there has been a breach of the Criminal Code — and to take the

appropriate action as the circumstances might required.

Mr. Speaker, returning to the budget.

The Hon. Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) in the course

of his remarks saw fit to criticize the Liberal budget

presented to the House on Monday by the Hon. First Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey

[ Page 475 ]

(Mr. McGeer). But the Hon. Member for Langley (Mr.

McClelland) should appreciate that the Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey is one of the few Members in this House

who has taken the time to study and understand the budgeting

system of the previous government. It is sorry for him, as it

is for me, to see the present Government copying the same

technique.

The Member for Langley talked about the "Liberal shadow

budget." He didn't listen to what the First Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey said. The Liberal Member did not talk of

the budget that he proposed for expenditures and revenues in

this province as being more realistic than the one we have

before us. When he spoke of a "shadow budget" the First Member

for Vancouver–Point Grey was talking about the number of

dollars within the control of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr.

Barrett) and the Treasury benches which none of us in this

House ever have an opportunity of seeing, of debating or of

querying. That's the shadow budget.

Even the Hon. Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) — at

some time someone suggested that he might be the Minister of

Finance of the province — he doesn't understand it either.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WILLIAMS: If the Minister would just listen then he too

will learn what the shadow budget of this province is.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Highways): Stop making a

shadow speech.

MR. WILLIAMS: It's a shadow budget — $2 billion under the

control of the Minister of Finance that we never even get a

chance to look at in this House until after the event.

This is a budget we're talking about. You let the Members

look at some expenditures totaling $1.7 billion but you don't

let the Members of this House discuss how you're going to deal

with $2 billion that that man has in his hands.

There's nothing in the estimate book showing the revenues

that come from the trusteed funds in the hands of the Minister

of Finance, Indeed, it is not until after the event that we

find, as you will on page 10 of the budget, how much of those

moneys were expended in the previous year by the Minister of

Finance.

It's right there: $126 million for the B.C. Hydro, $60

million for B.C. Rail, $55 million for the British Columbia

School Districts Capital Financing Authority, and $21.5 million

for the British Columbia Regional Hospital Districts Financing

Authority. No opportunity to discuss those expenditures in this

House or in a committee of this House before they're made — not

one opportunity.

No opportunity to find out in advance what the projections are by the Minister

of Finance with regard to the revenues from the trust funds in his hands. There

was a question answered yesterday by the Hon. Minister of Finance in response

to a question posed by the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey. I urge all

the Members to look at the documents tabled and see the kind of money that the

Minister of Finance has in his control which we never see at all, about which

we never get the chance to debate, to question, to dig.

That's the shadow budget — a bigger budget than was brought

down here last Friday, more money in his possession. I don't

deny that the sources are definable. We can find them out after

the event. No question as to where the money is expected to go,

under the laws of this province; but we are not able to

question as to whether they do go; what happens to any

unexpended moneys which might be re-capitalized; to understand

the forecasts of expenditure. That's what this budget is all

about — we're forecasting our revenues, or attempting to; we're

forecasting our expenditures, or attempting to.

I say, Mr. Speaker, that if this is the open Government — the Hon. Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) when he sat

about here, used to talk about the sunshine that would be let

in — and I say that if we're to have that, then bring all of

the fiscal matters before this House or a committee of this

House and let us look at it. Let us not see bills that have

been on the orders of this House before, where we are going to

spend $500 million or permit the Crown corporations to borrow

that kind of money without knowing what it is for. Not one word

as to what the expenditure was for.

Mr. Speaker, these moneys that the Minister of Finance

controls are largely made available to these same Crown

corporations. I say the time has come for this open Government

to let the sunshine in and to stop the sham of the Crown

corporations being able to do as they wish and let us look at

their budgets. How much, I ask, will the British Columbia

Railway earn in revenues next year? What is their forecast? The

president sits over there, the chief executive officer sits

there. Why don't we know how much they propose to earn in

revenues next year? We're the board of directors and the people

of the Province of British Columbia are the shareholders. You

look at the Companies Act, I say to the Second Member

for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk). Look under the Companies bill.

See the kind of obligations that the directors of a corporation

have to their shareholders. If we're the directors here and the

president sits over there and we can't tell the people of the

Province of British Columbia, who are the shareholders of that

railway, how much revenue we're going to get and how we're

going to spend it — then we're in bad shape as directors.

That's all I'm asking.

That's all that we've ever asked. Let's see how much we're

going to earn. Let's not be given some

[ Page 476 ]

time later in the year the so-called financial statements of

the British Columbia Railway which shows profit and all kinds

of surpluses and liabilities and so on, and profit. I suggest

to you, Mr. Speaker, that there isn't any profit in the

operation of that railroad. But we will never really know until

we get a chance to sit down and look into the fiscal affairs of

that Crown corporation.

The same with B.C. Hydro.

It will be a fantastic job. But it's one that will challenge

the abilities of each of the Members of this House. It is our

obligation to fulfill those responsibilities; to meet that

challenge, to be able to go out to our constituents and say,

"Yes, we've looked into the operations of the Crown

corporations. We are satisfied that they are doing the job for

the people of British Columbia that they are expected to do."

There isn't one Member of this House today who could say that

to a constituent because he just doesn't know.

MR. LAUK: Weren't the reports filed?

MR. WILLIAMS: The reports that were filed in this House

don't show that information. You don't get anything except the

bare financial statement. Again, the Second Member for Vancouver

Centre knows that to look at the bare financial statement of a

company does not give him the answers that he would want to ask

with regard to forecast revenues and expenditures. I'm not suggesting something which is novel. Let's take a

comparison — the Canadian National Railway, owned by the people

of Canada. The Prime Minister of Canada isn't the president,

however. But the senior officials of CN are obliged by law

every year to go before a committee of the parliament of Canada

and to answer extensive questions into the performance of that

railway during the preceding year and to answer for the budget

that they expect to spend in the following year.

Mr. Speaker, not only do they have to go before this

committee. There is a special edition of Hansard — you

can go to the library and get it — which just deals with the

proceedings of that committee.

Why doesn't the B.C. Rail come to the same thing with us?

We've got the committee rooms. Why don't they come with their

people and let's ask the questions. Let's see their budget in

as much detail as the budget of this Government. You've seen

the votes. We want to see the details of the budgets for the

British Columbia Railway and British Columbia Hydro on the same

basis. Then we know where we're going in this province.

We can then justify the kind of moneys that they get from the people of British

Columbia. It's $126 million for British Columbia Hydro & Power Authority,

which the budget document says was invested at market rates from internal investment

funds available to the province.

Then we can also test one other very important word. Were

those trusteed funds in the hands of the Minister of Finance,

were they in fact invested at market rates? Is B.C. Hydro

paying its way? What are these trusteed funds — the teachers'

superannuation fund? The B.C. Railway employees superannuation

fund? The municipal employees' superannuation fund? Those are

the funds we're talking about and those people who are the

beneficiaries of those funds. We've got a responsibility to

know that they were in the hands of B.C. Hydro at market rates,

because it is the market rate return on those investments which

gives us the opportunity to provide the benefits for

superannuation to those people who every month have it taken

off their pay cheques. That's the measure of our responsibility

and yet it doesn't happen.

I'll give you another example of a similar problem. When I

spoke earlier in the throne speech debate I raised a question

of the British Columbia Railway's proposed port development in

Howe Sound. I'm not going to go into that again except to say

this. Following my remarks, the Hon. Premier suggested that

such an authority as I proposed would result in, "Can you

imagine the bureaucracy."

Well, I just say to the Hon. Premier, because he is here,

that if he would look into the bureaucracy that exists in the

Canadian National Railway, the British Columbia Railway,

National Harbours Board, Fraser River Harbour Commission, City

of Vancouver and realize that they are all fighting about port

development rather than working together. I would suggest to

him that the single port authority for British Columbia I

propose would have a much less bureaucratic colour to it.

Anyway, the Member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) is here and I

want to assure him, through you, Mr. Speaker, that I'm not

dealing with the question as to whether there should or should

not be a port in Prince Rupert at this particular time. That's

a decision that others will need to take.

But with regard to the economics of coal via Britannia Beach

and coal via Prince Rupert, there are people in this province

who have considerable expertise in matters of the economics of

transportation and they are in a position to come before this

House or a committee of this House and tell us what the score

is.

I have a letter from one of them and I won't name him, but

I'll be happy to let any of the Members see this letter. He

advises me that the distance from the coal fields at Sukunka to

Prince Rupert is about 35 miles longer than it is to

Britannia.

But he goes on to say: "Mileage in this case isn't the

critical factor. The principle factors by which one judges the

efficiency of a railroad route are the alignment, the gradient,

and condition of the track."

Now there are some questions to be asked about that because

the Hon. Minister of Public Works (Hon.

[ Page 477 ]

Mr. Hartley), when he sat on that side of the House just one

year ago, brought in sections of the railway ties from the

British Columbia Railway which were rotten and he questioned

the stability of that railroad. Now, you know, he raised it and

I have a question: I want to know how many derailments there

have been on this…We'll have coal from Sukunka to wherever

we carry it. That's one of the questions to be answered.

But it also appears that with regard to the handling of the

coal volumes predicted by B.C. Railway, British Columbia

Railway would need four sets of unit train. Canadian National

could do it with three. The number of cars per train: 65 on the

B.C. Railway because of tile condition of its rails; 85 on the

CNR. Total cars: 260 for the: B.C. Rail; 255 for the Canadian

National — five difference. The number of locomotives: 17

locomotives for the British Columbia Railway; 10 for the CNR to

carry the same quantity of coal.

Now, locomotives of 3,000 horsepower required for this job

are a bit expensive and so are the trains, but the cost to the

British Columbia Railway for its equipment would appear to be

about $11,600,000 for cars and locomotives. The Canadian

National cost would be $9,400,000.

In calculations made by this man who I know is a

transportation economist indicates that the shipment of coal

via Prince Rupert rather than Britannia Beach would have an

advantage of between 75 cents and one dollar a ton to the

person that moves the coal. It means that from the coal mine to

its eventual destination we can cut out between 75 cents and a

dollar a ton — if we go by Prince Rupert rather than going by

Britannia Beach.

This man is a transportation economist, he has written to

me, he has no axe to grind in the matter. But we, Mr. Speaker,

are the ones who have got to make some decisions in the

matter.

Now, I'm sure if you go and ask the officials of the British

Columbia Railway which is the best route, they would say, not

unnaturally, the B.C. Railway is the best route. If you were to

go and ask the officials of the Canadian National Railway which

is the best route, they would say the Canadian National Railway

is the best route. I suppose that if the CPR could get in the

act and we went and asked them, they would be able to assure us

that the CPR was the best way in which to move the coal.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WILLIAMS: No, I don't think so.

And therefore, Mr. Speaker, all I'm suggesting is that since the decision is

to be made by this government, that it should be made on the basis of facts

— not from the B.C. Railway, not from the CNR, not from the CPR — but from facts

given by independent people who can make an assessment without the personal

interest that may result if you talk to the officials of any one of these organizations.

The place where these transportation economists, engineers,

railway operators should be asked is before a committee of this

House. It is on that basis that we get the information — the

input for the kind of discussion that has been taking place and

will in the future take place here.

That brings me finally to the last matter which stems from

this same problem — that is the extent to which the Members of

this House are employed. There has been a lot of discussion

about how much everybody is going to be paid and whether there

is going to be one session a year or two sessions a year. I

just suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the Members of this

House will find a very great difficulty in justifying the

salary increases that are suggested in the budget speech if we

are to continue to function as have for this past two or three

weeks.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.

MR. WILLIAMS: The control of this assembly rests with the

House Leader. They wonder when we're going to have the

committees which were announced a few days ago and all of which

now have chairmen and secretaries and when those committees are

going to be energized by the Government presenting motions

before this House sending those committees into action.

When are we going to get to have legislation before us that

this House must attend to? I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that

the Government should have delayed the opening of this session

for about 10 days until they got themselves ready with their programme.

AN HON. MEMBER: Worse than working to rule.

MR. WILLIAMS: That's right. Well, we're working to rule. I

suppose this is one of the things that we inherit from the kind

of Government that we now have. They understand the work to

rule. I can remember in previous sessions they used to be

screaming about "legislation by exhaustion".

MRS. JORDAN: Now it's legislation by boredom.

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, that's right. I thank the Hon. Member for

North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) for her best contribution she has

made to the debates in this House in all the time I've been

here. (Laughter). "Legislation by boredom". Or legislation by

attrition, one or the other, Mr. Speaker. I leave it to you,

Mr. Speaker, because you're a man of humour and good

judgment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Nelson-Creston.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Mr.

[ Page 478 ]

Speaker, I take pleasure in rising in this debate on motion

of supply. I must say that I was quite impressed and quite

moved by the address of the Hon. Minister of Education (Hon.

Mrs. Dailly) yesterday.

I, too, at one time started out teaching and for lack of

other things and perhaps out of frustration and one thing and

another, embarked briefly upon a course of the use of corporal

punishment. I can't say that I was dissuaded by the size of my

students, but in reflecting and especially looking back over 10

years and knowing some of these people as adults, I can see

where it might have done some harm; I certainly don't see where

it could have done any good.

I believe that where one cannot give physical love, and for

obvious reasons that is barred from the classroom… I refer

to my own family in which I think perhaps I would give physical

affection to the children in my own family. I might there

consider giving some physical reproof, but certainly in the

classroom when there can be no physical affection there can be

no physical reproof.

It is very nice to hear such a philosophy enunciated. I

recall that the person who first put those thoughts into my

mind, Dr. Jack Regal, a clinical psychologist who laboured a

few years at the University of British Columbia, left the

Province of British Columbia because of the

little-red-schoolhouse philosophy that had prevailed in those

years. It is very good to hear a philosophy of this type

enunciated by perhaps the head educator of the Province of

British Columbia.

It is also, of course, very necessary to consider some of

the more detailed aspects of education in implementing that

philosophy. I might say that something as mundane as education

finance is still playing a rather negative role in our

educational climate.

It seems that in education we must always move ahead and

change, change, change. We can never turn back the clock if we

have made a mistake and hope that is going to change. I think

that we should turn back the clock in one respect — in

education finance.

I think that treating the school districts of this province as average districts

is a very poor way of handling it. Now we are adjusting to this a little bit.

We are recognizing that certain districts experience winter temperatures of

40 below, and I was very pleased to hear the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs.

Dailly) mention the changes in financing for school buses. Certain school districts

attract young school staffs; others have older school staff. It seems that we

expect a blanket type of finance formula, an average type of finance formula,

to finance educational costs throughout the province. In this respect I would

urge a serious reconsideration of a return to a system in which the teacher

salary portion or a part thereof of a school's educational budget reflects both

the qualifications and the experience of the teaching staff as it did prior

to 1968.

I have seen some incidents which I don't like to believe but

which could almost seem to appear to be a tendency to try to

force out older teachers, who have got extremely good academic

records and who up until 1968 were getting good

superintendents' reports. It could be that because of stringent

educational formulas there is a tendency to try and get rid of

these people. I know that I have certainly had it admitted to

me quite openly by several people in school boards — and

superintendents in the department — that it would appear to be

desirable to simply hire teachers with no experience. It is

even referred to as, well, "How are you going to spend your

money — on teachers' salaries or something else?" I think there

is perhaps a little bit of virtue in that thinking, but it is

certainly very dangerous.

So I would like to see a weighted factor, at least, in any

education finance formula which would take into account the

amount of experience and the amount of qualification or

certification of the teachers on any particular school

staff.

I believe that it is very important to have young vibrant

new people coming into the teaching staff every year. It is

also necessary to maintain a good solid foundation of

experienced teachers, and the two tend to work in harmony. They

can complement each other. I am very much indebted to some of

my mentors in education. Yet I hope that when I was a younger

teacher I helped to bring a few new ideas to them and that we

could share and grow in this together.

I think too that in looking at our philosophy of education

it is very important to wonder just what we are trying to do,

particularly at the secondary school level. I have often

proposed — and it was not too well received by some of my

classes — that we should perhaps have schools open and classes

in session not continuously but from 8:30 in the morning until

5:30 at night. Perhaps we should close the schools down or let

students take a year's leave of absence or something in their

high school years.

But when we are in school I think that is what we should be

there for. I have had cases of dropouts in our school system — good young people who showed a lot of promise in Grade 10. They

turn 16 or 17 and they get a job at Canada Safeway, Super-Valu

or some service station. I am not singling out any one place

for blame, but these people have worked 40 hours a week and in

some cases working overtime in excess of 40 hours a week while

attending school. They are not necessarily from a deprived

background so that they have to support a family. In some cases

this is the case and I would hope that we could provide for

family livelihoods through better programmes of social

assistance, rather than depending upon students to support

their family when they are in their high school years.

Quite often what they end up supporting is a car.

I have discussed this with these people when they are older,

and I think there is some agreement on this and it is a sort of

a thing which we get into. I think that we should really demand

value. We should invest in education but invest wisely and I am

convinced that a lot more could be done at the secondary level

than is being done at present. This is merely due to the type

of attitude that we take toward education. We don't really

demand that students perform at that level. When they go to

university there's a shock treatment — they suddenly

discover what it is to work about 14 hours a day. Many of them

fall by the wayside.

I think that things like this should be considered and

considered very seriously. I am not making a proposal

tongue-in-cheek. I think that when one goes to

university they do start to work toward this. Perhaps there

should be a little bit of a change so that when a student at

least comes out of junior high school into a senior high school

he knows that there has been some profound difference and

something is expected of him.

The philosophy that was given yesterday would seem not to be

in conflict with the preservation of small schools. There is a

tendency today because of preoccupation with financial matters

— in fact in our district we consider the school bus the

holy cow of the whole institution in bureaucracy… It seems

that nothing can be done educationally without consulting and

finding out what effect this will have on the school bus

system. Fortunately our school bus system has become rather

flexible and the schools have been flexible and we have

staggered opening times and such in school district No. 7. But

there is a tendency to close down small schools and to bus

children from areas.

As one who was in fact living in Vancouver, in the more or

less east end — Vancouver Heights, North Burnaby part of town — and

not being able to afford to go to university in my first year

after high school graduation, I went to Duke of Connaught in

New Westminster. I must say that it was a very nice experience

except for one thing, and that was the bus trip across

town.

That was rather unusual. Not too many people chose to travel

such a distance — from almost the Pacific Coliseum over

to New Westminster. The bus service at that time was probably

better than it is today but it was nothing to write home

about.

I spent a great deal of that year travelling on buses. I

think it's lamentable that we can arbitrarily, using a pencil

and without taking account the value of the child's time, make

decisions to bus