1974 Legislative Session: 4th 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)

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 1974

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

17 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Involvement of finance Minister in assessment commissioner's work. Mr. Curtis — 17

Supply of Ocean Falls newsprint to The Victoria Express . Mr. Phillips — 18

Completion date of Squamish railcar plant. Mr. L.A. Williams — 19

Lifting of Delta wildlife management reserve. Mrs. Jordan — 19

Distribution of literature in by-election campaign. Mr. McGeer — 19

Motion

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

Mr. Wallace — 20

Mr. Speaker's ruling — 20

Routine proceedings

Throne speech debate

Mr. Bennett — 21

Mr. Phillips (amendment to motion in reply to Speech from the Throne) — 35

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 53

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 1974

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Mrs. P.J. Jordan (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, I'm sure

you'll be pleased to know that in the gallery today we have Mr. and

Mrs. Bernard Pow, who are citizens of the Okanagan Valley. I use the

term Okanagan Valley because both Mr. and Mrs. Pow have a distinguished

record of community service and service to the agricultural industry

over many years, and their contributions have benefited all our lives

in many ways in the Okanagan. We consider them Okanagan citizens, if

not, in fact, provincial citizens. I would ask you all to give them a

very warm welcome this afternoon.

Oral questions.

INVOLVEMENT OF FINANCE MINISTER

IN ASSESSMENT COMMISSIONER'S WORK

Mr. H.A. Curtis (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, this

is to the Premier, as Minister of Finance, with reference to a letter

signed by the Assessment Commissioner, dated January 22, which is

headed "For your guidance." It's addressed to assessors with copies to

courts of revision. Was this letter sent out on the instructions or at

the request of the Minister of Finance?

Hon. D. Barrett (Premier): The answer is no, Mr. Speaker. I

have not instructed the chief assessor to send out any letters. The

chief assessor, Mr. Percy Wright, was an appointment of the former

administration. At the time of his appointment there was some question

about politics, and at that time the former Premier announced the

policy that he would not interfere with the workings of that assessor;

and the former Premier kept his word. When we came to office, the same

practice was continued, and at no time have I instructed the assessor

to send out any material. So the answer is no; the continuation of the

same policy is what has been the practice.

Mr. Curtis: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the Premier: Do

the facts contained in that letter of January 22 reflect a change in

policy of the provincial government with respect to assessments?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: To tell you the truth, I haven't seen the letter

of January 22. I knew that the letter was going out because I had received complaints

and I forwarded those complaints to the department. But I have not interfered

with that department, and I continue the practice of the former administration.

Mr. Curtis: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the Premier, as

Minister of Finance: Does the Premier feel that assessors throughout

British Columbia have, in fact, wrongly interpreted some of the

instructions and directions given in the course of 1973?

Mr. Speaker: That's hardly in order, as you know, Hon. Member.

Mr. Curtis: May I rephrase the question? Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Well, I don't think we should engage in a debate, but if you have a question that is proper, or if it's a supplementary, yes.

Mr. Curtis: Does the Premier believe that some instructions given last year have been misinterpreted?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: It is my impression that some of them were.

That's why I forwarded letters of complaint to the assessor's

department. I have not interfered with the assessor's department or his

interpretations. I made it very clear that the assessor was appointed

after being a Social Credit MLA. At the time of his appointment, the

former Minister of Finance said that there would be no political

interference.

Now that former Socred MLA continued in his duties. He's still there

and I carried on the same practice. If there was confusion about his

memos, it's up to him to interpret. I've stayed right out of that and

I've passed on complaints that I've received by mail, as I do with any

other department; but at no time have I given him instructions or

suggested what should be done. The misinterpretations were obviously

there because of complaints that he's responded to, not because of any

instruction that I've given him.

Mrs. Jordan: Supplementary. If, as the Premier says, he

hasn't interfered politically in any way with the actions of the

assessor, why is he on the air telling people, if they have a problem,

to write to him personally and he'll intervene on their behalf? That's

a straight political statement...

Mr. Speaker: Order, please! No speeches.

Mrs. Jordan: ...implying political help to those who write to you directly.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Speaker, any person in this province

has the right to write a letter to the Minister of Finance, or to his

MLA. If that Member

[ Page 18 ]

interprets her response to that constituent as a

political response, that's her business. I respond as the Minister of

Finance. If I receive complaints, I forward them to the proper

department. I want to make it clear that the assessor was appointed by

the previous administration right after he resigned as an MLA. Now

there's been no interference with that.

Mr. P.L. McGeer (Vancouver–Point Grey): This is a

supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. When the complaints regarding the

meaning of the Act passed by this Legislature first began to pour in

last July, at that time did the Premier forward to the Assessment

Commissioner letters of complaint that he received, and did he at that

same time forward to the assessor instructions as to the meaning of the

Act that this Legislature passed?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: No. Mr. Speaker, I forwarded complaints to

him and there's been no control by me to him. He is responding within

his full authority. He has received no instruction from me. I want to

make that very clear.

Mr. McGeer: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question'?

Has the situation changed between last July and now so that the

Minister of Finance, who offered no instructions last July, is now in

effect offering instructions to the assessor — in fact, intimidating

him?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Well, Mr. Speaker, if there is a charge,

then I would ask the Member to produce evidence. Otherwise he's being

mischievous. I'm telling you that I have not interfered with that

assessor, even considering his political past.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please! I draw to the attention of

Members — it's a long-standing rule of the House — that neither the

government or any Member is called upon to interpret the law; that's

for the courts.

Mr. McGeer: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could I

ask the Minister of Finance if he considers that the Assessment

Commissioner's

interpretation of the Act reflects on his time here as a

Social Credit MLA?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: No. The man has served faithfully and in a

manner of practice that we accepted as a government, and we did not

change that practice. I want to make that perfectly clear. We have not

changed the practice we inherited.

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

to the Hon. Premier and Minister of Finance. In keeping with what has

been the practice of this government, may we expect to see a post of

Associate Assessment Commissioner created shortly? (Laughter.)

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Well, if you're applying for the job, you

would have the requisites of the former administration, since you'd be

a Member of this House.

An Hon. Member: He's not NDP.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: We're not biased; we hire other people.

Interjections.

Mr. G.S. Wallace (Oak Bay): To change the subject, Mr.

Speaker, could I ask the Minister of Transportation and Communication

and manager, or the Minister, in charge of the ICBC if it is a fact

that Mr. Robert Adams, business consultant, had his contract

terminated, and could the Minister tell us at what price the government

bought out the contract?

Hon. R.M. Strachan (Minister of Transport and Communications): I draw the Member's....

Mr. Speaker: Is it on the order paper?

Hon. Mr. Strachan: Yes. I would draw to the Member's attention that question 47 on the order paper refers to the same subject.

Mr. Speaker: Questions on the order paper are not susceptible to oral questions.

SUPPLY OF OCEAN FALLS

NEWSPRINT TO THE VICTORIA EXPRESS

Mr. D.M. Phillips (South Peace River): I would like to

address a question to the Hon. Premier, the Minister of Finance and

director of Ocean Falls. Is it true that the Victoria Times is getting newsprint from the Ocean Falls plant? (Laughter.) The Victoria Express , I'm sorry.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I haven't read the Victoria Times lately, so....

Mr. Phillips: The Victoria Express .

Hon. Mr. Barrett: And to correct him further, I am not a director of Ocean Falls.

Mr. Phillips: Is there anybody in your cabinet over there today who is? It is very difficult to keep up with all these changes.

[ Page 19 ]

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Well, if you don't read the paper, I can't help you.

Mr. Phillips: That's the only way you find out, isn't it, Mr. Premier? By reading the paper.

COMPLETION DATE OF

SQUAMISH RAILCAR PLANT

Mr. L.A. Williams: To the Hon. Premier: could the Premier

indicate what the current date for completion of the B.C. Rail car

plant in Squamish is now?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Thank you, Mr. Member. I don't have the

specific date, but I anticipate sometime this spring. The target date,

originally, was January 1. Then I was given a later date in March and

I've had no alteration of that March date. There is a complication

because of the worldwide steel shortage.

Mr. L.A. Williams: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the

Premier: following the completion of the plant, have you any indication

as to when the first car will be rolling off the assembly line?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: No, Mr. Member, I will take it as notice and give you the information.

LIFTING OF DELTA

WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT RESERVE

Mrs. Jordan: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Hon. Minister

of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams), I would

like to direct my question to the Hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs

(Hon. Mr. Lorimer) and member of the board of directors of Hydro, and

co-conspirator in the lifting of the game management reserve...

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Speaker: Order, please!

Mrs. Jordan: ...north of Roberts Bank, in the Delta area. In

view of the fact that both Ministers have stated publicly that the

reason for lifting this reserve on the third of the most important

wildlife management reserves in the lower mainland is for the laying of

an electrical cable across to Vancouver Island, I would ask why, in

view of the limited land needed to lay such a cable, he lifted the

reserve on the whole of over 8,000 acres.

The second part of my question: why did this Minister or the

Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources not consult the

municipality of Delta, the Greater Vancouver Regional District, the

Canadian Federation of Wildlife, Environment Canada or the regional

office of the British Columbia Department of Fish and Wildlife?

The third part: what is the initial...?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. One question at a time. I've seen

difficulties occur because of two questions in the same train. Did the

Hon. Minister wish to reply?

Hon. J.G. Lorimer (Minister of Municipal Affairs): I think I'd better take that as notice, and if you'd give me a note of what you want I'll try and answer if for you tomorrow.

Mrs. Jordan: Well, perhaps, Mr. Minister, you would be

prepared to answer directly on the basis of your statement to the press

on Saturday. It says: "Municipal Affairs Minister Jim Lorimer said

Friday that future development of the area is a possibility." Could you

tell me, in view of the lifting of the reserve, what is the zoning of

this land today?

Hon. Mr. Lorimer: Well, generally the area that you are

talking about is an area outside the dykes, which is presently under

water. The transfer was made from the Department of Lands to the B.C.

Harbours Board. My understanding is that the Wildlife people were in

consultation, were in agreement with the change. I personally didn't

discuss it with the Wildlife people, but I understand it was done. The

possible development that was referred to was the possibility of

further development on the Roberts Bank causeway.

Mr. Speaker: The Hon. Member for Vancouver–Point Grey I think is next.

Mrs. Jordan: May I have a supplementary?

Mr. Speaker: I think that notice has been given and it can then be asked when the reply is given to your notice.

DISTRIBUTION OF LITERATURE

IN BY-ELECTION CAMPAIGN

Mr. McGeer: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Minister of

Human Resources if the Government of British Columbia has supplied any

literature at government expense for distribution by the NDP campaign

workers in North Vancouver–Capilano.

Hon. N. Levi (Minister of Human Resources): Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge, no. Do you have any specific...?

Mr. McGeer: Well, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Minister how it was that this Pharmacare

[ Page 20 ]

brochure of the government was distributed to homes

in Point Grey by Mr. Bob Douglas, an NDP campaign worker, and other

campaign workers. Where did that material come from?

Hon. Mr. Levi: Where is this? Point Grey or North Vancouver?

Mr. McGeer: North Vancouver–Capilano.

Hon. Mr. Levi: Well, I have no knowledge of this, but I'm quite prepared to find out and inform the House tomorrow.

Mr. Wallace: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move adjournment of

the House to debate an issue of public importance, the issue being the

matter of the confusion and hardship resulting from the assessment

crisis in the province.

The situation, I believe, Mr. Speaker, warrants debate at this time for several reasons, if you will permit the motion.

Mr. Speaker: I think what is required at this time is the

reason for urgency, so that we can determine whether it should get

priority over other business or go on the order paper.

Mr. Wallace: Certainly, Mr. Speaker. Well, in our opinion the

reason for urgency is that certain instructions or at least

recommendations are being made by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr.

Barrett) in good faith, but at a time when courts of revision are

already functioning as a legally appointed body all across this

province, and it seems to us that there is inevitably such confusion in

relation to these suggestions to the courts of revision or at least to

the assessors....

Mr. Speaker: May I interrupt? Do you have a copy of the matter in writing for me to study?

Mr. Wallace: Well, we have two or three pieces of material.

Mr. Speaker: I think if you read the rule, it says that you

must send up to the Speaker a written statement of the matter so that

he can consider the requirements under the rule.

Mr. Wallace: Well, Mr. Speaker, I have two communications.

One is from the assessment commissioner to all assessors, with a copy

to the courts of revision, and I have a letter from the Minister of

Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer), and I have two newspapers which

have large, front-page headlines talking about huge errors in

assessment. I suggest that that is substantive material to back up my

request.

Mr. Speaker: What it says in standing order 35 is that he

sends a written statement of the matter proposed to be discussed to Mr.

Speaker who, if he thinks it is in order and of urgent public

importance, reads it out and asks whether the Member has leave of the

House. So it appears to be a matter of complying first with standing

order 35. I'm not interested in newspapers; I'm interested in a written

statement from a Member outlining in brief what the purpose of the

motion would be.

Mr. Wallace: The written statement I sent up is in the form of a motion outlining the reasons, Mr. Speaker, for the debate.

Mr. Speaker: I think the real question to which one addresses

himself here is whether there is any urgency. It may be of public

importance, but the real question is: is there any urgency today to

adjourn the House to debate the matter today?

Mr. Wallace: Well, with respect, Mr. Speaker, I might just

say that in our opinion the very fact that the courts of revision are

making decisions already, at this point in time, with the confusing

statements that have been issued and letters written by the Minister of

Finance, and statements from the commissioner himself of assessments,

suggests that there is some urgency to clarify the work of the courts

of revision.

Mr. Speaker: As you know, Hon. Member, the rule of the House

and the rule of parliament is that if there is any access to immediate

debate in the days ahead, then the motion would not be acceptable. If

there were no other way of debating it, then there may be a

consideration of urgency, but as you know, we have now embarked upon

the throne speech debate. Indeed, the Hon. Member who has risen in his

place will be, I understand, speaking today. Consequently, anything

that you wish to raise now, you are at liberty to raise at large in

your own speech today, so it is a matter of minutes, really.

Mr. Wallace: Except that then the remaining Members of the House are not entitled to take

part in such a debate.

Mr. Speaker: Any Member of the House can take his place in

the throne speech debate or debate on amendments thereto. Consequently

I cannot see the urgency, at this moment in time.

Mr. J.R. Chabot (Columbia River): Did he vote against the legislation, or did he support it?

Mr. Phillips: He supported it!

[ Page 21 ]

Orders of the day.

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued debate)

Mr. W.R. Bennett (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, in

rising to take my place in the throne speech debate, I'm conscious of

the fact that I'm following a great political tradition of leadership

in this province. I'm referring, of course, to the position of Leader

of the Opposition, following in the tradition of such leaders as Harold

Winch, Robert Strachan, and others. (Laughter.)

In researching as to how to conduct this debate, I thought I would look back through previous Journals ,

previous reports of throne speech debates and previous motions, and I

found that the Hon. Mr. Strachan, Mr. Strachan as he was then, moved an

amendment in 1962 that might be applicable today, if I cared to move

it. It was this:

"...but we regret to advise His Honour that the

Members of this House are of the opinion that he has been receiving

unsound advice from the executive council..."

An Hon. Member: Oh, oh!

Mr. Bennett: "...and we are of the opinion that the present

government has violated the trust of the people by disregarding the

election mandate and acting contrary to their announced intentions.

This has created much uneasiness and disturbed all sections of the

community.

"They have undermined our constitutional procedures by constant failure to consult this Legislature on fundamental issues."

Hon. R.M. Strachan (Minister of Transport and Communications): What page of Hansard is that?

Mr. Bennett: This is from the Journals of the House.

Interjections.

Mr. Bennett: Is it all right if I continue?

"We wish to advise you that the Members of this House have no confidence in the present government."

We've had many such motions over the years from the former leader of

the New Democratic Party, the former opposition leader in this House.

But I felt that in researching my position I should not go back so

far; I should research the role of the Leader of the Opposition as it

was practised by the present Premier, and I've tried to prepare myself

as thoroughly as possible in doing this. To say the least, Mr. Speaker,

I've found some of his statements, while he was Leader of the

Opposition, to be most illuminating in light of the policies of the

present government. I would say that he seems to have suffered a slight

lapse of memory during his short trip across the aisle.

For example, Mr. Speaker, in his remarks during the throne speech

debate in 1971, the present Premier spoke in what I think was a very

admirable and admiring manner about saving seniors. He talked about

those people who have been consciously aware of their responsibilities

as citizens, and have put money aside for a rainy day — those people

who have never been a burden on the taxpayers as welfare recipients.

He went on to rap the knuckles of someone whom he describes as

"spent as he went along and maybe could have saved something but

didn't, and is immediately able to receive social assistance." And he

goes on to mention how it punishes those people.

Can this be the same man, Mr. Speaker, who advised people, after he

became Premier: "Sell your little home, take a trip to Hawaii, and live

on Mincome."? Can this be the same leader whose government ladles out

Mincome and Pharmacare to new people of this province after only 90

days, at the expense of people, as he said, "who worked hard and were

consciously aware of their responsibilities and put money aside for a

rainy day"? Is this the same man, Mr. Speaker?

And now again in 1972, Mr. Speaker, the then Leader of the

Opposition stated very righteously during the throne speech debate

about work and wages — what he wanted in this province, He said: "We

want some work and we want wages in this province; we don't want

welfare." He went on to talk about the great welfare expense that was

going on. Yet here in the Blue Book, just published the other day, I

find out the same waste in welfare he talks about is $32 million

overspent.

Interjection.

Mr. Bennett: In your own Journals .

Is this the same man, Mr. Speaker, who was so concerned about the

expenditure of welfare in those days? Can this be the same opponent of

welfare who's running a personal welfare programme for press agents

right in his own office?

But even back in those carefree days, Mr. Speaker, when he was

Leader of the Opposition, the present Premier fancied himself as quite

a businessman — a businessman with quick solutions to all our economic

problems.

In 1971 he proudly announced that he was going to bring an automobile industry to British Columbia.

[ Page 22 ]

Mr. Chabot: Where is it?

Mr. Bennett: 1971. He says: "I wrote to the Datsun Motor

Corporation, and I wrote to the Toyota company, and I'll read to you

that letter I wrote to the president of Toyota motors" and he goes on

and on and reads his whole letter as part of his speech, Mr. Speaker.

Then he goes on to say: "But, Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to announce as

Leader of the Opposition that I have been able to enter negotiations

with the Datsun Corporation." Then he goes on to say: "...but the

Toyota company has gone even further." Now, this is 1971. And then he

goes on and he buttons up his argument by saying: "And that's the least

we can do, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the British Columbia people.

That's the least we can do." You're right; it's the least.

Where is the Toyota plant? Where is the Datsun plant?

Mr. J.R. Chabot (Columbia River): Straight hot air.

Mr. Bennett: One firm result we've seen from all this

grandiose round of negotiations was the transfer, just last month, of

the Datsun advertising account out of Vancouver to an eastern firm. The

reason given, Mr. Speaker, was: that's where the Datsun plant is

located. That's where these 300 or 400 jobs that the present Premier

and former Leader of the Opposition announced he'd secured for the

people of British Columbia in 1971. The least he could do, Mr. Speaker,

is to arrange employment for those advertising people who lost their

jobs in Vancouver because this plant is not in the west. Perhaps

arrange employment with the Dunsky advertising agency.

Interjections.

Mr. Bennett: Oh, one could go on at great length, Mr.

Speaker, to remind the Premier of the discrepancies between what he has

said and what he has done. You may rest assured that during the throne

speech, and further in this House, the Members on this side of the

House will jog his memory from time to time and bring attention to the

public of the flip-flop actions of this Premier and former Leader of

the Opposition.

For the moment, I'll remind him of just one more speech, from 1972.

Here he was promising another industry. What was he promising this

time? What was he talking about? He talked about: "What is the reason

we don't have ship building in this province, a steel mill in this

province, a copper smelter in this province?"

An Hon. Member: A steel mill?

Mr. Bennett: "What is the reason?" Good question, Mr.

Speaker, and the people of the province are awaiting some good answers.

This government, after three sessions and 18 months can no longer take

refuge and say: "After all, we're a new government; give us a chance.

Trust me. Trust us."

Mr. D.M. Phillips (South Peace River): They don't say "trust me" any more. That went out the window. They sure dropped that one in a hurry.

Mr. Bennett: But the blunt fact of the matter is that, with

the exception of countless boards and commissions, task forces and

committees stuffed to the brim of the pork barrel, with party hacks,

this government has done absolutely nothing after three full sessions,

18 months, to create new industries for this province — new industries

that will create new jobs; new industries that will create taxes to

provide the social benefits for all our people.

Hon. D. Barrett (Premier): What is the unemployment rate in B.C. today?

Mr. Phillips: You should know, you hired them all.

Mr. Bennett: Well, I've only been in government, as the

Premier knows, since last September. But when I've been part of the

House for 14 years....

Mr. Chabot: How many civil servants have you hired — 9,000?

Mr. Bennett: But when I've been part of the House for 14

years, I'll be able to look back — in fact, spend all my time looking

back. (Laughter.)

I'm only trying to jog the current memory of the present Premier.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: What's the unemployment rate today?

Mr. Bennett: What does this Premier say about the throne

speech in 1971? I think it's so applicable today. What did he say? He

said that the throne speech is a tired, useless hollow document

produced by a government that sits with 38 seats. That it's forgotten

the little man and has forgotten the reason that it was elected in the

first place.

That might be a good summation of this throne speech that the Lieutenant-Governor read the other day.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: What was the unemployment rate then and what is it now?

[ Page 23 ]

An Hon. Member: Who said that?

An Hon. Member: A Member under a scathing attack.

Mr. Bennett: And I wonder why the Member for Delta (Mr.

Liden) had such a difficult time. I felt sorry for him having to move

that eight-minute-wonder, that eight-minute throne speech — why he

talked about everything else under the sun, why the Member for

Esquimalt (Mr. Gorst) looked even more uncomfortable. Knowing that he's

now not going to make it to the cabinet and time running out on trying

to set himself up as the head of the capital commission, he talked

about saving energy by bathing together. He was applying for the job of

ringleader of the Saturday night bathtub club. (Laughter.)

Interjection.

Mr. Bennett: But, Mr. Speaker, this government took office on

a promise, among other promises, that it would be an open government,

responsive to the Members of the Legislature who are the people's

representatives. But each passing month it is becoming evident to all

of us that this is a government of secrecy and censorship.

The Premier of the province stated last year in this House that he was fundamentally opposed to orders-in-council. I quote from Hansard :

"It is not a healthy pattern; it is not a good pattern. If used

frequently and unwisely it can damage the whole legislative process

that we are committed to in this beautiful province of ours." He says,

"I've debated in this House against orders-in-council." Well, already

this government has passed nearly 5,000 orders-in-council.

An Hon. Member: Oh, oh!

Mr. Bennett: Five thousand orders-in-council. A new, indoor

order-in-council record, Mr. Speaker — 5,000. While many of them were,

of course, routine, many, many more of them deserve utter and complete

condemnation because they have made a mockery of this government's

claim to be responsive to the Legislature and because they are being

systematically distorted and suppressed with censorship.

I readily admit that censorship might be a strong word, but what

else have we to say about a system that now requires anyone who wants a

full copy of an order-in-council to fill out a requisition? A

requisition that you might sign your name, the day, the month, the

year, the department, your telephone number, the number of copies, who

they're to be sent to. This isn't legislation by exhaustion; it's

censorship by exhaustion.

An Hon. Member: Hear, hear!

Mr. Bennett: Of course, there's another way, as of last

month, to obtain some of this information, Mr. Speaker, without all the

bothersome red tape; but only if we accept the

summary of the

government's version of each order-in-council which is now prepared so

helpfully in the office of the Provincial Secretary.

If you happen to be such a fuss-pot that even this tidy little

summary doesn't satisfy you, why, you can phone over to one of 26

carefully-selected civil servants to presumably answer any other

question. Are they going to have to deliver the government line, the

government synopsis on these orders-in-council?

In short, Mr. Speaker, you're encouraged to do almost everything the

easy way, just so long as you don't ask for the order itself because

then comes the hard way. But considering the manner in which some of

these government's orders are worded, I believe it might be better for

the Member's blood pressure if they remain secret because, frankly,

they constitute an open invitation to irresponsibility and waste.

I want to bring attention to just one order-in-council that came to

our attention lately: a routine little order concerning one of the

imperial suites which the cabinet Ministers have for their quiet

enjoyment, Mr. Speaker. The order-in-council was No. 3887 and it was

for the new pad of the Minister of Industrial Development (Hon. Mr.

Lauk). And what is it for? It's for $86,000 for the cost of new

furniture, et cetera. Well, Mr. Speaker, no shipping clerk worthy of

his job, let alone a Minister of Finance who has signed this order both

as Minister of Finance and as presiding member of the executive

council, would sign an order of $86,000 worth of furnishings, et

cetera. Just what is this "et cetera" for? Is it for paper clips, paper

dolls, dancing girls?

As I said, the situation would be laughable if it weren't so

serious. Because it is serious. This is the allocation of the public's

money by order-in-council for things marked "et cetera."

Hon. A.B. Macdonald (Attorney-General): Drop into the office and look around.

Mrs. P.J. Jordan (North Okanagan): Why don't you let some of the welfare people in?

Mr. Bennett: This open government, this responsive government

has displayed almost from the moment it took office a total lack of

understanding of its role as a trustee of public funds. That may be

funny to the Premier as the clown prince of British Columbia but it

certainly isn't funny to me. It shows a total disdain as a trustee of

public funds and a total disdain for the Members of this Legislature

who have a responsibility to share that trusteeship. They've

[ Page 24 ]

done it by using the very weapons, by using

orders-in-council. The Premier spoke about bleeding hearts. His

bleeding heart used to bleed all over the floor when he was Leader of

the Opposition.

One year ago, Mr. Speaker, this Premier, this Minister of Finance

brought down his first budget, his spending estimates for the next 12

months. Now, I wasn't here, but the record will show that my colleagues

and, indeed, all private Members of the House, faithfully debated,

criticized this budget and reviewed the document at length. That was

their responsibility.

But the entire exercise was a sham, Mr. Speaker, because the

document was a sham. The so-called budget was never intended to be a

guide to the government's spending plans. We know that a little more

than three months after this budget was passed this government

authorized over $25 million worth of special warrants and expenditures

which weren't included in that budget. That figure of special warrants

for expenditures not included in the budget is now over $110 million.

They did it all by that device which horrifies the Premier: the

order-in-council, the censored order-in-council which says little and

hides all, et cetera, et cetera.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we might be able to take some small comfort, some

tiny glimmer of hope in the way our money is being shoveled out by the

government if only we could bring ourselves to believe that the Premier

of this province is the financial genius he claims to be. Certainly

he's tried to reassure us over and over again about his financial

capacity, as modest as Muhammed Ali when it comes to that subject.

(Laughter.)

Moreover, when he committed his government last April to a policy of

dabbling in the stock market with the taxpayers' money, he gave this

House every assurance known to man that he would be prudent and

cautious. I quote from Hansard :

"Now, there is no way that this government intends to go into a massive

investment in the open market. None whatsoever. We want to be free

enough to make decisions based on caution and prudence to protect those

funds and still have a better return on that money." That's what he

said: "a better return" — a very key word — "a better return on that

money" than they could get elsewhere.

Then he goes on to say: "I appreciate the comments made by Members

of the opposition, but I assure you that the idea that there will be

reckless investments or investments made with gay abandon is a little

bit much."

He talks about not making reckless investments in unknown gold

mines; the procedure will be through the Minister of Finance — some

security the people have — through the Minister of Finance and the

Treasury Board. He talks about how he's going to be prudent with the

people's money.

Would he care to say a few words about Westcoast Transmission now, Mr. Speaker?

Hon. D. Barrett (Premier): A good investment.

Mr. Bennett: Best return on the money. What return does it make on the money?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Nine and one-half per cent guaranteed.

Mr. Bennett: No way. I'm glad we smoked the Premier out. In dividends, Mr. Premier?

Mr. G.H. Anderson (Kamloops): Guaranteed.

Mr. Bennett: "We will be cautious," he said. "We will not be

making reckless investments." Would he care to say a few words now

about Dunhill Development? Perhaps with the new Housing Minister (Hon.

Mr. Nicolson) it should be calling "Downhill Developments." (Laughter.)

I'll have a few more words about those transactions and the

Premier's guaranteed dividend of 9 per cent a little later, Mr.

Speaker. But first of all I want to acknowledge — and I'd be remiss if

I didn't — the fact that the Premier isn't going to stand pat on his

own reputation as a great businessman; he's going to share the burden

with two resident financial wizards from right inside his own office.

Two resident financial wizards, both of them, we must assume, have

impeccable credentials for the job which, as we understand it, the

Premier has charged them: to ferret out even greater Dunhills as

vehicles for the investment of the taxpayers' money.

The exact duties of the executive assistants, the administrative

assistants, the personal assistants, the assistants to the assistants'

assistants in the Premier's office have never been fully explained,

although we do know that one of them seems to function as perhaps the

highest-priced chauffeur in Canada.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald: Tell us about your assistants; you've got a couple.

Interjections.

Mr. Bennett: Well, at any rate, Mr. Speaker....

Mr. Phillips: Going to get them to report the interest rates?

Mr. Bennett: At any rate...

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. One at a time.

[ Page 25 ]

Mr. Bennett: ...we're advised that one of the new financial

wizards, a Mr. Thom, has been employed up until now in translating the

avalanche of French language letters which reached the Premier's office

in increasing amounts.

An Hon. Member: Pourquoi?

Mr. Bennett: And by the way, this job used to be done as a

matter of routine in the Provincial Library. They used to receive maybe

two such letters a month.

Mr. Chabot (Columbia River): The separatists are writing now though.

Mr. Bennett: But the other new financial wizard, Mr. Peter

McNelly, is even more fascinating because of the credentials he brought

to this highly responsible job of ferreting out new financial

investments for the people of British Columbia. This new job which he

came to via the United States seems to involve his loyal and steadfast

support when he was a member of a Vancouver newspaper.

But a funny thing happened on the way to Mr. McNelly's new job; it

happened in fact the very day that his appointment was announced. I'd

like to read a nice contrast. Here is a "help wanted" ad, The Province , British Columbia, and it says:

"For a research officer, Department of Finance,

Victoria. Under direction, to carry out research projects in the

general field of finance. To prepare comprehensive financial and/or

statistical reports and investigations conducted, including an

analytical

interpretation of findings. Requires university graduation

in economics, finance or related fields and preferably a minimum of

four years practical experience. Starting salary $727 to $1,048 a

month."

Mr. Phillips: Is that Canadian funds?

Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, the very day that Mr. McNelly got

his job at $21,500...and I'm not blaming him if he doesn't have the

credentials that were advertised for this office because certainly

nobody can criticize Mr. McNelly. After all, he wasn't required to

enter a civil service exam; his job was handed to him. But what a

contrast: $8,700 a year versus $21,500. And look at the difference in

requirements, responsibilities and credentials.

Mr. D.A. Anderson (Victoria): Is he underpaid?

Mr. Bennett: Who?

Mr. D.A. Anderson: McNelly.

Mr. Bennett: I don't know what he was getting before. I'm

talking about a responsible finance officer in the Province of British

Columbia — $8,700 a year.

Mr. Phillips: Versus $22,000 for McNelly?

Hon. Mr. Macdonald: What happened to Grace?

Mr. Phillips: Huh?

Hon. Mr. Macdonald: Where's Grace?

Mr. Bennett: You say it just before dinner. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

Mr. Bennett: Oh, I'm going to mention you, the Second Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr. Cummings).

But how in the name of logic or sound business practice or simple

justice can this government advertise for competition the one job

calling for high qualifications at this low amount and Mr. McNelly get

his at $21,000? Everyone in this House knows the answer...

Mr. Chabot: He writes better columns. He writes good columns in the newspaper.

Mr. Bennett: ...because when this government took office it

embarked on the greatest programme of political patronage ever seen in

the history of the province or any province in all of Canada.

An Hon. Member: Hear, hear!

Mr. Chabot: Another Joey Smallwood government!

Mr. Bennett: Should we read all the names and the salaries and the positions?

Interjections.

Mr. Bennett: If there remains anywhere in the province an NDP

hack who isn't on the government payroll, the Wildlife Branch should

earmark them as a declining species — a nearly extinct species,

although I guarantee that the people of British Columbia won't allow

that situation to go on much longer.

That's the species, Mr. Speaker, which is now sharing with the

Premier the serious responsibility of spending public money in the most

volatile financial

[ Page 26 ]

arena of them all, the stock market. They're

committing both general revenue and the funds of the pension accounts

in the Province of British Columbia — they're committing those to the

purchase of equity shares.

Just an example: why did this government offer $4.28 a share to an

insider group which controls Dunhill Developments on the very day that

those shares were trading at $2.25 on the Vancouver Stock Exchange? Was

this at the advice of the resident financial geniuses or was this the

Premier and Finance Minister in solo flight? Why is it offering to pay

nearly $6 million for the common shares of Dunhill Developments? Was it

for the development properties as they suggest? Because I know one

property in question, which they describe as waterfront property just

outside the City of Kelowna, is a barren rock, unsuitable for any

development. And if this is an example of the landbank they purchased

when they bought Dunhill, I feel fear for the people of the province. I

fear for the housing corporation and its tremendous housing programme,

which is non-existent, on the type of lands that Dunhill brings as a

landbank.

Mr. Phillips: That's the most expensive rock heap in British Columbia.

Mr. Bennett: That's right!

An Hon. Member: Now you've got a piece of the rock.

Mr. R.H. McClelland (Langley): Ask them the real reason they bought Dunhill.

Mr. Phillips: What's the other reason?

Mr. Bennett: Now Dunhill Developments has been very busy....

Interjections.

Mr. Bennett: I don't intend to enter a slanging match with

the Member opposite because he's had more practice and I'd hate to be

held in the same opinion as the public holds him.

Mr. Chabot: The old banana salesman. He used to sell bananas in Fiji.

Mr. Bennett: Dunhill Developments has been very busy lately building

condominiums, Mr. Speaker. Not low-cost condominiums for the masses, but condominiums

in the $45,000- to $50,000-a-year range. As I've said, is that the expertise

this government bought? If it wasn't a landbank, was this the expertise

it bought for $45,000- to $50,000-a-year condominium construction? Is this going

to solve housing problems for people on limited incomes?

Can you explain, at the same time, if Dunhill was bought for

investment — if it wasn't to solve the landbank, because the land it

owns is no good; it's not going to solve the housing crisis because the

team isn't geared to building low-cost condominiums.

Could the Premier and Minister of Finance tell me about the great

benefits that it could accrue to, say, the pension funds if this became

a pension fund investment from the dividends that this particular

company is generating? In 1973 it paid a dividend of 10 cents a share.

Now, based on the government's offer of $4.28 a share that works out to

a yield of 2 per cent. Two percent, Mr. Premier; would that make a good

pension fund investment? Would that make a good investment for the

people of British Columbia out of their taxes — 2 per cent?

But based on the company's own optimistic forecast, in unloading

this to the government, of doubled earnings in 1974, the yield would

still be something under 4 per cent as a dividend. Four per cent —

isn't that under the minimum that was to be guaranteed for pension

funds? Is that a wise investment, a sound financial investment? "We

will be prudent with the people's money; financial genius at work"!

Hon. Mr. Barrett: How much did you get out of the Bank of B.C.?

Hon. Mr. Strachan: $39 million of public funds!

An Hon. Member: It still beats some of the other investments.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: 10 cents dividend. 10 cents!

Mr. Chabot: Are you going to compare the prospects of Dunhill

to the Bank of B.C.? There's no comparison and you know it! You know

it. Go back and sell some more bananas.

Interjections.

Mr. Bennett: Touchy, touchy. Personal attacks on people who

can't defend themselves. The typical example of the Premier when he

can't justify his own financial ineptness.

Interjections.

Mr. Bennett: I'm not a director of the Bank of B.C. I don't deal with the bank.

[ Page 27 ]

Interjection.

Mr. Phillips: Are you against the Bank of B.C.?

Mr. Chabot: He's against the Bank of B.C.!

Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker....

Mr. Phillips: He's attacking the people's bank!

Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, we want accountability for your stewardship of the people's money.

Mr. Chabot: Hear, hear!

Mr. Bennett: And your flippant remarks aren't going to take

away the spotlight.... "Financial genius; sound investments; we'll be

prudent; we'll be prudent; 2 per cent return." Two per cent return.

Mr. Phillips: Just up the assessment!

An Hon. Member: Just change the zoning.

Mrs. Jordan: Then blame everybody else.

Mr. Bennett: As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, these types of

investments — these investments at 2 per cent return are not dealing

with the people's money prudently. They wouldn't be allowed in the

pension funds and they shouldn't be allowed this in the funds of

consolidated general revenue.

Now, in the matter of Westcoast Transmission shares, Mr. Speaker,

the government did buy those at market. I must find out — they must

have been getting better advice by the time they got to Westcoast

because they did pay market price. Normally in a block trade of that

size, a negotiated price is reached. A negotiated price that is

normally lower than market for obvious reasons. But if the seller

otherwise had to toss that amount of shares on the market he would

force the price down.

But at least the Premier didn't do a "Dunhill." He didn't pay double

the market value. He paid market value. To be fair, he even improved on

his Ocean Falls performance where he paid $1 million for a firm that

was written off, going to be abandoned, a total write-off. It still

will have to be abandoned some day when pulp prices ease, or more

public money will have to be poured into it to protect a bad investment.

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

Interjection.

Mr. Bennett: Crepe hanger? Is being concerned about the

public expenditure crepe hanging? Is asking for financial

responsibility crepe hanging? Oh, wait till we get to ICBC. (Laughter.)

But to get back to Westcoast: he did buy those shares at market, and

the next day they moved up in trading, as they always would after a

trade of this type. But he immediately goes to the press. He says:

"Look, we made $1 million for the people today." Paper profits! —

because you're not going to make any money till you go to sell those

shares; and if you did go to sell, the Premier would learn something

about brokerage commissions and how much they eat into those profits.

But in claiming $1 million for the people of British Columbia, did

the Premier talk about the windfall losses on the shares that he owns

in B.C. Telephone that he bought at $52.25, that were trading at $49

that day — drop of $3.25 a share? No, no.

Mr. Chabot: Let's tell the whole story.

Mr. Bennett: Half the news...half the news.

Interjection.

Mr. Bennett: Let us not, therefore, hear any more of this

overblown twaddle about windfall profits from the Premier's forays into

the stock market. Because unless this government is going to abandon

even the pretence of prudent, cautious investment, unless it's going to

stop that, unless it is going to take us on the next hair-raising step

of using public funds to play the market in day-to-day speculation,

let's not talk about profits on the stock market. Let's talk more about

investments and the dividends they will pay, and the dividends that

will accrue to the people through those investments.

Now the true test of this Westcoast investment, as of any other now

being contemplated by the distinguished financial house of Barrett,

McNelly, Thom and Partners (Laughter) is what will be its returns to

the people. What will be the returns to the people?

Now taking the first question first, it is difficult to understand

why the government had to export $26 million of the taxpayers' money to

El Paso, Texas, just to exert its authority over Westcoast's

operations. It already had that authority. Certainly it wasn't part of

a "buy back Canada" programme, because if we accept the word of the

Premier — and, of course, I do — he has no plans either to expropriate

Westcoast or to increase the size of his investment. So control of the

company will remain where it was before — in the United States.

As to control by regulation, the government already controls the

wellhead price of gas in British Columbia. And by making Westcoast a

common carrier at a fixed rate of return, it has all the controls it

needs both on the transportation and the cost of

[ Page 28 ]

transportation.

Mr. Chabot: He wants to get in bed with the Yankees.

Mr. Bennett: Perhaps the Premier bought this to put into the

pension accounts. He was great at talking about the benefits that would

accrue to pension accounts if they bought common shares. So what are

the potential benefits to the pension accounts from this investment?

The Premier, as Minister of Finance, would have us believe that

because Westcoast is now guaranteed a 9.5 per cent rate of return, that

9.5 per cent will apply to the $26 million worth of shares we now own.

That's wrong. I say it more in sorrow than anger, Mr. Speaker, that the

Minister of Finance, in the biggest business in this province — which

is the government — apparently doesn't understand how the return on

shareholding equity is arrived at. Somebody has to tell him, so I will.

Mr. Phillips: McNelly will tell him.

Mr. Bennett: Somebody else will have to tell him, so I will.

First, the typical financial structure, Mr. Premier — Mr. Minister of

Finance, Mr. Stock Market Player — of any public company is made up of

debt inequity. And the debt is made up of bonds, mortgages, bank loans,

which are the first charge against the company. It is only after debt

has been serviced and taxes paid and the sinking fund requirements

satisfied that the remaining profit becomes available to shareholders.

But in today's financial climate there is no guarantee that the new

money which any viable company must have to expand or die can be

borrowed at 9.5 per cent or anything close to it. Therefore, the cost

of debt service goes up. The return on shareholders' equity must go

down, because remember that that 9.5 per cent rate applies to all the

invested capital.

Secondly — and here we have an exact parallel — if Westcoast is to

continue on a sound working basis — and I quote from the business

section of The Province —

then it will have to continue putting money aside for depreciation, and

it would have to continue its current dividend programme. And instead

of 9.5 per cent return on that investment, Mr. Speaker, the return is

$867,844 a year — for an expenditure of $26 million. That works out to

something like 3.4 per cent, Mr. Minister of Finance.

Interjection.

Mr. Bennett: That's 3.4 per cent — below the allowable amount for pension fund investments. Not 9.5 per cent — 3.4 per cent.

Mr. Speaker, in pointing out these cold, hard facts of financial

life to the Minister of Finance, we on this side of the House certainly

hope that no hardship befalls the investments of the Province of

British Columbia, whose hard-earned pension payments, and whose tax

money in trust, may be tossed onto the crap table of the stock market

by this government, in becoming the Las Vegas of the north; because

pension accounts or trust accounts — pension accounts — are guaranteed

accounts. In fact, general revenue, Mr. Premier, Mr. Minister of

Finance, is also a trust account. Tax dollars are trust accounts. But

3.4 per cent is far different than 9.5.

So far in this review of the government's business performance I

have dealt with its venture into ownership of companies that were

already in existence. But perhaps the fairest possible test of the

performance of this government, Mr. Speaker, would be its record in a

brand new business, business unfettered by past policies or precedents

or contracts — not that contracts appear to cut any ice with this

government — but, at any rate, a business in which the government and

the Premier and the Minister of Finance could demonstrate from day one

the measure of his competence — business of which the Premier could

say, "I did it my way."

Mrs. Jordan: He did.

Mr. Bennett: Happily — or unhappily, Mr. Speaker — we have

such a brand new business in the province, and its name is the

Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. Good old ICBC.

Here was the Premier's golden opportunity, the opportunity for a

virtuoso display of organizing ability, prudent financial planning,

crisp, decisive operating procedures. Here was his chance to obtain all

the input of the experts that he loves so much — experts who we will

deal with later, Mr. Speaker. Expert information. Here was a chance to

free the poor benighted people of B.C. from ad hoc government.

Certainly, money was no problem, Mr. Speaker, not even in the dear

dead days of a year ago when the Premier and his Transport Minister

came up with the cost of S5 million.

Mr. Phillips: That was just for advertising.

Mr. Bennett: Less than a year later these start-up costs are

not $5 million, not $10 million, not $15 million, but $20 million. This

isn't ad hoc government, to quote the Premier; this is "in hock"

government. (Laughter.)

Certainly there was no lack of input from the experts, whether they were in Atlanta, Georgia...

An Hon. Member: Oh, oh.

[ Page 29 ]

Mr. Bennett: ...or whether they were here, because the

computers hummed, the experts advised, the consultants consulted and

the actuaries calculated for months and months, and they brought forth

a rate schedule. The experts brought forth a rate

schedule — the

computers helped them bring forth this rate

schedule — the experts whom

the Premier loves to quote that he's brought to this government. That's

what all the high-priced jobs are about.

But that rate schedule, Mr. Speaker, has become an absolute

travesty, because it's a meaningless set of figures that has already

been manipulated time after time after time to appease pressure groups

and gain political advantage. Many people of this province found it

hard to believe this government's performance in daylight saving time —

the daylight saving time follies — but they shouldn't really have been

surprised. That was only a rehearsal for the great Autoplan premium

game.

Underlying all this silliness there is a very serious danger that

the Premier of this province will continue to make political rate

adjustments in every aspect of public business. Are we next going to go

into political rate adjustments for light bills if people complain? Are

we going to go into political rate adjustments for gas rates if the

people complain, or groups complain — or maybe if just the right people

complain? Maybe special train fares for people that complain.

No wonder the ICBC ads feature a series of question marks. Where will he strike next? So much for experts.

Mr. Speaker, the performance of this government in connection with

its automobile insurance scheme has been one of misrepresentation,

mismanagement, waste, deceit, extravagance — and not just since day

one, but from long before day one. The proof of all those charges isn't

in what I've said; it's in what they've been saying all along.

I'm going to give you some examples. I want to quote from a letter

that the Premier wrote, when he was Leader of the Opposition, in 1970

to a lady in Victoria. Here it is. And he says:

"As to automobile insurance rates, my sympathy is very

much with an insurance agent and his small business. But they too are

victims of a non-competitive controlled market. Our proposal for a

Crown-owned automobile insurance agency would include the sale of

British Columbia auto insurance through existing agents in competition

with any other company that wished to stay in the field in British

Columbia."

This letter is signed by David Barrett, MLA, Leader of the

Opposition. Shades of the steel mills. There's his words, backed up in

writing and signed.

I'm going to quote you what the present Premier — now that he's

Premier — and his Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley), an

acknowledged rate expert, had to say about premiums during the 1972

election campaign. And remember, this was the main plank of the NDP

platform in that election; this was their solemn promise; this is why

they said, "Trust us."

First, here is what the present Premier said in August, 1972, at a meeting on the Sechelt Peninsula. I quote from the Sechelt Peninsula Times .

"Mr. Barrett said the installation of a public auto

insurance scheme in B.C. would protect drivers from the overcharging by

private companies. 'We would provide several side benefits to B.C. As

well as cutting back auto insurance premiums by 20 per cent, public

auto insurance would also put an end to the exorbitant rates charged to

young drivers and it would stop the practice of charging super

penalties to high-risk drivers who pay high rates because they might

have had an accident, and even higher rates when they do have an

accident.' "

What about the driving certificates, Mr. Premier — the second part

of the three-part auto insurance premium? What about it? No penalties.

Probably the answer is that if you've got a good fiction story going

— and I'm trying to be polite so we'll just call it fiction — you

escalate the fiction. Because here's what the present Minister of

Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley) had to say in the same election, and I

quote from The Kelowna Daily Courier :

"Public insurance would cost about 35 per cent less..."

He's a little more extravagant than the former

Leader of the Opposition, the Premier. It's 20 to 35 per cent — the

election is getting closer, the rate cuts are getting higher.

"...35 per cent less than the motorists now pay. This

is an estimated amount spent now by the 185 insurance companies for

administration, he said."

He's going to save 35 per cent because his insurance is going to have no administration.

An Hon. Member: No advertising.

Mr. Bennett: No administration cost. Look at the ICBC

building in Vancouver and the Royal Towers — all those people running

around, no overhead, no administration. And then he goes on to say,

"Records would be kept in computers in Victoria." Victoria in Atlanta,

Georgia.

Mr. Phillips: They're going to keep it inside those lazy susans.

Mr. Bennett: What happened to those pledges, Mr. Speaker? What happened was that the public

[ Page 30 ]

swallowed that fiction, and the once $5 million

petty cash account was set up and a new round of promises began — a

whole new round of promises.

For example, on March 5 last in this House the insurance Minister (Hon. Mr. Strachan) said:

"Only insurance costs and experience will be charged

against this plan. The plan will be self-sustaining. All services

rendered by any department of government or otherwise will be paid for

from moneys belonging to the plan. No subsidy from departments."

That's what he said — no subsidy from departments.

But right here, on December 14 last, the Insurance Corporation bought a

three-and-one-half acre site in Coquitlam. About 70 per cent of it was

held by a private owner who was paid $540,000 for his property.

Mrs. Jordan: Who's the MLA for there?

Mr. Bennett: The other 30 per cent was Crown land, and our

information is, Mr. Speaker, that to this day no money has been paid

for this land to the Crown. Is this the pledge that the government

wouldn't subsidize ICBC to help it look just a little better than it

looks right now?

Again, on March 5 last the insurance Minister accused the private

insurance industry of failing to provide a good, efficient, rapid

claims service. And he went on to say: "Only government has the clout

and is willing to undertake the burden of overcoming these

difficulties." Some clout. Never mind the good, efficient, rapid claims

service — where are the claim centres, Mr. Minister? Which one's open

and ready for March I?

Once again on March 5 last, the insurance Minister promised that no

money would be squandered in wasteful administration costs. Well, let's

quote a few paragraphs from a column in The Vancouver Sun

by a Mr. Allan Fotheringham. What does he suggest? Well, he talks about

people getting salary increases. He says: "Someone who's in the

$17,000, $18,000 salary range is taking a jump to $24,000 to go at

ICBC." He says: "The public relations man was hired at some $35,000,

but then this government puts a lot of stock in public relations men."

$35,000.

And then, he says: "There's the matter of the ICBC grabbing,

holus-bolus, seven stories in the Royal Centre." This is the overhead

and the administration costs which the Minister of Public Works (Hon.

Mr. Hartley) said you weren't going to have, and he was going to save.

Then he goes on to give a whole list of fantastic salaries. The Minister said he wasn't going to waste any money.

And again on March 5 last, the insurance Minister promised that every single

penny that comes into the plan would be kept for the benefit of the motorists

in British Columbia and invested in British Columbia. Does Lloyds of London

work for the ICBC for nothing? Does the computer company in Atlanta, Georgia,

work for the ICBC for nothing? Does the Royal Bank have its head office in British

Columbia, Mr. Speaker? Those are just a few questions we'll be asking about

this great new enterprise which the business ability, the organizational ability

of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) has helped to set up for the benefit

of the people of British Columbia, to demonstrate the true level of his expertise

which this government brought to the planning of its insurance corporation.

I want to quote some statements from that final authority, the

ultimate authority on insurance rates — the Minister of Public Works

(Hon. Mr. Hartley). These were the careful calculations that this

Minister made in his remarks to the House on January 27, 1972. I've

headlined this: "Hartley Discovers $25 Car Insurance." He says:

"The first step, possibly the most simple and easiest

step for you to take, would merely be to expand your present programme

of government car insurance — the programme that you have for 6,500

government vehicles..." — this is when he's in the opposition talking

to the former government — "...that are now out bucking the snowdrifts

driving under the most hazardous conditions night and day at this time

of year."

You know that the Highways report that was filed on January 20, on

page 14(

b) gives a report from the government's own car insurance. Here

he states that the former government insured its own vehicles for

$23.85. He says:

"We insure all our publicly-owned vehicles that are

operated by the government in various government departments for

approximately one-eighth to one-tenth of what it would cost if you had

insured them through private industry. The total cost for 6,000

vehicles is $125,000." He said, "If you had insured these through

private car insurance corporations, it would have cost $1 million more

than that." He goes on to say: "If they can save $1 million on 6,500

vehicles, what could we do with a thousand times that on 650,000

vehicles?"

The Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley) would save the people of B.C. $1 billion by his own calculations.

Mr. Chabot: He should resign.

Mr. Bennett: Now we hope on this side of the House, Mr.

Speaker, that there's no truth to the ugly rumour that the present

insurance Minister is about to be fired. But should it be true, then

obviously

[ Page 31 ]

there's only one choice for the job — the Minister

of Public Works. He's going to save us $1 billion a year. Why, if he

was in charge he could clean up this whole mess today. He's already

said there's no overhead, no building. For $38.50 a year he can insure

everyone's car in B.C. — $23.50. Why isn't he the Minister of insurance?

And then from his calculations — and this proves the stock that this

party held in his financial ability, his wizardry, because before the

Premier became Minister of Finance he was the financial wizard of the

NDP — they ran his figures in public ads saying: "We will give you $25

car insurance." Financial wizards.

Then the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) spoke on the automobile

insurance bill last spring, and I think it sums up the feeling of all

the Members in this House. He said, and I quote, "I would hate to be

part of a government that deceived the public."

Amen, Mr. Speaker. Amen.

Some Hon. Members: Amen.

Mr. Bennett: The blunt fact about the government's insurance

scheme is that it was conceived in deceit, born in confusion, and

delivered in chaos. You said, "I would hate to be part of a government

that deceived the public." I've read back the statements of your

Members. Are you calling them liars? Are you calling your Members I've

just quoted liars? Are you calling the Members...?

An Hon. Member: Not at all.

Mr. Bennett: Then what's deceit? And that auto insurance expert, Jes Odam, in the Sun — and he's made a study of auto insurance — and I quote from him as a final wrap-up. He says:

"Our Premier, with all due respect to him, was talking

balderdash, piffle and poppycock. Many drivers will pay more for auto

insurance from this government for a variety of reasons."

Well, the Premier of this province has tried to draw a red herring

across the trail of his broken auto insurance promises by challenging

not only the Leader of the Opposition but other party leaders as well

to come out against car insurance at the next election. I challenge him

to show where I ever came out against government car insurance.

But, more to the point, I promise him that when my party takes over

the government, we will bring sound business management to the ICBC and

we will bring the end of monopoly of government in the field of

automobile insurance. We will establish premium rates not on the basis

of politics but on the basis of genuine competition with private

insurance companies, developed by the experts.

Now, something about housing. Housing was in the Speech from the

Throne, Mr. Speaker. Once more I don't want you to take my word far it

because here you have the word of the Premier for it. Only a couple of

months ago he said, "The housing situation has gone from bad to worse."

Bad to terrible during the first year of his administration — bad to

terrible — and that it was going to get worse. Well, he was right. He's

finally right. The housing situation did go from bad to worse during

the first year of his administration, and it did get terrible, it did

get worse.

What we have today in B.C. Is a housing crisis. The irony of the

situation, Mr. Speaker, is that it never had to happen — broken

promises and mistakes. This crisis was largely of this government's own

making. Although the throne speech tells us that during this session we

will see some frantic high-cost, big-bureaucracy patchwork efforts to

catch up on the crisis, no amount of Band-aid building by Dunhill

Development will excuse this government from its total lack of

performance in the housing field for the last 18 months.

Mr. Chabot: Even Dunsky can't advertise them out of that.

Mrs. Jordan: Consumer affairs looking after the huts.

An Hon. Member: They'll need more than McNelly to move themselves out of that.

Mr. Bennett: It's a simple matter of record that, up until

September, 1972, British Columbia had the best per capita record in all

of Canada in the terms of the provision of public housing. I have the

figures here from the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and

I'll be glad to provide them for information for my friends opposite,

if they care to question us.

The previous government's policies on private housing seemed to work

well because of the various incentives and mortgage programmes that

were offered. Over 100,000 people had been helped towards home

ownership by 1972. By September of last year, the total had reached

129,000. It's strange indeed, in fact a bit of a paradox, that for all

its cynical statements about cleaning up the housing mess, and for all

its reckless and unnecessary landbank purchases such as the landbank in

the Dunhill disgrace and others, Mr. Speaker, the only programmes for

private housing that are working in this province are the programmes of

the federal government and those set up by previous administrations.

Since the Premier is a great hand at tossing out challenges, I'd like to challenge him as to whether he

[ Page 32 ]

intends to keep the homeowner grant and increase

it, as he should; whether he intends to keep the renters grant, and

increase it; whether he intends to keep the second mortgage programme,

and increase it; whether he intends to keep the $1,000 home acquisition

grant.

Those incentive programmes worked, Mr. Speaker, and of course the

key to the reason they worked lies in the word "incentive." The people

of this province have shown throughout history that if they are given a

fair and proper incentive they can solve almost any problem of

artificial shortages on their own, without government meddling. But, of

course, this government doesn't believe in private incentives because

private incentives are a threat to state control; especially it doesn't

believe in private housing incentives, because it doesn't believe in

private housing or private ownership of land. We know that even because

he owns at least one home and presumably the land under it; the Premier

has told us so. We know that even though he owns at least one house and

presumably the land under it; the Attorney-General told us so. I trust

the Attorney-General.

Even in the field of rental housing the government bears a heavy

responsibility for the crisis we are facing today. For the first 10

months in 1973 in the metropolitan Vancouver area where over half of

all our people live, multiple housing starts — which is to say

apartment building starts — were down 18 per cent from 1972.

Hon. Mr. Nicolson: Where are they now?

Mr. Bennett: They're down.

Hon. Mr. Nicolson (Minister of Housing): You had better check.

Mr. Bennett: In the first 10 months of 1973 apartment building starts were down 18 per cent.

Mr. Chabot: That's where the Minister is going too — down.

Mrs. Jordan: Down.

Mr. Chabot: Down and out!

Mrs. Jordan: Down.

Mr. Chabot: Down and out!

Mr. Bennett: I would hope, Mr. Minister, that there were some

increases in housing from the tremendous incentives you brought to the

portfolio, legislation that produced this Minister Without Portfolio

responsible for housing as the new Minister of Housing since it was

created. The great programmes you've brought forward are a credit to

your organizing ability and to the people of this province, and they'll

probably thank you forever. Those people without shelter, they're

thanking you today, Mr. Minister. Hunt for a current statistic

somewhere, somehow, to get you out of this mess.

Hon. Mr. Nicolson: From the mess you created!

Mr. Bennett: How many housing units have you built, Mr. Minister? How many housing units have you created?

An Hon. Member: How many housing units do you get for...?

Mr. Bennett: No matter how often this government cries it isn't so....

Mr. G.H. Anderson: How many did you build in 20 years?

Mr. Bennett: How many did I build in 20 years?

The root causes of the fantastic rise in land prices in this

province are causes of this government's own making. The first one is

the inflationary psychology the government has created with its own

reckless spending and its sky's-the-limit wage settlements. The second

is the artificial scarcity of land created by Bill 42 and the land

freeze.

Certainly the government had ample warning of the consequences of

Bill 42. I'm not talking just about the few thousand people that

dropped by last spring to visit him on the lawn of the Legislature; I'm

talking about one of his own Members — the Second Member for

Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr. Cummings). The Second Member for

Vancouver–Little Mountain said in this House, and I quote:

"A second reason for the anticipated drastic increase

in both rents and the costs of homes is the recent freeze of

agricultural land by the government and the subsequent diminishing of

the land available for housing."

One of your own Members, Mr. Premier, and he warned you. Why didn't you listen?

But the government pressed on regardless and reclassified farmland,

and literally thousands of acres of land which never did and never will

support a crop. Having created an artificial scarcity, it promptly

began to do its bit for inflation.

In your own riding, the riding of Burnaby, Mr. Speaker, the average

price of land increased by 212 per cent in 1973 alone. That's where the

government chose to make some of its major purchases for a

[ Page 33 ]

landbank. I'll give you just one example: the

government bought 4.82 acres of raw land in Burnaby in 1972 for a price

of $615,000. That works out at about four lots to the acre, Mr.

Speaker; it works out to about $32,000 a lot for low-cost housing,

before servicing costs. Great landbanks. Some deal.

I guess that's the socialist version of the triumph of imagination

over engineering (Laughter) but it serves to illustrate two serious and

important points.

The first is that if we can't assemble and service land for less

than $32,000-plus in Burnaby what are we going to do in the rest of the

province? We have another area where they run into trouble in Nakusp,

and I quote from the Nakusp newspaper. It says:

"Lorne Nicolson's new housing department probably met

its first major problem right here in Nakusp. The fledgling department

gave the village approval to spend money for a subdivision plan and a

certain amount of development before they came along and put a halt to

it.

"The new department's civil servants discovered that

it's going to cost more to develop the subdivision per lot than the

government could hope to recoup in yearly leases."

They go on to say, and these are their words:

"Boy, oh boy! The size of the lots will be cut down, the number of roads and what not will be sliced."

Now, if they can't assemble and service land in the Village of

Nakusp without committing financial suicide, how in the name of reason

can this government, and that Minister, expect to assemble and service

land in the densely-populated regions of greater Vancouver?

The second point is that with its obsession with the landbank and

its blind insistence with state-owned and state-controlled housing as a

substitute for reasonable incentives, Mr. Speaker, this government is

compounding the housing crisis, not solving it.

What will be the results? Either a staggering burden on the taxpayers, or the creation of instant slums. Or worse still, both.

Of course, the tragedy of it all is that even in the public sector,

the government has had available to it numerous federal incentives that

could have made a real contribution to the housing inventory, even

without spending a penny more than has already been spent with

absolutely no results. If we take the $6 million that they have spent

on land assembly, and add it to the $5.8 million for the landbank in

Dunhill Development, that comes to about $12 million, and it could have

been used in a combination with federal funds through existing formulas

in three different ways.

First, it could gave been used as the provincial government's

one-third grant towards senior citizens' housing to produce at current

prices, including land at $12,000 per unit, 3,000 new housing units.

Second, it could have been used as the provincial government's 10

per cent share, with 90 per cent federal financing through the economic

rent formula, to provide a total capital pool of $120,000 that would

provide at current prices, including land at $30,000 per unit, 4,000

new housing units.

Third, it could have been used as the provincial government's 25 per

cent share under the subsidized rent formula to provide at current

prices, including land, 1,600 units.

Any one of those steps, Mr. Speaker, or a combination of all three,

could have been taken to get this province moving in the field of

public housing — any housing — using only the funds we know about. But

the only funds that have been spent so far have been spent on landbank,

with not one unit, not one stick, being raised to provide shelter for

the people of this province.

Now, the greatest opportunity for a solution to the housing crisis

lies in the provision of reasonable incentives to the private sector

and to local government. When the Second Member for Vancouver–Little

Mountain (Mr. Cummings) gave his highly-accurate forecast on the

effects of Bill 42 last year, he also cited the federal government's

Dennis report as an authority for the statement that 7,000 acres were

in the hands of major developers in the greater Vancouver area, and

that they would satisfy the land requirements in that area for the next

10 years.

We didn't even have to discuss those 7,000 acres because the

municipalities and the governments in the greater Vancouver regional

area own 9,400 acres of land that is available for housing — much more

than the Dennis report estimates the lower mainland will need for

housing during the next 10 years.

We don't need landbanks; we need action and we need programmes. So

it seems only logical to me, Mr. Speaker, that instead of being

preoccupied with landbanks and acquiring land, we get into incentives

for local governments and for private individuals to develop their own

housing.

In anticipation of the housing crisis we are now facing, previous

administrations did offer the municipalities one such incentive. It

wasn't acted upon, but there is absolutely no reason why it could not

be acted upon now to get us moving again.

That mechanism that is readily available is the land-use contract in

the Municipal Act. Using this mechanism, Mr. Speaker, developers of

residential housing, whether they are in the private or the public

sector, would be offered land-use contracts with built-in incentives,

provided they met certain minimum conditions.

First, they would be required to agree to a stated fixed price for

lots on completion of a subdivision. That fixed price would reflect a

reasonable rate of

[ Page 34 ]

return and, by formula, reasonable protection against inflation.

Secondly, they would be required to agree to maintain the fixed

price for five years in return for an incentive subsidy which would

have certain restrictions.

Dealing with the first requirement, Mr. Speaker, the developer — and

here again, I say either private or public — would be granted a

reasonable rate of return. But in order to protect the public against

the possibility of too large an inflation factor being built into the

stated fixed price, and at the same time to encourage the developer, a

release formula would be established.

Under this formula, which would cover the eventuality of developed

land being held off the market for one reason or another, during an

inflationary period, the developer would be permitted during each

year-end of the five-year fixed term to add to the sale price of each

lot at an amount which would be the lesser of 5 per cent or the

cost-of-living rise in one year as protection against inflation.

Turning to the second requirement, which would be a condition of the

land-use contract, we would suggest that an incentive subsidy towards

servicing costs be made in the amount of $2,000 per lot, but only on

its completion, and only when the conditions I have mentioned earlier

are agreed to, and only under a registered caveat which would be lifted

when the completed house unit is delivered to the end user.

As to the end user himself, he would have access to housing provided

through incentive subsidy only once, as in the case of the home

acquisition grant. He could sell this subsidized accommodation, and

sell it at the free market price, but he should not then be allowed to

move back under the umbrella of the incentive subsidy.

We in this party have stated our belief many times, Mr. Speaker. The

best government is the government that is closest to the people — that

is, local government. For that reason, we would assign great

responsibility for the administration and construction and development

of land under these programmes to local governments. They would

disburse the $2,000 per lot incentive subsidy under agreed conditions,

whether they were the developer or not.

In return, and to offer them further incentives to accept new

residential housing and its associated cost, we propose that for each

new housing unit accepted within municipal boundaries, the provincial

government should pay an outright grant of $500 per completed unit to

the regional government or the local government in that area.

We would add another option for the people now entering the housing

market, and that is the lease-to-purchase plan. Under this plan, land

is leased and then purchased with a fixed 10-year price under this

plan, with no sale permitted except to the Crown or to the sponsoring

municipality during that term. This would allow people to get into

housing with even lower cash requirements because no land cost would be

developed during the first five-year period.

Naturally, this presupposes a condition of co-operation on the part

of municipalities. That is what the principle of inter-governmental

activity is all about. As I've said, we've lost one full construction

year, Mr. Speaker, and I'm terribly afraid we'll lose another unless

steps are taken to use the talents of these governments, or local

governments and of the people themselves, to break through the red-tape

barrier that inevitably follows the centralization of control in the

big, bloated government.

Doctrine doesn't build houses. Bureaucracy doesn't build houses.

Motivated people build houses, Mr. Speaker. Involved people build

houses. The people of this province can solve the housing crisis, Mr.

Speaker, and they will solve it given reasonable incentives and if they

are all involved.

Two years ago, the people of British Columbia were asked to take

this group opposite on trust, and 39 per cent of them did just that.

But in less than two years, they have seen that trust shattered, and

they have seen appalling waste, rampant political patronage.

Mr. Speaker, earlier in this address, by describing the Speech from

the Throne as "a hollow document," using the words of the present

Premier and former Leader of the Opposition — I used the Premier's own

language — there are some very simple questions that could be asked on

behalf of the people of British Columbia about the lack of content in

this document.

In 1969, the Members opposite presented a resolution to this House

that the transmission of natural gas to Vancouver Island should be

undertaken without delay. Where is the promise of action on this

project, Mr. Speaker?

Mining claims have been nearly cut in half last year from the

previous year. Where in the Speech from the Throne is there any promise

that in the mining economy we will get moving again?

Interjection.

Mr. Bennett: Who? Well, you shouldn't let him do that.

Where in the Speech from the Throne is there any evidence that the

ad hoc purchase of No. 1 and No. 2 agricultural land on Tilbury Island

for port facilities and secondary industry will be accompanied by

consultation with local governments and prior environmental studies?

Where in the Speech from the Throne is there any evidence that the

government intends to proceed with a bill of rights, particularly a

bill of rights that would offer the people of British Columbia some

protection from confiscation...?

[ Page 35 ]

Interjection.

Mr. Bennett: I don't know; I wasn't here and I understand you were in Ottawa.

Interjections.

Mr. Bennett: We know, and you're still delivering the Ottawa line here.

...a bill of rights that would offer the people of British Columbia some protection against confiscation without compensation.

Where in the speech is there any evidence that local authorities

will have a part to play in determining the future of the Gulf Islands?

Where in the Speech from the Throne does the government offer tax

protection for municipalities having to accept ICBC's construction

within their boundaries? Order-in-council 4265 passed on December 20

covers the tax position for 1974, but what about future years, Mr.

Speaker?

Where in the Speech from the Throne is there any protection offered

to pensioners that their pension accounts will not be squandered on

wild adventures in the stock market?

Where in the Speech from the Throne is the Minister of Municipal

Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) going to end his game of hide-and-seek with

the municipalities on the lower mainland on full consultation dealing

with rapid transit?

Where in the Speech from the Throne is there any evidence of

reduction in class size, the top priority presumably of the Members

opposite? Where did it mention any reduction in class size?

Where in the Speech from the Throne is there any indication that

this government intends to honour the principle of freedom of choice in

joining an association of employees or an association of employers of

the individual's free choice?

Where in the Speech from the Throne, Mr. Speaker, is there any

guarantee that this government does not intend to nationalize medical

services in British Columbia and bring in some kind of supermarket

system of medical care?

Where in the Speech from the Throne is there any evidence that the

government intends to develop an educational system which is the

product of the people working in the system now?

That's a partial list, Mr. Speaker, of things that concern the

people of British Columbia. Instead, the government gave His Honour

eight minutes of nothing to read to the people of this province.

Therefore I move, seconded by the Member for South Peace River (Mr.

Phillips), that the motion in reply to the opening speech of His Honour

the Lieutenant-Governor be amended by adding the words: "But this House

regrets that the speech of His Honour gave further indications that the

government intends to place greater centralized controls upon the

people of British Columbia while neglecting any mention of specific

proposals for policy changes in the social-service fields of education

and health at a time when there is growing public alarm with the

government policy in these fields."

Mr. Phillips: It's unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that at this

time, early in the fourth session, we have to move a motion of no

confidence in this government. However, we in the official opposition

see no alternative because of the amount of nothingness that was in the

throne debate.

I listened, Mr. Speaker, on Friday last when the Member for Delta

(Mr. Liden) moving the motion and the Member for Esquimalt (Mr. Gorst)

tiptoed around the contents of the speech. But they made no mention,

Mr. Speaker, of the action which will be taken by the socialist regime

to establish a state police force in the Province of British Columbia.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald: Oh, what?

Mr. Phillips: Oh now, the Attorney-General says, "Oh, what?"

An Hon. Member: Step No. 1.

Mr. Phillips: Step No. 1. The Attorney-General says we can't

give all this socialism at once because it will alarm the people. We

must couch it in broad general terms; we must tell them that we're

going to establish a police commission. That's No. 1.

But I know, Mr. Speaker, what the true intent of this is; I know

what the Attorney-General intends to do. Certainly! And I intend to

tell the people of this province what the Attorney-General intends to

do.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald: Will you tell me too?

Mr. Phillips: Yes, certainly. You know; you've told people,

Mr. Attorney-General, that you can't tell the people all at once that

you're going to establish a police force. You know that. You're afraid

you'll frighten them. So you just gradually ease it in, the same as you

did with Bill 42.

When I told you what you were doing in Bill 42 everybody called me a

McCarthy. What has happened since then, Mr. Speaker? Exactly the

predictions I made in my debate — my lengthy debate, I might add — on

Bill 42 have come to pass.

An Hon. Member: It's a good bill.

Mr. Phillips: A good bill! It's a good bill when you want to

take away land ownership in the Province of British Columbia — and

that's exactly what you intend to do, Mr. Attorney-General.

[ Page 36 ]

Sure, you call it a good bill, but I'm telling you here today, Mr.

Speaker, that the intent of the Attorney-General, even though he

couches it in the throne speech in general terms with establishing a

police commission, is to establish a police force in the Province of

British Columbia.

No mention by your mover and your seconder on Friday. They know.

It's one of the main tenets of the throne speech, but did they mention

it? No. Why?

Hon. Mr. Macdonald: Is that what Pat Burns said?

Mr. Phillips: No, that isn't what Pat Burns said; that's what

I'm saying. Well, I'll certainly stand up beside Pat Burns any day

because he's a free enterpriser and so am I.

Interjection.

Mr. Phillips: Well, all right, there's a true socialist over

there: the Member for Prince Rupert (Hon. Mr. Lea). I've got a few

words to say to you in just a few moments. Yes, just stay in the House.

Will the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson) stay in the House? And

the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly)? I've got a few words to

tell all of you.

I hope the Lands Minister (Hon. Mr. Williams) and the Minister of

Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) will stay in the House because I'm going

to discuss a little bit about land ownership. I've quite a bit to say

in this House about land ownership. You remember, Mr. Speaker, Bill 42.

Unfortunately, the things I said on Bill 42 are coming to pass.

I listened very intently and I didn't hear the mover or the seconder

mention another great tenet in this throne speech, and that is how the

Premier is going to get himself out of this horrendous mess he has got

himself into with regard to assessments in this province. They didn't

mention it, but it's in there and I hope the other Members of the

socialist hordes will mention it when they speak — if they get the

opportunity to speak, that is.

Nor, Mr. Speaker, did I hear one of the third very important things

in the throne speech with regard to housing. I didn't hear the mover or

the seconder mention anything about housing. They tiptoed around and

tried desperately to find something to talk about in the Speech from

the Throne.

Unfortunately, it's more socialism with no social reform; more

controls with less freedom for the people of British Columbia; more

regulations and more vague promises.

The Premier says the Speech from the Throne was vague to allow

wide-ranging debate. I think the Speech from the Throne is vague, Mr.

Speaker, because the Premier really is not prepared for this session.

He doesn't know how he's going to get this province out of the mess

it's in in the management of its finances, in the assessments or the

problems he's having with ICBC.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier, in answering criticism over the Speech

from the Throne, to my way of thinking gave a very inept answer. Either

he doesn't know or he doesn't want to tell us what his legislative

programme for this session is going to be.

I remember, Mr. Speaker, the Premier of this province saying that he

is going to treat the opposition with a great deal of respect. He's

going to keep them informed so that they will know what's coming and

they can be prepared. Where is that promise in this Speech from the

Throne, Mr. Speaker? Where is it? Out the window. He forgot all about

them. Either he doesn't know or he doesn't care. Flip-flop, flip-flop;

that's what the Premier's doing because he doesn't know. He'll probably

have to have many more caucus meetings to find out where he's going.

It's unfortunate.

The throne speech that you brought down, Mr. Premier, makes a farce

of the traditional opening of parliament, and you, as the Premier,

should be ashamed of yourself, with your complete disregard for the

monarchy.

Now, before I get into my speech, Mr. Premier, I would like to take this small opportunity to congratulate our new leader...

Hon. G.R. Lea (Minister of Highways): What for?

Mr. Phillips: ...who was chosen at one of the largest

political rallies ever held in the Province of British Columbia last

fall, after the session ended. He put on an aggressive campaign at one

of the most successful political conventions ever held in British

Columbia.

I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the opposition, or the

government, I should say — they'll soon be opposition — were quite

surprised at the strength of the official opposition, quite surprised

that the forces of free enterprise in this province would band

together. And they are going to do it again tomorrow, Mr. Speaker. Yes

sir, the free-enterprisers of this province shall speak tomorrow in

that big riding of North Vancouver–Capilano. Those people over there,

Mr. Speaker, are going to tell the Premier that too much is too much.

Mr. Speaker, the point of this is to show you the great strength

that lies behind this great Social Credit Party. There was a lot of

talent available for leadership, but we chose the best man and that's

the democratic way.

What pleases me more than anything, Mr. Speaker, is to see a leader

of a political party with some good, sound, business experience and

some executive

[ Page 37 ]

ability, because unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, he

happens to be the only leader of any party, including the government,

who has any executive ability. As you know, Mr. Speaker, this is a $2

billion business — the business of the people of British Columbia. And

you have to ask yourself: if you owned that business would you put a

man in charge of it with no executive ability?

Now there is executive ability and business ability available in the

socialist party. But where are they? The Member of Shuswap (Mr. Lewis)

is a businessman in his own right. He runs a very successful business.

Mr. D.E. Smith (North Peace River): Two roosters.

Mr. Phillips: The Member for Omineca (Mr. Kelly) is an

independent businessman in his own right. The Second Member for

Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr. Cummings) is a businessman in his own

right — he runs his own business, has to balance his own books at the

end of the month, has to face the bankers, has to meet the payroll.

What bothers me, Mr. Speaker, is why these good, sound businessmen were

bypassed when the recent appointments were made to the cabinet.

Is the Premier afraid to have in his cabinet people who have to meet

the banker at the end of the month? Is he afraid that they will show up

his own lack of business ability? I have to ask myself that question,

Mr. Speaker, because there were four recent appointments made to the

cabinet.

An Hon. Member: Five.

Mr. Phillips: Five recent appointments made to the cabinet,

Mr. Speaker, bypassed good, sound businessmen. To me that was a grave

error on the part of the Premier.

There's an old-fashioned business tenet that says: "Never have

anyone that is smarter than yourself or you might lose your job." I

wonder, Mr. Speaker, if that is what the Premier is afraid of.

I hope that the Premier takes many of his business decisions to the

caucus where that business talent lies, because then he will get some

good, sound advice from men who have had to face the banker at the end

of the month.

Mr. Speaker, I'm disturbed, and the business community is disturbed,

and I've spoken of this in this House before. But the Premier stands up

and he says: "Look at the unemployment rate. Look at the money that is

rolling into the tax coffers of the Province of British Columbia." And

he crows about what a wonderful year British Columbia has had. I'd like

to analyse that, Mr. Speaker, for just a moment.

How much of the good year that we have just passed, '73, is the

direct responsibility or the direct result of good management and good

sound decisions on the part of this government? I would suggest to you,

Mr. Speaker, none. I would suggest to you that the reason that the

business community and business in British Columbia has been good in

the past year is due to the world demand and high prices for metals. I

would suggest to you that number two is the world demand and the high

prices in the lumber industry; and I would suggest to you that number

three is the demand and the high prices for agricultural products. None

of these three items, Mr. Speaker, is the responsibility of or credit

to the socialist government. As a matter of fact, it is in spite of

many of the things they have done to discourage investment in this

province.

Investment capital is a very nervous item, Mr. Speaker, It wants

security. Money was spent last year in investments. Certainly money was

spent last year in investments, Mr. Speaker, but when were the plans

made to spend that money? I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that 95 per

cent of the money that was spent in new plans and new investments,

opening new mines, et cetera, in the province last year was planned

three and four years ago.

What I want to know is: how much planning went on in 1973 for

investment down the years — '74, '75, '76? This is what we must be

concerned about, Mr. Speaker. How much planning is being done on behalf

of business management — the people who control the flow of capital?

How much planning is being done to invest in the Province of British

Columbia in the years to come? I would suggest that in the forest

industry and in the mining industry not very much, because this

government has given no clear-cut indication of what its policies will

be in the two very, very important industries. How much planning is

being done with regard to secondary manufacturing?

I stated before, Mr. Speaker, that risk capital is a very nervous

item, and I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that many firms are

looking for other provinces in which to invest their money, in spite of

what the Premier says and in spite of the building figures which were

released today for the City of Victoria.

I have on very good authority, from sources inside the provincial

government of Alberta, that many firms, Mr. Speaker, are looking to

that neighbouring province to invest their money, and I'd like to quote

to you to back up that statement, Mr. Speaker, an

article from the Edmonton Journal , dated January 17, 1974:

"British Columbia's Policies Helping Alberta.

"The Barrett government's economic policies are

beginning to benefit Alberta. Informed sources in the provincial

administration report that

whereas in the past British Columbia firms

showed no interest in locating plants in Alberta, today the Alberta

[ Page 38 ]

Department of Industry and Commerce has about 75 inquiries."

Seventy-five inquiries from firms in the Province of British

Columbia, Mr. Speaker, that are interested in locating in the Province

of Alberta, where the economic climate is good, and where the

government doesn't hang a threatening Act over the head of every

industry and of every enterprise. This, Mr. Speaker, I'm afraid might

be just the start.

As I said, in spite of tremendous economic activity not only in

Canada, not only in North America, but throughout the world, business

has been good in 1973. But what is the potential? That is the question

we must ask ourselves, Mr. Speaker. What is the potential and how much

better could it have been had the decisions been made, either yes or

no, as to how this government intends to treat the forest industry and

how it intends to treat the mining industry, which are our largest

revenue producers?

The

article summarizes, Mr. Speaker, by stating:

"Sources believe that this is only the beginning of an

accelerating trend, and if a few of the B.C. firms are located

successfully in Alberta, the whole thing could snowball."

It is unfortunate that the Premier and Minister of Finance — a man

who always has so much to say about how good business was last year —

is not in the House.

He's the man, Mr. Speaker, who said he was going to have a love

feast with business. I didn't say it; he said it. I would suggest, Mr.

Speaker, that this love feast has turned into somewhat of a family

battle, because, as I read the business community, it's not very happy.

That wait-and-see attitude which they had last year at this time after

just over five months of the socialist reign in British Columbia — that

attitude of wait and see — has now turned to one of concern. Their

optimism has turned to pessimism.

Who are the real producers of revenue in this province, Mr. Speaker?

It's the business community. They're leery and they're frightened of

That's all right for the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade

and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Lauk) to sit there and snicker. I'll tell you,

Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, that I think I can read the

business community just as good as he can. And I'll tell you that the

business community is concerned, and all of the smiling he does is not

going to change that concern. It's not going to alleviate the problem.

For him to sit there and snicker — a man who has had $25 million for

nearly a year to invest in secondary industry in this province and

hasn't invested one red cent.... He should be concerned and he

shouldn't smile, Mr. Speaker.

In the first half of 1973, 73 per cent of the businesses in British

Columbia showed an increase in orders. In the last half of 1973 only 60

per cent of those businesses showed an increase in orders. The business

community, as I said before, is concerned.

There is a shortage of boxcars in this province, Mr. Speaker, and

it's hampering the movement of lumber and it's hampering the movement

of agricultural products. Mr. Speaker, what did I say when the Premier

brought in his punitive taxation on rolling stock in this province? I

said that the major railroads in North America would keep their rolling

stock out of this province. What has happened, Mr. Speaker? Another one

of my predictions has come true.

What is the true reason for the shortage of boxcars in this province

which is hampering the movement of our goods — hampering business?

Anybody knows, Mr. Speaker, that if you try to get a small amount of

money — increase the amount of bookwork — the taxes raised on the

rolling stock will be very punitive, very small compared to the amount

of business that it's driving out of this province — and compared to

the amount of disruption in the lumber industry particularly. But the

Premier forges ahead because that's his doctrine: tax the big guy. It's

had its effects. Unfortunately, it's had its bad effects. That is one

of the reasons, Mr. Speaker, that there is such a fantastic shortage of

boxcars.

For one year, Mr. Speaker, the mining industry in this province has

been waiting for answers to some of its questions. What are the

royalties going to be? What taxation are you going to force on the

mining industry of this province? Mr. Speaker, I warned the Minister of

Mines (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) last spring, when he was putting through his

legislation, that it would bring prospecting for new minerals in this

province to a halt. What has it done? — exactly what I predicted.

In a year, Mr. Speaker, when the world metal prices have remained

strong and the highest of any year in our history, it caused production

to rise in our existing mines. Because of the demand and because of the

high prices, it rose to $993 million in 1973 from $637 million in 1972

— not because of any policy of this government, Mr. Speaker, but

because of the world demand for metal — because of the high prices in

the world for metal.

As much as I'd like to be able to give the Hon. Member from

Cranbrook (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) the benefit of bringing in this additional

revenue to the province from the mining industry, it has to be credited

to the world situation. But here's the whole point, Mr. Speaker: while

there were high prices and high demand for minerals last year, claim

staking for new mines on the part of the prospectors dropped 55 per

cent in the Province of British Columbia.

I heard last year, when I was driving to the session, the Premier on

a hotline show saying that this was capitalist hogwash. "Capitalist

hogwash," he called it.

More of the same: where are your minerals going to come from if you

don't have the prospectors out looking for them? Are you going to go

out, Mr.

[ Page 39 ]

Attorney-General, yourself and start looking? I

would suggest it might be a good place for you to find out what kind of

a life the prospectors of this country have to lead, how much hardship

they put up with. I would suggest that the Minister of Mines go out and

do a little prospecting. He might find out too. Then he'd take away

this punitive taxation they've placed on them, the taxation that has

stopped the prospectors of this province from going out and seeking new

mines.

What happened in our neighbouring area of the Yukon? Similar

conditions: rough, rugged, cold in the winter, hot in the summer,

blackflies, mosquitoes; what happened there? Their prospecting doubled

in the year 1973. Doubled!

Yet the Minister of Mines would have me believe that the legislation

he passed in this House last spring would have no effect on the search

for minerals in this province. Drastic reduction in spite of world

prices.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I'd like for just a moment to talk of a couple of

items I have problems with in my own constituency. While I was away

last year travelling with the agricultural committee.... I don't know

who made the decision, but one of the services that had been provided

for the rural population in the area for some 20 years was removed. I

refer to the removal of the snow ploughing of driveways.

It was suggested that it be done the year before, and I said no.

This was a service that these people have had, the people in the north

country who have to put up with all the hardships to develop this

province for those of you who live in the lap of luxury down here on

the Island and on the lower mainland — one little service that this

government provided for those people — ploughing out the tons and tons

of snow that falls in their driveway every year.

But no, Mr. Speaker, this government has to take it away from them —

had to take it away from them. Part of the attitude that this

government has towards the north? — I hope not.

Was it the decision of the engineers? Was it the decision of the

Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea)? Why was this service taken away

from the people in the north?

Now, Mr. Speaker, I spoke at some length in this House on the

requirements and the need for a highway into the Monkman Pass area

where great gas fields are being developed, where major drilling

activity is taking place, where one of the largest coal mine

developments in North America could take place. It's been over 18

months and still no decision from the Minister of Highways,

Now the Minister of Highways was up; he knows the problem. He

helicoptered around the area and he talked to the local people. He

didn't have to listen to me. When are we going to get a decision? How

much longer are you going to allow the development in that part of the

area to go to the neighbouring province of Alberta? How much longer?

I know there's lots of money. How many plans are being made in this

province for future highway development? Or are they afraid of being

called, Mr. Speaker, a blacktop government?

Mr. Speaker, I hope that the Minister of Highways will continue to

give attention to the reconstruction of the Kiskatinaw Bridge on the

Alaska Highway, because if we are going to continue to develop the

north, the machinery to develop that north must move up the Alaska

Highway. With the construction of the trans-Alaska pipeline the traffic

on that highway will increase and increase and increase. I have

provided the Minister of Highways with a comprehensive review of the

requirements in the constituency. I hope he is giving it the necessary

attention so that these much needed projects can take place.

I'd like to mention just one other, Mr. Speaker, that is the highway

between Dawson Creek and Chetwynd. Because if and when this government

moves ahead on the Sukunka coal project, traffic between these two

points will more than double. And certainly passing lanes on those

hills that are mentioned in that report, Mr. Minister, are badly

needed. Let's not wait until it's too late and the heavy traffic is

there and you have to do the construction. Let's get at it this summer;

in 1974. Let's get the job done. It won't require a great deal of

expenditure, Mr. Minister. Let's get the job done.

Also in the area, Mr. Speaker, there are several businesses that are

waiting for the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce

(Hon. Mr. Lauk) to break loose with some of the $25 million he has in

the kitty to promote secondary industry in the Province of British

Columbia.

I remember, Mr. Speaker, when this bill was passing the House, after

I'd brought in an amendment to have the bill hoisted for six months so

we could take a look at it and give the business community a chance for

some input as to whether the government should really invest in equity

shares in business or not, the Premier said: "Oh, you're against having

money available to put into your own constituency. Much needed projects

up there are waiting for money from this fund."

You remember the night, Mr. Member, when he threatened me with going

into my constituency to tell the people that I was against having this

money. That's nearly a year ago. Nearly a year ago now, and not one

single solitary cent has been spent out of this $25 million for the

development of secondary industry in this province. Not one cent! Yet

the Premier threatened me that he was going to go into my constituency

and tell my constituents that I was

[ Page 40 ]

against having this fund. Because there were many

much needed projects, the bill had to be passed immediately so that

this money could start functioning to promote secondary industry in the

Province of British Columbia.

Interjection.

Mr. Phillips: What happened? That didn't come out of the industrial development funds, Mr. Attorney-General, and you know it.

An Hon. Member: They had to buy the furniture.

Mr. Phillips: Well, I was just going to mention that. Maybe

the Minister has been too busy spending that $86,000 for furniture and

getting himself set up in an office.

What is needed in that department is action. I would suggest to you,

Mr. Speaker, that if there isn't action very soon, what I mentioned a

moment ago about businesses going to Alberta will continue to do just

that.

Now, I would like to mention just before I leave this particular

subject, Mr. Speaker, a particular project which could be a large

manufacturing industry in the northern part of the province.

A man wants to manufacture a wheeled vehicle for use in the oil

fields, the construction of oil pipelines, and so forth, patterned

after a vehicle built in Calgary that has been very successful in the

world markets. Purchased by the Russians, used all over North America

for oil field development in muskeg, and so forth. This gentleman saw a

need for a smaller vehicle that could be purchased by smaller

contractors. A vehicle that, instead of selling for $75,000, would be

in the vicinity of $35,000. He did research with the manufacturer of

the first vehicle, has his complete engineering study done.

This proposal was passed to the Minister of Industrial Development,

Trade and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Lauk) over a month ago. Mr. Speaker, the

Minister says: "Well, we haven't got our department organized quite

yet. We'll take a look at it. We haven't hired the men in the

department yet." I urge the Minister to get some action going in that

department. Sitting on $25 million while secondary industry slips

across the border into the neighbouring province of Alberta.

Mr. Speaker, I want to, for just a few moments, discuss the

portfolio of Housing. I want to add to some of the remarks made by our

leader just a few moments ago when he discussed this very, very

important subject. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, I have to say that the

Minister in charge of that portfolio — one of the most crucial

portfolios in the Province of British Columbia, one of the most crucial

portfolios in this government — has done absolutely nothing to

alleviate the housing crisis in the Province of British Columbia. I

think the only positive action he's taken is to hire himself a Deputy.

This portfolio, Mr. Speaker, was given $10 million in the spring

session and the now Minister was given a portfolio and the authority of

this House to spend that $10 million to alleviate the housing crisis in

the Province of British Columbia.

In the fall session he was given

an Act creating a department with

which he has done absolutely nothing. It's a small wonder, Mr. Speaker,

that in the throne speech His Honour had these words to say:"The

continuing difficulties in the housing field must still rank as one of

the major problems facing our people."

I wish that our Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson) would

realize that the continuing difficulties in housing rank as the number

one problem in British Columbia and that he would do something about

it. His Honour goes on: "The recently created Department of Housing has

for the first time committed all federal housing funds allocated to

this province."

I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that in the past maybe all of

the federal housing funds weren't committed, but there was certainly

more action in the Department of Housing and more action to create

housing than there has been under this portfolio.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: They didn't have a department.

Mr. Phillips: No, we didn't need a bureaucracy. But there was lots of action wasn't there? Lots of action.

"The landbanking programme will be expanded, but

with greater emphasis on immediate development of Crown land in all

parts of the province."

Well I don't know about this landbanking; I'll have a bit to say

about that in a few moments. But the Minister of Housing has unlimited

power to alleviate the situation. As a matter of fact, this Legislature

gave him that power with a great deal of questioning in the fall

session — questioning as to his ability and questioning as to whether

he needed all that power or not. But even with all the power he doesn't

know how to use it.

Now, had we restricted him in the legislation, had they accepted our

amendments, had his hands been tied, he could have come back to the

Legislature and said: "I can't do it because I haven't got the power."

Mr. Speaker, that's not the case. He has unlimited power.

Last year in this Legislature there were good recommendations given

to him by the legislators both on this side of the House and that side

of the House. Good, sound suggestions which the Minister chose to

[ Page 41 ]

ignore because he hasn't acted on any of them.

There have also been many reports handed down to his department, to

him. Good reports. I've read some of them — good, sound reports

offering positive action that the Minister can take to alleviate the

housing situation in the Province of British Columbia. But, Mr.

Speaker, he has chosen to ignore the good suggestions and carries on

with his theory that to buy up all the land in British Columbia is

going to alleviate the housing problem.

I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister has a

difficult time making a decision. Has the Member for Nanaimo (Hon. Mr.

Stupich) got him brainwashed that before he can move in the housing he

must buy up all the land in British Columbia that is privately owned?

He must buy up all the land owned by the municipalities? Must buy up

all the land owned by the developers? Must buy up all the land owned by

private individuals?

I would suggest that maybe the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr.

Stupich) has gotten to the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson), and

he's not going to be able to move and build a single house until he's

bought all the land in British Columbia and put it in his landbank.

I would suggest to you that this Minister is so far in the woods

that he has to come out to hunt. And if he doesn't take some action in

this department pretty soon, Mr. Speaker, he should resign. He should

resign, and pass the portfolio on to somebody who can make a decision

and who isn't so far in the woods.

I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that it would be far better if

the Minister would take some of this money that he's using to buy land

and make a deal with the municipalities to provide services to some of

the land that is already owned by the people of British Columbia,

because if it's owned by the municipality it's owned by the taxpayers

in that municipality.

I, for the life of me, Mr. Speaker, can't see one government going

and buying land from another government just so the Minister of Housing

can have control over that land. I can't see for the life of me, Mr.

Speaker, how this is going to improve the housing situation in British

Columbia. Why not go to the municipalities that have land available,

make a deal with them, and help them provide the services to those

lands so that they can be developed for housing?

Our leader this afternoon who spoke just ahead of me outlined some

very definite ways that this could be done. Good suggestions. I would

suggest that the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson) should take

some action, and if he did that there could be houses constructed in

this building season.

One building season has been wasted already by this government's

inaction, and the housing situation grows steadily worse. Contractors

are complaining about the red tape in the municipalities that is

preventing them from going ahead with development. I would suggest that

the Minister should meet with these mun