1976 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 31st Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, APRIL 5, 1976

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

557 ]

CONTENTS

Public Works Fair Employment Act Repeal Act (Bill 35).

Mr. Wallace. Introduction and first reading — 557

Statement

Details of Ottawa finance ministers' conference. Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 557

Mr. Gibson — 558

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Abridged budget. Mr. King — 558

Vancouver International Airport. Mr. Gibson — 560

Hat Creek coal studies. Mr. Wallace — 560

Thompson River system report. Hon. Mr. Nielsen answers — 560

Budget debate (continued)

Hon. Mr. Nielsen — 562

Mr. D'Arcy — 564

Mr. Shelford — 568

Supply Act, No. 1, 1976 (Bill 10) Committee stage.

section 1.

Mr. Nicolson — 574

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 574

Mr. Nicolson — 574

Mr. Gibson — 575

Amendment to

section 1.

Mr. Gibson — 575

Mr. King — 575

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 575

Mr. Cocke — 576

Mr. Chairman rules out of order — 576

Mr. Lauk — 576

Mr. Gibson — 577

Mr. Chairman — 577

section 1.

Mr. Lea — 577

Mr. King — 577

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 577

British Columbia Deficit Repayment Act, 1975-1976 (Bill 3).

Committee stage.

section 1.

Mr. Lea — 578

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 578

Mr. Lea — 579

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 579

Mr. Macdonald — 579

Mr. Skelly — 579

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 580

Mr. Skelly — 580

Mr. Stupich — 580

Hon. Mr. McGeer — 581

Mr. Lauk — 582

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 582

Mr. Lea — 582

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 583

Mr. D'Arcy — 583

Mr. Lauk — 583

Mr. Levi — 584

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 585

Mr. Skelly — 585

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 585

Mr. Lauk — 586

Mr. Stupich — 586

Mr. Gibson — 587

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 587

Mr. Stupich — 587

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 588

Mr. Stupich — 588

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 588

Mr. Skelly — 588

Mr. Macdonald — 590

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 591

Mr. Macdonald — 591

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 591

Mr. Lauk — 591

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 592

Mrs. Dailly — 592

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 592

Mr. Skelly — 592

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 593

Mr. Skelly — 593

Mr. Gibson — 593

Mr. Cocke — 593

Mr. Lauk — 594

Mr. Nicolson — 594

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 594

MONDAY, APRIL 5, 1976

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. J.A. NIELSEN (Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, I'd

like to make welcome some guests with us today. In the gallery, among

other guests, we have Mr. Walter Morris from Harrisburg, Pennsylvania,

who is the international president of the American Waterworks

Association, representing water utilities of North America, and having

24,000 members.

In addition, from our neighboring province of Alberta we have three

guests today, two of whom are in the gallery: Mr. Walter Solodzuk, the

Deputy Minister of Environment; Mr. T.C. Roberts, who is executive

assistant to the Minister of Environment; and on the floor today with

us we are very pleased to have the hon. Dave Russell, who is the

Alberta Minister of Environment.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Speaker, not

to be outdone in terms of distance of visitors, I would introduce in

the gallery today first of all a visitor from a close place, Alderman

Helen Boyce of the city of Vancouver, and Mr. Panos Sarantopulos, her

cousin and a visitor from Athens, Greece.

MR. W.G. STRONGMAN (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, I would

like today to have the House recognize and welcome a group of grade 11

and 12 students from David Thompson School, who are visiting with us

today with their teacher, Mr. Ellis.

MR. E.N. VEITCH (Burnaby-Willingdon): Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to make welcome a long-time acquaintance and friend in the gallery today, Mr. Peter Barnet.

MR. W. DAVIDSON (Delta): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today is the mayor of Surrey, Mr. Ed McKitka. I'd like the House to join in welcoming him here.

Introduction of bills.

PUBLIC WORKS FAIR

EMPLOYMENT ACT REPEAL ACT

On a motion by Mr. Wallace, Bill 35, Public Works Fair Employment

Act Repeal Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed

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

House after today.

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. Fraser presents the Department of Highways and Public Works report for the year ending March 31, 1975.

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make a brief statement.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, this has to do with my recent attendance at a finance ministers' conference in Ottawa.

I just attended a two-day meeting of finance ministers there to

discuss the future changes in the Fiscal Arrangements Act which expires

in 1977. I can only say that in general terms I was disappointed with

the outcome of this first conference since much of the restraint which

the federal government is attempting to exercise has come at the

expense of the provinces.

The meeting included discussion of the equalization programme, the

post-secondary education financing and the revenue guarantee, a system

designed to protect provinces against the effects of the tax reform

measures introduced by the federal government in 1972.

I expressed particular concern over the unilateral action the

federal government has taken on the revenue guarantee. The decision to

abandon this programme in 1977 produced serious problems for all

provinces, including B.C. British Columbia has received federal

payments under this programme since 1972, which simply proves that the

changes to the tax system in 1972 adversely affected provincial

revenues as claimed at the time by the province.

The federal government has given every indication in the past that

it would put forward new proposals after 1977. It therefore came as a

great shock to the provinces to be told at this meeting that they

intended to abandon the revenue guarantee after 1977. This will place a

great strain on provincial budgeting in future years.

In addition, the federal government has also changed the method of

calculating the present guarantee programme, and this is retroactive to

1974. This change has reduced the province's revenue expectations. As

an example, for the 1974 year the province will lose $14 million and in

subsequent years the loss will be much greater. This, regrettably, sets

a poor tone for the important negotiations that are beginning between

two levels of government during this year.

I also indicated to the federal government that the 15 per cent

limit placed on the federal share of post-secondary education costs has

particularly worked to the disadvantage of B.C. The strong

[ Page 558 ]

expansion of B.C.'s post-secondary education in

recent years, combined with the federal limits in sharing, has placed a

greater burden on the provincial treasury. B.C. Is looking for a fairer

financing arrangement in the post-secondary education field in the

negotiations which are to continue through 1976.

We also presented to the meeting our view that the discussions on

the Fiscal Arrangements Act must include discussions of the financial

aspects of other major shared-cost programmes such as hospitalization,

medical care and income maintenance.

I would like to emphasize to this House, Mr. Speaker, the importance

of the present discussions with the federal government. We intend to

take a vigorous

part in negotiations to protect the province's

position. After considerable objections from the ministers of finance,

the federal government agreed to withhold any action in connection with

the proposed changes in the revenue guarantee until provincial premiers

could discuss the matter with the Prime Minister of Canada at a meeting

to be held possibly in May of this year. I might say that our own

Premier has already requested this to be an item of priority for the

agenda of the Western Premiers' Conference on April 28 and 29, which

leads up to the First Ministers' Conference later this spring.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Speaker, on

behalf of my party I would thank the minister for his report to the

House, and suggest that he will probably be assured of all-party

support on any questions of provincial rights.

I would encourage him, as he reviews the questions he has brought to

our attention, to study the possibility and the possible benefits to

British Columbia of entering into a considerable expansion of the

opting-out programme in order that we may avoid these kinds of

difficulties in the future by regaining our own tax points and allowing

British Columbia to set our own expenditures according to our own

priorities with the use of our own tax funds.

Oral questions.

ABRIDGED BUDGET

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, on Friday night a copy of a new and abridged budget was directed to the hon. member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea).

Perusal of that new budget, Mr. Speaker, indicates that changes have

been made despite the fact that the introduction indicates that this

document was delivered in the Legislative Assembly on Friday, March 26,

1976, and the fact that debate has been underway on the contents of

that budget for a considerable period of time since, I wonder if the

Minister of Finance can assure the House that the financial information

and the budgetary matters dealt with are the same in the two documents.

Or is the only change related to the conclusion of the budget?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, in response to the Leader of the

Opposition's question I will be happy to enlarge on that and, if I may,

just make a comment or two about the situation I also read about in the

news media over the weekend about which you ask the question now.

Recently there have been statements in the media regarding the

distribution of the 1976 budget speech, and I think it might clarify

the situation if I just made a comment or two.

Firstly, there are two editions of the budget speech, you might say,

currently being distributed. Neither edition conforms exactly to the

speech as given in Hansard , as this would be impossible. This

procedure also conforms to the established practice in prior years of

release of the budget speech. If you go back and look at prior years'

budgets, the actual distribution speech does not conform to quite a

degree to what you might read in Hansard . The second edition of

the speech differed from the first edition only by the deletion of all

but the first three paragraphs of the conclusion which you referred to

— on page 34. The so-called second edition which I am referring to was

prepared in abbreviated form for distribution to the financial markets

and for other governments outside of British Columbia. It was felt that

the last few paragraphs of the conclusion were important to be stated

to British Columbians but, on the other hand, had no bearing on the

financial markets of other parts of North America.

Interjections.

HON. MR. WOLFE: This minor abbreviation in the speech had no bearing whatsoever....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

HON. MR. WOLFE: I ask, Mr. Speaker, the members to wait and hear the rest, because they might be interested in what follows.

This minor abbreviation in the speech had no bearing whatsoever on

the budget itself, as you asked, or in the economic presentation. I

direct your attention to former budget speeches and the fact that the

speeches given in Hansard

differ substantially from the speech which was distributed. For

example, the 1975 budget speech given by the former Premier and finance

minister (Mr. Barrett) differs considerably between Hansard and the speech as distributed in that there are several sections spoken in the House and not recorded in the distributed

[ Page 559 ]

version, and, on the other hand, there are also sections which appear in the distributed version...

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Agriculture): Right on!

HON. MR. WOLFE: ...that do not appear in Hansard . I might refer the members of this House to last year's Debates of the Legislative Assembly

dated the same date as the budget came down — Friday, February 29. You

only have to look through there to see not one, not two, but 20 or 25

or 30 differences between what is presented in the speech and what one

finds in the distributed version.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Nobody's arguing with you.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Well, that's fine. I really think it should

be pointed out to all members of this House that it is not unusual at

all to find expressions in Hansard of a considerable nature.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Don't be so defensive.

HON. MR. WOLFE: As a matter of fact....

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to point out two or three items.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MR. KING: I am asking for an answer to the question and I think some latitude has been granted, but....

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Minister, perhaps if you would refer to the document you have in front of you and the pages that it's contained in in Hansard , the members can look it up for themselves.

HON, W.R. BENNETT (Premier): The financial information was left in.

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Oak Bay on a point of order.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, since this

contentious issue was originally raised under privilege, would it not

seem reasonable to avoid taking this time, valuable as it is, out of

question period and raising the matter again under privilege?

MR. SPEAKER: The matter, as you know, was settled on Friday

about privilege, You also know the fact that the hon. Leader of the

Opposition asked a question, and the Minister of Finance is replying to

that. I would suggest that he keep it as concise as possible.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to do that and I

will be very brief. Once again, it would appear that the members ask

questions that they don't want to have answered.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I refer the members to pages

263, 264, 265 and 267 in the listing of these debates. In so doing, I

would like to emphasize the fact that these differences in last year's

budget speech are substantive differences in material content...

MR. LEA: We're not even arguing.

HON. MR, WOLFE: ...whereas I would suggest the matter

referred to here today is relatively immaterial. So, Mr. Speaker, I

trust this brief explanation will really satisfy all members of the

House on the question being raised.

MR. KING: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I submit

that this is complete abuse of question period. I asked a specific

question not for a political diatribe and a debate. I did not ask about

records of Hansard; I asked whether we could have the Minister of

Finance's assurance that only the conclusion of the original budget

speech has been changed, but that the financial data contained therein

remain constant.

He has given that assurance, but I wonder, Mr. Speaker, why on the

weekend the Minister of Finance indicated to the media that he was not

aware of any change in the budget. I ask him who authorized the change

in the conclusion of the budget, because this is the first time in the

history of this province that there have been two editions of the

budget speech. The first time! And we are debating a document in this

House, Mr. Speaker, that we must have assurance is continuous and

consistent with the original introduction of the budget speech.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, your question is out or order. I will refer you to comments from Beauchesne which say: "To inquire whether statements made in the newspaper are true or not is not a proper question in question period."

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not the question.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I think it's of important enough nature that we must have some assurance. I

[ Page 560 ]

think Mr. Speaker himself would want to be assured

that there was proper authority for tampering with a document that was

introduced in this House. On whose authority was it changed?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, not to prolong the discussion,

but I do want to satisfy the member and all members of this House that

there has been no substantive change in the budget through these....

There's been no substantive change at all, and the budget itself goes

out in several different forms, as it has done so before. If you want

to refer to political statements being made, refer to last year's

budget speech.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary: who authorized the

editing and the change in the budget speech as it was presented to this

House? There are two editions now.

AN HON. MEMBER: The government.

MR. KING: The pages are altogether different; the conclusion

doesn't even start on page 34 any more. Who authorized that "change,

can the Minister answer?

HON. MR. WOLFE: The government.

VANCOUVER INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of

Transportation and Communications in his capacity as provincial

spokesman on transport questions: is the Minister prepared to develop a

provincial position on the matter of the second major runway at

Vancouver International Airport, and make representations in this

regard to the federal minister?

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Transport and Communications): Mr.

Speaker, as the hon. member knows, that is substantially a matter of

federal jurisdiction. I will, however, take his question as notice.

MR. GIBSON: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: in view of the

large meeting to be held on this question in Vancouver tomorrow night,

will the province be represented at that meeting? —

HON. MR. DAVIS: I'm not aware of the meeting, Mr. Speaker, but I'll take it as notice.

HAT CREEK COAL STUDIES

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to

the same Minister of Transport, but responsible in his office for B.C.

Hydro. With regard to recent bids for engineering studies of the

proposed Hat Creek coal. development, is it a fact that a short-list of

three companies of engineering consultants has been selected by B.C.

Hydro, and that all three companies are American companies, even though

several other companies, totally Canadian-owned, were also bidding?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, it is a fact that there is a

short-list of three companies. I believe those three companies have

strong American connections.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, on a supplemental: since the

Americans have a clear statement of policy at the border that nobody

will be employed in an American job that can be done by an American, is

the Minister realizing the unemployment in British Columbia and the

fact that many consulting engineers are unemployed? Has he issued any

directive to B.C. Hydro instructing B.C. Hydro to give preference to

Canadian-owned companies?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, I'm certainly aware of the

problems posed by the hon. member, but no directive to that effect has

as yet been issued.

MR. WALLACE: Just a quick final supplemental, then, Mr.

Speaker: is the minister in a position to tell us what is the dollar

value of the contract that the three short-listed American companies

are still competing for?

HON. MR. DAVIS: It's a multi-million-dollar contract, but I would have to take the detail of the question as notice, Mr. Speaker.

THOMPSON RIVER SYSTEM REPORT

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, in response to a question

asked Thursday, a supplemental question from the member for Prince

Rupert (Mr. Lea) and regarding a report relative to the Thompson River

system, I prepared an answer. I offered a copy to the member for Prince

Rupert, and I'd like to read the reply to the original supplementary

question, I believe it was.

It's with reference to a

summary report on sources and effects of

algae growth, colour-forming and fish-tainting in the Thompson River

system. The report was prepared by the Department of Environment Canada

and the provincial pollution control branch, water resources service,

and the experts working for these two organizations as a result of

complaints in 1971 concerning deteriorating water quality in the

Thompson River system.

The

summary report was co-authored by R.H. Kussat and Dr. J.M. Olan.

It was transmitted to the regional director of the environmental

protection

[ Page 561 ]

service and to the director of the pollution

control branch in December, 1975. After a review, a meeting was held on

January 8, 1976, in the offices of the environmental protection service

in West Vancouver. This meeting brought together the two principal

dischargers named in the report, the city of Kamloops and Weyerhauser

Canada Ltd., and the authors of the report and the members of the study

committee.

The purpose of holding the meeting was (1) to fulfil a commitment,

made in 1974-1975 to the city of Kamloops, that the report would not be

released without first making them aware of the report's contents,

(2) to permit the dischargers named in the report to clarify with the

authors the meaning of various sections of the report and (3) to advise

the dischargers as to the method by which the recommendations of the

report" would be implemented, mainly on orders from the director of

pollution control issued under the jurisdiction of a provincial

statute, the Pollution Control Act, 1967.

The order is in the form of a permit; amendments would follow the

availability of the technical reports and would be subject to appeal in

the normal way. It's noted that the letter transmitting the report to

the directors, dated December 1, 1975, stated: "The findings and

conclusions of the

summary report reflect the overall view of all task

force submissions and therefore may vary slightly from those expressed

in the individual technical reports." At this meeting, the directors

inquired as to when the back-up technical reports would be available,

and in the absence of these reports how to determine the degree of

variation referred to in the letter of transmittal.

One final comment. Following discussion by the study committee, the

authors agreed clarification of certain sections was required prior to

final printing, which was done by the federal Queen's Printer in late

January, 1976. Three hundred copies of the report were printed, and

besides being distributed to federal and provincial government

departments, copies were made available to such public groups as the

Steelhead Society, Savona Community Association, Spences Bridge chamber

of commerce, B.C. Cattlemen's Association, Pacific Trollers

Association, United Fishermen, and the Native Indian Brotherhood of B.C.

MR. LEA: Supplementary. Did any of the environmental groups

concerned in this matter have the same courtesy extended to them as was

shown to the city of Kamloops and Weyerhauser? In other words, did any

environmental group get a sneak preview before going to the Queen's

Printer?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I would have to take that question as

notice. The report as offered to me seemed to cover most of those but

if you'd like I will check that out as well.

MR. LEA: One final supplementary you can check also. Who

authorized the meeting in January between Weyerhauser, the City of

Kamloops and the people mentioned in your answer?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I am not sure that authorization as such

was required. I believe the arrangements were originally made some time

back by the deputy minister of the department that such a meeting would

take place when the information was available for the technical people.

MR. KING: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

I wonder if you might not, in the interests of preserving question

period in this House, direct that ministers, when they have answers to

give that are that lengthy and take up such a large bulk of the

question period, would simply table those answers with the House rather

than take tip the time of question period.

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, may I make a comment, please?

There is a problem for the Speaker, as in most Houses, I presume, in

question period, and that comes about when people ask questions and the

questions are taken as notice, and then the reply comes back to the

floor of the House some other day of the session. It would seem to me

that if the original questioner wishes the answer, then it's entirely

in keeping for the minister to give that answer. But I would suggest,

in order to preserve as much time as possible in question period for

answers and for questions, that the ministers who find the answer to be

of quite a long length, or will take several minutes to deliver, might

well ask leave before the question period to table that answer, or

table it in the House.

On the other hand, I would hope that the hon. members who ask

questions would extend the courtesy of the House to the ministers who

are trying to give answers.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, for your comment on this matter, this

matter came up some time previously when oral questions by members were

allowed. That was during the government of the New Democratic Party. It

is in the hands entirely of the Speaker, and we're delighted that Your

Honour is taking this matter seriously. Ministers should be encouraged

to give very short, concise answers and, on the other hand, questioners

should give short, concise questions. If answers are to be long,

ministers should do one of two things: either, say, put it on the order

[ Page 562 ]

paper — that's unusual, but they could do that —

or, what is more proper, ask leave as Your Honour has indicated, not

taking up this valuable time. I refer to the example given by the

Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) some days previously, an example

which should be followed by all of his colleagues.

Orders of the day.

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

HON. J.A. NIELSEN (Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, I will resist the temptation to read that answer again. It was almost a speech unto itself — I appreciate that.

It is indeed an honour and privilege to address this assembly in my

new role as MLA for the electoral district of Richmond. Mr. Speaker, I,

too, would like to express my congratulations to you in your new role

as Speaker of the House and to the hon. member for Chilliwack (Mr.

Schroeder), who was chosen to be Deputy Speaker. It is without question

that this House will be served most successfully by its wisdom in

choosing such capable members for these positions.

In that this is my first speech of any length in this assembly, I

feel pleased to recognize the other hon. members who are joining in

this venture of active politics for the first time. I share with them

their pleasures and their anxieties. I recognize as well the

contribution and wisdom of those members who are continuing to serve

our province with their presence in these chambers.

I would like to offer to this House a few brief comments about the

municipality of Richmond, one of the most important communities in this

magnificent province. Richmond will be celebrating its 100th

anniversary as an incorporated township in just three years' time —

November 10, 1979 — and by that time will have a population exceeding

100,000 persons. Presently an estimated 85,000 people call Richmond

their home with great pleasure.

The character of this municipality has diversified over its long

history from an unexplored series of islands in the late 1800s, to

fertile farmlands on Lulu and Sea Islands, to the salmon capital of the

world with its dozens of canneries by the turn of the century, to the

industrial and residential development of later years and continuing

with all of these aspects today.

The municipality of Richmond historically has welcomed persons from

around the world almost since its beginning: the early adventurers from

the British Isles and European nations, the influx of Japanese at the

turn of the century, to where today Richmond has the distinction of

containing the largest concentration of Japanese — approximately 4,000

citizens — in any one area of Canada. In Richmond you will find

representatives of every race or nationality of the world contributing

to the success of this fine community.

Since its earliest days of settlement by such pioneers as Hugh

McRoberts, Thomas Kidd and many others whose names are still recognized

by placenames in the municipality, to the latest family to move into

Richmond yesterday, Richmond has often been in the forefront of

progress. We are most pleased to be the home of the Vancouver

International Airport. It is of some historic interest that in 1910 it

was Richmond where western Canadians were first to witness the flight

of an airplane.

The long history of service associated with Richmond goes back as

far as 1894 when Richmond had its first MLA represented in Victoria:

the gentleman I referred to earlier, Thomas Kidd, was the first MLA for

Richmond. Of some interest, his great-grandson, Mr. Gil Blair, is now

the mayor of Richmond.

Richmond today is very typical of the areas of this province which

find themselves faced with the social problems common to our day: the

problems of space, transportation, recreation, housing, education,

policing and income. Mr. Speaker, the needs of our community are many,

among which are proper access to the mainland area because of our

unique dependency upon bridges; the internal drainage problems which we

share with our neighbouring suburb of Delta; the need for facilities to

maintain our thriving fishing industry. I am pleased to say that some

action seems to be forthcoming from the federal government for the

construction of a major harbour in the Steveston area. We are quite

encouraged to see some progress after many years of waiting — in fact,

after almost 20 years of waiting.

Our recreational needs are many, as are our educational and hospital

requirements. Services offered to the citizens of Richmond by the

provincial government are sometimes in short supply because of a

tradition. It has been traditional for Richmond residents to make use

of such facilities in Vancouver or elsewhere in the greater Vancouver

area. While it seems to be very natural to make use of such services in

neighbouring municipalities, we find a burgeoning population in excess

of 85,000 people who are denied some basic services which you would

find in most other urban areas of the province.

The time has arrived, Mr. Speaker — in fact, the time is much

overdue — when this municipality of Richmond no longer be regarded as a

flat, sleepy, bedroom suburb of the greater Vancouver area. The time is

now that Richmond be recognized as a major centre of population in this

province. I'm sure it will begin to receive such recognition by senior

governments so that the municipality may function internally without

the dependency for services from

[ Page 563 ]

the neighbouring areas.

It's been my pleasure to share the good life available in Richmond

for the past 25 years and, indeed, an honour to represent this

community as MLA. Mr. Speaker, our government has bestowed the honour

upon me to be the first Minister of Environment for the Province of

British Columbia. We recognize the changing attitudes and needs of our

society to preserve our environment so that the citizens of this

province will better be served by government and so our precious

natural heritage will be protected.

It is the responsibility of the Department of Environment to work

together with other government departments so that the environment —

the land, the water and air — will be given the greatest of

consideration as we endeavour to develop the province to provide the

jobs and incomes necessary to maintain a high level of service to our

people.

It's most gratifying to find public service personnel in the

Department of Environment capable and most willing to execute their

duties to permit the Department of Environment to function efficiently

and intelligently. Most of these senior public servants, I am pleased

to say, have already served this province very well for many, many

years, and I intend to ensure that these public servants are recognized

for their continuing efforts.

The hon. Minister of Finance has revealed to the House that in

excess of $43 million will be allotted to the Department of Environment

for the upcoming fiscal year. It will be my duty to ensure that such

moneys are wisely used to fulfil this government's obligation to the

environment of this province.

The environment encompasses many aspects of our lives. Most obvious,

of course, are the elements of the province — the land, the water and

air. But environment also encompasses much more — what we may refer to-

as the social environment. This social environment will play a large

part in the actions of this department over the years, because very

often what we do to our land we do to the people who live on that land.

Our budget day message to the citizens of British Columbia appears

to have been well received. While acknowledging the lack of popularity

raising taxes brings, Mr. Speaker, this government has faced the

problems of the province squarely, and through intelligent

consideration and study has decided on its course of action. That is

direct confrontation with the enemy: inflation, the growing cost of

government and the wasteful habits of government departments. All of

these elements contribute to the decline in our standard of living.

There will be those who will decry the methods used by this

government in an attempt to bring the provincial economy back into full

production, but we recognize, I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that such

arguments are in part attempts to appeal to the citizens of the

province, some of whom have been encouraged to keep their hand out

looking toward government to give, give and give more, without being

asked to make their contribution towards the betterment of all. It's

patently obvious that there's nothing in life which is free. We have

accepted the challenge of the times and have reacted quickly in an

attempt to facilitate the needs of this province for the betterment of

its citizens.

The budget, as presented by the Minister of Finance, is a clear

indication that this government is not about to play games with the

people and that this government will not choose what may be the most

popular method of balancing the budget, just to keep the criticism

away. We have chosen what we believe is the necessary route to return a

stable economy to this province in order that we may avoid the

destructive path onto which we were heading, thanks to impractical and

strangely motivated options chosen by the previous government. .

This government has accepted the overwhelming mandate from the

people of British Columbia, and it's our intention and obligation to

pursue a course which will enable this province to remain strong, not

only for the time of this mandate but for years to come. We will not be

charged with having short-term goals designed to fool some of the

people some of the time, in a vaguely hidden attempt to buy the votes

of some of the public.

The people of the province of British Columbia have a right to be

permitted to expand and improve their lives through the most basic of

lifestyles: the lifestyle which has served us so well for more than a

century, the lifestyle which permits an individual to improve his

position in life through honest effort without the heavy hand of

government interfering in an attempt to prove some poorly conceived

political theory.

Mr. Speaker, government has an obligation to the people it serves,

and that obligation, in part, is to provide an environment which will

encourage growth — expansion while maintaining order and freedom.

Governments too often have forgotten their role in life and have

attempted to become a substitute, hoping that the citizens will then

become so dependent upon government for the most basic things of life

that they will forever return that government to power, afraid not to

for fear of doing without the essentials.

I'd like to go back 200 years to a British professor by the name of

Alexander Tyler, who seemed to be a man of his time then and seems to

be a man of the times today. One of his best known quotations, to quote

from Alexander Tyler in 1775, is this:

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of

government; it can only exist until the voters discover that they can

vote themselves

[ Page 564 ]

largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on the majority

always votes for the candidates promising them most benefits from the — public

treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal

policy, always followed by dictatorship.

"The average age of the world's greatest civilizations

has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this

sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to

great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from

abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to complacency; from

complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependency; and from dependency

back again to bondage."

Mr. Speaker, I leave the conclusion to the individual citizens of

this province as to how far down that line we have been at some times

in our history.

I would say, though, that there are some people, perhaps, who have

had their hand out for too long, but generally the people of this

province cannot be bought. The people of this province and the people

of this country are made of better stuff. The elderly cannot be bribed,

and the elderly are insulted when you suggest to them that they should

give up their independence and become wards of the state, dependent

upon government for their very existence. The young cannot be bought

with false promises of cheap services, again hoping that they will

support such a government through irresponsible fiscal nonsense.

The middle-aged, the majority of the people, cannot be fooled by

government, and all governments are continually making more demands

upon the people through poorly-thought-out and poorly planned attempts

to alter the economy towards state socialism from which many feel there

is no return.

Let us never again attempt to insult the intelligence of the voters

of British Columbia. Let us recognize the need for a government to

serve its people, not to control them or have them dependent upon the

largesse of the public purse for their very existence. Our democratic

system serves us well, Mr. Speaker. Far from being perfect, our system

permits the citizens to make political errors but retains the strength

to reverse such errors through our democratic system.

Mr. Speaker, one other area of vital concern to myself, and most ably expressed

in the budget speech by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe), is services

to people. Our somewhat enlightened society over the years has recognized the

need for all people to group together at times to provide services to people:

the collective needs of protection from crime or fire or natural calamities,

the needs for health services, education, transportation and many other areas

of common human needs.

I would like to point out to any member of this House, but most

particularly to those in opposition, that no one member of this

assembly has a monopoly on the desire to help those in genuine need,

that no one member of this House can claim to have greater compassion

for those in our society who are less fortunate than others. I say with

sincere pride that it is my belief that people come first, that the

greatest resource we have, and will ever have, is our children, and

that efforts will be made by myself and this government to provide a

better life for the citizens of this province with emphasis placed on

those who need the help most. Do not challenge me on my sincerity in

this respect, for such a challenge would be ill-founded and without

validity.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you.

MR. D'ARCY (Rossland-Trail): I'd like to greet the House today and

say how happy I am to take a position in the budget debate. I'd also like

to indicate my appreciation for the fact that we have an extension on the time

of the budget debate, in spite of the amount of verbiage that surrounded second

reading on Bill 3 last week.

I'm going to commence my remarks with some general thoughts on what

is the primary industry in this province, and an industry which

supports fully 30 per cent of the jobs in basic industries in my

riding; that's the forest industry, Mr. Speaker.

We have in the Kootenays in general — indeed, I think all over

southern B.C. and perhaps in the north as well, but I don't know about

that — a problem with oversupply of chips. We have a shortage of

capacity in the pulp industry and perhaps an overcapacity in the

plywood and lumber manufacturing end. Now this has partly come about, I

think, through demands by the Forest Service, and I think they are

legitimate demands, that people in the industry use all of the wood;

that they leave less in the bush; that they burn less for slash and

that they utilize all of the product. In other words, there should be a

maximum utilization of the amount of allowable annual cut in terms of

cubic feet.

The problem is, however, that with more and more decadent stands

being used up and with smaller and smaller tops being used — and

perhaps some people in the industry would indicate that over the years

they've had a tendency to cream cuts — in the average allowable cut in

any given unit there is a greater and greater percentage of pulpwood

and a lower and lower percentage of wood which is suitable for veneer,

peelers and lumber. The result is that either we must substantially

increase the supply or the available facilities for handling pulpwood,

or we're going to have to cut back on the capacity of our sawmills and

plywood plants.

I would suggest that the policy of the former

[ Page 565 ]

Social Credit government, which was to create a

distinct imbalance between the stumpage and wood costs between pulpwood

and lumber at a point in the early middle 60s, certainly encouraged

capital expansion. During that period we saw massive pulpmill

developments in Prince George, Kamloops, Prince Rupert, Kitimat and

Skookumchuck as well.

Once again, in the mid 1970s — indeed I guess we're getting into the

late 1970s — we need substantial incentive if we are not to, as I said

earlier, see a cutback in the allowable cut of our saw-log supply. Of

course, the alternative is the export of chips, either the export out

of the province or, as we see it in the West Kootenays, an export out

of the West Kootenays to the Kamloops area, possibly even to Prince

George or to the Cranbrook area. Certainly we have no desire to export

jobs, export business, any more than any other part of the province has,

So I would hope very much that the proposed expansion by Canadian

Cellulose — in Castlegar will proceed, although that is a corporate

decision. I must say, Mr. Speaker, I am very, very pleased with that

company's independent decisions on pollution control, Our level of

atmospheric turbidity, if that is the correct term, has certainly been

reduced by the several million dollars which have been spent on

atmospheric pollution control over the past three years by that

company, and I gather they are spending some more money.

The same thing, I think, in fairness has to be said in the city of

Trail, where there have been substantial improvements in the S02 levels

and in the fallout levels in the city of Trail due to the efforts of

Cominco Ltd., efforts which are over and above the requirements of the

pollution control branch.

While I'm dealing with resources, Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk

about the third major corporate citizen in my riding, which is British

Columbia Hydro. British Columbia Hydro has a $0.5 billion project a few

miles south of Trail on the Pend-d'Oreille, and I must say, Mr.

Speaker, that their efforts to be a good corporate citizen regarding

the impact of that project on the community have been very good.

Certainly the involvement of local groups and municipal appointees in

what projects Hydro can assist in, to improve the community while they

are there, have certainly been well received.

I must say that while British Columbia Hydro has always spent large

amounts of money on attempting to assuage public opinion, very often

they have spent it on the wrong things and, in fact, they have a very

poor image, I think, in the Kootenays, as everybody knows. They are

seen as people who come and flood large amounts of land, force people

off their property and, in the final analysis, do not provide any jobs

of a permanent nature. So I'm glad to see that development.

Mr. Speaker, one of the major projects which the fish and wildlife

branch of the provincial government has proposed to B.C. Hydro is a

fish channel proposal on the Inonoaklin River, which is just beyond the

boundaries of my riding. Actually it's in the constituency of my

colleague for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King), However, I would point out,

Mr. Speaker, we did lose a good part of a major sport fishing resource

on the Arrow Reservoir through the activities of the provincial

government and its agent in the area, B.C. Hydro, in the mid 1960s.

We, have a natural meandering spawning channel river. It only

requires fish ladders to get there from the main reservoir and

certainly we well know that the fish and wildlife branch is not in a

position to fund such a project. I've spoken with B.C. Hydro on several

occasions about this, and to supply not only a sport resource but also

an economic resource to the area, which was there once, would certainly

be a project which would be very much in order for that major

corporation.

Still dealing with the Arrow Reservoir, Mr. Speaker, I would like to

note that we still today have no land settlements. In the mid 1960s, in

the early 1960s, when people were forced off their property in the

Arrow Reservoir, many of them above the waterline, for which there was

no legal or moral reason, B.C. Hydro gave a moral if not a legal

commitment that they would make every effort to resettle when the

reservoir was cleaned up and the driftwood problem was overcome and

when the potential sloughing problems were overcome.

I would point out that we are now in the late 1970s. There is still

no land settlement that has been finalized, even though I believe a

resource committee, including all of the agencies of the provincial

government in the area, has agreed on a tentative proposal, I would

certainly hope that that would take place and the land would be made

available to Canadians and to former owners and their descendants. I

have to say their descendants because of the long period, Mr. Speaker,

since the early 60s. Some of the former owners, in fact, have passed on.

One of the major problems — a final note on the reservoir — that I

have in that riding is that there has never been, Mr. Speaker, a legal

survey done on any reservoir, to my knowledge, in the entire province,

even going back to the Slave Lake flooding which I believe was before

the First World War.

As far as the Department of Highways is concerned and the Department

of Lands, land still exists down to the original natural water level.

This is true in the Nechako Reservoir. It is true on the Arrow. It's

true on the Mica. It's true, indeed, on every reservoir that's ever

been created in this province. It is an absurdity that tax notices and

corner posts still have to be located, perhaps hundreds of feet below

the water level, but I would hope that that is something that the

government will

[ Page 566 ]

deal with in this session. Certainly there need to

be amendments to the Highways Act and amendments to the Land Act. But I

would say this situation is rather absurd and long overdue to be

resolved.

I'm sure if the general public knew that this kind of a problem

continues — that sub dividers and individuals wishing to register lots

had to get easements over land which was flooded — if the public and

the rest of the province knew how ridiculous this was, it would have

been resolved a long time ago.

I'm glad to see that the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr.

Curtis) is in his seat, as he usually is, Mr. Speaker. I raised a

question with him, and I'd like to put it before the House now. I hope

that the restructuring grants that are paid to different municipalities

in the province who have restructured themselves are based on some

reasonable formula, recognizing the problems of those areas.

I have a city in my riding which restructured itself voluntarily by

a vote of over 60 per cent in all of the jurisdictions involved. There

was no compulsion there. The city of Castlegar has received so far

$214,000 from the provincial government, and all of us there are very

thankful for that. However, when we hear about literally millions being

handed out to other restructured cities, we wonder if perhaps we

couldn't have a review of the situation regarding Castlegar. Certainly

that city is much smaller than the others that were restructured;

however, I'd like to assure the House that the same, similar or even

greater problems existed in a city of 7,000 as exist in the much larger

cities of Nanaimo, Kamloops, Prince George or Kelowna.

One of the things, Mr. Speaker, which I intend to reintroduce — a

private bill that I've had before the House in previous sessions — and

something I believe tremendously important, is capital assistance for

municipal, regional and even improvement district water systems. This

is something that has been greatly lacking. It is not something that is

really a problem in developed urban areas such as Victoria or

Vancouver, but I assure the House that it is a problem in every small-

or medium-sized community in the province of British Columbia.

Certainly, when we look at the crisis which hit Fort Nelson, Mr.

Speaker, in your riding, a year or so ago, I'm sure you will agree with

that. I would hope that the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the

Treasury Board would look on a proposal at some point during this

parliament, look favorably on a proposal of that nature, because it

certainly is very important.

In my own riding we have a huge supply of soft water which is thus

far not available to the public. Soft water from the Columbia River

does not need pollution treatment as long as we get it above the

Canadian Cellulose Mill, and it could well supply homes, industries and

agriculture in my riding from one source.,

I was very pleased to see in the budget that there is going to be

assistance for municipalities for each housing start of around $1,500;

I believe that is the figure we have seen. We have an incredible

problem with developing lots in my riding. We've had one survey work

done by the Department of Housing which shows that in the city of

Trail, even if lots are brought on at cost, it could be as high as

$30,000 per lot — even put on the market at cost. If we are to think

about bringing the cost of housing down, or thinking about making

detached homes available to individuals, I think we have to go a good

deal further than what we have.

I certainly question, however, the value of the remarks by the

government that they're going to make Crown land available for housing.

Perhaps in some regions of the province, the plateau area, the Cariboo

and so on, there is Crown land available. I want to assure the House,

though, that in my riding, and certainly around Vancouver and Victoria

and, I believe, all over the province, there is little or no Crown land

available except on the tops of mountains. Apart from whether or not

people would like to live there, I believe the cost of servicing such

land would be enormous.

I rather think the making available of Crown land may look good on

paper, but I don't think it has much validity for most areas of the

province. Certainly, as I pointed out, in my riding at elevations below

4,000 feet, Crown land has been alienated for years and years and

years; there is none left and there has not been any left.

I would like to point out and re-emphasize once again that I have a

terrible shortage of detached homes in my riding. Indeed, it's very

difficult for industries and businesses to attract the kind of skilled,

technical and professional people that they need due to a shortage of

houses. Thanks to the efforts of Dunhill, CMHC and local builders, I'm

happy to report that the terrible apartment shortage we had two years

ago has been largely alleviated, although we still have problems.

Still dealing with municipal matters, Mr. Speaker, I have been aware

that a week or so ago there had been some statements made in the press

at the local level by the Consumer Affairs minister, the member for

Kamloops (Hon. Mr. Mair), that the transit system there, which was in

abeyance, is likely to move ahead very quickly. Indeed, the Minister of

Municipal Affairs at least intimated to the media in Kamloops over the

weekend that maybe something might be happening before the summer.

I would like to let the House know that I hope there's not going to

be any special treatment of one city over another. We in Trail also

have a transit system which is held in abeyance. Again, it's not as

[ Page 567 ]

large as the one which is proposed for Kamloops,

but I'm sure that the minister is aware, through you, Mr. Speaker, that

we have a four-to-one referendum passed on that transit system by the

electorate of Trail, and that electorate is not known for its financial

liberalism. It tends to play its cards fairly close to its vest, and

they don't finance money bylaws too easily.

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Was that in November?

MR. D'ARCY: That was in November, yes. I would certainly hope

that the financial formula of 100 per cent capital and 50 per cent

operating losses, if any — but I'm sure there will be — will stay in

effect, because this is something that the people of the city of

Trail.... I would note, Mr. Speaker, that I have in the city of Trail a

very high percentage of senior citizens, many of whom do not — cannot —

drive and couldn't afford cars even if they do. I also have an

increasing number of students and young people living in the riding.

I would also hope that the government would see fit in its term of

office to begin looking at a greater number of regional transit systems

which, I believe, make much more sense than those simply operating

within municipal boundaries because, certainly, the need in my riding

is for a regional system much more than for a civic system within the

city of Trail. The reason we have that referendum, of course, is that

the city council of Trail has been very positive and very aggressive in

moving in this direction.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make some remarks regarding health

care, particularly with regard to my own riding. I see the Minister of

Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) is also in the House. I note in the budget

there is a substantial provision for nursing home care, and I'm very

glad to see that. However, we have a severe restriction on us in the

city of Trail where a programme was started last year with only three

full-time and four part-time people. They are, nonetheless, serving 25

to 35 patients, making even more visits than that daily.

I would note that in my riding there is a $70 a day difference

between the cost of acute care and the cost of home care, and if

they're servicing 30 patients, that is a saving to the public treasury

of $2,100 per day. Certainly any moneys that can be spent in this

regard are well spent, and I hope very much that nursing home-care

services in my riding, in Prince George, and in other areas of the

province just getting started — saving a lot of money, in my opinion —

will be not only allowed to continue, but will expand.

In my area, we have a significant shortage of dentists and

optometrists. I note that there is a

section of the Optometric Act on

the books which I consider restrictive, I haven't been able to find out

why it's there, but it's

section 12 which limits the ability of

optometrists moving to British Columbia from other parts of the world

to practice for the first few years. I suggest that this is

restrictive; it's not fair in a civil rights sense. I think anyone

moving to British Columbia, moving to Canada, if they're acceptable to

the immigration people, should be allowed to practise. It makes it

somewhat difficult for optometrists who may want Lo come to my area

from Great Britain or the United States to take up a practice, As I

pointed out, Mr. Speaker, we have a shortage not only of optometrists

but of dentists, and I would hope that whatever efforts can be made in

keeping the democratic procedure to help us in that way would be made

by the government.

I'm very concerned with the recently announced cutbacks in ambulance

services. We've always had good ambulance service in my riding, even

before the provincial system came in. The only thing is that before the

provincial system they were funded by private societies, private

operators and the civic taxpayer. We have had an excellent mix there.

We just don't have a blanket ambulance service operated by the

province. Castlegar has a private service operated by private

businessmen with some provincial employees attached.

Rossland and Trail have ambulance services working in cooperation

with the fire departments within the city limits, and on their own

outside the city limits; in the Beaver Valley we have had a private

society. The main impact of the provincial system was better training,

good workers — although we had them before, but now they're better

trained; they've had that opportunity — and a saving to the municipal

and civic taxpayer. Certainly I hope that doesn't change.

Mr. Speaker, we have some major highway problems in my area, and it

is something for which I look at the budget and I see there's not a

great deal of money for capital expenditures; indeed, I wonder if the

existing contracts can be continued with. Perhaps the government feels

that's necessary. One thing I'm also concerned with: I don't see a

great deal of money for maintenance and upkeep. I would like to note

that there is some serious deterioration, in terms of surface, in the

southern interior. Certainly I think drivers on the Hope-Princeton

route would appreciate an early start in the painting procedure. It's

impossible to find a white line or a lane marking or a yellow line for

roughly 100 miles of highway there — all those areas which see a lot of

sand and salt, in the winter. In the interests of safety and good

driving I would hope that there will be sufficient money in the budget

to allow this kind of simple maintenance not only to proceed but to

proceed as soon as possible.

I have a major contract which is still out to tender — has been for

three months — in my riding. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that before

any work, can go

[ Page 568 ]

ahead, assuming this contract will be let this

year, the land — roughly seven miles — has to be cleared. We've had

problems before of this nature where the department here has let a

contract too late in the spring.

It was impossible to clear the land because of burning restrictions

put on it by the Forest Service, and everyone lost a full year of

construction. I hope to see this not happen. This particular stretch of

highway is not open yet. It's the Ootischenia Meadows

section of the

southern transprovincial highway and there has already been $7 million

of public money spent on it. Until (when and if) the highway is opened,

the taxpayers of B.C. can get absolutely no return on this investment,

and I would hope to see it proceed.

Another area which I see can badly affect my riding — and I note

there is not much money, if any, allowed for it in the budget — is the

recreational facilities fund. I gather this fund is presently

overspent. A number of commitments have been made to local communities,

local private societies and local civic agencies. The taxpayers in many

parts of the province — certainly in mine — have put up a substantial

amount of money. After all, they are responsible for two-thirds of it.

Their resources, at the local level, are far less than the province,

but they have made commitments for these facilities. I also note, Mr.

Speaker, that the demands on the fund are steadily diminishing. Because

of this two-thirds requirement, the ability and the desire of local

societies and civic groups to put up the other two-thirds is

decreasing, and I suggest that a reduced amount of money could be put

into this fund and still meet the demands of it.

I am very concerned, Mr. Speaker, that the 2 per cent sales tax in

B.C., as I said earlier in debate, is going to take a significant chunk

out of retail spending in British Columbia, apart from putting a

hardship on our citizens. I do believe the cost of living in B.C. has

already been put up substantially, and I believe that the level of

retail sales in British Columbia is going to be substantially

curtailed, if not reduced, during 1976. This concerns me very much. I

hope for the government's sake that heading into 1977 they are going to

be able to prove that this sales tax increase was necessary; I suggest

that it was not necessary. I hope that it's certainly going to look bad

for the government next year if not only the economic situation but the

taxation revenue situation does not show that this sales tax increase

was justified, because I think that of all the tax and rate increases

which we have had since December 22 in this province, probably the most

onerous and the most unnecessary was that sales tax increase.

Just before I sit down, I am going to deal with a favorite topic of

mine, and that is the question of a provincial government building in

the city of Trail. We have never had one. I suggest that there is no

city anywhere near the size of Trail in British Columbia which has not

had a provincial government development. It's the home, I would say, of

secondary industry and of mineral development in British Columbia. I

have 4,000 employees in my riding directly employed in the

metallurgical industry. The city of Trail has never been recognized

with any kind of provincial regional agencies.

I was very happy to see a statement a few weeks ago by the Minister

of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Fraser) saying that rather than outright

capital development of provincial buildings in this area, they hoped to

secure assistance from developers and sign long-term leases with

developers in order to save capital spending of provincial money for

other things such as hospitals and schools. I hope that we can move in

that direction.

We certainly have been lacking for many, many years and I feel

discriminated against in my area, in spite of the fact that an

incredible amount of wealth has been poured into not only the coffers

of the provincial government but also into the coffers of private

citizens, shareholders and so forth. Most of it has been extracted from

the area over the years and spent in other parts of the province and

other parts of the world, and I would hope that the provincial

government would recognize the incredible mineral wealth and also the

technological skills and abilities of the people in my riding who do

metallurgical engineering on a worldwide basis and who have developed a

number of pollution control techniques. My area has continued to be the

only area where there is substantial or even any secondary industry

surrounding the mining industry in B.C., although I gather that there

is finally something happening with Afton Mines in the Kamloops area.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. C.M. SHELFORD (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, first of all I would

like to congratulate you on being elected as Speaker. I would further

like to congratulate all the new members in the Legislature, because

certainly by now they know that they'll have an exciting time in this

Legislature. With all the problems we have in our ridings in trying to

satisfy people, you'll certainly be able to keep yourself busy.

Contrary to what our friends in the press say — that we don't work

between sessions — I would only point out that I know, for myself, that

if I were four people I couldn't take care of all the calls and demands

I get from people within my riding, because the problems we have today

are certainly 10 times greater than what they were even five years ago.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Come down here for a rest?

[ Page 569 ]

MR. SHELFORD: Yes, that's right. It's far easier while you're

in Victoria than it is in your riding, because of the distances we have

to travel by boat, plane or whichever other way we can get around. We

even had to walk ashore on a log boom recently in making a tour of my

riding. I walked on log booms before but I never did with a suitcase on

my arm before, which made a little bit of a difference.

Certainly those people that are just starting in politics will find

a great difference between political life and any other type of

occupation. I think in political life experience is a liability rather

than an asset like in all other forms of occupations.

One thing you should take note of when you're writing to a

constituent; always be straight to the point so that he understands

exactly what you're saying.

I have here a little bit of advice. Now we talk about communications

which, of course, started a long time back. Communications were learned

a thousand years ago. A lady wrote to her government department — and I

can just imagine this happening — wanting confirmation of a neighbour's

advice that sulphuric acid would clean her sink. A very junior clerk

replied with a six-page letter full of phrases like "The inherent

possibility of the modular transformation of the electro-chemical

micro-positional reaction having an inhibiting effect; on the intricate

part of the mineralized conduct."

The woman, of course, didn't understand the words, which is quite

understandable, and wrote and thanked him for saying it was a good way

of cleaning the pipes.

The young scientist hastily took the problem to Ids

section leader

who wrote the woman a two-page letter full of phrases like "reservation

about the effectiveness of the proposed introduction of corrosive

liquids within the drainage system of the abode."

Once again the woman wrote and said thanks for telling her it was

okay. The

section leader hurriedly sent the letter on to the

departmental head who wrote a one sentence letter saying: "Don't pour

sulphuric acid down the sink. It eats hell out of the pipes."

I think all of us should take note of that and send letters to our constituents that people can understand.

One thing I would like to speak on this afternoon...I would hope to

see shorter sessions in this Legislature, for the simple reason it

doesn't give ministers an opportunity to get around the province and

see things as they actually are. I know during my term as minister I

spent every single day possible out with the farmers, talking to the

farmers over a bale of hay or a sack of carrots. It's wonderful the

information you get from the various people out in the field. I look on

this as the same as a general in the army. If he has all of his troops

tied up on defensive action he never wins a war.

I believe one of the greatest problems in Ottawa today is the

lengthy sessions which do not give an opportunity for the ministers to

get out in the countryside and take a look at how things are really

going. Because it always looks a lot different when you're sitting

behind a desk.

It's interesting to note the budget which I think is a very good

one, but the budget in 1965 was exactly the same size as the increase

in the budget this year.

Another thing we'll likely see is the fact that even though the

budget of the Department of Highways, for instance, is an awful lot

larger than what it was back in 1965, I wouldn't mind hazarding a guess

that the actual roads built in 1965 will be far greater than what will

be built this year because of the increased costs of paying just

salaries to people rather than actually building roads.

I think a very serious thing facing governments wherever they may be is this tremendous increase in costs to do the same thing.

I am very pleased to see the government moving to remove the tax on

senior citizens' homes and, of course, increased aid for those from 55

to 69.

I am also very pleased to see the Department of Labour moving to

strengthen the training programmes. I'm very interested in this, and I

know one of the Indian chiefs in my area will be also very pleased

because Hubert Maitland, chief councilor at the Kitimat village,

brought this up not long before the session.

I thought he had a very good point. He was asking the question: "Why

advertise in Europe and other countries for skilled workers when there

are hundreds on our reserves who want to get trained and don't have the

opportunity?" I do hope that the Northwest College at Terrace will try

to bring training programmes right into the village.

They put on a short course in accountancy and 25 young Indians took

this course, so it does show they really want to learn. It does seem a

shame that you see 30, 40 and even 50 per cent of the native Indians of

some of these villages unemployed, wanting to take training and they

can't get it, when Alcan and Eurocan were up advertising in Europe to

bring people in when they can't even employ the people whom we have at

home.

I certainly want to compliment the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr.

Williams) in taking a look at these training programmes, because

there's no better work he can do, I would say, than get into a training

field and help especially our Indian people get out, and they do want

to get out and work.

I would like to ask the Minister of Transport and Communications

(Hon. Mr. Davis) to take a look into the possibility of a ferry link

into Kitimat, because it's never too easy getting from Terrace to Prince

[ Page 570 ]

Rupert. I know, I tried four times this past winter

and was held up by slides three times out of four. It is going to be a

hazard for some time; in fact, it's a mighty expensive piece of work to

try and put snow shelters over the slide areas. I would think it's the

solution to this whole north country. Our friends in Atlin could drive

down through the Nass to the Stewart-Cassiar into Terrace and over to

Kitimat and pick up the ferry going south from there. I think it would

be a great improvement to that whole north country:

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELFORD: I was again very pleased to see the Minister of

Labour take a special interest in Indian land claims. Certainly this is

well overdue because, certainly, the Indians throughout the years have

been getting more frustrated all the time in listening to promises by

governments — especially at election time — that negotiations will

start. Then, of course, after the election was over, nothing happened.

So I think this is certainly something we have to work on very hard to

try and reach an agreement.

Now I don't think anyone should kid themselves that agreements are

going to be easy, because they are not. But certainly one of the most

important issues facing Canadians today, not just in British Columbia,

is what will happen on these land claims and the final settlements that

are reached. It could very well affect many of our social and

educational programmes because it could develop into a mighty expense

settlement.

I would like to see local persons on the negotiation committee so

that the group's negotiation, whether they be federal or provincial,

will know exactly what the people of the local area are thinking,

because what's good for Canada and what's good for British Columbia

might not necessarily be that good for the local people in the area.

I do hope that there's sufficient backup staff for the minister, who

is extremely busy in the Labour Department, to help him in resolving

some of these various serious problems, because there's no doubt that

in a lot of cases there's overlapping between one group of natives and

another.

Another point that I wish to bring up this afternoon is the issue of

the oil companies and their agents. It seems that many of these agents

and service station operators are losing their life savings due to

heartless company policies of canceling agreements at very short

notice, and it is something that we can't live with for long.

I would ask the Minister of Transport and Communications to get the

energy board to investigate these contracts and report back to them

possibly during this Legislature.

It's not too long ago, Mr. Speaker, and I think you'll remember it

very well, when you and I sat in a committee of the Legislature chaired

by Herb Capozzi and listened to the companies of that time telling us:

"Don't take any action, because we will resolve the problems ourselves.

We will do it." I think you could find that in your report that was

filed in this Legislature.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): You didn't believe it, though, did you?

MR. SHELFORD: I didn't believe them; that's why I submitted a minority report. I didn't believe it.

Interjection.

MR. SHELFORD: You have it? Good. It was a good one, wasn't it?

I didn't believe it was going to happen because I have studied this

question ever since I came into politics in 1952. I read the report by

Justice MacDonald, so I might say it was one of the best reports ever

filed on this question in North America. Believe me, there have been

many of them — right from the MacDonald report, the Moore report, which

I was involved in, the Mackenzie report in Alberta, and the Westcoast

report in the U.S. Of course, they have one for practically every state

in the U.S. A very elaborate one was filed also in Nova Scotia.

The interesting thing is that all of these reports really say about

the same thing: nothing will happen unless governments make it happen.

I don't want to blame any government, because all governments right

throughout history have agreed that this maybe should be done and then

have done nothing about it.

One thing that this does is to try to eliminate the independent. I

think it's a deplorable action, because the independent is the only one

that ever brings about real price competition. You never see real price

competition between multinationals; there is always the price

leadership where one follows the other. But real price competition and

the thing that makes free enterprise work is the independent that is

willing to get out and bid against another one or cut prices.

I asked for action as far back as 1957, and I'll certainly do it

again today because after 10 years it is very obvious that companies

are not going to do it by themselves. We need competition to give the

motorists a fair deal. As I said before, let's have a little bit of

free enterprise. We talk about it all the time in this Legislature and

I think it's time we saw a little bit in this industry.

If the independent was able to call for tenders — because some of

them have a very large gallonage — and if a private forest company

called for tenders on the same type of gallonage, he'd get it for

between 8 and 10 or 12 cents less.

I remember that during the time that I was

[ Page 571 ]

speaking on it before in this Legislature B.C.

Hydro at that time had just picked up their yearly supply at 12 cents a

gallon, which is not very much. I would think that there are still

companies.... I know I can pick it up through a farmer's institute for

10 cents less than what a service station can pick it up for right now

up at Burns Lake. I picked it up last summer. I might say I organized

the farmers' institute to show them how they could get it for less.

What I want to see is the motorists of this province get it for

less. There are thousands of them and there is no reason why this

shouldn't happen. Naturally, divorce is really the only answer. I don't

mean divorcing your wife, so don't all get panicky, but divorce of the

service stations from the refining companies is really the only answer

that will really resolve this problem. We can use Band-aid methods and

talk about this and that and look at the contracts but nothing will

really resolve this problem without complete divorce, which will take

up to five years. But some of these contractual arrangements should be

looked at right now.

I was interested to hear — I'm sorry he isn't here, too — my friend

from Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald), who always gives a good talk in

this House. I was interested in his speech, which was a rerun of his

speech in 1966. I'm sure he just dusted it off and started again.

MR. WALLACE: Watch out, Cyril. We'll catch you for that one.

MR. SHELFORD: I must say he gives a very vigorous speech; I

must say I enjoy it. I only wish he'd have resolved some of these

problems when he was sitting over here in government, because he's a

tiger in opposition and a pussycat on this side of the House.

(Laughter.)

I was in Vancouver the other day and I must say I very nearly cried

when I drove down Kingsway to see the signs of gasoline 25 cents less

than in Terrace — 25 cents less. When I was studying that question

before when the Morrow Commission was on, the actual freight of

gasoline from the lower mainland by barge to Kitimat was three-quarters

of a cent. I'd be quite interested to know what it is today but I'm

quite sure it won't be over 2.5 to 3 cents. But 25 cents difference in

Terrace! You can go further north into my friend's riding, and no doubt

it is greater than that.

AN HON. MEMBER: $1.25.

MR. SHELFORD: $1.25. The prices I am quoting are regular gas.

I've never used premium gas in my life because I remember the companies

on the stand at the Morrow Commission saying: "Well, you don't really

need to use premium anyway." The only reason you use premium is to

think you're in a higher class of income. Ninety-eight per cent of all

cars don't require premium gas at all. It's only in the motorist's

head, not in anything else.

The only reason, as I mentioned the other night, that I came back

into political life was the tremendous downturn in the economy of the

northwest, I don't think I need to repeat all of the figures that I

mentioned the other night, except for the fact that the producing mines

did produce more dollars than they did in 1972. The part that bothers

me is that the exploration for new miles went away down to practically

nothing. The claims were 10,000 in 1974, and they were 53,000 in 1972.

As for the little prospector, he just wasn't getting out into the bush.

He was either leaving to go to Alberta or the Yukon, and we'll pay for

this as far ahead as 1985 because a claim that was staked this year and

went into development wouldn't have gone into production anyway until

that time.

Now I'll just give you an example of the impact this has on the

community in which I live on all types of business. For instance, the

Terrace Co-op sold $375,000 worth of food to the exploration companies

north of Terrace in 1972; by 1975, this had gone right down to only

$20,000 — $20,000 from $375,000. This is true in Smithers, Hazelton,

Terrace and anywhere there is any mining development.

I know another contractor in Smithers who was doing over $1.5

million work with backhoes, Cats, et cetera, for exploration companies

north of Smithers. Last year, all he had was $25,000. He had his

equipment sitting idle and he has been sitting idle for two years. That

is part of the $20 million worth of equipment that's sitting idle right

today in Terrace, and has been during this time.

In 1973 the forest industry started to go down. First hit were the

independents, which are always the backbone of any community because,

for one reason, they buy everything in their community

whereas a larger

company buys from outside, so they're the ones who keep a community

going. If someone wants to start a hockey rink or a curling rink or

anything else, it's always the small businessman who picks up the tab —

it's never the large company who picks it up — and we only have a few

large ones in our area.

Now the smaller contractor was paid too little, I would think,

during the good times so that he didn't have enough of a cushion to

weather the bad times, especially those working for Can-Cel which has a

long history of bad relations with contractors. Last year there were

six major contractors went bankrupt in that area alone. One contractor,

Twin Valley — and I know it was discussed in this Legislature last year

— he went bankrupt working for Can-Cel and left a trail of debts right

from Stewart and Smithers to Terrace of over $200,000. That's only half

of the story,

[ Page 572 ]

because those cheques that bounced to the other

contractors of course bounced again, because they wrote out other

cheques to their supply companies, et cetera. There's one supply

company in Terrace that has over $264,000 in debts from contractors

that went broke from Can-Cel. The community is the one that suffers.

In 1974 things got even tighter. The supply companies started to get

hit and several of them went bankrupt — one Pacific Tariffs and the

other B.C. Equipment — and three-quarters of the work force of those

left have been laid off, which has caused a great strain on the economy

of that district. Once a downturn like this starts, it's something like

throwing a rock in the water: the ripples keep going out further and

further and affecting more people. Fortunately, the mining industry is

showing some signs of recovery, but one thing we quite often forget is

the fact that an economy is built on faith and nothing else — the faith

of people who come in and develop, who build a sawmill, develop a mine,

hotel, motel, plywood plant, or even a farm.

This faith was completely destroyed during this time. It's the

thousands of individual decisions that make a prosperous nation, and

government make-work programmes fail to achieve this. It takes the

thousands of individual people, building this and that, employing one

or two people, to finally end up with a prosperous community. Now it

appears that the socialist system destroys the personal initiative and

replaces it with nothing. That seems to be one of the failures of the

system, whether it be in Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand or

elsewhere.

All of us in the northwest want Can-Cel to prosper but, of course, not on the backs of the independents and the community.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on!

MR. SHELFORD: The economic stability of the northwest hinges

on Alcan, Eurocan and, I would say, an ultramodern Can-Cel.We would

like to see Can-Cel enlarged so that it has the most modern pulp mill

in the world, a modern plywood plant and, of course, a modern

independent sawmill supplying it with chips. I would hope that the

Department of Economic Development will look into the feasibility of a

specialty cedar mill and a plywood plant.

I would like to say again that to be successful the Can-Cel

operation will have to be the most modern in the world to survive with

the decadent wood they have to deal with and also the high costs in

many other fields.

There is no question, as I mentioned the other night, t hat the

stumpage rates charged to Can-Cel...the average is around $1.10, and

I'm not saying that this is too low. What I'm saying is that the

stumpage to the independents such as Rim, that were paying $22.75 at

the same time, is too high, because I believe, with the type of wood we

have to deal with in that north country, the $1.10 figure is likely a

realistic figure. Can-Cel this year cut back its logging operations by

nearly 50 per cent due to the high inventory. I would say it would be

better for the area if the TFL holder — and the only reason I'm dealing

with Can-Cel is because Can-Cel is the only one there but it would be

true for any other TFL holder — held 70 per cent of their needed

pulpwood and had to buy the rest on the open market. Everyone would be

better off. They now pay $21 per cunit, which costs $34 to produce,

which is a direct subsidy by any independent of $15 a cunit to the

company.

Now the Forest Service makes the independents take this wood out

regardless of cost. With 50 per cent of the total stands in that area

pulpwood, and you have to make up a $13 subsidy on every cunit you cut

of pulp, the lumber price has to be pretty high before you can make a

go of it. This is one of the greatest problems facing the sawmills in

that region.

I think really the solution to it is that the forest service is too

sticky. They make you take out logs, say, that much around, and you've

got an outside piece of three inches which is sound. That small piece

actually is 50 per cent of the total, so you have to take it out, and

then it collapses once it gets into the chippers and barkers. Can-Cel

has a problem as long as anyone else because 16 per cent of all the

wood that goes down to Prince Rupert ends up in dust and is thrown out

into the saltchuck — 16 per cent. That 16 per cent is too much with the

high freight costs from Terrace and the Nass and all up through the

north country just to have it thrown away.

We maintain that the Forest Service should take a close took at this

waste wood. Why be so picky? It's been rotting in the bush for the last

1,000 years, and it's only just part of the recycling of nature, and I

think that poor stuff should be left. Economics will dictate what will

come out.

I think Dr. Pearse got this point when we presented it to him in

Prince Rupert. He asked me the question: why take it out at all if it's

that bad? Of course my answer was that it shouldn't come out, and I

don't think it should.

Another problem that's affecting us — well, not just in that area,

but the whole of the province — is the massive regulations brought in

by the former minister (Mr. R.A. Williams), and I must concede it was

even staring to creep in before that, in fairness to the former

government.

Now environmental guidelines cost the industry approximately $10.75,

and some claim over that, mainly by extra costs, by extra

road-building, and various other regulations that were brought in. Now

most of these regulations, I have to concede, are okay in a sense. The

only question is how many can we

[ Page 573 ]

afford and still stay competitive on the world market?

I don't think I would attack the type of regulations. It is just

whether we can afford them. If stumpage is based on the selling price

of lumber, less the cost of production, then it is very possible that

we will never get back to anything other than minimum stumpage, because

costs are going up so fast, and even with lumber prices going up, it is

very doubtful if it will ever raise off that floor price. Because last

time I checked with one of the forest companies, and I think it was

Can-Cel, that price still has to go up another $10 before it would

start lifting off the $1.10 minimum figure. That is something we should

take note of, and people that talk about the tremendous revenues

government is going to get from the forest industry, I would say, say

it with your tongue in your cheek, because it's not likely to happen.

Dr. Pearse agreed with me when I said this before his commission, that

it is very unlikely with the present costs we heap on the industry.

If you take this $10.75 which is the environmental cost for extra

road fill, et cetera, that the Forest Service forces onto logging

contractors, on the total cut of 21,219,120 cunits which were cut in

the province last year, that means there should have been extra revenue

which comes to $228 million. Half of that would to go the people of

this province, which would mean 114 million at $52,770 to the coffers.

I am quite sure the Minister of Finance would gladly accept that kind

of money about this time, and a lot of the other ministers would like

to see it come in so that their departments could get a chunk of it.

But this is the type of thing we're doing, and when we blame world

market conditions, and we blame this or that, we should take a look at

ourselves and see what we're creating for the industry; we're heaping

costs on that we can't expect them to bear,

These are costly regulations that hamper foreign sales, especially

in times like this. One thing we have to accept is that we have to

export or die in this province. Otherwise, our standard of living will

have to go down better than 50 per cent if we say: "Let's drop our

export market." We just can't afford to do it.

Red tape in the Forest Service — and I must say I don't blame the

people in the Forest Service either, because they don't like it either

— is impossible to live with as far as the industry is concerned,

I've been working with this during the last three years, but since

1973, for a simple timber sale, which used to take two months to get,

it now takes two years. The very best you can get a timber sale is two

years. So if a company decides to go into production for a special

cut.... For instance, Northwest Loggers, which I worked with, got a

contract for 60,000 ties which means, certainly, about $400,000 to

$500,000 into the economy of an area. We couldn't get the timber in

time and lost the contract. So time means money to the industry. They

can't afford to sit back like they have during the past few years.

For instance, Can-Cel is the largest company in the area, and for us

to prosper they have to prosper, But Can-Cel is only three months ahead

of themselves in the planning for roads, et cetera, because they

couldn't get clearance from the Forest Service. What this means is that

they are hauling on roads we call "green roads" because they haven't

settled properly, so they have to cut the loads down which makes it

more expensive. I certainly don't know how they managed to carry on a

company of that size when they are only three weeks ahead. They should

be at least five years ahead to be doing a good job on management of

our resources.

I think the government should have a committee look into the

performance of the tree farm licence holders on whether they are

cutting their maximum cut and whether they are living up to the 50 per

cent contractor clause. Now the contractor clause has a long history

back — certainly, your did did a great deal in bringing in this

contractor clause. The contractors lost the right to bid on these very

large areas, and for that they were given 50 per cent of the area to

log and haul from harvest.

Now in some cases they haven't lived up to this. The companies,

right at the moment, are laying off contractors and keeping their own

work force going. But, really, they are cutting only about 50 per cent

what they did last year. It's mainly the contractors who get laid off.

Yet there are still people who want to buy the material if they could

get it from the contractor. Now if the companies are not going to cut

it, well, then certainly the contractors should be able to cut it and

sell it on the open market, which would create, certainly, a

competitive system in the log market on the coast.

Another thing, it is interesting to note that the pole companies,

like Little, Haugland & Kerr up in Terrace and MacGillis &

Gibbs, pay to the various tree farm holders between $20 and $80 a cunit

for those poles. What really happens is: either one of those companies

pay more in stumpage to tree farm holders than the tree farms holders

pay in their total stumpage to the government. Now this seems wrong

that the independents should be paying more stumpage to tree farm

holders than what the tree farm holders pay on their whole cut to the

government which helps to keep this province going.

Another problem the industry faces is: who do they go to? This is something

which we were really frustrated about, because we couldn't find out if a

sale was held up. We went to the Forest Service, and they'd say that it

was all clear. Federal Fisheries is involved, so we'd go to them and they'd

say: "No, we've given it clearance; it must be Fish and Wildlife."

We'd end up at Fish and Wildlife and

[ Page 574 ]

they'd say: "No, we cleared it; it must be the

Forest Service that's holding it up." So we could take these circles

back and forth and end up with no timber sale at all.

Now I hope that there is not going to be a fourth — that the

environment service is not going to be the fourth stumbling block. I

hope, Mr. Minister, that no matter who it happens to be, but certainly

one department has to have the final say. If it's your department, and

I hope it is yours, if there's any problem I hope we can come to you

and you will get clearance from the other departments, because someone

has to have the say or nothing happens at all.

[Deputy Speaker in the chair.]

I would point out that we only have two ways to go in this province:

we either have to bring down costs through slicing regulations,

increasing productivity, and, of course, maintaining reasonable wages

and salaries, or otherwise we'll see our producers and industries go

down the drain, which reduces 54 cents out of every dollar and, of

course, by this we'll lose on the foreign market. We just simply can't

afford to see this happen.

Interjection.

MR. SHELFORD: That's good. I can bring up the rest later on, Mr. Speaker.

Now the costs of production in this whole area of the forest

industry are far too high. I don't think we should blame any single

group, but just point out that it's there.

I'll close on this, Mr. Speaker: for instance, a company, operating

in Terrace, with fringe benefits pays their employees an average of

$9.03 an hour. The same company with a company in Oregon pays $6.09

with fringe benefits. A company in the southern U.S., in Mississippi,

pays $4.09. That's a reason why they can produce a ton of pulp $36

cheaper in the U.S. They can produce pulp $46 to $50 cheaper in

Malaysia, Brazil, Thailand and the Philippines. Now these are the types

of problems that we have to face.

I would hope that the Minister has heard enough this afternoon to

know that the industry is in real serious trouble. And let's not kid

ourselves: unless we find solutions quickly, the forest industry in

this province will go down. Believe me, the world of today doesn't have

to have our products; they can get them from other parts of the world.

I thank you.

Hon. Mr. Mair moves adjournment of the debate on behalf of Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm.

Motion approved.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Public bills and orders: committee on Bill 10, Mr. Speaker.

SUPPLY ACT, NO. 1, 1976

The House in committee on Bill 10; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

section 1.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Mr. Chairman, during the

second reading of this bill I asked the Minister of Finance a question

pertaining to student summer employment, which gave me great concern.

This

section 1 would take one-third of the total amount and apportion

it for a period which I reckon would end at the end of July. Student

summer employment would be very active in May, June, July and perhaps

August. One could anticipate that while high school students are a very

significant part of the programme, university student employment would

be three-quarters completed by the end of this time. I would like some

assurances from the minister that student summer employment is not to

be jeopardized by the careless, perhaps non-.... Perhaps it's in here

in some sort of legal terms, but certainly not something that would

give any reassurance to a layman. So I would like to have some

reassurance from the minister as to whether or not this is going to

jeopardize the student summer employment in the ensuing months. It's

Bill 10, I believe.

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): Mr. Chairman, I was

only going to point out in answer to the member's question that it is

really irrelevant to the total being proposed in this particular Act

which, of course, has to do with taking the total budget for the year

and appropriating it to the given number of months which would be more

than ample to cover the remainder of the session, realizing that we

would hopefully expect there will be no limitation on the amount of

time being spent on estimates. It simply takes the total for the year

and divides it by the number of months appropriate. I think it would be

more appropriate to bring up the question you raised the other day

under the estimates for that department.

MR. NICOLSON: What you think might be appropriate...it's hard

to say when this will come up. Until the end of July we might be

operating on this interim supply. I'm not sure if the minister

understands the question, so I'll try to phrase it in this manner. If

we just take, for instance, Mr. Chairman, university students who were

perhaps looking at about three months' employment which

[ Page 575 ]

will be covered under this to the end of July, out

of what we might anticipate to be an average of about four months,

that's about three-quarters of a programme for university students,

although for high school students it would cover about one-half of the

programme in this time period — in both cases covering more than

one-third of the time period. Is this a prorating? Is every programme

going to be funded at one-third of its rate, or is there going to be

some give and take between programmes? That's the question I'm

directing to the minister.

Mr. Chairman, the minister doesn't seem to take this very seriously.

I would suggest this is a very serious matter. Is the student summer

employment programme to be cut to one-third, or are we going to

prorate? Are you going to steal from some other programme in order that

the student summer employment programme can go ahead?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think, Hon. Member, that by the word for "steal" you mean the word "transfer."

MR. NICOLSON: Yes, or "appropriate."

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Chairman, the

objection I wish to raise to

section 1 of this bill is not an objection

to interim supply in principle, which, of course, we've already passed,

but rather to the amount that this House is being asked to grant. It

was the practice last year and in previous years to not ask for so much

as one-third of the entire year's appropriation. As a matter of fact, I

think the supply Act we passed on March 26 of last year asked only for

one-sixth. I think that is a more reasonable amount because it provides

that if things don't go along that well the government has to come back

to the House again for some authorization in a couple of months. I

think that's only right, because we're being asked to approve this

supply Act before we've entered into any debates on the estimates at

all, and who knows what may arise during that debate period that

perhaps should be canvassed again under the rubric of another supply

bill?

Therefore I would move the following amendment in

section 1: that at

line 3 the amount should be cut in half from $1.222 million to $611

million, and that at line 6 the time period should be changed from

one-third of the year to one-sixth of the year, which it seems to me

does give the government ample room and flexibility, and allows them to

come back to the House if that is required.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, in reviewing the amendment, it

needs to be determined by the Chair — and this is why it is taking just

a few moments — whether or not, in approving the bill in principle, we

actually approved the allotment of the one-third portion. Perhaps we

could invite some comment by members of the House in trying to help the

Chair determine whether or not we have already approved this in

principle. Perhaps the mover to the amendment would like to speak first.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, just speaking to this for a moment,

I would draw to your attention the analogy of the estimates debate at

which time, for example, it is competent on any member of the House to

move that a minister's salary be reduced by $1, or to $1. In other

words, these figures are far from being sacred. What we do on second

reading, as I would see it — and, of course, no private member can move

that they be increased — is approval in principle that supply should be

granted to the government for a certain period. Then committee stage is

where detail is normally dealt with, and we arrive here at the

important detail, admittedly, but nevertheless a detail, as to exactly

how much supply should be provided.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I invite other comment.

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Chairman, I

would reinforce the argument put by the leader of the Liberal Party by

pointing out that during the debate on second reading of this bill I

think the point was stressed quite strongly from all quarters on this

side of the House that there were grave reservations about the need for

the amount contained in the bill. Indeed, it was stated by the official

opposition, as well as the other parties, that while we did not object

in principle to the provision of interim supply, we were very concerned

about the amount of money that was being asked for, and questioned at

that time the need for one-third of the budget as interim supply on an

emergent basis. This is a very, very large amount of money — it's more

than $1 billion — and there's concern that the details of this amount

cannot be adequately dealt with; they cannot be adequately identified.

The minister has already shown that he is not in a position to be

accountable for the full expenditure of this amount of money...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. KING: ...and, under those circumstances, I believe that the amendment is in order, Mr. Chairman.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Well, Mr. Chairman, just a

point: the unusual amount of supply — one-third — is not unusual when

you consider the circumstances of asking for supply this year — our

interim supply — as compared to last year. Last year, this assembly had

new rules of restriction upon debate of estimates in the Legislature,

and the

[ Page 576 ]

government of the day could effectively determine

the end of the debate on estimates and thusly was able to come in for a

shorter period of interim supply. They knew full well that rules they

had passed in this assembly would force this Legislature to stop

debating estimates and would, in fact, not then hold up supply for

essential services in the province. I think that's what we're talking

about, because the motion for interim supply is usually a motion that

is not debated. It's usually a motion so that the government of the day

can guarantee services while debate is allowed to continue in a free

and most full manner.

Now this year we already have a motion on the order paper under my

name — without getting into that debate — to remove the restrictions on

debate of supply, or estimates, as you would call it, Mr. Chairman. For

that reason, the government is not able to determine the conclusion of

the debate and it was our willingness to have more opportunity for

debate that led the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) to bring in

this particular term without trying to drive an arbitrary deadline on

the assembly but to allow full opportunity for debate for all members.

I would also say that we're in unusual circumstances, some of it

because the government, being elected in December, being called just

before the beginning of the year, could not possibly call a session and

have its legislative programme and a budget at the ready for the usual

date. Now other governments have been elected and called fall sessions

which dealt strictly with legislation in a quicker time. In this

instance we're called upon to present a budget, and that took us to a

period closer to the start of this year and still in the budget debate

before we can get to estimates.

This length will be further carried forward in the budget debate

because it was suggested in here that we would grant leave to make up

for the time so that any member could speak in the budget debate who

may have felt that his time was restricted because of the introduction

of both the bill to borrow and the interim supply bill. That way, every

member of all parties would have full opportunity to speak to the

debate. That means it is quite possible that there may be four or five

or six sittings added on to the time allotted to the budget debate.

So we are not yet able to determine, Mr. Chairman, when the actual

debate on estimates will start. That will depend on the pleasure of

this assembly and the opportunity to speak on the budget debate that's

taken by all the members. So I'd suggest it's not an unreasonable

amount. I would further point out, because there was some confusion

with one of the members — I believe it was the member for

Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) — saying, is this going to be one-third

of a programme? I only say interim supply is merely an amount

calculated over months to take us to a point in time. It doesn't take a

third of a programme. It guarantees that those programmes can be met

within the framework of the estimates that all members, I'm sure, have

read in detail.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Premier.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Well, Mr. Chairman, we very

much appreciate the Premier's long dissertation on the need for a third

of the budget. But what he didn't explain to us is the need for

this...it's the term really that we're talking about. The money, we

know, has to come down in either one-sixth or a quarter or a third or

whatever, We are talking about the time-frame, and the first minister

has decided to discuss the question that, somehow or another, this

should carry through to the end of the estimates.

Mr. Chairman, I think you know full well that you can have two or

three supply bills during the course of parliament and if, in fact,

we've found ourselves in the middle of estimates, and the Premier has

gratuitously given us this no-limit situation, which we're not

particularly keen on.... We indicated, I think, our position quite

clearly in the last parliament, and that is that a certain number of

hours are enough to discuss estimates, and the rules are the same now

until the motion is put forward. So, Mr. Chairman, I suggest to you

that what really the member for North Vancouver–Capilano is asking is

that we think in terms of contracting the period, and if the government

finds themselves in a position where they need to put another interim

supply bill, they'll be given a very open hearing from this side of the

House, I'm sure.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think, with all respect, hon. members, we are

becoming embroiled in a debate which should be subsequent to the

decision as to whether or not the amendment is in order, and perhaps

the Chair would like to take the opportunity to apprise the House that

my decision here cannot be based on adequacy of this bill. It cannot be

based upon competence. It cannot be based upon time-frame, but I have

to decide whether or not the amendment is in order.

Order, please!

Therefore the ruling of the Chair, according to the authority given to me in May ,

under functions of a committee on a bill, in subsection (1) the 18th

edition, page 494...I must rule the amendment out of order in view of

the fact that the principle has already been agreed to in the second

reading. So the amendment is out of order.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): On a point of order. Mr. Chairman, nowhere in my reading of May .... I'm afraid I only have the 17th edition, but

[ Page 577 ]

it's clear to me that the principle of the supply

bill is to grant supply. The issues about amendments to particular

sections which may include the amount of the supply are for committee

stage. I don't think that this committee would offend the rules of

order if we allowed such an amendment. The principle that was passed in

second reading was that this House shall grant supply, and that was

agreed to. But amendments as to amounts, terms and so on must be left

to the committee stage, and I don't think that offends my reading of May , unless the 18th edition is somewhat different than the 17th.

MR. GIBSON: On this same point of order, Mr. Chairman.

Continuing this discussion of whether or not the amendment is

admissible, I'm looking for the exact

section right now — I can't find

it at the moment — but the general principle stated in May ,

as to the admissibility of amendments, is that they should serve to

restrict the operation of the bill without, of course, reversing the

operation of the bill, which would be destructive of second reading.

But a restriction is the very essence of an admissible amendment. It's

the essence of what is proper in an amendment in a bill and it seems to

me that this is clearly not only a restriction but a proper

restriction, It proposes to restrict to one-half.

Now one could presumably also move to reduce it by $1 or $10 or

something else, but in every case a restriction within the clear

principle laid out in May , and therefore perhaps....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. GIBSON: Perhaps you are...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! May I cite the

section for the decision which has been made? The subsection reads:

"A committee is bound by the decision of the House,

given on second reading, in favour of the principle of the bill, and

should not, therefore, amend the bill in a manner destructive of this

principle."

To cite, for instance, parallels in debate on estimates is not to

cite a parallel at all, in the opinion of the Chair, because nothing

has been agreed to in principle during debate on estimates. The

amendment is out of order.

Shall

section 1 pass?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

MR, LEA: On your ruling, the only thing it really points out in

section 1 is whether or not....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Mr. Member, the ruling is that

the amendment is out of order. If you wish to challenge the ruling then

it can be brought before the House.

MR. LEA: Well, I am speaking to

section 1.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You said you were speaking on a point of order.

MR. LEA: I'm speaking to

section 1.

We're talking, Mr. Chairman, about the amount of money that's going

to be passed in this interim supply bill, Bill 10. If I can read it

correctly from the Premier and his explanation of what's going on,

either we say, "Okay, one-third," or there will be no opening of the

debates on estimates — that's clearly what I understand. I'd just like

to point out to this House and to the people of British Columbia that

our principles don't change no matter which side of the House we're on.

We believed that there should be limited debate in this House when we

were over there as government; we believe in it now. If that's what

they're trying to do, then there's no deal. It's just as simple as that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, Mr. Member. We're on

section 1.

MR. LEA: Is that what the deal is, Mr. Premier?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I would like some cooperation from

the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) in getting some assurance on a

matter that is of concern. The member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson)

attempted to elicit from him information on the application of the

student summer employment programme. It's been discussed in the House

before; I know that the first stage has been initiated. Money, as I

understand it, was budgeted to fund the second phase of that programme.

Information has come to me that that request for funding of the second

phase has been turned down by Treasury Board. That alters our

understanding of what is being voted on here in terms of the use of

those funds.

I would simply like the assurance of the Minister of Finance that

the programme working in government is going ahead with the necessary

funds to provide the jobs for high school and university students

consistent with the programme's funding and job creation last year.

Could you give me that assurance, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I think you asked that question previously,

and we wish to reassure you again that the second phase of the summer

employment programme has not been turned down.

[ Page 578 ]

It hasn't been turned down at all.

If I might comment on the question related to the summer employment

as it bears on this amount that we're looking at here in terms of

approving the supply Act, we're asking for a proportionate amount of

all estimates through the year regardless of when they might take part

— July, May, October. I don't think it really would have the effect by

approving this supply bill for four months, you might say, of

restricting the summer employment expenditures because they took part

through the entire summer months. In other, words, in effect, we would

be approving one-third of all the estimates that you are considering.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the committee sit again?

MR. WALLACE: A point of order. I don't recall having a vote on either

section 1 or

section 2.

MR. SPEAKER: We're just reporting progress, hon. member.

Anytime a bill is discussed in committee, hon. member, it is taken as

reporting progress even though you don't pass any sections. Once you

open the debate up and debate the issue, that is, in itself, progress.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Committee on Bill 3, Mr. Speaker.

BRITISH COLUMBIA DEFICIT

REPAYMENT ACT, 1975-1976

The House in committee on Bill 3; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

section 1.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, maybe you could give me some

direction. There are some questions I would like to ask; I think

possibly under

section 1s the time.

section 1 it says: "The Lieutenant Governor-in-Council may

authorize the Minister of Finance to borrow on the credit of the

province an amount not exceeding $400 million to make good the

anticipated deficit arising out of the operations of the government for

the fiscal year ending March, 31, 1976," So we can talk about, I

suppose under

section 1, whether or not this money, indeed, should be

voted.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Section I authorizes the loan and I think you are in order.

MR. LEA: There are some questions I have for the Minister of

Finance. One is: why did the government approve a grant of $26 million

out of current revenue for the 1975-1976 fiscal year when legislation

approved by this House has provided for $50 million borrowing

authorization regarding capital transit operations? There is already

legislation allowing that. I am just wondering why.

MR. CHAIRMAN: May I just refresh the member's memory that we

cannot canvass those areas already canvassed under the debate in second

reading? Therefore all of your debate is in order under

section 1 with

the exception of that which has already been canvassed. This is just

for your information.

MR. LEA: Well, Mr. Chairman, did we not approve the bill in

principle in second reading before this House? Now we can start dealing

with the need under section-by-section. We can take each

section and

discuss each section. It seems to me that in

section 1 there is $400

million being asked for for borrowing, and I am just wondering why this

money is needed. Obviously, the full amount isn't needed. For instance,

why did the government approve a grant of $26 million out of current

revenues for the 1975-1976 fiscal year when there is already

legislation provided by this House for $50 million borrowing

authorization for capital transit operations? So why this money out of

1975-1976 when there's money there available for capital expenditures

and amortization? Why didn't you use the legislation that is already

provided as opposed to bringing it in in this legislation? There's

already legislation there. Why do it here?

HON. MR, WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, in reply, I believe the grant

lie is referring to involved transit expenditures which the Minister of

Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Curtis) has dealt with in quite

considerable detail, but involving very heavy expenditures for

committed capital expenditures for transit and equipment that was put

on line by the previous government and had to be met. I believe what

you are saying is: why didn't we borrow for those purposes rather than

go to an authority to borrow which we are proposing before the

Legislature now? It wasn't within our policy to decide whether we were

going to borrow for the purchase of that equipment; nor was it, I

think, the intention of the previous government.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Mr. Member, the Hansard has a difficult task trying to keep track of voice recordings unless you are identified. I recognize

[ Page 579 ]

the member for Prince Rupert.

MR. LEA: That's a good point, Mr. Chairman. But that still

does not explain why the existing legislation was not used. First of

all, why bring in this legislation when there's already legislation to

do that? I don't understand that. It's redundant legislation to ask to

borrow money for this when there's already legislation passed by this

Legislature to do just that. I don't understand that.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I don't honestly see how that

bears on the request to get authority to borrow an overall amount of

$400 million, which we had a clear indication may be required by virtue

of the Clarkson, Gordon report.

MR. LEA: First of all, you have to remember that we are not

agreeing, Mr. Minister. So what we are saying is that there is already

existing legislation and we will take each one of the amounts set forth

in this bill and we'll question each one of them. This is only No. 1.

We are asking why there is this redundant legislation when the

legislation was already there. Now if there isn't a good reason we can

only assume that you wanted to bring it in in this manner for political

purposes. So I am asking you in all seriousness: why did you do it? Why

not use the existing legislation? Why bring this bill in at this time

when there is already legislation and you can do it any time during the

year?

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Chairman, this

section is predicated upon the province being in very dire financial

circumstances, and therefore we have to borrow money, although all the

word I get is that the government has been shovelling money out before

March 31, 1976, as if it was going out of style — giving it to

agents....

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: It's not so? This is the occasion we get to

ask questions, you know, and it seems to me that you made a mammoth

effort to funnel that money out to agencies, commissions, government —

the whole thing — even though they weren’t asking for the money. Now I

listened to the exchange between the hon. member for Burnaby North

(Mrs. Dailly) and yourself, for example, about $7.5 million for the

universities. I would like to ask the Min