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)

THURSDAY, APRIL 8, 1976

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

703 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Bikeways Development Act (Bill 36) Mr. Barber

Introduction and first reading — 704

Oral questions

Administration of secrecy oath to David Brown. Mr. King — 704

B.C. Steamship Co. negotiations. Mr. Wallace — 704

March retail food price drop. Hon. Mr. Mair answers — 704

Ladysmith harbour authority. Mrs. Wallace — 705

Federal Mincome increase. Mr. Levi — 705

Capilano College Principal severance pay inquiry. Mr. Wallace — 705

Shrum report on downtown Vancouver project. Mr. Lauk — 705

Details of Thompson River system report. Mr. Lea — 705

Possible legal action against Eddie Hagmore. Mr. Macdonald — 706

Status of Islands Trust senior planner. Mr. Barber — 706

March retail food price drop. Hon. Mr. Mair answers — 706

Status of Vietnamese aid committee. Mr. Wallace — 706

Problems of vegetable growers. Mr. Stupich — 706

Advertisement for Islands Trust senior planner. Mr. Barber — 706

Prince Rupert-Edmonton pipeline. Mr. Lea — 707

Budget debate (continued)

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 707

Mr. Macdonald — 712

Mr. Kempf — 717

Mr. Lea — 720

Mr. Rogers — 721

Mrs. Dailly — 724

Mr. Bawtree — 730

Mr.Loewen — 732

Royal assent to Bill 10 — 735

Motion

Extension of budget debate. Hon. Mr. Bennett — 735

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. S. BAWLF (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. members

of this House would very much like to extend a warm welcome to a

gentleman who has served his country for a long time in this

Legislature and formerly in the Legislature of Alberta, in the latter

instance as the Minister of Agriculture and then from 1953 to 1972 as

the member of this Legislature representing Victoria and from 1955 to

1972 as the Minister of Public Works for the Province of British

Columbia. I am speaking, of course, of Mr. William Chant.

I know the members of the House will also extend a warm welcome to

my wife, Mamie, and her mother, Mrs. June Wadsworth from New York.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery

today, on their annual visit from New Westminster to Victoria, just

testing out whether or not they should have the capital moved back to

where it belongs, are 55 people from the former capital city, the Royal

City, New Westminster. I ask the House to join me in welcoming them on

their visit here today.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, this

week British Columbia has been honoured by the honour conferred upon

one of its greatest British Columbians. I speak of the Order of Canada

award that was presented in Ottawa by the Governor-General to a former

member of this House and a former great premier of this province, and

the father of our present Premier, the Hon. W.A.C. Bennett. I would ask

the House to join me in a tribute to the Hon. W.A.C. Bennett who has

been awarded, and deservedly so, the Order of Canada.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, in the

Speaker's gallery today is a former member, a distinguished member. I

ask the House to welcome the former member for North Vancouver–Seymour,

Colin Gabelmann.

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): I would just like

to register for the official opposition our congratulations to the

former Premier, W.A.C. Bennett, and our good wishes for his distinction

which he has gained in Ottawa and to recognize the many years of

dedicated service he made to the province of British Columbia.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I would like to add also my

congratulations to the father of our Premier. While it's well known that

we didn't always see eye-to-eye, he's a man I respect greatly. I would

be the first to agree that he has made a tremendous contribution to British

Columbia.

MR. J.J. HEWITT (Boundary-Similkameen): Mr. Speaker, I have

the pleasure this afternoon to introduce to this House the former

member for Boundary-Similkameen, who served a long time in this House.

Elected in '53, he was re-elected subsequently in 1956, 1960, 1963,

1966 and 1969. He was a member who was the Minister of Mines and

Petroleum Resources and Minister of Agriculture.

MR. KING: Also 1972.

MR. HEWITT: Also 1972, that's quite correct. I would like this House to welcome once again Mr. Frank Richter.

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Municipal Affairs): I believe

this is the first group of students from the constituency of Saanich

and the Islands to observe our deliberations in this session. I would

like the House to welcome some 32 students from Spectrum Senior

Secondary, accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Zmuda.

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

like the House today to recognize the constituency secretary for the

great riding of Vancouver South, Mrs. Barbara Duggan.

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

today are two very good friends, Gus and Charlotte Bychowsky. Mr.

Bychowsky is the president of the chamber of commerce in my

constituency of Coquitlam and the co-chairman of the British Columbia

Chamber of Commerce Economic Development Committee. I would ask the

House to make them very welcome.

MR. E.N. VEITCH (Burnaby-Willingdon): Mr. Speaker, sitting in

the gallery today is Mr. Lloyd W. Manuel, FCA. He's the executive

vice-president of the British Columbia Hotels Association, and I would

ask this House to make him welcome.

MR. C.M. SHELFORD (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, I have six

distinguished visitors from Kitwanga in the galleries today: Richard

Morgan, chief councillor; Norman Johnson, a councillor; Guy Morgan,

another councillor and chairman of the education committee; Clifford

Morgan, band manager; and Sam Derrick, co-chairman of the education

committee and Larry Moore, trustee. I know the members would want to

give them a real welcome here this afternoon, but I would like to point

out that their people welcomed

[ Page 704 ]

my dad up the Skeena River in 1908.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): I hope I'm not going to

contribute to introductions by exhaustion, but I would like to draw to

the attention of the House that we have a gentleman in the gallery who

is a frequent observer and who has a long history of service to

education in British Columbia, Mr. Stan Evans, the assistant general

secretary of the British Columbia Teachers Federation. In that welcome

I wonder if they would also include a former MLA of this House with

whom we didn't always agree but who is in the gallery. He represented

North Vancouver–Seymour — Colin Gabelmann.

Introduction of bills.

BIKEWAYS DEVELOPMENT ACT

On a motion by Mr. Barber, Bill 36, Bikeways Development 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.

Oral questions.

ADMINISTRATION OF SECRECY

OATH TO DAVID BROWN

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Provincial Secretary

whether or not she is in a position to respond to my very simple

question of the other day as to whether or not one Mr. Dave Brown has

been sworn to the oath of secrecy and, if so, on what date and by whom.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): I'm not ready, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why not?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

B.C. STEAMSHIP CO. NEGOTIATIONS

MR. WALLACE: I would like to ask the Minister of Transport and Communications

a question with regard to the Princess Marguerite and the statements

that have been made regarding the negotiations between the unions and

the B.C. Steamship Company. Can the minister tell the House if the

report that the negotiated agreement has been nullified by cabinet

order is so? If this is the case, why was there a lapse of six weeks

before the decision was taken?

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Transport and Communications): Mr. Speaker, this situation is still under review.

MR. WALLACE: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: since the

government is on record as not favouring government intervention in the

affairs of Crown corporations, has the minister given any commitment

that, since the agreement exceeds the federal guidelines, the two

parties might be afforded the opportunity to take their figures to the

Anti-Inflation Board?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, no agreement was finally concluded between management and the unions.

MR. WALLACE: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: in light of the

fact that the Princess Marguerite has a deadline to be ready and trim

for sailing, could the minister say when the next meeting will take

place and how soon we might expect some step forward, since sailing

date, I believe, is only about a month away?

HON. MR. DAVIS: In view of the fact that the Princess

Marguerite must be ready to sail by May 18, I trust that the meetings

will be resumed very shortly.

MARCH RETAIL FOOD PRICE DROP

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer Services): Mr. Speaker,

yesterday the hon. member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) asked me if figures

obtained by my department's food price monitoring verified statistics

recently published in Ottawa which gave a 1.3 per cent drop in the cost

of food in March from February. Unfortunately, the figures used by the

Food Prices Review Board are based on an index, or a historical point,

of January 1974, and simply cannot be compared as a statistic to the

statistics we keep. My department, as I'm sure the hon. member knows,

commenced a monitoring system recently and we simply have no comparable

index to compare with the figures that the hon. member gave me.

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): I'm wondering if the Minister of

Consumer Services could advise the House what results the particular

indexing that you're using to monitor food prices in the province has

revealed.

HON. MR. MAIR: Yes, we do what we call a market-basket survey and it showed Vancouver prices up 0.9 per cent in March from February.

MS. SANFORD: A further supplementary: could you indicate

whether this is the trend throughout the province? Is it up about 0.9

per cent throughout the province, or is it higher in other areas?

[ Page 705 ]

HON. MR. MAIR: I'll have to take that as notice, Mr. Speaker.

LADYSMITH HARBOUR AUTHORITY

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): My question is for the

Minister of Environment. As you are no doubt aware, Mr. Minister, there

has been done a very extensive study on the Ladysmith harbour. One of

the recommendations contained within that study is the appointment of a

harbour authority. I wonder if you could tell me, Mr. Minister: have

any steps been taken towards the appointment of such an authority?

HON. J.A. NIELSEN (Minister of Environment): I'll have to take the hon. member's question as notice and I will provide her with that information very soon.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, as a supplemental: while the

minister is looking for an answer to that question, would he also

consider looking for the answer to this question? I understand that

there has been a move afoot on behalf of some of the leaseholders of

foreshore rights around the perimeters of the harbour, particularly the

CPR which has extensive logging concerns there, to consolidate their

foreshore leases. I would ask the minister to investigate whether or

not there has been any move to grant any further leases there, in view

of the fact that the harbour authority may be coming.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I'll accept that as notice as well and combine that with the answer I provide to you.

FEDERAL MINCOME INCREASE

FOR B.C. RESIDENTS

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): To the Minister of Human

Resources: today in the Colonist the minister is quoted as saying that

the federal increase in Mincome will be "passed on to B.C. residents in

the normal way." The normal way is for the increase to be given to all

persons over the age of 60 and to the handicapped. Can the minister

confirm that this will happen?

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): Mr.

Speaker, I can only go by memory of what I've seen thus far within the

department. It appears that the pattern which was developed over the

past four years was not necessarily any one way. There were times when

it was passed on to all and once or twice, perhaps, when it wasn't.

I'll take the question as notice and obtain a full answer.

CAPILANO COLLEGE PRINCIPAL

SEVERANCE PAY INQUIRY

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

Education, inasmuch as he was reported as being shocked and astonished

by the severance pay of $41,700 to the principal of Capilano College,

and inasmuch as the minister ordered an inquiry: has the minister

received any report, and is he in a position to inform the House as to

the results of that inquiry?

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): To the member, Mr. Speaker: I'll table the report in the House as soon as I receive it, and I haven't received it yet.

SHRUM REPORT ON

DOWNTOWN VANCOUVER PROJECT

MR. LAUK: The question is to the Minister of Public Works. Is

Dr. Shrum's report on block 51061-71, the downtown centre in Vancouver

project, completed, and, if so, when will it be released?

HON. A.V. FRASER (Minister of Public Works): Mr. Speaker, to the member for Vancouver Centre, there is an interim report only received at this present time.

MR. LAUK: Will the minister release that report?

HON. MR. FRASER: Not at this time, no.

MR. LAUK: A supplementary question to the minister: with

respect to Mr. Shrum's rate, is the rate publicized — $225 a day, per

diem — the correct one? Is that what he's receiving?

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, to the hon. member, the rate paid Dr. Shrum is $225 per day for days worked.

DETAILS OF THOMPSON

RIVER SYSTEM REPORT

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): A question to the Minister of

Environment, and I would first like to preface it by thanking him for

the promptness with which he brought back other answers for me, and ask

him when I could expect answers to the two supplementary questions I

asked on Monday last.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I had hoped to have those for you today,

but I'm afraid other activities kept me away from my deputy. I should

have them for you very, very quickly — those two supplementary

questions.

[ Page 706 ]

POSSIBLE LEGAL ACTION

AGAINST EDDIE HAYMORE

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to

ask the Attorney-General whether, in view of the fact of the return to

British Columbia of one Eddie Haymore, who was alleged to have

committed a crime on Canadian soil, namely the premises of the Canadian

embassy in Beirut, who is a Canadian citizen and returning here — and

the people who were alleged to have been held up at gunpoint were

Canadians — whether he will therefore consider prosecution within this

province for that offence.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): I'll take that as notice, Mr. Member.

STATUS OF ISLANDS

TRUST SENIOR PLANNER

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): My question is to the Minister of

Municipal Affairs, Mr. Speaker. As the House is aware, the minister has

stated on several occasions that he anticipates no change in policy

towards the Islands Trust. As the minister is also aware, the senior

planner for the Islands Trust has recently seen her contract

terminated. It terminated in the natural course of events. My first

question is this: does the minister anticipate that the position of

senior planner in the Islands Trust will be refilled?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, to the hon. member, that's a matter of policy.

MR. BARBER: Would you permit a supplementary, please?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, the question which was asked does

relate to policy and it would be out of order, You can't ask a

supplemental question on a question that originally was out of order.

I'll have to go to someone else. If it's another question, yes.

MARCH RETAIL FOOD PRICE DROP

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, it just occurred to me that I

didn't want there to be any misunderstanding on the part of the member

for Comox (Ms. Sanford) in the answer I gave to her on an earlier

question. While there is a difference between the figures presented by

the federal government and those that we have, they may, in fact,

reflect the same situation, because the two criteria are so different

that there's no way you can actually compare them. I didn't want there

to be any misunderstanding on that score.

STATUS OF VIETNAMESE AID COMMITTEE

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I would ask a little guidance as to

which minister should answer this question since it relates to a

committee of the House which disappeared, or went out of existence,

after the election. I'm talking about the committee that was set up to

disburse $2 million to the children of Vietnam.

The former Minister of Health (Mr. Cocke) was the chairman of that

committee and perhaps I could, for starters, ask the new Minister of

Health: has he been taking any initiative to reconstitute that

committee of the Legislature which was chaired by the former Minister

of Health, and which had carried out substantial studies as to the

method of allocating the money through established agencies in Vietnam?

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): It's a question of policy.

MR. WALLACE: Well, Mr. Speaker, there's $2 million to be disbursed, and presumably there has to be a mechanism.

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): It's before the government now.

PROBLEMS OF VEGETABLE GROWERS

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): Mr. Speaker, a question to the

Minister of Agriculture: since the time for signing contracts with the

vegetable growers is upon us, I wonder if his department is working on

any proposals to deal with the problems faced by those growers.

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Agriculture): I appreciate

the member's concern. Yes, there are negotiations and meetings being

carried on. I hope to have something finalized in the very near future.

ADVERTISEMENT FOR ISLANDS

TRUST SENIOR PLANNER

MR. BARBER: Mr. Speaker, learning the ropes, as I'm trying to

do, I have another question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. I

hope this one will be accepted. Has the now-vacant position of senior

planner in the Islands Trust been advertised?

HON. MR. CURTIS: While I would like to be of help to the hon.

member — and I'm also learning the ropes; I haven't been here that long

— I will have to take the question as notice.

[ Page 707 ]

PRINCE RUPERT-EDMONTON PIPELINE

MR. LEA: A question, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. Minister of

Transport. I did speak briefly in the hall with the minister the other

day, talking about proposed plans for a pipeline from Prince Rupert to

Edmonton. I understand that you were to have a meeting in the early

part of this month with the people representing the principals of the

consortium on that pipeline. Have you had the meeting and are you

satisfied with the results of that?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have had a meeting with

the principals behind this proposal for a large-diameter oil pipeline

from Prince Rupert to Edmonton. A number of questions were raised; many

of them remain to be answered.

MR. LEA: A supplementary: I wonder if the minister had

considered getting in touch with Mr. Joe Scott in Prince Rupert, the

chairman of the Harbours Advisory Board there and who, I think, would

be of great benefit to your office.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, we will certainly be in touch

with a great many individuals, especially those in responsible

positions, before any decision is made on this project.

Orders of the day.

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, I

want to say that I am very proud to be able to stand in this

Legislature today and take

part in the great budget which was tabled in

this House by this new government. I also want to say that I am indeed

very proud to be a member of a government that is so positive in its

approach to solving the problems that beset the province of British

Columbia, problems that were here and were real on December 11, 1975,

but problems that will be solved by working with the people of British

Columbia — a people strong of will, a people of great courage and a

people of great determination. Together we will move forward to make a

better British Columbia and a better place for those people to live and

work in.

This is a province where people love freedom, but also a province

where those people realize that there is an equation between freedom

and responsibility. Together we look to the future with great

confidence.

Mr. Speaker, this government will serve the people of British

Columbia, not rule over them. This government will serve by setting an

example, an example of hard work, an example of strong leadership and

an example of fiscal responsibility. This government is prepared to take less and give more, and has

already set an example by taking a salary reduction. This government

will not lead by idle words but will lead by example.

There has been a lot of talk, Mr. Speaker, about this government,

but I want to tell you — and we have already set an example — that this

is a government that cares for people, a government that will and wants

to help those in need. But now all British Columbians will proudly

share that responsibility — the responsibility of assisting those less

fortunate than us in our society. Mr. Speaker, they will be helped;

they will be helped not with idle words, but with sound positive

programmes for people — an example, another example, of action and not

words.

All departments of government have moved forward together since

December 22. After assessing the situation we started moving forward on

the road to recovery, the road to stability and the road to good, sound

common-sense government. My colleague, the Minister of Education (Hon.

Mr. McGeer), has established the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia as

a business for the first time.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The Department of Human Resources has

moved forward with sound policies to help people, people in need. This

government is moving forward in its fight against inflation on all

fronts. We are moving forward with programmes to develop the economy of

this province, to preserve the jobs of our working force. This

government is moving forward, Mr. Speaker, to provide houses for the

people of British Columbia.

Our programmes to develop the economic climate of British Columbia

will be not without due care to our environment, and that is one of the

reasons we have established a single Department of the Environment of

British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I want to speak for just a few moments this afternoon

and share with the House some thoughts that this government has with

regard to the agricultural industry. I want to say at the outset that

this government looks at the agricultural industry — really the

production-of-food industry — as the most important industry in British

Columbia. This government realizes that as goes the agricultural

industry, so goes the economy of British Columbia. But, Mr. Speaker,

this government also recognizes that the industry is made up of a

strong group of independent businessmen who do not want the government

to pass out subsidies, but they want the freedom to make their

successes and failures on their own without government interference.

This government also recognizes that the agricultural industry faces

many problems, problems not of their

[ Page 708 ]

own making, problems over which they have no control, problems, Mr.

Speaker, which are created not purposely, but problems which are

created by other sections of society and problems faced by economic

realities of the day.

Many of the problems that beset the agricultural industry are

problems that the industry is not equipped to handle, battles that they

cannot fight because of the diversification of the industry. British

Columbia probably has the most diversified agricultural industry of any

province in Canada or, indeed, of any state of the union.

In British Columbia we produce practically every one of the staple

food products that we eat. That means the industry is greatly

diversified with no one

section being a massive portion of the

food-production industry. Mr. Speaker, I want to share with you this

afternoon some of those areas that place British Columbia agriculture

at a distinct disadvantage, not only in British Columbia but in all of

Canada. The industry is placed at a disadvantage by trying to compete

with lesser-priced imports. This is indeed a fact of life.

Most segments of the industry are not protected by the same tariffs

that other industries are protected by. I realize that some of the

segments of our agricultural industry have more protection than others

but, generally, the agricultural industry has to compete on an open

market with lesser-priced imports from other countries. You might say,

Mr. Speaker: "Well, for the protection of the consumer, why should they

not have to compete on an open market?" I want to tell you plainly and

simply why. It is because the cost of producing food in British

Columbia is much higher than it is in practically any other province in

Canada, any state in the union and, indeed, most other places in the

world.

Farmland in British Columbia is 43 per cent more expensive than it is in the state of Washington.

Farm labour, Mr. Speaker, is 25 per cent more expensive in British

Columbia than it is in the state of Washington. Farm equipment is

anywhere from 10 to 20 per cent higher in the province of British

Columbia than it is in the state of Washington.

I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, if we are going to preserve

agriculture in British Columbia we must be prepared to pay either in

the grocery store or through tax dollars — not by way of subsidies, but

incentives to all our agricultural industry. If we are going to

preserve agriculture for tomorrow, we must be prepared to pay for it

today.

There is one other alternative, and I think the people of British

Columbia must be told of the costs. But there is one other alternative,

Mr. Speaker, and we have heard a lot of talk about marketing boards.

Marketing boards have been condemned as the vehicle which increases the

price of food in British Columbia.

I want to ask you, Mr. Speaker, are marketing boards the saviour or

the demon? I want to tell you that we are going to have to determine

that. But I want to tell you, that although marketing boards do

increase the price and the cost of food to the consumer, it is not by

and stretch of the imagination one of the larger costs.

I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that some marketing boards in

British Columbia are better than others. I also want to remind you that

marketing boards are made up and elected by the producers in that

commodity group. They are only human beings and, like any other elected

body, be they civic government or indeed this government, they must at

all times be open to scrutiny.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Are you going to preserve farmland?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, the people of British

Columbia and, indeed, this Legislature must address themselves to what

the situation would be if indeed there were no marketing boards in

British Columbia. We have them. I feel that an abrupt change would be

disastrous to the food industry in British Columbia, but I also want to

tell you that governments are always willing to look at legislation —

that is our duty — to see if they are performing the function that the

legislation was originally set out for them to do.

MR. LAUK: Are you threatening marketing boards?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I want to tell you that I'm not

threatening anybody, but I am laying out in clear, hard terms the facts

of agriculture in this province, something that you didn't do.

We have to ask ourselves that very hard question: would food be

cheaper in British Columbia without marketing boards? I want to tell

you that the answer....

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): What's the answer.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I do not have the answer, and I do not

think the opposition has the answer, but these are questions that we

must address ourselves to.

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I do feel marketing boards must be

more concerned with the marketing of farm products. The other

alternative...and this is a decision that British Columbians will have

to make, and I tell you again that if we are to preserve agriculture in

this province for the future, we are going to have to be prepared to

pay for it today.

You can do away with marketing boards, but there is one other alternative, and that is to give the farmer

[ Page 709 ]

back a say over his land. Mr. Speaker, I don't think we should turn

back the clock, but I think that at all times we must honestly and

sincerely assess the situation and determine the cost.

I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that we are not afraid to assess

the situation. We will always take a look and help British Columbians

help us determine what path they wish to take.

I am tired and sick of hearing politicians, consumers, people in

other industries use the farmer as a whipping-boy. I want to tell you,

Mr. Speaker, that the farmers of this province are one of the most

devoted, hard-working, conscientious groups in all of our society.

I want to tell you that they do not have high-priced specialists,

high-priced effective specialists to fight their battle for them, to

fight their case. All they want to do, Mr. Speaker, in a free society

is to do their thing, be able to make a profit, be able to go broke —

and feed British Columbia.

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

development. Solid plans are being formed by the Department of Economic

Development which will have a great impact on the future of British

Columbia. This afternoon I cannot divulge some of the planning that is

going on to this Legislature, but I do want you to know that there is a

great deal of thought being put into the economic policies of this

province, policies that will build a solid, strong economy and protect

the workers of this province and restore confidence in this province so

that we will not witness again the disaster that we have seen in this

province in the last three and a half years.

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you one thing that's very important.

This government — all departments of this government — are for the

first time in three and a half years working together as a co-ordinated

team.

MR. LAUK: Nonsense! Balderdash!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, much has been said in this

House about the significance of the Clarkson, Gordon report as relative

to Bill 3 and to the budget which we are debating this afternoon. I

want to refresh the memories of the hon. members. In the first

instance, the Clarkson, Gordon report was commissioned so that the new

government could get an objective analysis of where the province stood.

Remember, it was not our party that called a mid-winter election. Mr.

Speaker, it was not our party which created a situation where a new

government would have less than three months to untangle the mess on

the treasury room floor that that party had been making for more than

three and a half years — less than three months to compile the

information needed to present to the people of this province the first

honest set of figures in three budgets.

The work, Mr. Speaker, of the Clarkson, Gordon report has been

invaluable to the people of British Columbia and to the government in

overcoming an obstacle created by that group over there who, in a state

of sheer panic, had to call a mid-winter election.

AN HON. MEMBER: Panic, absolute panic.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Absolute panic.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sheer terror.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: This afternoon, Mr. Speaker, I want to say

a little bit more about some of the obstacles this government has had

to overcome in compiling not only the budget, but in assembling the

facts which are necessary for the government to conduct its day-to-day

business — its day-to-day affairs.

Let me talk briefly about what happened in the Department of

Economic Development in the period between December 11, 1975, and

December 22, 1975 — and particularly on December 16, that historic day

in the Department of Economic Development. In recent days, Mr. Speaker,

in this House, there has been much talk about bills the government has

had: should they be paid, when should they be paid, when were they

contracted for, who contracted them, why were they contracted, where,

indeed, were they contracted? I want to tell this House that I have

bills in my office amounting to tens of thousands of dollars which I

could find no authority for — no authority that they should be paid...

MR. LAUK: Then don't pay them.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: ...and for which I cannot find even any remote evidence as to the background or reason that the government owes this money.

Interjections.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I want to tell this House today, Mr.

Speaker, why this problem exists. At the conclusion of my speech, Mr.

Speaker, I intend to table in this House voucher no. 488299 in the

amount of $44.70 payable to Host Rent-A-Car for the rental of a panel

truck on December 16, 1975. I have been advised that this truck

travelled from the parliament buildings...

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: ...to 3860 13th Avenue in Vancouver. I

understand, Mr. Speaker, from information in your office, that this is

the residence of one Gary Vernon Lauk....

[ Page 710 ]

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! Shame!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: ...the member, Mr. Speaker, who held the position of Minister of Economic Development.

MR. LEA: So what?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Let me outline to you briefly what the

contents of that truck were, Mr. Speaker; let me outline briefly what

the contents of that panel truck were in its tax-financed mission to

Vancouver.

The ministerial files, Mr. Speaker, of the former Minister of

Economic Development were contained in three cabinets. Each cabinet

contains three drawers. The files included all correspondence between

the minister and other government departments...

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: ...other government agencies and boards.

Interjections.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The files contained correspondence between

that minister and the British Columbia Development Corporation, of

which that minister was a director.

The files contained all correspondence with the British Columbia Railway, for which that minister was a director.

Interjections.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Those files also contained, Mr. Speaker,

ministerial correspondence relative to the Department of Mines and

Petroleum Resources from the time of the demotion of the former Mines

minister, Mr. Leo Nimsick.

AN HON. MEMBER: Cover-up!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Also included in those files were the

files of the now Leader of the Opposition, Mr. King, relative to his

responsibilities as a director of the British Columbia Railway Corp.

from 1972 to the time of his demotion.

I have been advised that with respect to the files I have just

outlined, they included general memoranda, general correspondence,

reports, agendas of meetings, minutes of meetings, matters relative to

the Mineral Royalties Act, Treasury Board decisions and related

material, and other matters of a general nature dealt with by the

Minister of the day in the discharge of his responsibilities to the

executive council, the government and, most of all, to the people of

British Columbia.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Shame!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, in the simplest terms, I have

no record of what went on in the office that I now occupy from the

period of September, 1972, to December 11, 1975.

Interjections.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Those files, Mr. Speaker, were stolen from the office...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: ...by the ex-minister.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Here we go!

MR. LAUK: I have not interrupted the hon. minister so far,

Mr. Speaker, but he has used the word "stolen." I categorically deny it

and ask the hon. minister to withdraw that word as it imputes an

improper motive on my part.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Minister withdraw the word "stolen"?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I certainly wouldn't

want to give an improper motive to the minister's actions, but I

wonder, Mr. Speaker: is he going to write his memoirs and tell how Bob

Williams actually ruled him?

But, Mr. Speaker, the most devastating part of this...

MR. LAUK: Take all the rope you need.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: ...tale is that instructions were issued to public servants in the minister's office, by a minister of the Crown...

MR. LAUK: Take all the rope you need.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: ...to rent a van and remove those files to his home in Vancouver.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): And charge it to the government.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The quantity of files removed was hardly

insignificant, nor hardly could they be characterized as those matters

of a personal nature by the minister.

[ Page 711 ]

MR. LAUK: False.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Those matters of a personal nature by

the Minister totalled approximately 22 boxes. If those were personal

files, Mr. Speaker, 22 boxes of correspondence seems to me like a

tremendous amount of personal correspondence.

Interjections.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that these were not small boxes.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: They were approximately two to three feet

by one foot in size and were filled and loaded in the van at the

instruction of the Minister.

I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker....

MR. LEA: Did it happen at midnight, Don?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: No, but at the instruction of the minister

the office was closed on a normal day's business to remove the files.

The office was closed from a normal day's business, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Cover-up!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Moreover, the desire to remove all files

by that former government was so great that not only did the Minister

of Economic Develop (Mr. Lauk) issue instructions to dedicated public

servants to participate in this exercise, but instructions were issued

from the former Premier of this province (Mr. Barrett) .

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: When there was some discussion as to

whether the project should be undertaken, the Provincial Secretary (Mr.

Hall) of the day saw fit to call a public servant into his office and

advise that public servant that these files should be removed.

Mr. Speaker, there has been some discussion in this House in the past few days about who is telling the truth...

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: ...those retroactive instant experts or this government.... (Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker, I suggest when calls come into ministerial offices

asking why a follow-up has not been made on this or that, or why this

or that bill has not been paid, or why this or that grant has not been

made...

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: ...grants, promises by the former

government — the record will show that I virtually have no record in my

office of what was going on for three and a half years.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): I didn't have a record of what had happened in 20 years when I took over.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: With or without, Mr. Speaker, any records

of what went on in government over the past three and a half years,

this government intends to do the job it was elected to do.

Interjections.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: We intend to re-establish honesty and openness in government.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Hon. Member, the statement, "We intend to re-establish honesty and openness in government"....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I am sorry — I meant to say "establish."

MR. COCKE: When are you going to start?

MR. SPEAKER: To say otherwise would assume....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You know me better than that, Mr. Speaker. We intend to present....

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'll talk to you later, Mr. Member. Just don't get excited. You'll have your day in court.

We intend to present straightforward budgeting based on sound

financial and fiscal politics, not based on kitchen-table arithmetic

done by candlelight on the back of a cornflakes box. We intend to

restore confidence in this province and in its government so that the

investment dollar we need to create jobs and provide a stable base for

government-funded social programmes will be re-established.

In this regard, Mr. Speaker, let me give you an example of what I

mean when I say restoration of confidence is the No. 1 priority of my

department. Mr. Speaker, for the record, I want to quote from an

article on April 2, 1976 in the Victoria Times :

"New companies are starting up or expanding in British

Columbia in record numbers since the Social Credit government came to power, according to the office of the

[ Page 712 ]

registrar of companies. In the first three months of this year

the number of companies formed was up 35-per cent from the same period last

year. The number of companies expanding into British Columbia is up 26 per

cent."

As usual that bunch over there do not want to hear the cold, hard

facts, but I'll give you more cold, hard facts. This is just the

beginning of what this great government is going to do to re-establish

industry and protect the jobs of all British Columbians. I want to tell

you, Mr. Speaker, that what I have outlined here today is just the tip

of the iceberg. We will establish — again, Mr. Speaker, I will say

re-establish — a firm, solid, economic base for this province of

British Columbia.

I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, what is happening in the province

of British Columbia today. Another example just occurred recently on

the British Columbia Railway. Mr. Speaker, I announced by way of a

statement in this House on Monday, March 29, 1976, that a bridge on the

British Columbia Railway just south of Lillooet was burned out, halting

service on that line. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the bridge

was replaced and back in operation three days later on April 1, 1976.

Mr. Speaker, I want to quote briefly from a Canadian Press wire

story describing the situation just 10 miles south of Lillooet:

"Strike-hit B.C. Rail operations returned to normal late Thursday after

work crews completed the installation of a new bridge 10 miles south of

Lillooet."

Now, Mr. Speaker, pay attention to this — I mean I'd like the House to pay particular attention to this.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): The Speaker is awake!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: "Work crews operating around the clock replaced the burned-out structure with a prefabricated 113-foot-long concrete bridge."

I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that this type of devotion and

determination on behalf of those workers who replaced that bridge is

typical of what is happening in British Columbia today. I want to tell

you, Mr. Speaker, that those workers worked in weather that was a lot

less than that experienced by some people in Honolulu. In other words,

Mr. Speaker, the weather was not all that great but those workers did

not give up in their determination to get that railway operating again.

These two items are not bottom-line, black-line, hard economics.

This is what is happening in British Columbia today. People again have

faith in their province. People again have courage, and confidence will

once again be restored to this great province which we are so proud to

represent in this Legislature.

MR. LAUK: To correct statements made by the hon. Minister of

Economic Development, copies of letters and relevant documents were

available and are available to the hon. minister, each and every one,

not only those required for the continuity of government but all

correspondence on a chronological file, either within his office or the

deputy minister's. Each Crown corporation has all copies of my

memoranda to them and their replies to me, all available to the new

minister.

The boxes that were sent to my home contained personal files,

memoranda. There were not 22 boxes, and they were not of the size

described by the minister and they contained personal papers, files and

mementos and other belongings as well as executive assistants'

memoranda and files and political materials pertaining to the New

Democratic Party.

I paid for the portion of that bill and you can check the portion

that I paid with respect to the political material. I'm very careful,

Mr. Minister.

With respect to his claim that they were needed for continuity, he

just didn't get in touch with his officials in his department in time.

If he wants any ideas about how to run the department, I'm available

any time to the minister.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! The hon. members of the House accept this statement by the hon. first member for Vancouver-Centre.

Interjections.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, it's always

a pleasure to rise and speak on the budget, and it's a double pleasure

to follow my friend the Minister of Agriculture, although I regret that

he indulged in wild charges in the course of his speech. Ministers do

take many boxes of material out of their offices. I did the same. They

included not only personal material but copies of governmental reports

of which there were duplicates within the department, duplicates in the

Energy Commission and things of that kind, and they're freely

available. I still get things sent down to me now that are of no use in

the office, and there are extra copies there and I still get them. So I

think honestly that the hon. minister was engaging in wild charges,

which he shouldn't do, because we always enjoy your harangue-overs, Mr.

Minister, but try to keep them.... I still remember, and I thought

you'd talk a little bit about, the Land Commission Act, when that hon.

member, who could tell you everything he knows in 10 minutes, spoke for

34 hours against the Land Commission Act as it now sits on the statute

books of this province — 34 hours. He took off his shoes, stood there

in his stockinged feet.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You wouldn't let me go to

[ Page 713 ]

the bathroom either.

MR. MACDONALD: It was enough for the Minister of Health to

report the matter to the Attorney-General. (Laughter.) Now he's like a

mouse. He knows that this was NDP legislation that was solidly based

and will not be repealed. They're afraid to touch it, eh? You spoke for

34 hours against that. Oh, I've got to get back to the budget.

But let me say again to the hon. minister, through you, Mr. Speaker,

when he talked about the company registrations being up 35 per cent,

look at the record over the last three years when we were government.

They went up every year. Sometimes — I don't know the figures — but

every year those registrations went up, and British Columbia, under the

NDP government, had very successful economic years.

But I'm supposed to be discussing the budget and supposed to be

keeping an amiable frame of mind, not to let that member or any others

get me too excited. I'm going to discuss the budget for a few minutes.

I think I'll use the edition for family use. I don't know how many

editions of this budget are coming out, Mr. Speaker, but for a while I

thought the best thing, perhaps, would be not to read it at all, but

wait to see the film. (Laughter.)

This one that I have in my hands now, this isn't... "I Am Curious,

Blue, " I hope. Which one is this? This one, though, does have some

statements in it, Mr. Speaker, about the condition of British Columbia

which are very unfortunate. For example, it says on page 5 of this

budget that "the NDP government had frightened investment capital away

from the province." That's what it says, and yet the facts are revealed

on page 8 of the same budget where it is recorded, and we're talking

about capital investment here that "capital and repair investment in

British Columbia increased by 8.9 per cent in 1975 to an estimated $5.7

billion dollars.

AN HON. MEMBER: Wow!

MR. MACDONALD: I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that there you

have two inconsistent statements in a budget which is really a work of

pure fiction and which is designed...and I see in another clipping that

I have here — and this does get me a little exercised, I must admit....

I see here where the hon. Minister of Education has gone out and told

the teachers the very same thing, that we have frightened investment

capital away from the province of B.C., when the record — even though

1975 was not a good year anywhere in Canada — for capital investment

growth in this province surpassed that of any other province in Canada

in that year. And yet, what do we hear?

The Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) goes out and tells the

teachers the same kind of a story, and his speech left the teachers

cold. Fibber McGeer and folly is what we've been treated to in this

House. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, if you were quoting

from a press release when you said "Fibber McGeer", that was one thing,

but if that was a direct quotation of your own, I'd ask you to withdraw

that.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, I'll say that I'm not implying any unfair motive in making that remark, Mr. Speaker.

Again, in the budget — I don't want to dwell too long on the

economic facts of the thing — it says on page 6 of my particular

edition of this budget that the gross provincial product in the

province of British Columbia increased in the year 1975 by 10 per cent,

and you deduct from that, to get real growth, 9 per cent, as stated in

the budget, leaving real growth in this province in the year 1975 — and

nobody pretends it was an easy year because of the slump in lumber

markets and industrial trouble in the lumber industry — but our

increase in real growth of 1 per cent in the year 1975 surpassed the

Canada real growth which was zero throughout Canada for the year 1975.

Once again, the record of the NDP government in economic development

and promotion in B.C. was better than all the rest of Canada in that

year. They were zero and we were 1 per cent real growth. We were an

infinite percentage better.

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): By their own figures.

MR. MACDONALD: These are the same figures in this budget,

which is a work of fiction. If the Minister of Education goes to the

teachers of this province and gives the kind of speech he gave — it's a

quicky speech, as they said — no wonder it left them cold. The Minister

of Education was engaging in a flight of fancy and pure fiction when he

said that we had frightened investment capital away from this province,

and was doing no good service to the province of B.C. in making that

kind of statement...

Interjections.

MR.MACDONALD: ...in the face of the facts.

Let me give you one example of what was happening in the mining

industry — and I admit this is a dramatic example, but it is the

biggest single example that's been happening in the province of B.C. In

1975, one international company, Kaiser Resources Ltd., made profits of

$71.2 million net after taxes, an increase from their previous tax yield

[ Page 714 ]

— their net free profits for 1974 — which were down to $24 million.

That company had an increase of almost 300 per cent in its net

profit for mining and strip mining and yarding the good coal of the

province of British Columbia onto the international markets, and yet we

have the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Waterland) who says he will not

consider adjusting that royalty to recapture any of those excessive

profits for the people of the province of B.C. That's what he has said.

I say that is an exorbitant profit, and the price of coal is now up

to about $50 for metallurgical coal per ton. For a government to be

affecting the livelihoods of the ordinary people of the province, as

this government has done in a period of inflation, and leave untapped

the exploitation and exorbitant profits, in many cases, of our natural

resources, it is a government that is not faithful to the public trust

that it ought to be holding up to.

MR. COCKE: Hear, hear!

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, let me just give, very briefly,

some of the examples of the way this government has been pouring

gasoline onto the raging fires of inflation.

I had a little brush with the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon.

Mr. Mair) when he said that we didn't try and twist the arm of the Hon.

"Thumper" Macdonald to get B.C. exempted from the anti-inflation

guidelines, but we are exempt, aren't we?

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer Services): No.

MR. MACDONALD: Because all of these increases that you have

been making, that have been adding to the cost of living in a period of

inflation — ICBC, 200 or 300 per cent; sales tax, 40 per cent;

hospitalization, 50 per cent, including Medicare — and all of these

imposts on the ordinary people of the province of British Columbia have

been exempted from the anti-inflation guidelines even though in Ontario

they signed an agreement a long time ago, didn't they?

HON. MR. MAIR: Read the Act.

MR. MACDONALD: You deliberately prevented Jean-Luc Plumptre

and Beryl Pepin (laughter) from having a look at what you were doing to

the ordinary people of the province right out here in terms of pouring

gasoline onto the fires of inflation and increasing the living costs

for the ordinary people of this province.

HON. MR. MAIR: That's not so. Read the anti-inflation Act. Have you ever read it?

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Read the budget!

HON. MR. MAIR: Read the Act!

AN HON. MEMBER: Read the paper!

MR. MACDONALD: What I'm saying, Mr. Speaker, is that this government,

at, a time when wage-earners are under the anti-inflation guidelines, has been,

in all of the essential areas of the cost-of-living, increasing that cost for

the ordinary people of the province. This budget is dong the same thing. It's

leaving untapped the vast wealth...

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): Right on.

MR. MACDONALD: ...and it's putting the burden on the people. It is a budget of the car dealers by the turncoats for the millionaires.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MACDONALD: Let me take as a little example the PNE in

Vancouver East, which serves the whole province of British Columbia.

This was a petty case of indiscriminate loading up an additional burden

on the ordinary people of the province. The PNE increased its gate

charges for adults from $1.50 to $1.75. Not very much; low in

percentage. But the Pacific National Exhibition made, in that previous

year, more than $1 million in profit; in 1974 it made over $1 million

in profit. Yet this government comes in, cancels the lease arrangements

that have been made with the city of Vancouver, puts a new board of

directors in there, and immediately their first step is to increase the

charges to the ordinary people of the province — just 25 cents. But

they also wiped out, with this new board of directors, the very

favourable arrangement that had been made for leasing from the city of

Vancouver, whereby $500,000 per year would be paid by the province for

the benefit of Vancouver east of Main Street and west of Boundary Road.

The city of Vancouver had agreed to put up a matching amount every year

for 10 years.

Let me say this, Mr. Speaker: when we embark, as we shortly will,

and as we should have a long time ago, on the by-election in Vancouver

East, the people of Vancouver East should be told that the more

deprived areas of the city of Vancouver will lose under this

government, under this new board, $1 million per year for the next 10

years in development of their parks, facilities and their livable

community centres in that great part of the city.

[ Page 715 ]

Mr. Speaker, I want to turn to what I think is a case of serious

human injustice and discrimination. I want to begin by praising the

Minister of Health of the NDP government (Mr. Cocke) for the progress

he made in extending dental services, particularly through the

paradental personnel, to all the people of the province.

But I would point out that dental services are still denied,

particularly in our hinterland areas. And where they are available, the

cost is excessive. Yet, we have here one of our new Canadians, Dr.

Bruhn Mou, who comes from Denmark. She has graduated from the

University of Copenhagen; she comes to the province of British

Columbia, and she is denied the right by the College of Dental Surgeons

to even write the exam to qualify her to practise dentistry in the

province of B.C.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, she's qualified. She is able to practice

in Manitoba. As a result of that federal exam she is able to work for

the federal government, if she could get a job for the federal

government as a dentist here in B.C. But she has been denied. She went

to court but the court could not help her.

We have passed, as a Legislature,

section 22 of the Dentistry Act

which requires the college to allow anyone to write the examination who

produces a certificate evidencing his degree in dentistry from a

university approved by the council. Those universities can be in

Canada, in the British Commonwealth, in the United States and in any

other country considered by the council to have equivalent dental

educational standards. Yet, as the judge said, he was not able to help

her because she could not establish a legal right to force them either

to allow her to write the exam or to require them to look at the

University of Copenhagen and its credentials, as they should do under

legislative mandate.

Here's what Mr. Justice Toy said about that, pursuant to the

section

I have read: "To date, no universities in other countries have been

approved. Bearing in mind that the power to approve foreign

universities, or universities from other countries, has existed since

the Dentistry Act was amended in 1951, I found this statement

startling, to say the least." This is Mr. Justice Toy.

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): What was the date of that?

MR. MACDONALD: This judgment was on April 8 of this year.

To give you the sequence of events — because I'm glad that the

ministers are listening to what I am saying — she applied under the

Human Rights Code because she applied under

section 9, which said that

no person shall be denied opportunity of employment, including

professional work, by reason of race, colour, creed or place of origin.

She applied in May, after this court decision, and she was granted a

hearing.

An inquiry officer by the human rights branch....

HON. MR. McGEER: Was that tabled in 1975?

MR. MACDONALD: 1975.

HON. MR. McGEER: Why didn't you do something about it when you were Attorney-General?

MR. MACDONALD: I'm just telling you what we did.

She applied in May under the Human Rights Code. The hearing officer

was appointed by the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. King). That

was Sheila Day. She gave her report back, approving the validity of the

claim of Dr. Bruhn-Mou to practise dentistry in the province of B.C. It

then went to the director of the human rights branch, Kathleen Ruff,

and was approved, and it was approved by the present Leader of the

Opposition before the last election as a case where an inquiry board

should be set up.

Yet the present Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) has been

stonewalling that inquiry now for the past two or three months. He is

reported as saying that he was blocked by the court decision.

Now I'd say, Mr. Speaker, that what I'm talking about is a case

where we're not giving fair and equal opportunity to a new Canadian, to

a woman dentist, and I'm saying.... I made a note, because when I

consider the areas of this province that go without dental service, the

places where people get on a plane at great expense to their families

to fly somewhere to try to find a dentist, the cases where dental

offices are overloaded and people go with their teeth untreated....

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: We have this, the Human Rights Code, and it

should be implemented in favour of this woman; and I'm demanding that

the inquiry proceed under the Human Rights Code, which was passed, by

the NDP government.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The member for Vancouver East has the floor.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, there is a vast denial of dental

services throughout the province of B.C. In the Vancouver region 49 per

cent of the

[ Page 716 ]

children who were studied by the latest dental survey had no caries.

But in the Kootenays it's down to 35 per cent; in the north, 22 per

cent. Only 22 per cent of the children examined were found free from

dental caries. In greater Victoria, where there are ample dentists, 48

per cent; Vancouver Island, only 16 per cent, because that includes, of

course, the northern regions and the remote regions of Vancouver Island.

The ratio of dentists to population, while it is ample in the

greater Vancouver region — one dentist to 1,400 people — in the

northern areas of the province it's one dentist to 4,043 people.

So I say, Mr. Speaker, when you have a new Canadian who comes to

this country and comes with qualifications from a university like

Copenhagen, which has been approved by the International Federation of

Dentists as having the highest standards — and they are affiliated to

the World Health Organization — which is recognized automatically in

the United Kingdom as having good dental education, which is accepted

everywhere in the world, then the College of Dental Physicians should

look at that university and look at it quickly and say that it's

qualified.

I say that under

section 22 of the Act that they have a mandate.

They were released powers of self-government by the Legislature in

their favour and they should make sure that the public interest is

being properly served and that this case, which is a case of

discrimination, should be speedily resolved either within the dental

college...

MR. WALLACE: The cabinet has quit. The cabinet has quit.

MR. MACDONALD: ...or under the Human Rights Code.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I just want to close with a few words about — and

I don't know how much time I've taken — just a few words on the

question of...

MR. WALLACE: You've seared the cabinet out of the House anyway!

MR. MACDONALD: ...justice services. Well, I hope that hon. member will support me in this case. I think he knows something about it.

I just want to say something about justice resources. The amount

made available for justice has not been generous in this budget, and

yet we have major problems in the field of bringing equal justice to

all of the people of the province.

I was kind of disturbed to read a speech — and I was unable to go

myself because I was in another part of the province — by the federal

Minister of Justice, Hon. Mr. Basford, who said in effect that the idea

that there was not equality of rich and poor before the law in British

Columbia was not justified. But, Mr. Speaker, there cannot be equality

before the law unless legal services are made available to people.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, he's not a lawyer. Do you have a ticket?

Well, let me address myself to him (laughter) — and to your

backbenchers back there that are much neglected and have had to go

through a pretty tough two or three weeks in this Legislature.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): Listening to you!

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, you know, listening to how the government

was in such straitened circumstances that they made out a cheque for

$181 million, and sent it off to the ICBC that didn't need the money.

I'm not worried about the cheque bouncing in that case. I'm worried

maybe the bank will bounce. It's a pretty big cheque. I wonder if

they've cashed it yet.

AN HON. MEMBER: In Point Grey.

MR. MACDONALD: Listening to how they gave the universities

$7.5 million: the universities thought it was manna from heaven

dropping down on the council table — they were so surprised to see that

suddenly come when they hadn't even requested it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. You are now discussing matters which are before the House in a bill.

MR. MACDONALD: I would like to address a few remarks to the

people in the back benches, Mr. Speaker, but always through you. We've

done quite a lot in the province of B.C. to try and give equal

opportunity before the law so rich and poor alike will have equal

access to a meaningful legal remedy. But unless we proceed with the

kind of services and reforms that the NDP government was engaged in,

then those services will not be available and we will once again have

in this province "cash register justice." There will not be equality as

between rich and poor, because the rich man, for one thing, if he is up

on bail he could easily post the bail, but for the poor person it is

quite another matter. If a fine is awarded in the courts against a rich

person, it may be a flea bite. But to a person of ordinary means, it

may mean family distress and deprivation.

We have extended these legal services, through the Indian

court-worker programme, into many of the remote areas of the province

where that kind of a programme was beginning to give equal justice.

Now I am glad to say, Mr. Speaker — and I am just speaking to you

and the backbenchers — that I have managed to drive all of the cabinet

of the province of

[ Page 717 ]

B.C. out of the room. I could not have done it better if I had shouted "Fire!" (Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker, let me close, because I am coming to the end of what I

wanted to say at this time, by saying that you have the

Attorney-General's estimates before you, and if they are not amply

supported in terms of resources behind justice, you will have what is

now a jam-up in many of the courts of the province. It will get worse

and people will be deprived of access to legal aid and advice.

I hope that some of the programmes we set in motion, and

particularly the community law offices which are in 13 communities in

the province of British Columbia at the present time, and which afford

legal aid without cost to the people of the province, many of whom were

afraid or don't have the money to go into a lawyer's office....

They are integrated, and should be increasingly integrated, with

consumer services offices, with social welfare offices and other

offices of government.

So, Mr. Speaker, I take my seat, having reluctantly concluded that I

cannot support the third edition of this budget, and that's the only

one I have; I must be on the wrong mailing list.

I see throughout this budget you have imposed savage increases on

the cost of living of the ordinary people of the province. I won't

repeat them, but when in a period of inflation you increase that sales

tax by 40 per cent, you're striking $200 million right at the people

who are now controlled under those anti-inflation guidelines. You're

taking from the labour force of this province, who signed collective

agreements in good faith, $200 or $300 during the course of each year

of that collective agreement — right out of their pockets.

You are not in those ways fighting inflation. You are not promoting

industrial stability. You have produced a budget of which it could be

said, as it was said by the disciple Matthew in the Good Book: "To him

that hath shall be given, and to him that hath not, even that little

that he hath shall be taken away."

I do not think for one minute that this is a people's budget or a

fair budget. The cries that have gone up that this province is broke,

that this is a mess and that this is a mess, have not been justified in

any way. I intend, Mr. Speaker, to vote against this budget.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Health on a point of order.

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I

would just like to correct an incorrect series of statements that the

former minister made in his speech. He referred to a foreign doctor, a

Danish doctor, whom he said....

MR. MACDONALD: Not foreign.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: A foreign-licensed doctor, a dentist. I

would just like to inform the member that the dentist can practise in

British Columbia if she passes the federal examination for which she

has now applied and will be taking in May and June of this year. She

could always have practised in this province if she had taken that

federal examination. She could have taken it a year ago; she chose not

to. She has now decided that she will take that examination, and she

will be practising if she passes it — licensed by the College of Dental

Surgeons. Don't shake your head, because that's correct.

MR. MACDONALD: No, it isn't.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Well, the president of the college is in my office right now. I....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. minister makes a statement of correction which will be accepted by the hon. members of this House.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): Mr. Speaker, I rise in my place to

speak in favour of this budget in this budget debate — this 1976-77

budget. I would like to congratulate the hon. Minister of Finance in

his budget speech for showing some consideration for the long-suffering

majority that have been forced to subsidize a whole crop of deficit

companies and projects in the last three years. It would appear by this

1976-77 budget that these Crown corporations and operations are going

to have to stand on their own two feet.

Before I get into the meat of the budget, Mr. Speaker, I would first

like to relate to the remarks made by the hon. member for Prince Rupert

(Mr. Lea) in regard to the previous Socred government spending on

highways in this province during election years. I am very surprised,

indeed, that this member, the former Minister of Highways, was not

aware of these figures. These are Department of Highways

summary

expenditure figures for capital and maintenance costs from 1961 to 1971.

First, I make comparisons in my own riding of Omineca. In 1963, an election year in the province of British Columbia...

MR. LEA: Take '62.

MR. KEMPF: ...expenditures in Omineca — $1,612,676.46. The

year later — one year later, the year after the election, hon. members

— the expenditure in Omineca was $2,445,676.67.

MR. LEA: That's Cyril's driveway.

[ Page 718 ]

MR. KEMPF: The year 1966, an election year in the province of

British Columbia: expenditures in Omineca in Highways — $2,589,372.87.

One year later, hon members, through you, Mr. Speaker, in the year

1967, the expenditures in Omineca — $2,978,667.50. An election year,

1969....

MR. LEA: What year were those contracts let?

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

MR. LEA: The year of the election they were let.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, that year was an election year — the

expenditure in Omineca for Highways — $2,883,874.50. One year later, a

year after the election, expenditures in Omineca — $3,765,328.63. And

you didn't know that, hon. member?

MR. LEA: Yes, I knew that.

MR. KEMPF: Now I relate to your riding, the riding of Skeena.

In the election year 1963 there was $169,518.68 spent on highways in

your riding of Skeena, Mr. Member. In 1964 there was $569,486.95 spent

in that riding. In 1966, hon. member, through you, Mr. Speaker....

MR. LAUK: That's not his riding, Jack.

MR. LEA: That's not my riding.

MR. KEMPF: Pardon me, in the riding of Prince Rupert — I got

carried away. I've finally got the right riding, and these are the

right figures, hon. member. In the year 1966 — an election year in the

province of British Columbia — $1,175,127.11 spent in the riding of

Prince Rupert. In the year 1967, one year after that election date —

$3,256,918.83 spent in that riding, your riding, Mr. Member.

MR. G.H. KERSTER (Coquitlam): The best is coming.

MR. KEMPF: The best is coming. Right — the best is coming! In

the year 1969, an election year in the province of British Columbia,

there was $2,704,373.91 spent in the riding of Prince Rupert. One year

later — one year later, in the year 1970 — there was $8,822,504.98

spent in that riding. I am surprised and appalled, Mr. Member, that you

didn't know these figures as the former Minister of Highways.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. KEMPF: I would hope — and there was no mention of this in

the budget speech — that the hon. ministers will do the same thing,

will get the ferry systems and the transit systems of this province to

stand on their own two feet, because it is my feeling, and that of my

constituents of Omineca, that we have subsidized long enough these

systems that primarily serve the people of the lower mainland and

Vancouver Island.

MR. LAUK: Did you run for a resource board?

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, in my mind this budget is a

people-oriented budget. Expenditure in Human Resources up 22.3 per

cent; in Health, up 20.5 per cent; in education, up 10.9 per cent. An

increase in the area of consumer services. An increase in the

housing-growth grant to municipalities, which will benefit people.

These municipalities, under the municipal incentive grant programme,

will now receive $1,500 per new unit constructed in that municipality.

This will not only be an incentive for the provision of the badly

needed housing accommodation in this province, but also, Mr. Speaker,

these dollars will be used locally to provide services for people.

I see in this budget $16 million earmarked to supplement the home

acquisition grant fund, additional assistance for purchases of homes

under the assisted homeownership programme, and it goes on and on.

An increase of 34.8 per cent for the Department of Labour. Surely

that is an area in which all of the people of British Columbia will

benefit — if increased labour harmony is obtained in this province.

A 44 per cent increase is provided the Department of Economic

Development in order to develop employment opportunities for our

people. Truly a people-oriented budget, hon. members.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KEMPF: Those people over there stated that there is

nothing in this budget for the people of this province, and they tried

to put it down by building up budgets of their administration. Well, we

have seen those budgets. I would like to quote the previous Premier of

this province when presenting, on February 28, 1975, the 1975-76 budget

for this province: "This budget will stimulate various sectors of

provincial economy." It sure did! It sure did, hon. members, through

you, Mr. Speaker, it sure did. Mines closed down. The forest industry

was on the rocks, though emphasis was put on tourism. No job security.

Not a job-security budget, but instead a budget that did not only harm

this province's economy, but it lost for the people of this province

[ Page 719 ]

$541 million.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shocking!

MR. KEMPF: A $541 million deficit for the people of this province to make good, and they say "shocking" when referring to this new budget.

MR. LAUK: Do you still believe that?

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, yes, we remember their budget. We'll

never forget them. I say that never again in the province of British

Columbia will we have to put up with a Barrett-Williams government.

Never again!

Interjections.

MR. KEMPF: A $541 million loss, Mr. Speaker. We have to

borrow for the first time, as the Hon. Premier has stated, for the

first time in this province since 1952.

MR. LEA: Your budget puts the province in debt.

MR. KEMPF: Yes, Mr. Speaker, this budget is a budget of

restraint. We must hold the line, curb the disaster course on which the

previous administration had placed this province. We must begin once

more to manage the affairs of British Columbians, as we were entrusted

to do on December 11, 1975.

That trust this administration holds high — very high and very dear.

No one here in this House can say that more sincerely than I. I am

proud, Mr. Speaker, proud to be here, proud to be entrusted by my

constituents of Omineca with their most important affairs, those

affairs of their government.

I am proud of those constituents for I've had many letters and many

phone calls, and they don't like it any more than anybody else that we

must pay 2 per cent more in sales tax, that personal income tax must be

raised, or that we must try and bring some measure of reality to the

area of rising hospital costs. These people of the north don't like it

any better than anybody else.

But what these people say to me, and what those people are saying to

me in letters and phone calls that I receive daily.... "Okay, if this

must be done in order to clean up the mess, then let's get on with it.

Let's do what we have to do to get this province back on the track —

the track that will once more give us the prosperity, give us the

security that we once had in this province. Get on with the job that

will enable you to ensure us of our fair share." I am proud of them,

Mr. Speaker — proud to be one of them, proud to be their

representative. They know what we have had in this province since 1972,

and they want to return to reality.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, the present budget is a budget of restraint, but

in relating to the budget and to the people of the province of British

Columbia, I would say it is up to them — it is up to all British

Columbians — to have pride in their province and pride in their work.

Whether the people of this province realize it or not, it is they and

they alone that can make any system work, Mr. Speaker. I call on the

people of Omineca and I call to all British Columbians to get behind

this new administration and to be fair. I call on all these British

Columbians to be truthful, to put aside their greed and to return some

measure of patriotism to this province. We have the highest standard of

living in the world. We have some of the finest working conditions in

the world. What's wrong with being proud of that, Mr. Speaker? What's

wrong with giving all that we have for the good of our province?

[Deputy Speaker in the chair.]

A lot of people in our province don't realize it, Mr. Speaker, but

they, and they alone, can give this province the stability we so badly

need. They alone can make it happen.

We have heard since the budget speech about the terrible plot

against the teachers of this province. Well, Mr. Speaker, I had, before

leaving my constituency three weeks ago, a very serious conversation

with the chairman of one of the local school boards in my constituency.

This chairman, an individual who has served the people of that area for

many years in this position, on this school board, told me that he

would be dismayed and in fact disappointed if the budget submitted by

his school board for the 1976-1977 year was not cut by 30 per cent. He

further told me that this cut would not — and I repeat would not —

result in the layoff of teachers or in a cutback of basic education to

students, and I would suggest that this is the situation that exists in

practically every school district in this province. Accountability and

productivity are the keys to ultimate success in the province of

British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, we see in the budget that we in the province of British

Columbia have 94,000 people unemployed. We may have 94,000 people on

unemployment insurance benefits, but we do not have 94,000 people

looking for jobs in the province of British Columbia, and I'll prove

that statement.

On December 1, 1975, a firm in my constituency started looking for

130 men and women to add a second shift to their operation. These 130

people, Mr. Speaker, did not have to be experienced. This firm was

willing to train the individuals for the jobs that they would acquire.

Thirty days later, on January 1,1976, after having advertised and sent

public relations people all over this province — a province of 94,000

[ Page 720 ]

unemployed — they could not find the 130 people to fill these slots.

They still, to this day, have not found the complete crew; in fact, Mr.

Speaker, they are operating very shorthanded in order to make do with

110 people, of which there is a turnover of 50 per cent per month.

This firm interviewed and actually hired over 400 men and women in

order to get that 100. This plant is one of the most modern in North

America, Mr. Speaker, and the minimum wage is over $6 an hour.

MR. LEA: You're saying the people of B.C. are lazy. Is that it?

MR. KEMPF: Each prospective employee, through the cooperation

of Canada Manpower, the company and the British Columbia Department of

Human Resources, was given transportation costs to and from the area,

money for food, lodging, et cetera, and spending money, and $150 was

offered in the form of a relocation allowance for him or her and their

family. They were offered company-backed loans to buy new furniture or

whatever in the first month. Accountability, Mr. Speaker; pride in

ourselves and in our province.

Mr. Speaker, in relating to the budget, I relate to the British

Columbia Railroad — our railroad. It is a railroad that belongs to the

people of British Columbia, a railroad of which every British Columbian

should be proud, a railroad which must be the key to the development of

the mineral- and timber-rich northern half of this province. I take a

little heart from what my colleague said in the House today, Mr.

Speaker.

But what has this railroad, which must be our greatest asset,

become? It is a liability, an albatross around our necks, going further

and further in the hole. It is a railroad that my people in Omineca say

we should shut down, rather than continuing to operate at the present

rate. We should sell it. We should even, if nothing else, Mr. Speaker,

throw the lock, stock and railroad track into the Fraser River.

It is the most unreliable method of transportation in North America.

Its productivity, when it runs, is practically nil. It does nothing but

cost the taxpayer of this province millions of dollars and it does

nothing but lose people and industry millions of dollars through lost

time. Our people in the north won't even ship a refrigerator over this

railroad. No, they would rather pay more and ship by truck and be sure

of receiving it. I say to all British Columbians, through you, Mr.

Speaker, that it is truly a railroad to be proud of. Accountability and

productivity, hon. members, through you, Mr. Speaker.

Again I make a plea to the people of this province. I say we have

the highest standard of living in the world, but if we intend to retain

that standard of living, we must make this budget work. We must develop

our resources. We must manufacture and sell our goods to the Third

World countries where the real need lies and at a price they can

afford. We must ensure the transportation of these goods to these world

markets. We must ensure that these goods reach their destination. In

order to do this, we must return productivity to this province. In

order to make this and any other budget brought down in this House

work, Mr. Speaker, we must return to the province of British Columbia

the pride in being British Columbians.

So I say, Mr. Speaker, through you to the hon. members of the

opposition, that if you practise what you preach and if you really are

concerned for British Columbians, support this budget and support this

government in their attempt to return sound economy to this province.

If you believe, and I think most of you do, in the cooperation of which

many of you have spoken in the last few days, now is the time to show

it. Due to many circumstances, there are none of us that really like

this budget, but it's one that we have to have, that was necessary in

the province of British Columbia at this time. I call on you, hon.

members, through you, Mr. Speaker, to support this budget for the good

of all British Columbians.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I'm rising on rule 42(1) in the

standing orders, and I'd like to read that to you so that we have a

clear understanding and I can get a ruling from you.

"No member may speak twice to a question except in

explanation of a material part of his speech which may have been

misquoted or misunderstood, but then he is not to introduce any new

matter, and no debate shall be allowed upon such explanation."

I would like to take advantage of that rule now. I think when I

spoke I was misunderstood by the hon. member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf),

and I'd like to clear that point up by speaking twice.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: All is in order. There is no reason why,

under the provision of 42(1), you should not be able to give a brief

explanation of a misquote.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I didn't say it was misquoted; it was

misunderstood. That is covered, too, in the section. I feel that the

member misunderstood what I said.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The same provision.

MR. LEA: Yes. I think, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for

Omineca misunderstood when I mentioned Highways budgets of the previous

years and how the former Social Credit government had spent money

during those election years. The reason I

[ Page 721 ]

believe he misunderstood is because the contracts are let one year

and the work is done and paid for the next year. So the contracts are

let for political advantage during one year — during election year —

and then done in the next year and paid for in the next year. The

member actually proved my point, by reading the figures that he did,

that the big expenditures were in the following year after the election

of the Social Credit.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. The member for Vancouver South.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): On a point of order, I

wonder, for clarification, if the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr.

King) would advise whether the NDP internal Whip system has also broken

down.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's not a point of order. The point of order for the member for Burnaby North.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): I suppose it's just a

matter of clarification, Mr. Speaker. I did have my podium here — I was

moving to my feet. I just wondered how the decision is made on who the

next speaker is. Perhaps you did see the other speaker first — I don't

know.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair does not have any notification of

which speakers are next. The Whip system is not operating; therefore we

have to work it on the basis of the member standing first. On that

basis I recognized the member for Vancouver South.

MR. C.S. ROGERS (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, I would like

to congratulate you on your appointment as Deputy Speaker. I rise at

this time to make my maiden address in this House. I am deeply honoured

and greatly humbled by the privilege of representing the riding of

Vancouver South in this Legislature. I share this representation with

my good friend and colleague, the second member for Vancouver South

(Mr. Strongman), who I am now told shall remain nameless, as the rules

apply.

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I wish to convey my greetings also and my

congratulations to our Premier and his cabinet in this, the 31st

parliament. The executive branch of government bring to their office

high standards, ability and dedication.

Secondly, I wish to greet especially all new hon. members,

regardless of their party. As you know, Mr. Speaker, I serve in this

House today as a new member myself. Viewing the roster of this

parliament I am therefore conscious of the many others with whom I

share this time of learning and responsibility. I wish each of them

well in the months and years of commitment that lie ahead.

With the large numbers of new members serving in this House, Mr.

Speaker, it is a pleasure to introduce them to Vancouver South and

reacquaint those members who are returning for a second or third term

with our large and diverse constituency. In Vancouver South you will

find a large number of new Canadians, people who have chosen this

country to be their home because it promises them a better way of life.

As the government of this great province, let us not disappoint them.

I have the honour of representing a riding where one will find a

large number of homes for the aged. Those of our senior citizens who

have already made their valuable contribution to our society can now

live in dignity and comfort in the many retirement homes provided by

service organizations and religious groups of every kind. Vancouver

South is a better and more balanced place because of it.

Mr. Speaker, Vancouver South is truly a collage of life. People,

cultures, philosophies, interests and occupations range over the

broadest spectrum of social and economic backgrounds. Vancouver South

is indeed a condensed and amazingly accurate image of our entire

province. The boundaries of our constituency are not important; it's

what's inside that counts. In Vancouver South we have a healthy mix:

single-family homes; apartments; hotels; hospitals; business; industry,

from the small family-operated stores to light manufacturing and the

largest sawmills of MacMillan Bloedel and Canadian Forest Products. The

head offices of Ocean Cement and Wilkinson Steel lie within the

boundaries of Vancouver South.

We, Mr. Speaker, have four courses for that royal and ancient game,

which affords many of our citizens recreation within the constituency.

We are also gifted with one of the strange anomalies of a large

metropolitan area. In Vancouver South one will discover some 90 acres

of land preserved for the use of equestrians. This foresight by the

citizens of Vancouver South has offered generations of city people the

pleasure of year-round horseback riding. I am pleased to report that we

have some 500 horses living within our constituency. None of them are

voters but we are happy to have them nonetheless.

Mr. Speaker, Vancouver South is not without its share of problems.

As a large urban area we are greatly in need of light rapid transit. At

one time Vancouver South benefited from such a service. As a young boy

growing up in the riding, I often rode on the Interurban. With the

passing of time this service has disappeared. Fortunately the rail

lines and the right of way still exist. My constituents have asked me

to inform you that they are most anxious that we undertake to

rejuvenate this long-neglected system. While the wrangling drones on

over the ways and means for massive rapid transit, Vancouver South

already possesses the vital foundations to transport

[ Page 722 ]

local people — and there are thousands of them — to their homes and their places of employment.

Mr. Speaker, we are not without our share of senseless tragedy,

either. Right now today, we face a truly unfortunate stalemate. I refer

to the Huntting-Merritt dispute. This firm, located within our

constituency, has been strikebound since the summer of 1972. This

four-year tragedy has taken its toll of personal hardships. Many

Vancouver South families have been affected. The facts are simple and

the facts are these: the men want to return to their work and their

employers want to have them back, but the strange state of our labour

legislation actually prevents these two parties from settling their

dispute.

Mr. Speaker, this incredible paradox leaves many of us wondering

where our true values lie, to say nothing of our common sense. A recent

event has struck still another blow to the Huntting-Merritt strike

dispute. It is with great sorrow that I must report to this House the

untimely death of Mr. Gomer Thomas, the man who represented the rank

and file on strike in this dispute in their continuing efforts to reach

a settlement.

Mr. Speaker, it is important that I call your attention to our

educational community of Vancouver South. As a strong family-oriented

riding, we have a full range of primary and secondary schools, and a

number of very large high schools. We also have Vancouver City College,

a two-year school of post-secondary education, of which I am proud to

be a graduate.

At this time I would further address my remarks to the Minister of

Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer). With the recent reading of this

government's budget, much confession seems to have arisen with regard

to school financing. In conversation with parents, teachers and

municipal officials, it appears that an effective first step towards

the communities' understanding of school budgeting would be an

agreement to restructure the schools' fiscal year to match up with the

teaching year. That is from September to August, rather than the

present January to December.

Mr. Speaker, within our constituency and within the mighty Fraser

River we find every type of maritime craft, from ocean-going tugs and

ships, fishing vessels to the smallest of pleasure craft. They all

contend with a common problem and they have asked me to draw this

problem to the attention of this House. The floating debris that

persists on the Fraser must be removed. Logs and driftwood, industrial

wastes and scrap garbage have reached endemic proportions. An informed,

concerted effort to eradicate this problem is long overdue.

The Fraser River is the lifeline within this province, and the

responsibility for its health and safety must be shouldered by a

specific ministry. Investigation reveals that at the present time

several governmental departments are involved, mired in jurisdictional

red tape and old-fashioned buck-passing. None of them are taking action

in this regard.

Mr. Speaker, the constituents of Vancouver South are particularly

concerned with the rising incidence of alcohol-related automobile

accidents. In this regard they have asked me to inform this House that

they believe a severe penalty is in order for those persons convicted

of impaired driving, both in terms of monetary fine and the suspension

of driving privileges. It is also the view of many of my constituents

that the entire mystique and mystery of alcohol is better exposed to

our youth around the family dining-room table, rather than in a

darkened alley in the back seat of a parked car. To that end, Mr.

Speaker, I would recommend to the hon. Attorney-General that beer and

wine be considered as foodstuffs and appropriately offered for sale in

grocery stores.

Over the years, Mr. Speaker, much has been said of the beauty and

grandeur of this province. Our Department of Travel Industry has

advertised the benefits of British Columbia around the world, and every

year we are visited by thousands of people from outside the province.

Many visitors come to British Columbia in their fully self-contained

vehicles or vessels, and while they enjoy our province we enjoy very

little of their cash to maintain and expand our tourist facilities. I

would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the tourist we want to encourage is

the one who arrives by air. For it is this tourist who rides in taxis,

stays in hotels, rents cars, eats in restaurants, charters boats and

planes, and generally leaves our province a richer and a better place.

It is my recommendation, therefore, that we concentrate our tourist

efforts in new areas, specifically in Japan. Having travelled

extensively in that country, and knowing something of her people, I can

tell you that British Columbia offers — has to offer — what they want.

We need only merchandise it correctly.

In the area of recreational priorities, Mr. Speaker, I would draw

your attention to the rapid increase in the sport of skiing. It has

reached such proportions in the Pacific northwest that most major

mountains in California, Idaho, Oregon and Washington have already

achieved their maximum development. We in British Columbia still have a

relatively untapped wealth of potential ski areas. It is my

recommendation that this government give serious consideration to

developing large new ski areas. Skiers are people who damage nothing —

they shoot no game; they catch no fish. In exchange for the privilege

of trampling down some of our snow, the skiers spend money. Like the

overseas tourists, skiers spend money on the spot, at the location

where the given activity takes place. The jobs and dollars

[ Page 723 ]

generated by support services to skiers are varied and, in my view, very well worth considering.

It is worthwhile to note the interrelationships that are effective

in our resource-based economy. The crippling blow of the mineral

royalty tax showed its direct effects in many rural ridings. Many

thought the shockwaves ended there. Indeed, they do not. Our supply,

manufacturing and transportation industries suffered at the uninformed

neglect of the previous administration. It is to be hoped that these

interconnected problems will not persist much longer.

Our province faces many problems today, but one of those most

frequently mentioned is that of housing. Our declining birthrate if

effectively offset by the steady influx of new residents, particularly

into the already overcrowded urban ridings. It is with great

satisfaction, therefore, that the people of a riding like Vancouver

South learned of the government's intention to address itself

effectively to the problem of housing. In this regard, I would direct a

suggestion to the hon. Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Curtis) that a

closer look be taken at rejuvenating our existing stock of housing.

Expertise and imagination in this field is growing daily, and I am

confident that we may find part of our solution in recycling older

structures.

Viewing the complexities of our housing problems, it is particularly

pertinent at this time to draw attention to the global problem. On May

27, the City of Vancouver will play host to over 20,000 visitors. They

come on a single mission: they come to attend Habitat. The delegates

from Habitat will be here to address themselves to the problems of

sheltering the people of the world. In the comparative affluence of

Vancouver, the representatives of the have and have-not nations will

exchange ideas and viewpoints on the community of man. The eyes and

ears of the Third World press will be sharply focused on Habitat and on

our province for those two weeks in June. I therefore urge all

departments of government to prepare now to offer their fullest

cooperation to Habitat, to offer an example of concern and awareness to

the visitors and to contribute a fair share of effort towards the

success of this global event.

Before concluding my remarks today, Mr. Speaker, I feel it's my duty

to speak forthrightly to all members of this House. Since the December

election I have spent a great deal of time within our riding, and again

I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that Vancouver South is, in my view,

virtually a mirror image of our entire province. I must tell you that I

find the people in Vancouver South in a serious mood these days. They

have made it clear to me that they want all members of this House to

get on with the job. People are weary of the spectacle of mutual

recriminations being hurled across the floor of this House.

While the Vancouver International Airport is not an integral part of

our constituency, it does play a rather important

part in the

environment in which we live. The subject was broached the other day to

the Minister of Transport (Hon. Mr. Davis), and I feel it's my position

to rise as the member for Vancouver South and continue to expand upon

the situation.

The federal Ministry of Transport, which is responsible for the

international airports, wants to construct an airport at Vancouver of

the same size and physical magnitude as the airport at London's

Heathrow airport. Now that airport is the busiest airport — or the

second-busiest airport — in the world, and those same experts in the

Ministry of Transport in Ottawa that brought you those white elephants

like Mirabel, who built an airport for the city of Edmonton on the

outskirts of Calgary, they're the experts that have told us that we now

need to expand the Vancouver International Airport. They have drawn up

a great, very heavy brochure, with beautiful pictures of the needs and

the projected growth of the aviation industry in Canada. This brochure

was drawn up at a time when a barrel of oil cost $3, and I would

therefore suggest that the whole thing is totally invalid and that a

very serious look be taken at the international airport in Vancouver.

The problem as it exists today is one of an unhealthy mix of

aircraft types. We have a situation where the main runway in Vancouver

is 11,000 feet long and it services airplanes from as little as 1,000

pounds to as much as 720,000 pounds. This rather large gap between the

small and the big airplanes is really noticeable. As a pilot who's been

flying out of Vancouver International since 1959, I can tell you that

this unhealthy mix has persisted with the benevolence of the Ministry

of Transport who want to do everything in their power to discourage

general aviation in Canada.

The solution to the international airport problem is a simple one of

constructing a small, parallel runway which will alleviate the present

pressure which, in fact, is not an even a pressure in relation to other

major airports around the world.

Those Ministry of Transport experts have said: "Well, Vancouver is

the last major airport in the world with only one runway." I would

point out to them that we have two. I would also point out that the

airport that serves the city of Glasgow, where out of thrift they only

built one runway because that's all they needed....

MR. WALLACE: They know how to look after the pennies. (Laughter.)

MR. ROGERS: In Hong Kong they only have one runway as well, and they have a much larger population base to serve than we do.

It is empire-building of the worst case by the federal government, and I would urge all members of

[ Page 724 ]

this House to give it a second look.

Mr. Speaker, tradition has it that during a maiden speech a new member quotes

from some famous Canadians. In concluding my remarks today I offer two personal

favourites. The first is from Stephen Leacock who said, after a visit to the

west coast: "If I had known what it was like, I wouldn't have been

content with a mere visit; I would have been born here." Mr. Speaker, I

took Mr. Leacock at his word, and I was — as were my mother and my father —

and I'm immensely proud of that fact.

The second quotation comes from that esteemed Canadian, Paul St.

Pierre. When he was describing politics in Canada he said this: "In the

Maritimes it's a disease; in Quebec it's a religion; in Ontario it's a

business; on the Prairies it's a cause; in British Columbia it's an

adventure."

Mr. Speaker, in closing let me say that I'm honoured to be included

in this company of lady and gentleman adventurers and I'm enjoying it

immensely. Thank you.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): I'm very pleased to be taking my place again, representing the riding of Burnaby North.

AN HON. MEMBER: It was a tough battle.

MRS. DAILLY: Tough battle as it was, I'm here.

MR. WALLACE: They're all tough battles.

MRS. DAILLY: That's right, they are — to the hon. Member for Oak Bay.

I was listening to the Minister of Agriculture and Economic

Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) and I must say there was one statement

he made with which I did agree — when he said that the citizens of B.C.

are indeed...I can't remember the actual phraseology but he referred to

them as strong: strong people, strong citizens and responsible

citizens. I think that was about the only statement in his whole speech

I could agree with.

But I would like to go further and say that I believe the mood of

the citizens of British Columbia today is, and has been, one of being

ready to cooperate and sacrifice during this period of high inflation

and some recession. I sincerely believe that. But I find that the

tragedy of this Social Credit budget is that this government has hit

the average citizen far too heavily and drastically than was necessary

in their attempt, as they thought, I suppose, to fight inflation and

recession. I wish to prove as I go through my speech that I feel their

whole policy is working against this.

What concerns me is that because they've hit the average citizen so

heavily they have created, and are creating, a divided people in our

province, just as they created — the Social Credit Party — a very

bitter polarization during the provincial election. We can already see

the seeds of an increased polarization because of the policies which

have been enunciated in this budget.

Now I would first like to talk generally about the effects of the

government's fiscal policy of balancing the budget in one year. Later I

want to just talk about and analyze some of the specific and serious

effects of this policy on certain sectors of our society.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the ultra-conservative, doctrinaire —

and it is doctrinaire — fiscal policy which underfeeds this budget does

not make economic sense. There is no argument, I believe, anywhere that

a certain wind-down in government spending was necessary.

Interjections.

MRS. DAILLY: Now I notice some chuckles, and I want to go on

and prove to you that the New Democratic Party government in office had

already taken certain steps towards this wind-down. When I was Minister

of Education I had already announced a 15 per cent ceiling in

post-secondary education. I had, almost two years prior to the

election, informed the school boards of this province that we were

facing times of fiscal restraint and that would have to follow that. So

the New Democratic Party government was aware of this.

But the point I'm making today is that we, as New Democrats and

along with other jurisdictions in Canada, and, may I say, along with

United States, believe that this wind-down has to be done gradually.

The Social Credit budget has shown a heavy, drastic wind-down. It's not

even a wind-down. It's a complete drop.

These jurisdictions in other countries have been most concerned

about how fast they move on this downward spiral. But this government,

unfortunately for all its citizens and for the whole economy of this

province, has shown no such concern to make sure that the wind-down is

gradual. The tragedy is that the results of this lack of concern of the

Social Credit government are going to be highly detrimental to the

people and the economy of this province.

Mr. Speaker, in a time of recession the economy needs a boost, not a

depression, and I found it really interesting to hear the Social Credit

backbenchers thumping, I believe, almost 80 times throughout the budget

speech delivery. I don't know what they were applauding, because

actually when they go back to their home ridings I don't think they are

going to receive much applause from their constituents on the effects

of this budget.

Now what has this government done? These sometime silences are

created by being absolutely stunned at the lack of understanding of how

[ Page 725 ]

govern a province. But what has this government done? They have hit

the average wage-earner in a multitude of areas and this has been

explained by a number of my colleagues who have spoken for me in the

debate. But I think it's necessary, particularly for the government

backbenchers, to go over this again because I am trying to assist you

when you go back to your home ridings so that you will be able at least

to speak with some knowledge of the effects of this drastic budget.

I found it interesting that the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), when

he talked about this great people's budget...and let's see now, about

this people's budget. It has done things to people, Mr. Speaker, and

not for them. Let's examine what has happened to the average

wage-earner in this province because of this budget. What are they

going to face? When you go back to your constituencies I wonder how you

are going to explain this to your constituents. ICBC increases — and

one member over there just said: "We'll blame it on the NDP." I want

to assure you that the people will not accept that because the people

voted for you because you said that you were going to be fiscally

responsible and create a better life for them. Unfortunately, this

budget is going to do the opposite.

ICBC increases — we've been through that debate so I won't elaborate

on it. But we all know that the rate of those increases is

unnecessarily high and it's been well documented before. So you have

taken more purchasing power, unnecessarily, out of the hands of the

average wage-earner because of unnecessary big increases in rates.

The sales tax — an extra 2 cents. We've already pointed out how

inequitable the sales tax is. It is the person who makes the lower

income who suffers from this increased tax. Big items such as

refrigerators and cars will now cost an average of $70 more. That's

not counting the everyday nickel-and-dime charges when you go shopping.

Now the sales tax is scheduled, along with the fuel tax, to bring in

during the coming year approximately $948 million.

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: And yet — I'm going to come to the wages in a

moment — the collections were expected without that increase to rise at

least by 16.9 per cent, without the rate boost. We accept the fact that

last year the sales tax drew only 9.2 per cent increase and this was

understandable in a year in which the whole nation's economic growth

showed its worst performance in 21 years.

You know, Mr. Speaker, it makes you wonder. Why is this government

so nervous? Why is it bringing in these unnecessary increases? This is

the government which ran on a political campaign of restoring and

improving the economic growth in B.C. Are they now preparing the citizens of British Columbia for a very

bad first year under their leadership? Is this why you are facing our

citizens with increased taxes? We thought that you had the answers.

Apparently the public did. Where are your great policies, then, in this

budget speech to spur economic growth?

We listened to the Minister for Economic Development (Hon. Mr.

Phillips) speak today and I think we all sat rather stunned because,

not only when he spoke on agriculture, but also when he spoke on

economic development, there was no policy given to this House. The

budget speech is notoriously silent on any positive policies of this

government to spur economic growth. But it is certainly not silent

about what it is going to do to people. I can assure you the people of

this province are not going to remain silent long in the face of this

government's empty promises made during the campaign.

Let's look at income tax. Personal income tax has now risen to 32.5

per cent. This means — and I am coming to that — for every $1,000 of

tax paid to Ottawa, an additional $330 is paid into provincial coffers

— another impost on the average wage-earner.

Someone said: 'What about the other provinces?' Yesterday I believe it was

the member for Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Hewitt) who pointed out that on page

33 of your budget it says Saskatchewan and Manitoba have the highest rates of

income tax. But interestingly enough, that speaker failed to point out — I don't

know why he forgot to mention it — that on the same page in the budget it shows

that Saskatchewan and Manitoba have no premiums at all for Medicare and hospital

insurance. It is paid out of their increased income tax, which is a far more

equitable way to handle Medicare and hospital insurance.

So I think that when you talk about the increase you have to accept

the fact that the return is being made in services to people. But what

are the people of British Columbia getting from your increases?

Hospital costs — acute care is going to rise from $1 to $4. There's

another impost on the people of this province. This Social Credit

budget shows a "tax the sick" policy by increasing the cost of those

services in B.C. — services which should be paid out of income tax.

Property taxes are also going to affect the average person in this

province seriously. They're going to be going up. Local school boards

will probably have to raise in the neighborhood perhaps of $95 million

or cut services.

AN HON. MEMBER: Doom and gloom!

MRS. DAILLY: This could mean an increase of 10 per cent in

school taxes. It also means, according to the budget, that many

citizens will not even receive

[ Page 726 ]

an increase in their homeowner grant.

So there we are: hospitals, sales tax, property taxes. It will be gloom and doom, unfortunately, for this government eventually.

B.C. Hydro rates will cost an extra $20, and other essential

services are being allowed to go up under this government's policies.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the accumulated effect of the increased

taxes and the cost of these vital services means — and now I'm coming

to the wage-earner and salaries — that many wage-earners in our

province will find themselves in the position where their net income is

going to be less than the year before, and this before they've even

been faced with the natural inflationary increases in the private

sector. That is to come.

I found it interesting, going back for a moment to the property tax,

that we've heard the backbenchers speak up and defend the great moneys

for education. We even had the Omineca member (Mr. Kempf) stating that

one of his school trustees said he hoped their school budget could be

cut by 30 per cent. Is that trustee suggesting that they had inflated

their budget well over 30 per cent, and that he was a member of a board

that allowed that to happen?

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): Irresponsibility!

MRS. DAILLY: Completely irresponsible by a trustee who can suggest in this day of inflation that....

AN HON. MEMBER: He was the chairman.

MRS. DAILLY: Well, if he was chairman, and if he could get

away with cutting 30 per cent, I think that that chairman has much to

explain to the taxpayers in his district.

The accumulated effect, then, means that our wave-earners' net

incomes are going to fall behind, and this because of the Social Credit

budget. As a matter of fact, the Social Credit budget is really

undermining the federal wage-and-price guidelines. This was also

pointed out by the member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) and

specifically to the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Mr. Mair), who

I don't think understood the point that was being made.

You have a budget — through you, Mr. Speaker, to the minister — which

is depriving the average wage-earner through your taxes in many areas,

and because you've unleashed extra costs on them it's quite obvious

that their net income is going to be dropping. Yet, on the other hand,

they're asked to follow the federal wage-and-price guidelines, and yet

you are putting them in a position where they're going to say: 'Well,

we follow them, but we have a government that is making us fall behind

every year.' That's what's going to happen.

A number of us have outlined for the benefit of this House all the areas where the average wage-earner is going to be affected.

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): Nonsense!

MRS. DAILLY: The Minister of Labour can say it's nonsense,

but I think if he goes and speaks to the average citizen within a year,

and questions him on what his financial position is after this budget

has its effect on him, compared to his increases under the wage

guidelines, he's going to find that that wage-earner has fallen behind.

Mr. Speaker, there is in the Financial Post an excellent

article which is entitled:

'Go-ahead Goals Are Needed to Lick Economy's Problems.' It is referring

to the conference board in Canada, and to remarks made by the president. Now

this is a research and advisory organization heavily supported, may I say, by

business. One of the first statements the new president has made is — and I

think this is very important — you cannot link deficit spending with inflation.

It's a very blunt message which is certainly going to make business

leaders stop and think. They will have to let go of one of their

favourite inflation culprits: that sea of government red ink.

Further, one of the senior economists at that board backs up this

statement, because they do not agree with those who push for a

reduction in the deficit as a means of stilling inflationary forces.

They conclude — they're advising business — that if taxes are raised to

cover deficits that have been created by the recession, a further

serious impediment to recovery will have been put in its place. This is

what the Social Credit budget is doing. It is placing a further serious

impediment in the way of economic growth in this province because of

their doctrinaire, ultra-conservative fiscal policies.

AN HON. MEMBER: A non-recovery budget.

MRS. DAILLY: A non-recovery budget.

AN HON. MEMBER: A revenge budget.

MRS. DAILLY: Well, the tragedy is that even if they weren't

vengeful, their philosophy — the whole make-up of the Social Credit

government — would have followed this theme anyway.

Mr. Speaker, I'd now like to turn to some of the major concerns

which I have regarding the effect of this budget on specific groups of

people in our province and sectors of our society. In the field of

education the effects of a 9.4 per cent increase in the public school

budget will be most detrimental to the

[ Page 727 ]

students of our public school system. We'll forget about discussing

everything related to the teachers; let's talk about what's going to

happen to the students.

That member for Esquimalt (Mr. Kahl), I think, suggested that as

minister I didn't have too much feeling for the concerns of students.

I'm wondering what he is going to do when he goes back to Esquimalt,

faces his school board in the coming year and finds out just what his

government's budget has done to the quality of education in his school

district and how he's going to cope with that.

The school boards are indeed faced by this government with one of

the most difficult tasks they've ever had: deciding whether to put an

exorbitant increase on the local taxpayer or to make major cutbacks in

services. I want to quote Mike Berg, who is president of the B.C.

School Trustees Association, and who obviously does not agree with the

chairman whom the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) was quoting. "It seems

obvious" — this is a quote directly from Mike Berg, president of the

BCSTA — "that the government is going to make the local taxpayer the

scapegoat." This is from the president of the B.C. School Trustees

Association.

Mr. Speaker, the school boards of this province in recent years have

been responsible and moderate. Many of the major increases they've been

faced with have been associated with inflation. And yes, they did face

an increase from the reduction of the pupil-teacher ratio, which I am

very proud as minister to have initiated. I know that it will have

definite educational benefit to the students of this province.

Now inflation has sharply increased the cost of school maintenance,

heating, learning materials, et cetera. Grants should have been

forthcoming to cover these inflationary costs. But