1973 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 1973

Afternoon Morning Sitting

[ Page 489 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Insurance Corporation of British Columbia Act (Bill No.

34) Hon. Mr. Strachan.

Introduction and first reading — 489

Automobile Insurance Act (Bill No. 35) Hon. Mr.

Strachan.

Introduction and first reading — 489

The British Columbia Bill of Rights (Bill No. 88) Mr.

Wallace.

Introduction and first reading — 490

Budget debate (continued)

Hon. Mr. Levi — 490

Privilege Mr. Chabot on the question of distribution of bills — 494

Routine proceedings

Budget debate (continued)

Mr. Phillips — 495

Mr. Curtis — 509

Mr. Rolston — 515

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 1973

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Cariboo.

MR. AN. FRASER (Cariboo): Mr. Speaker and Hon. Members, I

would like you to join me in welcoming two lovely young ladies

from my riding that are in the ladies' gallery. The first one

is Miss Shirley Schonik, Miss Cariboo. The other one is Miss

Quesnel, Miss Sharon Neilson.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North

Vancouver–Capilano.

MR. D.M. BROUSSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker,

I'd like the House to join me in welcoming what has become an

annual visit from the Grouse Mountain Division of the North

Vancouver Girl Guides, 22 guides led by Mrs. Peters and four

leaders.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Rehabilitation and Social

Improvement.

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement): Thank

you, Mr. Speaker. In the gallery are six people: Mr. Gordon Wright and Mr. Mike

Whittaker from the Family and Children's Service of Victoria, Mr. Frank McDaniel

and Dr. Tom Davis from the Catholic Children's Aid Society in Vancouver, and

Mrs. Dorothy Beck and Dan Fenny from the Children's Aid Society in Vancouver.

I'm sure all of you are familiar with the work that these agencies do and I'd

like you to welcome them.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Columbia River.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Speaker, I'd like the

Members to welcome in the ladies' gallery a former Member of

the Legislature, our one-time star, Mrs. Kripps.

Introduction of bills.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Highways,

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Highways): Mr. Speaker, I have here

something and I would like you to be the first to share it with me. Finally,

after many years, I have the honour to present a message from His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor.

INSURANCE CORPORATION OF

BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT

MR. SPEAKER: His Honour the Lieutenant Governor transmits

herewith a bill intituled Insurance Corporation of British

Columbia Act and recommends the same to the Legislative

Assembly.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I move the said message and

the bill accompanying the same be referred to the Committee of

the Whole House forthwith.

Motion approved.

House in committee on Bill No. 34, Mr. Dent in the

chair.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee

rise recommending introduction of the bill.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 34 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.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present

a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE ACT

MR. SPEAKER: His Honour the Lieutenant Governor transmits

herewith a bill intituled Automobile Insurance Act and

recommends the same to the Legislative Assembly.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I move that the said message

and the bill accompanying the same be referred to the Committee

of the Whole House forthwith.

Motion approved.

House in committee on Bill No. 35; Mr. Dent in the chair,

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise recommending

the introduction of the bill.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 35 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be

placed on orders of the day for a second reading at the next

sitting of the House after

[ Page 490 ]

today.

THE BILL OF RIGHTS

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

88 intituled The British Columbia Bill of Rights.

Motion approved.

Bill No. 88 read a first time and ordered to be placed on

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

the House after today.

ON THE BUDGET

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Rehabilitation and Social

Improvement.

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement): It's

been suggested to me this afternoon, as a result of what the Minister of Highways

(Hon. Mr. Strachan) has done, perhaps I might just have my speech taken as read

and sit down. (Laughter). We know where all the action is going to be later

on.

However, this is my first opportunity to speak in this

session. I had wanted to make some comments, Mr. Speaker,

through you, to my friend from Columbia River (Mr. Chabot). I

was quite tickled by the fact that he felt that I really did

not fit the description of being sophisticated. And I can only

agree with him. Bright, beautiful and capable I might be, but

not sophisticated. (Laughter).

I do enjoy fat cigars, and I do very much enjoy dressing

casually. I hope one day that it might be possible to walk into

this House without a tie and not get thrown out.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. (Laughter).

HON. MR. LEVI: I would like to just direct a notice to the

Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley). Yesterday some of

the Press found out that I cycled to work. They came to me and

said, "Do you know there's no parking spaces for cyclists?" And

I said, "Have you spoken to the Minister of Public Works?" They

said, "Yes, but nothing's happening." I said, "We'll get up a

petition and I'll sign it and we'll see what we can do." So, I

hope the Minister will take notice of that. That should be

arriving on his desk anytime.

Now, to the issue of the debate. I frankly have found that the Opposition's

approach to the debate on the budget has been a little shallow and weak. I find

that the Hon. First Member for Victoria (Mr. Morrison) unashamedly came out

for corporate profits. I hope one day that in this House we will talk about

profit, and the whole question of how much profit is going to be acceptable

in this society of ours in the future.

It's usually of course from the free enterprisers that we

hear the loudest cry about the huge health and welfare bill

that this province has to pick up. And I ask the question, are

they really paying their share? Obviously they're not, and

that's why we must introduce legislation to see that there is a

much more equitable distribution of the load in terms of the

taxes. So that those who can well afford to pay — pay,

giving some relief to the people who can least afford —

which is now what is happening at the present time.

Since the House met last fall, in the five months that we've

been here, we have established a national presence of

credibility for British Columbia that had been missing for

several years. In November of 1972 we hosted a conference of

Canadian Welfare Ministers and we were able to give leadership,

along with Quebec, on issues of reform of the social services

area, of guaranteed income, and guaranteed jobs.

We do subscribe to the setting of minimum standards by the

federal government. But we reserve the right as nearly all of

the provinces do, to have more control over social assistance

funds and family allowances. We best know our priorities.

The federal government announced in the throne speech that

there would be a substantial increase in the old age security

benefits. And we in this Government take some substantial

credit for this, in view of the leadership we've given in the

five months that we've been in office, in giving to Canada and

North America and legislating for the first time minimum income

for people over 65 years of age $200. I think that it was the

thrust that we gave last fall in the Legislature and at the

conference and other pressures that exist in Ottawa —

which I'm sure you're all aware of. This has brought about a

real consideration by the present federal government to make

substantial increases to the old age security.

I'd like now, Mr. Speaker, to cover a few points in respect

to the Department of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement. And

what happens in terms of the operation in my department.

I would like first of all to pay a compliment to my staff

— the staff of the department. But particularly, the

people who were responsible for putting the Mincome into

operation. I don't know whether you have any idea what took

place from the time we passed the legislation till the time we

got the cheques into the mail in December, and we'd committed

ourselves to get them into the mail by December 18. On the

first issue we sent out 109,000 cheques. We had staff —

and I have in mind people like Evan Wood, Art Rippon, and the

people from SARD (Social Assistance and Rehabilitation

Division) Norm Brooke, who worked many long hours to deliver

the

[ Page 491 ]

promise that we had made to the senior citizens that they

would get their cheques for Christmas. And it was those people

that made that promise a fulfillment. For that I want to thank

them.

The main thrust of the department is directed towards our

children and specifically, there were 7,000 children that we

have in care under the Child Welfare Division. There are as you

know, another 3,000 that are under the care of the Children's

Aid Societies. The previous Government failed for three years

to do anything about staffing in the department. This budget

reflects what the department will do in respect to

staffing.

As I said, I want to pay tribute to all of my staff because

they have suffered heavy case loads in different Ministerial

leadership — it was a part-time Ministry until my

predecessor took over as a so — called full time Minister.

Because of neglect on the part of the previous government, last

year we were apprehending over 300 children a month. Taking

them from their families and failing to assist those families.

Mr. Speaker, this Government's direction is to keep the child

in its own home, and remove only as a desperate last resource.

To help communities develop resources for children in their own

communities and deal with the problems at that level.

There will be no more edifice complex with us. There will be

no more warehouses, and no more dumping grounds. Yes, we will

have more staff, And with the social workers and case aides,

some 30 in number, we hope to start our preventative programme

dealing with children in their own homes and helping the

parents.

In the past we've been all too ready to place children in

care at $12 a day, or in treatment centres that cost anywhere

from $55 a day to $82 a day. Placing them often there for years

and sometimes never bothering to tell the agencies what our

expectations were from the service we purchased — or

without any real understanding of the aims of the

treatment.

I can tell you this, Mr. Speaker, we are going to state our

expectations and we will not commit ourselves to limitless

purchase of service. We must be accountable first of all, to

the child, then to the family and to the taxpayer. Neglect has

been supreme of the previous government in this area. I say to

the Hon. First Member for Victoria (Mr. Morrison) through you,

Mr. Speaker, neglect and indifference — they fail to

develop even a philosophy. After all, it was said by a Member

of that side that next to our roads our children are our most

important resource. When you've said that, I suppose you've

said it all. And we'll develop our resources and we'll

certainly do right by our children.

All of the Members of this House know of the stories that are out there concerning

children. The deserted mother with small children — locked into her house

or an apartment, slowly dying inside from that triple, or that multi-burden

of being a mother, a father and a housekeeper — and trying to get by on

welfare. There is now for her some glimmer of hope through day-care and

through the opportunities programme. And let me be frank, that was a programme

that the previous government had the foresight to adopt. These programmes get

her out of the home and into the main stream of life, even for an all too brief

period.

But what about the serious problems — as well as the

ones with children? Last January, four Ministers sponsored a

drug-dependency conference to which we invited 20 people

who were in the field — on the working level, who knew

the problem. We asked them to help us develop a position in

respect to this problem. I hope that that position will be

forthcoming before this Legislature prorogues.

On Wednesday night, I attended a public meeting with my good

friend the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace). There were 600

people there who were seeking answers and solutions to the

problems of young people on heroin and other drugs.

Prior to that meeting I had dropped in to a meeting of

parents — some weeks before. It's the first time that I

had ever seen such a meeting of parents who had children on

drugs — who were sitting around trying to help one

another — trying to grope for solutions to the problem.

At that meeting I assured them that this Government would

earnestly pursue the provision of service required by these

young people.

But let everyone realize that there are no magic solutions,

and there are no panaceas. In the first instance we are talking

about managing addicts in a human way as medical social

problems, and not as criminals. Forty years of the other method

has helped create this situation we have today. We are not in

the first instance seeking cures — that's for the

researchers and the dreamers.

Our challenge is to do something real here and now. It is a

problem for all British Columbians and all Canadians to grapple

with because we should ask ourselves — "who has not been

touched by this problem; who has not been touched?" The

Government is aware of the very serious problem that exists and

we must do something about it and it is our intention to do

so.

We also have a serious problem in respect to the management

of children who are seriously disturbed and I can tell the

House and the people of British Columbia that the Ministers of

Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke), Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly), myself

and at times representatives from the Attorney General's office

have been meeting almost on a daily basis dealing with the

problems of children and trying to work out some rational

system of delivering a good service.

For the first time — for the first time — you

have

[ Page 492 ]

three Ministers of the Crown sitting down and talking to one

another about problems which overlap into their departments. We

have learned that we had a situation in the previous government

where Ministers were not even talking to one another and they

had forbidden their staffs to even co-operate. When we

came in, we started right off the bat to have meetings between

Ministers and allow meetings between deputy Ministers and staff

below.

The Hon. Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) referred

the other day to the Children's Committee, and that is the

vehicle that we are trying to develop which will enable us to

co-ordinate our efforts.

Let me turn for a moment to the question of day care. In

January we announced a $200,000 capital programme and we

invited people who wanted to start non-profit day care

operations to apply to us for assistance. Since that time we

have granted to 11 centres substantial amounts of money to get

centres operating in all parts of the province.

We have a commitment that we will give $2,500 to these

operations in order for them to provide equipment for these

centres. At the moment we have under review five more. There

has been a lot of public discussion about provision of service

for under three's. At the present time there are 12 operations

which provide service for under three's in this province. We

realize that this is a very serious need and we have been

meeting again daily on the question of making provision of this

kind of service. The reason that we are meeting and why there

must be concern is because there is an extremely heavy cost

factor in providing this kind of service because the staff

ratio is almost twice what it is in the ordinary care

centre.

There has also been discussion about the provision of day

care on a 24 hour a day basis. We are now aware that it does

operate in one city — Atlanta, Georgia — and there

are some operations in New York which we will be looking at to

see if this is an appropriate service for us or whether we can

develop a service of our own based on other people's

experience. It is extremely important for us at the moment to

collect all of the relevant information before we make any

decision about that at all.

It is our intention to broaden the availability of day care

and we are aware that there is tremendous frustration out there

with the people because they had great difficulty with the

regulations and the standards. As a result of this we decided

to open up a day care information centre. It is now operating

in the Vancouver area, we having settled our differences with

people last week. Through that office we expect to get a great

deal of information on what the problems are from people not

only in the lower mainland area but throughout the rest of the

province. We have asked people now to contact our local offices

and let us know what it is they want and what they want to

suggest about standards.

Particularly in the Vancouver area, our basic problem has

been that until very recently the city has been unwilling to

fulfill its role in a meaningful way on the inspections, but I

have now been assured by the city council of Vancouver that

they are hiring staff and they are going to co-operate in

every way possible to expedite the setting up of day care

centres. For this we are extremely grateful.

In view of the, number of problems that are related in the

children's area — I have covered some of them just now

— we have decided that we want to initiate a study to

review services in children's services that are available, a

study of all the legislation affecting children, so that we can

have a clear statement of objectives and some consolidated

legislation with which to work. We expect that this study will

take about two years. We are anxious to receive the broadest

amount of input from the community and the specialists.

It should be understood that the review will be taking place

and the planning and implementation of service to children will

be carrying on — because we have plans and we can carry

on with these — with the ones that we have already put

into operation and the ones that we have planned. But the

important thing is that we must do this review to rationalize

the whole legislative system and the delivery of service. So I

will be announcing shortly the composition of the committee and

inviting the public to become involved in this review.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to turn to another concern of the

department. That is the question of how service is delivered to

people who need it. Some people in the field, myself among

them, have long held the view that there is a severe crisis in

respect to service.

In almost every community we have a multitude of services

that overlap and are duplicated or are inadequate or are just

plain bad. In some areas there is even open warfare between

agencies and there are defensive empires that have been

developed over the years. There is even an enormous amount of

confusion. The sum total of this is that the consumer gets

inadequate service and millions and millions of dollars are

wasted every year. Certainly there are agencies that give good

service on an individual basis, but the system is not an agency

and it's the source of all of these agencies. It's that system

that we have to improve.

Three years ago the Capital Regional District in the

Victoria area was the subject of a study which dealt with the

question of integrating service. It's a popular phrase. Let's

rationalize the service. Perhaps we might save some money,

perhaps we might deliver some better service. In my view it

means agencies being concerned with service to people —

and they have to concerned about people and not their own

survival.

[ Page 493 ]

The study showed a morass of services overlapping,

un-integrated and outdated. They made three recommendations

about how this service could be co-ordinated and

operated. They said that either integration should take place

through the vehicle of the Capital Regional District, or it

should be done by a separate new structure, or it should be

done by the provincial government.

I've had a great deal of discussion with a number of people

and I want to say here that in my meetings with agencies and

municipal officials, I have made it quite clear in the first

instance that I was committed to be democratic and cannot

involve people at the grass roots level.

I'm announcing here today that legislation will be brought

in during the session to enable my department to take over the

administration of the welfare system and the care of children

within the Capital Regional District. I am convinced that we

must do this in order to make integration work. In any case, we

finance the whole operation and we finance most of the

administration costs of the municipalities. Let me give you briefly some rationalizations for this. We

say that the province has the expertise to deliver the social

services. The province has the fiscal powers and the province

has the legislative powers, and it doesn't make any sense to

separate the legislation from the administration and programme

delivery. We are not anxious to create a number of large

bureaucracies across the province. It is difficult to

communicate through separate organizations. We are more able to

maintain a constant high standard of service and the provincial

regional model does and is working well.

There is more flexibility in the placement of staff it is

desirable to have the authority and responsibility in the same

agency. There is greater economy in utilizing centralized

services and less bureaucratic build-up and duplication

of these services.

Now, let me say this. The crunch in terms of integration of

service in this region is going to depend on the kind of

leadership that myself and the people in the department will

give. That is the essential thing. I have made my basic

commitment to do this over a number of years, and I think that

the time is now for us to do it and see once and for all

whether this thing can be rationalized. That is the intention

of our party.

It is our intention to divide the Vancouver Island region

into two regions and the Capital Regional District will be one

region operated by a regional director.

One of the serious concerns that people have about the route that we are going

— and certainly you can have the same concern with the other two methods

that were suggested — is how much citizen input we have in terms of the

planning and the operation of this kind of model. It does not follow that, because

the government wishes to control this kind of situation in the first instance,

it cannot work well, cannot be democratic and cannot involve people at the grass

roots level in the decision making. It is our intention — and we have

gone further than the recommendations in the report to involve the local citizenry.

This is absolutely essential if this is to work.

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that it is the commitment of my

department and this government that once the Capital Regional

District board has shown that it is able, in terms of staff

expertise, to take over this operation, we will not hesitate to

hand it over to them. That is the direction that we finally

want to go in; a regional distribution of services through the

obvious vehicle, the regional district.

Mr. Speaker, I want also to say this. In taking over the

Family and Children's Service that has given over the years a

high quality of service, we need to integrate this. I have met

with the staff and with the officials of the agency and they

understand what is taking place. As I introduced all of the

people in the House at the beginning of the session today, I

have met with them; they are aware of it. The mayors of the

municipalities have been advised of this. We've had

discussions.

I want people in the community to understand that because we

are going to operate this in the first instance because, as I

have said, we need this model, we continue to need the support

of the people out there who have an interest in this field. We

hope that they will continue to have this kind of interest.

We're going to be as flexible as possible but we want to be

able to try this model because it's something that we want to

be able to do throughout the whole province.

There is one other topic, Mr. Speaker, that I want to cover.

It is a vital concern to a large number of people who are

connected with the United Way or the Community Chest or the

United Good Neighbourhood Fund — the whole area of the

voluntary donor. I know this area. I spent 2 1/2 years on the

board of the United Community Services. That was an experience,

I can tell you.

My views are well known to these people, as are the views of

the Premier. We want to state that we know that the government

has an obligation to pick up some of the services that these

voluntary dollars provide. It has been estimated that about $10

million of voluntary money is provided for the health and

welfare areas from the voluntary dollar.

To obtain this money takes an enormous amount of

organization involving thousands of volunteers whose task is

always a difficult one. I candidly admit it is a task that has

not been made easier, perhaps, by my statements in the past.

However, I'm not going to equivocate. It's getting tougher to

raise the kind of money that agencies need. The 3 per cent

yearly increase in the budget does not make much impact on

[ Page 494 ]

agency service.

But what I want to say is this. I am now asking the boards

of the United Community Services, of the United Good

Neighbourhood Funds, of the Community Chests across the

province to tell the government what services you want us to

pick up.

There is a role and a very real role for the voluntary

sector. But in our opinion, that role is one of innovative

service and not of continual financing of long-standing

operations.

Of course it's been said many times that our approach is

that once a service has been developed and demonstrated that it

is a necessary people's service, then it has to be picked up by

the government. This government is committed to paying for

services to people from general revenue.

So I say again to the agencies out there: let us know;

really let us know. I've asked this question before and have

yet to receive an answer. Let us know what it is that you want

us to pick up.

I know that they are waiting out there to arrange their

campaigns and to set their goals. I say to them, "Look it your

problem realistically, consult with us, and we will give you an

immediate answer on what your proposals are."

In closing, Mr. Speaker, let me say one other word about the

people who volunteer in the service-to-people field. In

this province thousands and thousands of people spend millions

of hours helping other people in their communities. No

government could ever deliver that comprehensive kind of

service that these people help to contribute to without their

help. We're aware of this and we will always be aware of

it.

Before I sit down, Mr. Speaker, let me on behalf of the

Government and, I hope, on behalf of the Legislature, pay real

recognition to the contribution of the volunteer who helps

people in his own community.

MR. SPEAKER: I believe the Hon. Member is rising on

something. What is it?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you rising in this debate, or what?

MR. CHABOT: I'm rising on a point of privilege.

MR. SPEAKER: Well then, please state it; that you are rising

on some point.

MR. CHABOT: I'm waiting for recognition.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Columbia River rises on

some point.

MR. CHABOT: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: What is your point of privilege?

MR. CHABOT: A little earlier in the day, the Minister of

Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) introduced two message bills.

Prior to the introduction, instructions had been issued that

the bills would be available to the Press first. Those are the

instructions we were told.

We haven't been able to obtain these message bills at the

Sergeant-at-Arms' office; it's the first time in

this assembly when a message bill has not been available to a

Member by walking out and going to the

Sergeant-at-Arms' office.

This bill, which is still not available to the Members, has

gone out on the air; it's on radio, television and in the

newspapers at this time. I think it's really a shocking example

of the lack of respect of Members of this assembly. I wish, Mr.

Speaker, that you would advise that Government over there to

stop deliberately trampling and abusing the rights and

privileges of the Members of this assembly forthwith.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, the Hon. House Leader for the

official. Opposition (Mr. Richter) was in communication with

the Speaker earlier. As a result of that, I made inquiries and

I received the information from the

Sergeant-at-Arms that no authority was given to any

member of his staff to issue any bill before being introduced

in the House.

No bill was issued by any member of his staff until it had

been introduced in the House. No message bill was in their

possession nor did they have it to distribute until it was

introduced in the House.

He further advised me that a copy of the bill had been

supplied to the House Leader at the precise time it was

introduced in the House.

So those are the facts I have from the House Leader. I'll be

glad to look into it further if the Hon. Member wishes to press

the matter.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, the point that I'm making —

it's not a question of obtaining the bill prior to its

introduction in the House, but its availability shortly

thereafter from the Sergeant-at-Arms office. It was not

available. It was deliberately denied to the Members of this

assembly. Instructions were issued that it should be available

to the Press first.

Our House Leader does not have a copy of that bill. He

informed me of this …

MR. SPEAKER: Order. I have a suggestion for the Hon. Member

that a motion be put on the order paper by the Hon. Member to

ask a committee on privileges to examine into the question if

you wish to

[ Page 495 ]

do so. I think that's the proper course.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, are not the bills

placed on the table available to all Members once they're on

the table?

MR. SPEAKER: Exactly. As a matter of fact, Hon. Members…

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, order. Hon. Members, the bills of this

House, when they are produced in this House and placed on the

table, are the property of any Member to examine.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Are you defending the

Government or the Chair?

MR. SPEAKER: I don't know all the facts, Hon. Members. I suggest that

if you want to examine them further, I'd be pleased to do so.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that when you are examining

this situation, you would examine why the Speaker of the House is defending

the Government in an irate manner rather than the rights of the Chair and the

Members of this House.

MR. SPEAKER: I want to point out that I immediately took

action to investigate the problem as soon as it was brought to

my attention by the Hon. House Leader (Mr. Richter).

I related the information to the House that I've discovered.

If the Hon. Member is not satisfied, I'd be the first to ask

that it be investigated further. In that extent, I'm not

defending anyone; I'm not attacking anyone.

MRS. JORDAN: Then don't…

MR. SPEAKER: Now, please, there are certain rules of respect

required in this House, I try to observe them, I expect other

Members to do the same. Now will we proceed with the debate.

The Hon. Member for South Peace River.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Well, Mr. Speaker,

it's a pleasure for me to take my place in this debate. My

heart was so full of goodwill when I came in here this

afternoon. Now this episode has left me with a big, fat

question-mark in my mind. Some of the goodwill that was

in my heart, Mr. Speaker…

lnterjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SPEAKER: Order.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, Address the Speaker.

Now, Mr. Speaker, some of that goodwill has sort of left my

heart. I will proceed with…

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Try to silence your Members, Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm the fourth speaker from

Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition — or Her Majesty's

government in exile, whichever you prefer — to take our

place in this debate, I think, Mr. Speaker, you will agree with

me that we have tried on this side of the House to be

constructively critical of the budget speech, and to point out

to the wonderful citizens of British Columbia where it has

maybe the odd thing that hasn't been done properly. This is the

attitude we intend to keep on this side of the House in Her

Majesty's Loyal Opposition.

I cannot say, Mr. Speaker, that that was the attitude of the

Government when they were in Opposition last year. I read a few

notes out of Hansard and last year's budget was called a

"fuss budget" by who else than the Hon. Minister of Highways

(Hon. Mr. Strachan). He also called it a "fudge budget",

Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan). He also called it a

"fudge budget."

Even the now Premier, Mr. Speaker, said all kinds of nasty

things about the budget. But we on this side of the House are

constructive and will remain so.

Mr. Speaker, before I start my talk about the budget, I want

to mention some remarks that were made in the House yesterday

afternoon by the Hon. Minister without Portfolio (Hon. Mr.

Calder), the Member for Atlin. Finally, when he caught up with

what was going on in the Legislature, he announced that he was

going to promote aid for rural students to attend

post-secondary educational institutions. I guess that was

after he looked at the order paper and saw that I was going to

introduce two private Member's bills.

He went on to say that he was going to announce that he was

going to promote an air ambulance service for the province, Mr.

Speaker. If the Member for Atlin will look at the order paper

— and if he had looked at it yesterday — he would

have seen that I have served notice to introduce two bills:

one, the Rural Student Travel Aid Fund, which will be a

perpetual fund, the proceeds of which could be used for

subsidizing the travel of rural students in designated areas

attending post-secondary institutions. It would provide

funds for them to have the opportunity to visit their families

in their home communities during vacations, Mr. Speaker.

The reason I didn't introduce the bill yesterday, Mr.

Speaker, is because I wanted to talk on those two subjects in

my talk today. That's the reason they weren't introduced

yesterday.

[ Page 496 ]

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Respect for the House.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes I have respect for the House and I have

respect for the Speaker, Mr. Speaker. We on this side of the

house, Mr. Speaker, will always hold you in the highest regard.

I want you to know that.

The air ambulance bill will permit the government to provide

for ambulance services in remote areas. Later, while

interviewed on television, the Hon. Member for Atlin (Hon. Mr.

Calder) indicated he was going to put a motion on the order

paper supporting these two ideas.

MR. CHABOT: Expression of opinion; that's all that is.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'd like to know, Mr. Speaker, what is

actually going on over there, because I think the Minister

without Portfolio (Hon. Mr. Calder) should get together with

the Member for Atlin (Hon. Mr. Calder) and get specific

legislation covering these two points through to his cabinet

colleagues in the caucus.

AN HON. MEMBER: They're not speaking.

MR. PHILLIPS: That appears to be the situation on all of the

legislation that they are expected to bring into this House,

Mr. Speaker, because there hasn't been very much of it

introduced this far in the session. I think that's why the

Press says it's such a "dead" session.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I think there are other reasons.

AN HON. MEMBER: There are.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Speaker, the Premier is speaking for

himself.

The Member for Atlin was giving this House a complete snow

job yesterday afternoon. Then he went on to continue the snow

job over television by suggesting that a motion for

consideration was the same as the real goods, Mr. Speaker

— which I have put on the order paper.

Mr. Speaker, it's clear that the ideas expressed over on the

other side of the House should be on the legislative order

paper too, so that the people of British Columbia can see what

this Government intends to do about policy.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, I draw to your attention that the

Hon. Speaker before me ruled that the words "snow job" were not

really acceptable — especially in Victoria.

(Laughter).

MR. PHILLIPS: We in the north, Mr. Speaker, because of the

weather, recognize snow.

MR. SPEAKER: Not down here. Not here.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, what words should I use, Mr. Speaker

— pulling the wool over somebody's eyes?

MR. SPEAKER: He ruled that out, too. (Laughter). And also

"stacked deck," if I remember rightly. (Laughter).

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, do you get the message? As long

as you get the message, Mr. Speaker, that is the intent of my

well-chosen words here this afternoon.

MR. SPEAKER: Well-chosen is hardly it.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that instead of

the vaudeville performances which are coming —

particularly from the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) in

his posturings on the international stage; his meeting with the

Prime Minister, which clearly did not cover him with any glory

as far as his understanding of protocol is concerned…dealings between governments…

AN HON. MEMBER: He even phoned a janitor in the White

House.

MR. PHILLIPS: Right…his recent episode yesterday

involving a grandiose telephone conversation with one of the

janitors in the White House; all of these are no real

substitute for clearcut policy, decision making and leadership,

Mr. Speaker. Oh, the Speakers have changed. (Mr. Dent in the

chair).

For the people of the north it's actions on the statute

books that count, and the Government opposite is building up an

incredible record of waffling on legislation that should be

discussed by the Members of this Legislature.

I would suggest, insofar as the Member for Atlin (Hon. Mr.

Calder) is concerned that he get off his

$33,000-a-year chair and start talking to his

colleagues, Mr. Speaker. You're a Member from the north, Mr.

Speaker. I suggest you urge him to do just that.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): $54,000.

MR. PHILLIPS: I hope, in all sincerity, Mr. Speaker, that

the Government will support the legislation that I'm going to

bring in on these two very, very important subjects to the

people — not only of the north, but to all rural areas of

British Columbia. I will be introducing the legislation on

[ Page 497 ]

Monday, Mr. Speaker.

The people of northern British Columbia are

down-to-earth, practical people. They want this

legislation. They will recognize who brought forward to the

floor of this House the idea, before it was brought in by the

Member for Atlin, Mr. Speaker.

It's a sad situation, Mr. Speaker, that the Opposition in

this House have far more practical legislative proposals on the

order paper than the Government opposite. If you look at the

legislation that the Opposition has brought in, you don't have

to be too intelligent to recognize that we have tabled our

legislative programme already. If the Government isn't going to

bring theirs in, I wish they'd give us the opportunity to

debate ours.

If he's so strong in support of air ambulance service for

remote areas in British Columbia, and if he is sincere about

seeking aid to rural students, then he has a great opportunity

to support the legislation that I will be introducing.

Now I listened with awe — actually with awe. It was

unbelievable, Mr. Speaker — it was unbelievable awe,

(Laughter). When the Member for Atlin (Hon. Mr. Calder), and I

wish the Member were in the House, the Minister without

Portfolio — I wish he were in the House. But he is very

seldom in the House lately; very seldom in the House,

Mr. Speaker.

He was in the House yesterday, Mr. Speaker, while he gave a

speech. I would like to read to the House — although I'm

almost ashamed to read some of the words from the Member for

Atlin yesterday afternoon.

He goes on to say, "What does this road mean to the economy

of British Columbia?" And he is talking about the

Stewart-Cassiar road. "I would remind the Members that

this road now has resulted in the shortest link between the

State of Alaska and the State of Washington by 1,000 miles.

When in full use it will take at least 50 per cent of the

traffic away from the Alaska Highway. Mr. Speaker, I think on

this basis no longer will you hear the demand to pave the

Alaska Highway."

I would like to remind the Member for Atlin (Hon. Mr.

Calder), Mr. Speaker, that it was the development of the area

around the Alaska Highway that allowed his Minister of Finance

to stand in the House last Friday and introduce a budget that

is a balanced budget. A lot of the development in the Peace

River area and surrounding the Alaska Highway, that has opened

up resource industries, that has allowed the Member for Atlin

(Hon. Mr. Calder) to live in the lap of luxury.

I was very disappointed, Mr. Speaker, and through you to the

Minister of Finance, very disappointed when a Member of your

cabinet could be so parochial, so narrow-minded in his

thinking that he says, "I've got my Stewart-Cassiar road,

we don't any more need the Alaska Highway." If that is the type

of narrow-minded, selfish, greedy thinking of the Member

for Atlin it's…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: There it is. There's his words. They're right

there for everybody to see.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order. I would draw your attention to standing order

No. 17,

part 2, which forbids the use of offensive words and I ask you to withdraw

the word "greedy".

MR. PHILLIPS: Is greedy an offensive word? I'll withdraw

it.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the Member for Atlin

that it was over the dust and the rocks on the Alaska Highway

that truckers drove to carry the machines to build his

Stewart-Cassiar road. It was the Alaska Highway that was

substantially the vehicle through which the Asbestos Cassiar

was developed, Mr. Speaker, which is in his riding.

Commerce along the Alaska Highway brought economy, education

and hospital facilities to many of his native friends. Now that

he's got his highway, Mr. Speaker, he no longer needs the

Alaska Highway. It was the Alaska Highway that was responsible

for opening up the oil patch, which is where practically the

entire petroleum and oil industry in British Columbia is

— in that area.

Had it not been for the Alaska Highway, maybe, the millions

of dollars that came into the government coffers just recently

from that land sale would not have happened. You're not trying

to kill the goose that laid the golden egg, maybe, but you're

trying to give it a good swift kick, I'll have a little more to

say about that later.

I guess, Mr. Speaker, that this Government wants to forget

the people that have been eating dust on the Alaska Highway for

30 years. They no longer, now that they've got their

Stewart-Cassiar road, can see the potential of what would

happen if the Alaska Highway were paved.

The Member from Stewart doesn't realize that 80 per cent of

the people in North America live on the eastern side of the

Rocky Mountains, whether it's in the United States or in

Canada. He doesn't realize the potential tourist travel. He

can't see the circular route from up to Watson Lake and across

and down, making one of the most scenic tours in North America.

The Member for Atlin (Hon. Mr. Calder) cannot see that, Mr.

Speaker.

I want to say that I've lost a lot of faith in the Member

for Atlin since I heard him utter those words in this House

yesterday afternoon. I stood in this Legislature for three

years, Mr. Speaker, and promoted…

[ Page 498 ]

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

And then what happened? (Laughter).

MR. PHILLIPS: That's all right for the Minister of Health

Services and Hospital Insurance to make snide remarks, but what

I'm saying, Mr. Speaker, is very serious and you wouldn't even

know because I doubt if you've been north of the 53rd parallel.

Like the rest of your colleagues over there, you don't know

what's up there and you really don't care. Don't make snide

remarks until you go up there and can talk on an intelligent

basis.

I stood in this Legislature, Mr. Speaker, for three years

when I was a Member from 1966 to 1969 and urged the then

government to complete…

HON. MR. BARRETT: You mean in your driveway?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well I'm glad somebody on that side of the

House has been north of the 53rd parallel, Mr. Speaker. Mr.

Premier, you and the Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) are

about the only two that have been.

AN HON. MEMBER: Check your facts. Check your facts.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, order.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm going to say what I was going to say if it

takes me all afternoon. I stood in this Legislature while a

Member from the South Peace from 1966 to 1969 and urged the

then government to complete the construction of the

Stewart-Cassiar road.

If my thinking ever became that parochial, that

narrow-minded, Mr. Speaker, or if my thinking ever became

greedy — and I talk about myself — I would hope

that I would never be in public life, Mr. Speaker. And I mean

it sincerely.

I think the Members from the north have enough trouble

selling no matter what government is in on the benefits of

developing the north, and I don't care whether it's a Social

Credit government or a Liberal government or an NDP government.

The Members from the north have got to stick together, Mr.

Speaker, because they have to point out to the rest of the

province what the value of developing the north is and what the

benefits are.

When we get a Member of the cabinet standing in this

Legislature and uttering those words that were uttered

yesterday afternoon Mr. Speaker, I don't know what politics is

coming to. I really don't. I think politics must be getting

political, that's right.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it was one week ago today that I was able

to sit in this Legislature and watch our Premier as he bubbled

with pride and stuck out his chest and read his great words of

wisdom which were concealed in the budget speech. Mr. Speaker,

he had a very difficult time concealing his emotions of pride.

Every now and again his face twisted in a great smile and we

all realized that this was his great day. This was his great

day at spending the well-heeled bank accounts, the legacy

that was left by the shrewd financing of the previous Minister

of Finance (Hon. Mr. Bennett).

I took the odd time that I was able to take my eyes off the

Premier to look around at his back bench — and man, were

they ever proud of you. Oh, were they ever proud, because they

knew you were giving them a raise, Mr. Minister of Finance.

I think it must have slipped out because man it was just…

it was a fairly long speech and I was actually disappointed

when you finished. Great speech, Mr. Speaker, great performance

by the Premier and I guess that we can probably look forward to

another one or two.

However, the budget wasn't that good. I'm not going to go

into the good news and bad news. It was, I think, the first big

swing of the club from "big brother" socialism against "bad

brother" business. It really didn't kill business. But they did

wake up the next morning and realize that they'd been hit, but

they didn't know how bad. It's like a blow on the head. You

know you may have a headache the next day, but until you go get

an X-ray you're not really sure. There may be some blood

vessels burst inside, and it takes a little while until you get

a chance to really come alive for a little while and realize

just how bad you have been hit.

Well, I'm in business. Yes, Mr. Speaker, they haven't been

killed. They weren't hit on the head as hard as they had

anticipated. But the problem is they really don't know, Mr.

Speaker, where that next blow's going to come, because they

know that club is still up there. It's still there, still

hanging above their head. It's like an axe — what's the

old saying — it's like having an axe over your head. Oh,

will the next blow be bigger? Oh, Mr. Speaker, I don't

know.

The Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) took the

opportunity last Tuesday to swing the big club again. Yes, he

swung it again. Yes, Mr. Speaker, but he didn't swing the club

at all segments of industry. He just sort of tapped the real

estate people. The real estate salesmen, he touched them up a

little bit just to sort of make them come to attention and get

ready for the next blow, because it'll be coming for them too.

Yes, Mr. Attorney General, you did. You caused them a lot of

sleepless nights.

He stood very proudly in the House and said, "Jobs —

there's $64 million in the budget for jobs." How many jobs is

that going to create, Mr. Speaker?

[ Page 499 ]

And for how long? Is the Government planning on becoming the

biggest employer in the province? Or, Mr. Speaker, are they

going to create an atmosphere so that private industry can be

the biggest employer? What is the intention? Mr. Speaker, the

Attorney General didn't go on to explain how this $64 million

was going to create jobs and for how long. He just came out in

his usual wonderful way and said, "There's $64 million in there

for jobs." But there is a lot left unsaid, Mr. Speaker, a lot

left unsaid.

Mr. Speaker, there are about three points in this budget

that I want to talk about. The first one is the increase by 20

per cent of corporation tax. I feel, Mr. Speaker, this was not

done because it was needed, but was done to appease the Waffle

group of the NDP, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. PHILLIPS: Now, you know, Mr. Speaker, I am not saying

this to be political. I actually sincerely mean it. I actually

sincerely mean it, because I think the hotheads in the party

forced the Minister of Finance. You know he said himself that

any increase is not really necessary — but we've got to

do something to appease those guys out there, or boy, we're

going to be in trouble. He and his cabinet sat down, Mr.

Speaker, and they said, "What can we do to appease those

hotheads out there, those guys that don't understand business

and never will — but we've got to do something, because

otherwise at their next convention they are just going to give

us 'you know what.' That's what they'll do.”

Isn't that a fact? And I think some of his own backbench

said, "You had better get after that big nasty business —

you had better touch him up a little bit or we are going to be

in trouble because during the last election we said that we're

going to get those big guys yes sir, we're going to get

them."

And the votes rolled on.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, all 38 of them.

MR. PHILLIPS: But that's going to be your downfall though,

Mr. Premier. That's going to be your downfall.

Now the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker, since he has taken

over a new portfolio has been a great one for giving the best

advice. He says he stood in this House, Mr. Speaker, and he

said, "We're going to get the best advice possible in

everything we can do. We are going to employ the best brains in

the province. We are going to have commissions, and furthermore

when we get that advice, when we get all these reports, Mr.

Speaker, we are going to listen to them."

Well, Mr. Speaker, I wish that the Minister of Finance would

listen to what I consider to be some pretty sound advice from

the Economic Council of Canada. Last November, they tabled their ninth annual report

and they said that governments can hold the line on taxes for

the next few years and perhaps even reduce them. Is that good

advice, Mr. Speaker? Mr. Speaker, is that good advice from the

Economic Council of Canada?

Have you got the report there, Mr. Speaker?

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. PHILLIPS: The council went on to say that in its ninth

annual review of the economy "made public last Thursday," that was in November — the council says it

"expects the growth of the economy to adequately finance all

government programmes. "New ones as well as existing one.

Now there's some advice for the Minister of Finance. Where

is he? He's left the House. Would you pass the message on to

him, Mr. Speaker, through you to Mr. Attorney General. Tell him

that he should listen to this advice. This is good sound

advice.

Ah, but there is a point in this report. A very important

point. The point is this: that expected increase in economic

growth should produce enough revenue.

You know, the spin-off from the increased revenue will

produce more taxes to look after these programmes because we

are already heavily taxed enough. But there is the key, Mr.

Speaker. There is the key — anticipated growth. And I

honestly believe that the Premier, Mr. Speaker, doesn't

anticipate any growth in the Province of British Columbia, so

in order to maintain his tax base — in order to maintain

the present amount of taxes coming in — he has to

increase the taxes on the existing business.

Because there will be no increase. Is that what this budget

is all about?

AN HON. MEMBER: No progress in the economy.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I don't know, Mr. Attorney General. I

think you think the same as your Minister of Finance —

because you said here on January 31, when you were speaking in

the throne debate — you said, "Our forecast is for a very

good year in terms of capital expenditure in 1973 — at

about the same level — around $3.6 billion." Which is

referring to expenditures in 1972. So you must sit very close

to the Premier, Mr. Attorney General. Very close to the Premier

and the cabinet Ministers, because you have him thinking now

that there isn't going to be any growth. So in order to keep

the same tax coming in, we have to increase the taxes and this

is the situation that is in this budget. It is a

no-growth, no expected growth budget.

How they can stand on the floor of this Legislature and try

and tell us in one breath that they want

[ Page 500 ]

growth and then the backbenchers stand up and they say, "We

are a no-growth — we don't need any more growth. We

don't need any more roads. We don't need any more this. We

don't need any more that. We are quite happy — we are

quite content."

MR. CHABOT: More money though, more money.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'll talk about the money situation in

just a few moments, Mr. Member.

Mr. Attorney General, you have experts in your Department of

Industrial Development. And they will tell you, Mr. Speaker,

they will tell the Attorney General that there is no such thing

as a no-growth policy. You either have growth or you have

recession. There is no way you can stand still.

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): You don't

think you're growing any more do you?

MR. PHILLIPS: I'll talk to you a little later — I just

hope you stay in the House. I'm coming to the Minister of Mines

and Petroleum Resources. I just hope he stays in the House, Mr.

Speaker, because as a matter of fact I am going to be talking

to you in the very near future. As a matter of fact I am going

to be talking to you this afternoon.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Please address the Chair.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am addressing the

Chair.

Mr. Speaker, what is going to be the benefit to the province

of increasing, or at least putting a tax on invested capital in

the business? All I can see that this is going to do, Mr.

Speaker, is to make sure that you keep as little operating

capital in your business as possible. If you happen to be an

international or multi-province company you will keep

your operations in Alberta — I won't say Manitoba and

Saskatchewan — in Alberta and Ontario and Quebec. You

will keep them with all your free, employed capital. This is

kind of a stupid thing to me. It really is.

The Member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) knows better than

that. He's a lawyer, criminal lawyer, but he must know

something about business.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, no.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh yes he does, he's been on cases where he

has been sued by income tax and all that sort of stuff, he

knows something about it — give him credit for that. Why

don't you get into the cabinet and straighten those guys

out?

MR. CHABOT: He's trying.

MRS. JORDAN: He wants to get in there and do a good job.

MR. PHILLIPS: Now, Mr. Speaker, I was going to quote some

more of what the Economic Council said — but I want to

make another point here before I leave this one on the increase

in corporation tax.

I want to make one other point, and that point is that the

Economic Council feels that inflation is one of the greatest

problems in North America today. That is why they recommend

reduction of average rate of unemployment. They recommend

maintaining price increases to a level of 3 per cent. They

recommend increasing consumer spending by an average of 5.5 per

cent before inflation.

One of the reasons for this Economic Council's report is to

point out that if the line is not held in taxation, and if

these recommendations are not followed, that we are going to be

in problems with inflation. More so than we are today, Mr.

Speaker. And I want this to be read into the record; that

inflation is the biggest problem that we have in the world

today — and just witness what happened in the money

markets.

Anybody that knows anything about business at all will

recognize that if something isn't done about inflation —

giving an extra $15 or $20 to the people who are on fixed

incomes will do absolutely nothing. You are going to have to be

talking about giving them $125 a month more in the very near

future. This is the problem. This is the root of the problem

and this is where this Government has the opportunity to lead

the way. And you haven't led the way. You haven't led the way

in this budget, Mr. Speaker.

I predict that this budget will have a greater devastating

effect on the economy of British Columbia — more so than

the devaluation of the U.S. dollar, which recently

happened.

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

royalty that has been imposed on the petroleum industry. I am

glad to see that the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources

(Hon. Mr. Nimsick) is in his seat.

I think, Mr. Minister, that this must be another case of

appeasing the Waffle wing of the socialist party — I

really do. I don't think anybody in their true mind that knows

anything about business would impose this royalty on the

petroleum industry at this time. It will certainly be a

devastating blow against the economy of the Peace River

area.

I predict that there is no way that this Government will

sock another $9 million out of the petroleum industry, because

the petroleum industry won't stand for it. And the increases in

activity that were expected to produce this $9 million will not

occur, Mr. Speaker. You will drive the petroleum

[ Page 501 ]

industry out of British Columbia in the same manner that

Tommy Douglas drove the petroleum industry out of Saskatchewan.

Make no mistake about it — he did! Make no mistake about

it.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Did he take the oil with

him?

MR. PHILLIPS: No, the oil is still in the ground.

This increase in the crude oil royalty is unrealistic and

will cause a sharp drop in both exploration and revenue from

land sales. So, you will not have achieved, Mr. Speaker, what

you originally set out to achieve. You will not get that extra

$9 million.

It's all very well and good for the Attorney General to

stand on the floor of this Legislature and say that the north

has been raped and there are gases being sold to those

dastardly Americans. But, the truth of the matter is, and the

Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) knows it as well as I

know it, that had that market not been established — and

I want to hasten to say that I think we should renegotiate our

gas export price. I'll agree with that. But, just to stand up

here and say that the north has been devastated and our

resources are flowing out and we're getting no return is not a

credible remark for a man in the Attorney General's position to

make. And you know it, Mr. Attorney General. It sounds good on

the floor of the House, and it sounds good in the Press, and it

sounds good to your Waffle group but let's stick to some

facts.

Surely to goodness, Mr. Speaker, the Attorney General is

holding the portfolio that holds the key to the future of

British Columbia — industrial development. I hope that we

don't have to learn the lesson, the same as Saskatchewan did,

the hard way. Your policies look 100 per cent on paper. But

where have they worked? This is the question, Mr. Speaker, where have they worked?

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Out in the world.

MR. PHILLIPS: They haven't worked in the world. They didn't

work in Saskatchewan. And I'll give you some information my

friends on the backbench, before this Legislature is over,

about how they're working in Manitoba — what I mean to

say is how they're not working in Manitoba. You do the research

yourself.

Before the backbench starts urging their cabinet to do all these motherhood

things about stopping the raping of our land, and stopping the desecration of

our natural resources and stopping the giving of the coal away, they want to

sit down and they want to take a good hard look at what is really going on.

Because all of these motherhood clauses that they put in look all right in the

Press. But when the employment in this province declines, and when the economy

declines and there are no taxes coming in to carry on the social programmes

that you souls dearly want to bring in, then you will have a problem.

I want to give you a fact about the petroleum industry, Mr.

Speaker. At the end of 1971 the petroleum industry had invested

$1.27 billion in the province for development and production,

and had recovered only $694 million before payment of taxes.

Now, that's how the petroleum industry is ripping off the

profits. Those are facts. They're not ideological statements.

They're cold hard facts. But you've got to realize that where

the petroleum is in British Columbia — it's not the

easiest to find…

MR. LAUK: Not the hardest either.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, you stack it up, Mr. Member for

Vancouver Centre, you stack it up with the world resources of

petroleum. You will find out that it's not the easiest to find.

Exploration is very difficult — it can only be carried on

in the winter because of the terrain.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): It's costly.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, it's costly. The terrain is very rugged.

And when the drilling is carried on, it's not like planning

large pools, which there are in Alberta. You might have a pool

here, and over here you might have to go down — and I

don't know how to explain it in geological terms. But it's not

that easy.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well now, Mr. Attorney General, you're an

intelligent man — I'll give you credit for being an

intelligent man. And I'll also give you intelligence for having

to satisfy your Waffle group.

But when this Waffle — group goes in the bread lineup,

Mr. Speaker, they won't waffle so much then.

The industry has made a substantial contribution to the

economic growth of north-eastern British Columbia over

the past two decades and the continued wealth of that area is

very dependent on this industry.

Now, it's all very well and good for some of the Members in

this Legislature who don't have the petroleum industry in their

riding. You know it's like me saying, "Don't take any of the

fish out of the Prince Rupert area. No, leave the fish there

— my heavens, the fish are all going to be gone." Or

saying to somebody that's in the forest industry, "Let's tax

that forest industry so it grinds to a halt." That's all right.

But that's the type of narrow-minded thinking that

prevails on that side of the House. You have to have a

government, Mr. Speaker, that works for the good of the whole

Province of British Columbia.

[ Page 502 ]

When I was on the Government side of the House, I didn't

just talk to my riding. I tried to think of it in terms of the

development of the whole province, in broad terms. I've heard

some statements from that side of the House during the previous

debate and this debate that would lead one to believe that

Members in the backbench on the Government side, Mr. Speaker,

are interested only in their own ridings. In other words, "If

it isn't in my riding close her down, I don't care. The kids

can go hungry and we take all those people who depend on this

industry who have worked for this industry for years —

they can close it down it doesn't matter to us." And that's

what's going to happen to the petroleum industry. In the Peace

River — you mark my words. I want it written in the

record that the petroleum industry in the Peace River area

within four years will be practically nothing.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'll talk to you later, Mr. Minister of Mines

(Hon. Mr. Nimsick). And when that day comes, Mr. Speaker, I

will stand in this House and say, "I told you so." Yes, you

better believe I will.

AN HON. MEMBER: You won't get the opportunity.

MR. PHILLIPS: Ah, you people are listening and it's hurting

your conscience and I'm glad. I hope you go back to caucus and

say, "We should listen to the Member for South Peace River

because he knows what he's talking about." (Laughter).

Funds available for increasingly expensive exploration in

drilling will be greatly reduced and new capital investment

— particularly risked capital required by the petroleum

industry — will not be available unless an adequate after

tax return is obtainable.

As I said before, Mr. Speaker, I agree that we renegotiate

some of our natural gas contracts — Mr. Attorney General,

are you listening? But, I still think a man in the Attorney

General's position should not stand in this House and make

statements — well, I wouldn't say they are misleading no,

that's unparliamentary. But they sure sort of misled me.

Now, let me see…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, I'm not through. No, I've got some more.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, I have to say the same thing about

the budget that I said about the throne speech. It really does

not tell us what the policy of this Government is. The cloud of

uncertainty is still hanging out there over British

Columbia.

About all this Government has done since it came to power is

threaten, threaten, threaten. I said back in October at the

mini-session, when I stood in this Legislature, that

businessmen were having a lot of sleepless nights and that the

Government should unveil its policy so that we could get on

with the business at hand. That has not happened and this

uncertainty still prevails over this great province.

It prevails while unemployment continues to rise, Mr.

Speaker.

Now this budget certainly did nothing to warm the cold war

between the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr.

Nimsick) and the B.C. Mining Industry. And, Mr. Speaker, make

no mistake about it. There is a cold war, a very cold war going

on between our Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources and

the mining industry.

The Minister himself, in his preliminary estimates of

mineral production for 1973, stated that mineral exploration is

expected to decline. Is that a good policy, Mr. Speaker? Or is

it because of the no-policy of the Minister of Mines and

Petroleum Resources?

For the first time in many years, Mr. Speaker, there are no

major mines under development in the Province of British

Columbia. While the Government appeases some of its backbench

and wafflers in the party and indulges in cheap politics on the

floor of the Legislature, the economy continues to decline. And

the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett), the Minister of

Industrial Development, Trade, and Commerce (Hon. Mr.

Macdonald) and the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources

predict a "no growth" year.

You need more than $64.8 million to create jobs, Mr.

Attorney General, let me tell you.

The Government, Mr. Speaker, that shouted so loud last

October about creating jobs — I'd like to know where they

are. The Government, Mr. Speaker, is strangling on its own rope

— the rope that it was going to tie around the neck of

"big brother" business.

Two copper mines are closed north of Fort Nelson. I guess

the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr.

Nimsick) intends to open them up by making them economically

feasible.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, that's the "popcorn" theory of the

Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources…yes, Mr.

Speaker?

He's going to make them economically feasible, because they

were ripping off such fantastic profits I guess he thought that

they'd close down because they couldn't get enough money to pay

their income tax. It was so great that these mines closed down.

They were ripping out the copper. These mines closed down, Mr.

Speaker, simply because they were not

[ Page 503 ]

economical.

There are a lot of mines in British Columbia that operate on

the very verge of closing down. But the waffle group of the NDP

would lead you to believe that you just open up a mine and you

never look back. You have to hire Brink's to carry 'er to the

bank. They don't realize the risk capital that goes into

operating a mine. There's two closed up there and I guess the

Minister intends to open them up, Mr. Speaker, by charging a

royalty on copper. He's going to make them more economically

feasible, Mr. Speaker.

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): How many

shares you got?

MR. PHILLIPS: I haven't got a single share in them, Mr.

Speaker. And I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I resent

that statement very much. I want you to know that I can stand

in this Legislature with a free mind…

AN HON. MEMBER: An empty mind.

MR. PHILLIPS: I resent that statement, Mr. Minister of Mines

and Petroleum Resources.

AN HON. MEMBER: He should apologize.

MR. PHILLIPS: I suggest to you that it isn't the mining

policies in this province that are archaic. I suggest to you,

Mr. Speaker, that it's the Minister's thinking that is

archaic.

With all due respect to the Minister of Mines, who has been

in this Legislature for a long time, he's reached his summit.

But I think now that he's reached his summit, that he should go

back home and he should retire and he should give that

portfolio over to somebody who can handle it.

Mr. Speaker, if the portfolio of Mines continues under its

present administration, the economy of the Province of British

Columbia will be on the decline for quite a while. Anybody who

knows anything about the economy of British Columbia has got to

realize that there are two major contributors to the tax kitty.

I don't think, Mr. Minister, that the Government realizes this.

They're already going to kill the petroleum industry. They've

still got the club hanging…yes, all right. You laugh, Mr.

Minister. You'll eat those words next year. You mark my words…going to kill the petroleum industry. And the big club is

hanging over the mining industry, so they don't know whether to

go forward, to go to the left, to go to the right, they don't

know where to go.

I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources

(Hon. Mr. Nimsick) doesn't know where he's going, either, but I suggest he go

back home, Mr. Speaker. He's reached the summit of his career. He's a

great man and I appreciate him as a politician. But I don't appreciate him as

the Minister of Mines because he's killing the industry. He's killing the economy

of this province, Mr. Speaker.

I suggest that he get down off his soap box, realize the

election is over, and go back home.

I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, they can laugh and joke all

they want to, but if they were living in my constituency today

they wouldn't be laughing. You wouldn't be laughing. You go

ahead and joke all you want to. It's a very serious matter.

Sukunka coal lay-offs are blamed on government delay.

I'm not even going to talk about this because I am sympathetic.

I'll call an ace an ace or a spade a spade in this House any

day, Mr. Speaker, I'll call it the way I see it. I did when I

was on that side of the House; I'll do it when I'm on this side

of the House.

I'm sympathetic with what the Premier of this province is

trying to do in the development of Sukunka coal. If those great

Liberals back in Ottawa would keep their cotton-pickin'

noses out of our business, the development would have gone

ahead. That's exactly the way I see it. And I know the Premier

feels bad, because he sincerely wants to create jobs. He wants

to see the project go ahead.

By the same token, I wish he would come out and say what

royalty he is going to charge for coal. We still don't

know.

I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, and I mean this in all

sincerity, that in our constituency the things I have been

talking about are not laughing matters. The Peace River area

has contributed a great amount to the economy of this

province.

There's a lot of good, solid people up there; good,

hard-working people who put up with living in the north.

I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, they don't like what this

Government is doing to them and I don't blame them.

The third point that I want to discuss in this budget is the

inflationary tendencies in this budget, Mr. Speaker, and I wish

the Premier were in the House now. As I stated before, the

greatest pressing problem in North America today is the problem

of inflation. This budget sets the fire of inflation ablaze

again.

You might well ask how I can say that about this budget,

because at first glance it looks like a fairly modest budget

— other than the devastating fact that it increases the

royalty of the petroleum industry and increases by 20 per cent

the tax on business. But let's get right into the

nitty-gritty of the budget.

First we must establish that the Government must lead; the

government must set examples. That's what I have been talking

about when I say, "Why don't they tell the people where they

are going?"

At this point I want to go back in history, because it's

very important, to March of 1965. In March of

[ Page 504 ]

1965 there was a dispute developed between the St. Lawrence

Seaway Authority and the Canadian Brotherhood of Railway

Transport and General Workers. This dispute went to

reconciliation and the union demand was for a 35 per cent

increase. A strike date was set for June 7. On June 9 Senator

Norman A. Mackenzie was named mediator.

Mr. Speaker, this is very important. The settlement was

announced within hours of the deadline of June 17. It's the

terms of the settlement that are so important. Seaway operators

and headquarters personnel received an immediate wage increase

of 20 per cent retroactive to January 1 and a further 10 per

cent on January 1, 1967. The seaway authority also agreed to

take over the full cost of welfare programmes.

This very unrealistic wage settlement by a Crown corporation

at that particular date in history set the stage for the

fires of inflation to burn so rapidly in Canada that inflation

has become the major national issue today, Mr. Speaker. That's

what I've been trying to establish. This was the start of

it.

Settlements in all segments of the public sector used this

wage settlement as a guideline. You will recall that since that

time, we have had devastating strikes in the public sector and

in industry. Industrial strikes that followed were because wage

settlements were wanting to be based on the same

guidelines.

Now today, eight years later, we have another government

making the same mistake, Mr. Speaker — a mistake that will

haunt them until the people of this province throw them out.

Mr. Speaker, this is a serious matter. I want to reiterate that

those who are elected to rule the province must set an

example.

The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett), by taking a

personal pay boost of 21.1 per cent that could go as high as

57.57 per cent with a full fall session, is not setting an

example for the people of this province to follow, Mr. Speaker.

It's a very serious matter. I think our Premier is feeding high

on the trough because he doesn't expect to be there very

long.

What did our Premier say, Mr. Speaker, shortly after he was

elected? He said: "I'm only going to be there for two terms.

Barrett will resign after two terms as Premier."

Number one, when I saw that statement, I didn't think it was

a good statement for the Premier of any province to make. You

sort of take the attitude the last year that he's here that,

"The Legislation, I bring in doesn't really make any difference

anyway because I'm going to quit next year." I don't think

that's a good attitude for any elected official to take.

Then we look, Mr. Speaker, at the Minister without

Portfolio, who takes a 253 per cent increase without a fall

session. My computer wouldn't go that big to figure out the

percentage that the increase would be if there were a fall

session. All other cabinet Ministers and MLA's have a 20 per cent increase.

The die has been cast and the trend has been set, Mr.

Speaker, and it's irrevocable.

What will follow will be the demand by the civil service for

a 20 per cent pay increase. Teachers' salaries are about 80 per

cent of the total educational budget of $484 million plus

— or $387 million. Increase that by 20 per cent, Mr.

Speaker, and you've got an additional cost for teachers'

salaries of $77,544,200.

I could go through all departments. What about the doctors?

They'll want a 20 per cent pay increase. What about the

lawyers? They'll want a 20 per cent pay increase.

Because of the inflationary trend of this irresponsible act

on behalf of the Government, Mr. Speaker, I want to serve

notice that we are going to bring in an amendment to the

Premier's salary vote to reduce the proposed increase to…

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I would remind the Hon. Member

that he may discuss the budget item in general terms but not

deal with the specifics. This will come up under consideration

of the estimates.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well then, I'll put it this way, Mr. Speaker:

we're going to recommend that only a 6.5 per cent increase be

paid to all the Members of this Legislature, including the

Premier and including the cabinet Ministers and including the

MLA's. I honestly feel, Mr. Speaker, that we must set an

example and I honestly feel, Mr. Speaker, that we are not

setting an example by this large pay boost in one year.

I feel, Mr. Speaker, that if the Government changes their

mind on this very important issue, it will save the Minister of

Labour (Hon. Mr. King) many, many sleepless nights. How can he

honestly say, when he's dealing with labour negotiations

between business and labour: "You've already been offered an

8.5 per cent increase, or what have you. Isn't that enough in

one year?"

I urge the Government to reconsider this very important

issue. As I said before and I'll say again, inflation is the

biggest problem in Canada today. Our social service increases,

which take up the majority of the budget, will seem like

peanuts if inflation continues to soar. You know what happened

and you know what will happen in Canada, Mr. Speaker, if you

know anything about business.

The Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) stood on the floor

of this Legislature and he said, "This little province should

lead the way and be against the French exploding their atomic

bomb down in the Pacific Ocean." Mr. Speaker, if the Attorney

General knows anything about wars, he will know that the

majority of wars are caused by economics.

I would suggest to the Attorney General, Mr.

[ Page 505 ]

Speaker, that if he wants to really lead the way, he will

help run the economy of this province so that it will set an

example in curbing inflation. That way, you will curb many

problems. That way, you can offset many wars that will be

because, as I said, wars are based on economics.

You know it, Mr. Attorney General, so why don't you be the

guiding light and instead of standing up there, Mr. Speaker,

piously saying, "We're against the bombing." — it doesn't

cost anybody personally to be against the testing of the atom

bomb — down in the south Pacific. It doesn't personally

hurt anybody.

But I say if you control the wages in this Legislature,

everybody would be putting their heart on the line in showing

the way to curb inflation. I say when you put your money on the

desk, then you can stand up and shout. You don't have to be

pious about it because you're putting your tongue where your

pocketbook is. That's leading the way.

I get a little sick and tired of pious statements about,

"We're going to do this " and "We're going to do that." The

Premier says he gets rid of the previous Premier's chair

because it was a little bigger. You could buy a whole bunch of

chairs, Mr. Speaker, with the increase in wages he's going to

take.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I really can't see too much about

job-creating ability in this budget. We recognize that

one out of ten people in British Columbia is unemployed. It's

been stated that it's a "people's budget" because of a whole

bunch of pictures in it of people.

I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that these people that are in

there, every one of them is enjoying leisure. I've nothing

against that. But I'll say in this House, as I've said before,

that people also get a great satisfaction out of having the

opportunity to do a good day's work. There isn't too much in

that budget to talk about jobs.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I didn't realize that I was going to be

talking this long. (Laughter). There are a couple of other

items that I want to cover.

I'm glad the Attorney General is in the House, Mr. Speaker,

because I have a very important matter that I want to discuss

with him. I want to talk to the Attorney General, Mr. Speaker,

for just a moment about consumer protection.

We've heard a lot in this Legislature recently about

consumer protection. At the outset I want to say that I'm all

for consumer protection. I think consumer protection is great.

I'm an automobile dealer and we have a policy that if you're

not satisfied with your automobile when you buy, we give you

your money back. That's how interested I am in consumer

protection. I believe in it.

I don't think that people should be bilked by

smooth-talking salesmen.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, I'm serious about that. I realize that

there are many areas where poor unsuspecting persons are taken

by unscrupulous salesmen.

The other side of the coin, Mr. Attorney General, is that

there are many small independent businessmen who get bilked by

smart operators that hide inside the very laws that were meant

to protect them.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, I think you would. Lots do.

There are many small business operators that get bilked by

these consumer laws, by smart people who hide inside them. I

say, Mr. Attorney General, that if you can increase your budget

by 21.63 per cent, which is one of the larger increases of any

department in the budget, that you can take something out of

this increase of $48.5 million and set up a fund which will

allow the small businessman who has been bilked by the smoothie

to go to.

I'm serious about this. I think you should set up this fund

so that when a small businessman — and there are many

small businessmen that don't have that much operating capital.

I'm talking about the small grocery operator, the guy that's

starting up in a service station or something like this. These

fellows are susceptible to be being bilked the same as an

unsuspecting housewife is susceptible to being bilked by a

smooth salesman.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, my friend, it is the same. I'm going to

point out an example right here and now.

We have a case in the Peace River area that I would like Mr.

Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) to investigate. I'd like

you to investigate this particular case.

This fellow is an American. He came to our area in the

spring of 1971. His credentials were pretty fantastic, Mr.

Speaker. He had a brochure — a beautiful brochure,

leather lined — outlining the enterprise that he's going

to go into. He had a personal credit rating of $11 million. His

other asset was the smooth, convincing ways of a professional

bullshipper.

Now he was going to open cattle ranch…that's bullshipper

— s — h — i - p — p — e — r.

(Laughter).

Now, Mr. Attorney General, this is a pretty fantastic

brochure. Do you know how much this brochure cost, Mr. Attorney

General? This brochure cost $15,000. It's lovely. Look at

it.

Now if you were a small, unsuspecting businessman and

somebody walked into your place of business and said, "Look,

I'm going to run a $100 million cattle operation here and I

want to buy some little old merchandise to get me goin'. I got

a (supposedly) $11 million credit rating back in the

[ Page 506 ]

States."

The guy wanted to buy a vacuum cleaner, a sewing machine or

a house or a fridge, and he wanted to charge it because, "the

financing isn't arranged just yet — but it's coming."

So he started on his way to fame in the area, armed with

this brochure. And, as I say, that's a pretty impressive

looking brochure.

The only thing that this man didn't have was cash for the

merchandise and services that he would of necessity require to

get the project underway. But don't panic, because, "it's

coming. The finances are all arranged." Some big bank somewhere

back in fairyland had got $11 million coming to get this

project underway. And even the banks in the area were pretty

impressed for a while. They put out small overdrafts and loaned

him little bits of money.

Then, during the summer of 1971, things began to crumble for

this poor fellow and, Mr. Speaker, the eyes of the citizens of

the Peace River country were upon him. The eyes of the

merchants of the Peace River country were upon him. But the

eyes of the police department in the Peace River area were not

upon him, because they couldn't find him. He was hiding under

the consumer protection umbrella — they couldn't find him.

No, it's a fact.

The farmland he was to buy from private sources never really

did get transferred, because the fellow who was transferring

the land got tired and sick of taking promises and promises and

promises. So after giving finalities and finalities and

finalities, he finally said, "Forget about it."

A truck dealer of all things had to pay about $6,000 duty on

a truck that this fellow brought up from the United States. It

had to be repossessed. This was an International truck dealer

up there. Somehow he got involved in it and, since the truck

had been brought in and wasn't consumer… And the federal

government made this dealer pay this and he hasn't even been

paid for the truck yet.

Small business firms in the area began to want their money

for the goods and services that he had rendered. Well, that

didn't stop our Mr. Smoothie, Mr. Speaker. He gave up the Three

Rivers ranch idea, and he came up with a new idea.

By the way, I want to say that he threw out this $15,000

brochure. Do you know why he threw it out: Mr. Attorney

General? Because it didn't belong to him. The people who made

this $15,000 brochure, as of yesterday morning, hadn't been

paid for it yet — two years later.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I know all about it.

MR. PHILLIPS: Do you? Well, are you going to investigate it?

Can I stop talking about it now?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes!

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I won't go on, then, if you're going to

investigated it, Mr. Attorney General. I won't carry on —

except to say that the new enterprise is called the "Hoof and

Horn Ranch." I've got my own name for it. (Laughter).

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You're still the biggest bullshipper.

(Laughter).

MR. PHILLIPS: But Mr. Attorney General, are you going to

touch up the immigration people a little bit?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Come and see me in my office.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'd be happy to do that. With that you've just

cut about 10 minutes off my talk …

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh. (Laughter).

MR. PHILLIPS: …for which the people of this Legislature

thank you sincerely. (Laughter).

Now I'm going to rush on — and I realize the hour is

getting late — but I do have to talk about my

constituency, Mr. Speaker. We've got a couple of problems.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'll really rush through this. I'll let the

adrenalin flow and I'll get back to the way I used to be

— a mile a minute. Can I change my…you want me to

change, Mr. Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER: Speak up.

MR. PHILLIPS: Speak up?

AN HON. MEMBER: Speak up. Yes.

MR. PHILLIPS: I want to talk for just a few minutes with

regard to education as it pertains to the rural ridings of this

province — specifically the northern ridings and, to be

more specific, the area of the Peace River.

I must say that I was very pleased to hear the Hon. Attorney

General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald), when he was speaking January 31

in the throne speech, say that he would like to see the

Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance (Hon. Mr.

Cocke) and himself think in terms of opening doors of

opportunity to the higher professions to all young people

— boys and girls alike. He went on to say that he would

hope that we could increase the number of dentists who are

allowed to train in the province and that he hoped the Faculty

of Law could be enlarged.

I must say immediately, before anyone takes the

[ Page 507 ]

wrong attitude about this, that I agree with the Attorney

General 100 per cent. However, I would have felt much better

had the Attorney General said that he was going to give equal

opportunity to students in rural ridings in the lower mainland

as he is to those in the upper country area.

One of the problems we have now specifically in the Peace

River area is a shortage of dentists. This shortage is caused

not only by the limited facilities of the Faculty of Dentistry

at the University of British Columbia, but by the fact that, it

being such a long course, it takes a well-heeled

individual, bankrolled by a well-heeled father, to go

through the course.

The other thing, Mr. Speaker, is that dentists or persons

from the city are not very prone to go out to the rural areas

to practise their profession unless they are from there. If we

had some way of creating a financial way that we could help

these young people come down from the northern areas, help them

somehow financially to take dentistry courses, then when they

had finished I am sure they would go back. You could even put

it in the terms of the loan or scholarship that you offer

them.

I was very pleased to hear the Minister of Education (Hon.

Mrs. Dailly) say that a study into the whole field of

post-secondary education was going to be carried on.

There are two vocational schools left in the north at the

present time which have not been designated as junior colleges.

And I do not recommend that we hasten to designate these, Mr.

Speaker, as junior colleges.

I do recommend, however, that changes be made. One of these

changes could be to increase the number of courses in these

vocational schools. This would involve little immediate expense

so far as the capital expenditure is concerned. The courses

could be those of particular interest in the north.

When one realizes that last fall the British Columbia

Institute of Technology turned away 2,500 students, we realize

how fantastically successful the institute has been. But we

also realize that growth has not kept up with

requirements.

We also have to realize that if it were not for a greater

call, or at least an equal call for skilled persons today as

those with higher academic degrees — when we realize that

people with Ph.D.'s are running around British Columbia looking

for jobs — and look at the shortage of skilled

electricians, plumbers, electrical engineers, et cetera —

you must realize that facilities of those skilled trades must

be enlarged upon.

I recommend that a new institute of technology be built in

the northern part of British Columbia, Mr. Speaker. And I would

recommend to the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) that

before she goes and builds a new college per se in Prince

George, that she take a real, good, hard look at putting

another institute of technology in Prince George.

In the meantime, I recommend that certain courses be

transferred to Terrace and Dawson Creek. The Dawson Creek

vocational school, for instance — well it could have

before handled a course in natural gas and petroleum

technology. I don't know whether that will be necessary now or

not, Mr. Speaker.

The other course that could be put in the vocational school

in Dawson Creek would be a mining technology course —

again I'm not sure, under the present Minister of Mines and

Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Nimsick), whether that would be

necessary or not.

One course that could be put in this vocational school

immediately, Mr. Speaker, is a course in practical nursing.

Very little cost would be involved and the applicants are

standing at the door waiting. I also suggest Mr. Speaker, that

our industrial welding course facilities be expanded. With the

proposed Mackenzie Valley pipeline there will certainly be a

fantastic need for a large number of industrial welders.

Graduates from this course certainly have never had any problem

finding ready employment.

I now want to get back to the matter of money to assist

students to attend post-secondary education courses and I

want to talk about the aid for travel. I feel, Mr. Speaker,

that the two perpetual funds we have in this province, the

amateur sports and physical fitness fund and the cultural fund,

give more benefits to the lower mainland area than they do to

the rural ridings.

Therefore, I feel a fund established to aid the education of

those rural students is certainly in order. Particularly so,

Mr. Speaker, when our cultural fund can go to subsidize such

shows as are put on by City Stage lunch hour theatre.

Such a show as Moby Dick was written up by the

critics as "lewd", "offensive", "dirty-minded",

"questionable", "outrageous", "morbidly sexual" and "in the

worst possible taste". I think it is a sad and sorry day when

in British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, we take funds from our

cultural fund to support such a show.

Surely to goodness, Mr. Speaker, if the Province of British

Columbia can support the likes of this, they can certainly aid

students to have an equal opportunity to attend our

universities.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Minister of Rehabilitation

and Social Improvement (Hon. Mr. Levi) does think it is funny.

I don't think it is very funny.

No, I haven't seen it. LIP (Local Initiatives Programme)

finances some pretty questionable enterprises in this dominion

and when they withdrew their support, that's enough for me. I

don't have to go to court for that one; I don't have to go see

it. I'll let them be the judge.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, there you are. You don't

[ Page 508 ]

want to believe everything you hear.

The other thing, Mr. Speaker — I think it is high time

that this government took a look at the air fares that northern

people have to pay. I don't want to attack Canadian Pacific air

lines because they have done a lot to develop the north. But

they have also made a handsome profit on it.

I want to give you just one brief example here. From

Vancouver to San Francisco, it is 800 air miles; the economy

fare is $65. From Vancouver to Fort St. John, it is 507 air

miles or 63.37 per cent of the number of air miles to San

Francisco, and yet our economy fare is $51. It's 78.46 per

cent of the fare to San Francisco or, Mr. Speaker, $19.62 more

for return trip than we should be paying from Vancouver to Fort

St. John on the basis of what you pay from Vancouver to San

Francisco.

That's a very nice flight to San Francisco. The seats

aren't too close together; there is a first class area

— none of that is provided, Mr. Speaker, on the

Vancouver-Fort St. John run. No, it's not; packed in like

sardines.

Of course, I have a feeling, Mr. Speaker — and I will

be talking about this later in the session — that we in

Canada have got to take a different attitude towards the

development of our north.

I think we could take a look at Russia and learn a few

lessons from them. We seem to do everything that we can in

Canada to deter people from going to the north.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, I will tell you. When you people outline

all of your programmes you will be saying, "You go to the

north," the same as they do in Russia. But when they say

in Russia, "You go to the north," they at least look

after them and give them all of the amenities of life.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I have some last few remarks that

I want to make. (Laughter).

Mr. Speaker, the story of Little Red Riding Hood and the

wolf was a fairy tale to amuse the youngsters of bygone days.

The wolf story of today does not amuse anybody. I wish the

Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Williams)

were in the House. As a matter of fact, the wolf story that I

am going to tell you about is a very critical one.

The wolf population in this area is on the increase and, as

a matter of fact, at the present time it is at a critical

stage, Mr. Speaker.

This in itself does not create a problem, but the problem is

created by the attitude of the Fish and Wildlife Branch, Mr.

Speaker. The taxpayers of this province pay out good money for

biologists, fishery

[ Page 509 ]

officers and conservation officers — and I must say

that by and large they do a commendable job.

This year the budget of Fish and Wildlife Branch is

$4,196,131. But if the people of the Province of British

Columbia do not receive the results of that they want from an

expenditure of this size, I think they should take a very

serious look at it, Mr. Speaker.

I want to cry, wolf for a while and I am on a very serious

subject. Let's look at the facts. The Northern B.C. Guides

Association conducted a survey of the mountainous portion of

northern British Columbia. During that survey they employed

approximately 300 men. The men were among the most skilled

wilderness observers in British Columbia, Mr. Speaker. These

men doing the survey used aircraft, horses, and traversed on

foot areas inaccessible otherwise to get to remote areas.

The survey cost in excess of $750,000, paid for by the

guiding association, Mr. Speaker. The consensus of this survey

was that there has been a terrific buildup of wolves and that

they are present in devastating numbers over the total area.

This survey should be sufficient evidence to substantiate the

presence of a lot of wolves.

The next question is: Are they an asset or a menace? This is

where we get into the nitty-gritty of the situation.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Now, Mr. Member for Vancouver Centre, I don't

imagine you are concerned much about wolves. But biologists,

Mr. Speaker, say that we need wolves to keep our moose

population healthy, that the wolves only kill the sick and the

aged, Mr. Speaker. That's what our biologists say.

But I say that I can't really see old Doc Wolf going out

around there with a stethoscope and before he starts chasing a

moose and eating it off its hind quarters, he goes up and says:

"Man, you're about ready for the graveyard; I'll have you for

dinner tonight."

I'm a meat eater myself, Mr. Speaker, and I like the best I

can get. I suggest that once that wolf has had the taste of a

nice juicy moose steak, he's not going to be eating any old

rancid, ready-to-die moose with its hair hanging

out and its eyeballs hanging out.

Mr. Speaker, I want you to think about what is the weakest

moose in the world. (Laughter).

AN HON. MEMBER: It belongs to a lodge in Vancouver Centre.

(Laughter).

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, the weakest moose in the world is a newborn

fawn calf and that particular moose is also the most susceptible to the sharp

fangs of a wolf. That poor little moose is susceptible for quite a long time

after it is born.

A rancher, Mr. Speaker, has to maintain an 80 to 85 per cent

ratio of cattle when he is breeding. The present wolf situation

indicates that we are losing about 40 to 45 per cent of our

moose calves. Right now, the wolves in this province are

killing off our best moose herds.

When the Member for Nelson — Creston (Mr. Nicolson) was

talking yesterday about the hunter going out and killing three

moose and coming back and getting his wife and going out….

Oh, that wasn't you? Well, somebody said the hunters were

killing off the moose. Mr. Speaker, it isn't the hunters that

are killing off the moose; it's the wolves that are killing off

the moose.

So much for the game; what about the ranchers? Farmers in

the Peace River area have been complaining bitterly for the

past 18 months about losing cattle in community pastures. If

something is not done between now and the spring, there will be

a continuation of losses in this area, and the ranchers will

have to give up using these community pastures that were

created at costs in excess of millions of dollars. The ranchers

in the area wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether they're raising the

cattle for the wolves or whether they're raising them to

sell.

One has to ask, Mr. Speaker, why there is no action on

behalf of the biologists in the Department of Fish and Wildlife

to get rid of some of these wolves. I read in the Vancouver Sun

just recently that the sheep herders on Cortes Island have been

complaining about the same thing. I've asked the game

department to get rid of some of them, and I can't even get an

answer. I sometimes think, Mr. Speaker, that biologists think

that they are some higher power, that whatever they say has got

to be gospel.

However, there was a conservationist that was very well

respected in this dominion of ours at one time, Mr. Speaker.

His name was Jack Miner, one of the greatest conservationists

that every walked in North America. When he died, he was

recognized by government officials all over the world. Because

of the time, I'm not going to go into all of the ramifications

of what he said but I'll say it in a short word.

He said that if man interferes with nature and kills off

some of the wild game for food, man must also control the

predators of these wild animals. That ideology about

preservation is from one of the greatest conservationists that

ever lived to this date.

But yet our young biologists, when they go to universities,

are taught that they must preserve the wolf population, Mr.

Speaker. I'm wondering why. It's no longer a laughing matter.

If some action is not forthcoming shortly, I would think that

some of the ranchers are going to take some action of their

own. If the game biologists don't bring us the results that the

population wants, I think they should be fired.

Mr. Speaker, because of some of the points that I have

brought up during my talk on this budget, because of the

inflationary trends, because of the tax increases that are not

necessary, because of the imposed royalties on the oil and

petroleum industry that are not necessary and which will drive

the petroleum industry out of British Columbia — I find,

Mr. Speaker, that I'm going to have to vote against the

budget.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Saanich and the

Islands.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Well, Mr.

Speaker, I have a new definition for bad luck. Bad luck is to

speak on a Friday when government monopoly automobile insurance

is introduced in this province. Bad luck is to speak when a

very worthwhile statement by the Minister of Rehabilitation and

Social Improvement (Hon. Mr. Levi) interests many people in the

Capital Regional District. And, Mr. Speaker, bad luck is to be

number three on this list. (Laughter).

I've waited through this week to hear a Member of this House

extend congratulations to the Hon. Second Member for Victoria

(Mr. D.A. Anderson), the leader of the Liberal Party —

I'm sorry he's not in the House — who, in

co-operation with a number of organizations, achieved a

significant victory in a United States court late last week; a

victory, Mr. Speaker, which should have a profound effect on

British Columbia's coast line and its future. Yesterday I was

pleased to hear the Hon. Premier taking direct action as a

result of further developments in Washington, D.C.

But, Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the Premier, as a

citizen of Canada, could not have recognized the efforts of one

Hon. Member of this House who has admittedly worked very hard

and almost single-handedly in this respect.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CURTIS: Not in this House. The comment should have been

made in this House, Mr. Speaker, with respect. Surely the issue

is more important than political one-up-manship.

Then the day before yesterday the Hon. Member for Langley

(Mr. McClelland) felt tempted to paraphrase the Hon. Attorney

General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) — I do so, as well —

and state quite simply: "This isn't a very good budget and I

cannot support it." Well, Mr. Speaker, in some respects, you

know it's not a bad budget. In fact, there are several points

contained in its pages with which we agree quite firmly. My

colleague, the Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) said so on

Monday. We both made those observations in the course of

reaction to the media during the weekend.

[ Page 510 ]

These Government backbenchers appear generally appeased

— almost, may I say, lethargic — in their reaction

to it. The Treasury benches are predictably very enthusiastic.

Most of us in Opposition in this House are also predictably

responding to various sections of it with varying

criticism.

Mr. Speaker, in my view this is a transitional budget,

taking its appropriate place in the gradual change — over

from 20 years of Social Credit rule to an as yet unknown period

of socialist Government in British Columbia. So the budget that

I'm looking forward to receiving and reviewing most carefully

is that to be delivered by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr.

Barrett) about one year from now. By then, the Social Credit

government of 1952-1972 will have faded even further into

the history books and we will be in the thick of leftist

government in the Province of British Columbia. Then, and quite

possibly not until then, will the citizens of this province

have an opportunity to judge this NDP administration on the

basis of what will be, at that time, about 1 1/2 years of power

and responsibility, Mr. Speaker, this Government must still prove to the people

of British Columbia, to the rest of Canada, to the world

— particularly to Europe and the Orient — that it

can succeed in that delicate transition from the one — man

fiscal dictatorship which came to an end last August to the

kind of financial responsibility and maturity, Mr. Speaker,

which is absolutely vital if this province is to prosper. I use

the word "prosper" in its most correct sense.

If any of us heard a sigh of relief in various sectors of

B.C.'s economy last weekend, it wasn't a question of people

finding that they had escaped from a difficult and a

frightening experience, but rather that the difficulty had at

best been postponed, moved down the line to some later date.

That's the situation in the province today, as I see it. A sigh

of relief, yes, but still a disturbing measure of uncertainty

and an unwillingness to guess what our short — term and

long — term economic futures will be.

You see, Mr. Speaker, this province has swung from one side

of the spectrum right over to the other. We've lived through

those long years of Social Credit philosophy — if you can

call it a philosophy — of dollars before people,

surpluses before programmes, and another one that I think could

be paraphrased, "if the Treasury is full, everything else will

fall into place automatically." Well, even the most violent

critics of the former Premier and Minister of Finance must

admit that he managed the financial affairs of this province

with skill and with a keen sense of strategy.

However, I submit that had he been serving under a more people-oriented

Premier, he could have been the greatest, finest Minister of Finance this country

had ever known. His defeat last summer can be traced directly to that circumstance,

to that missing part of his personality. Great ability with dollars, but a massive

and growing blind spot where persons and their problems were concerned.

Now we find ourselves, I think, in a complete reversal of

that situation. We have here a Premier who is concerned

obviously and sincerely about people and their needs and who is

introducing a refreshingly new feeling in this Legislature, who

has already demonstrated his willingness to accept new ideas

even from the Opposition side of the House — but who may

not have, on his own or anywhere in his party in this House,

that absolutely essential element of fiscal responsibility and

the ability to say "no" when more and more demands are made

upon the public Treasury, no matter how deserving or how well

justified those particular requests may be.

That is what we have to worry about between now and budget

time in 1974 and again in 1975.

Let's take some random looks at the new budget and its

implications. First of all, it appears that small business gets

it in the neck again. Here's what's happened in the past two

years. First, the new federal Income Tax Act is already

hitting small business to a far greater degree than before.

Secondly, and on top of the increases in the minimum wage,

which we admit were merited, and for which. we voted in this

party, but which required time for small business to digest,

this new provincial government jacks the corporate tax rate by

20 per cent, from 10 to 12 per cent. Most sadly, it treats all

business concerns in exactly the same manner. Surely, Mr.

Speaker, there can be absolutely no justification whatever for

the increase of corporation tax in this province right across

the board.

Then this same Government adds a new type of business tax on

utilized capital that applies to all business concerns, again

large or small. Unbelievably, it is a tax which may apply in

many cases where there has not even been a profit. As we see

it, Mr. Speaker, this will strike especially hard at new

businesses — those small firms just starting out.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I know that there is a similar tax in

Ontario, but that doesn't make it any better; it doesn't make

it any more acceptable in British Columbia. In addition, I'm

told that there are a large number of exemptions in the Ontario

situation.

Apparently, no one really cares about small business any

more. As I tried to point out in the throne speech debate, it

would appear that all business is considered to be big. All

business is considered to be bad. This is really tragic, in my

view, because even Members in the Government benches have

spoken this week of the disappearance of the small logger, the

small rancher and the small store owner. I really have to call

that lip service. Regrettably, then, it appears that we're

heading for an economy in this province which will break

down

[ Page 511 ]

into just three groups — big government, big labour,

big business.

If this socialist government continues to pursue the course

faintly sketched out in the 1973-74 budget, then many of

our young people will be compelled to work for one of those big

three. That, Mr. Speaker, is not what I understand democracy or

social conscience to be all about.

Well, in the throne speech debate I enjoyed looking back

over the record to see what the present Premier and former

leader of the Opposition had to say when he was in Opposition.

I've done the same again for today, with the same type of

quotes. On Monday, February 9, 1970, and I quote the new

Premier, firstly:

"Mr. Speaker, the Premier's financial policy is essentially

simple. Budget for a surplus, underestimate the revenue, then

invest the resulting surplus augmented by borrowing into B.C.

Hydro and P.G.E. bonds."

Secondly,

"The taxpayer of British Columbia would have been better

served if these surplus funds were directed towards…(among

other things)…job producing construction areas." Another

quote from the same year. "We have a golden millstone of debt

around our necks, with no moves by this Government to get us

out — a millstone. We must have new policies and new

direction."

Fourth, on tourism:

"There is no imagination shown, Mr. Speaker. I suggest that

if this Government is really looking for new areas of revenue,

then it should go about the business of tourism with some

class."

Fifth:

"You are the government with the flair. Where is it? It is

so bogged down with 38 Members, that you don't think you have

to do anything new any more." So much for 1970. We're not

through yet. 1971 — we move down the line a year to

Monday, February 8, again quoting the present Premier as he

leads off the budget debate, page 268 of the record:

"Mr. Speaker, I am of the opinion that the best thing that

could happen to the northern part of British Columbia is to

kick out every Social Credit MLA they've got." — the

quote is not complete — "I want to tell you that they

never had it told the way it is in the north. Well, Mr.

Speaker, — and I'm still quoting the former Leader of the

Opposition in 1971 — I wonder how the people of the north

feel about that."

In February, 1973, how are the people of the north reacting to the land freeze,

no action as yet on the cubing plant that was to mean so much to the Peace River,

the decision to apparently let Prince Rupert stagnate, the discouraging of mineral

exploration and the increase in the petroleum royalty?. Mr. Speaker, if that

is this Government's bold new vision for the north, then there are going to

be some very disenchanted northerners, and they're not big business either.

Here's another statement by the former Leader of the

official Opposition in that same speech in 1971, and this I

really enjoyed finding:

"What have they done about creating new jobs? Mr. Speaker,

what have they done about creating new jobs?" — I'm still

quoting — "You tell me about the 1,000 new jobs. Mr.

Speaker, don't talk about 1,000 new jobs."

Also from 1971, quoting the Premier on secondary

industry:

"The most obvious role that British Columbia could play in

terms of industrial development would be to attract the head

offices of major companies here to British Columbia, with the

sustained employment that those head offices would give."

Mr. Speaker, it appears to me that in these quotes on page

269 of the 1971 Hansard the present Premier was quoting

a leading economist, who is not identified. Here's a beautiful

line from that quote:

"There have been no aggressive moves by this Government in

the secondary industrial development area." — and on page

270 — "Mr. Speaker, there was really nothing new in that

budget. There was no new drive, there were no new directions.

All that was new were the taxes, and for the most part, one of

them anyway, was completely frivolous,"

Well, so much for 1971.

Can we look in on 1972, February 7, with the same Dynamic

Dave leading off the budget debate for the Opposition. Page

294:

"After the fantastic build — up that we were given about the budget, the disappointments were very, very great."

On page 296, we see this scathing indictment:

"Where are the jobs, Mr. Speaker? Over 100,000 people in

B.C. today for one reason or another are relying on

unemployment insurance. I'm sure the budget was great news to

those people."

Page 298, here is the north again:

"The north, the north — so forgotten, not even

mentioned in the budget. No hope for the north in this budget,

Mr. Speaker, just politics."

Mr. Speaker, this is not a quote — the more things

change, the more they remain the same.

Well, the 1973 budget has been tagged cautious,

tinker — toy and disappointing. Perhaps it is all of those.

It's also, in my view, schizophrenic. I'm almost certain, Mr.

Speaker, that its opening phrases were read by the bright and

enthusiastic young socialist Premier who took office in

mid-September. But towards the end, with those glowing

references, those

[ Page 512 ]

proudly delivered one-liners, there can be no doubt

— it was pure Bennett.

Mr. Speaker, the new Premier of this province, in his role

of Minister of Finance, in my view has no valid reason to feel

satisfied and secure as to the result of his first effort at

cataloguing the financial situation in British Columbia. It wag

sadly lacking in comment on ways in which to combat inflation

and unemployment. It has done nothing to quell the uncertainty

which is abroad in the province today, It has exerted new and

unnecessary pressures on small business concerns, and, most

sadly, it introduced additional taxes, when according to its

predictions none are necessary for the health of the treasury.

I submit that it exerte