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)

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 1973

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 225 ]

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 1973

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I wish to ask a question.

MR. SPEAKER: We don't have a question period, so my

suggestion is that you might indicate for what you want leave

of the House so they know whether they are giving permission

for something you can do.

MR. WALLACE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I beg leave of the

House to ask a question of the Hon. Minister of Labour (Hon.

Mr. King) regarding the school strike in District 61.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): He is speaking first.

MR. WALLACE: Yes. I just want to be assured that that will

be included, or that he will make a statement.

MR. SPEAKER: I understand the Hon. Minister is speaking

today, and presumably he may make some statement on this

matter. So would the Hon. Member be satisfied with that at the

moment?

The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver South.

MRS. D. WEBSTER (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of

privilege. I am honoured to introduce today Mr. Anthony Holland and 15 students

from his Theatre Arts classes at Vancouver City College, Langara Campus, who

are with us today. They are here to see another type of theatre in operation.

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

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

it is indeed a pleasure this afternoon to introduce a group of

students from one of the internationally known name schools — Princeton. Princeton Secondary is represented here by a group

of students and their teachers, Mr. Clark and Miss Elliott. And

I ask you to welcome them.

Introduction of bills.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE MUNICIPAL ACT

Mr. Curtis moves introduction and first reading of Bill No. 25, intituled

An Act to Amend the Municipal

Act .

Motion approved.

Bill No. 25 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.

THE GOVERNMENT COMPUTER PRIVACY ACT

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

26, intituled The Government Computer Privacy Act .

Motion approved.

Bill No. 26 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.

THE CONSUMER CREDIT

DISCLOSURE PROTECTION ACT

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

27, intituled The Consumer Credit Disclosure Protection

Act .

Motion approved.

Bill No. 27 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.

THE PUBLIC DOCUMENT

CONFIDENTIALITY ACT

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

28, intituled The Public Document Confidentiality Act .

Motion approved.

Bill No. 28 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.

CANADA-BRITISH COLUMBIA INDIAN LANDS

DETERMINATION ACT

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

29, intituled Canada-British Columbia Indian Lands

Determination Act .

Motion approved.

Bill No. 29 read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at

[ Page 226 ]

the next sitting of the House after today.

THE MUNICIPAL TRANSIT SUBSIDY ACT

Mrs. Jordan moves introduction and first reading of Bill No.

30, intituled The Municipal Transit Subsidy Act .

Motion approved.

Bill No. 30 read a first time and ordered to be placed on

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

House after today.

Orders of the day.

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued)

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Revelstoke-Slocan.

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

The Hon. House Leader of the Conservative Party (Mr. Wallace)

asked a question regarding the strike by the school janitors. I

appreciate the Member for Oak Bay's concern in this strike. He

at least did indicate that concern to me prior to the

demonstration which took place last week on the steps of the

Legislature. I think that that's an indication of his genuine

concern right through the whole issue.

It's a degree of concern that was not expressed by the

leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. D.A. Anderson), however, on any

occasion previous to the said public demonstration. And quite

frankly, Mr. Speaker, I must take some issue with the posture

adopted by the leader of the Liberal Party in press statements

he made following that public demonstration. The fact of the

matter was that indeed a provincial mediator had been involved

with the parties, a person who was professional in services to

parties in dispute, who has had vast experience in mediating

and assisting the parties to reconcile their differences.

Simply because that mediator had suggested to the parties

that they recess for a short period of time to reassess their

positions, we found some politicians, I believe, taking advantage

of a highly charged emotional situation for the political

stature that would be afforded to them for it, rather than

through any genuine desire to assist a highly sensitive

situation.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): On a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: What is your point of order?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: A point of order governing motives,

imputing motives, Mr. Speaker, for actions taken or statements

made by Members of the House. I was speaking in all sincerity

when I made those remarks, and I dislike and feel it's unfair to

have this type of criticism levelled at this time.

MR. SPEAKER: I've said it before, and I'll continue to say

it, that all Members in the House must treat each other with

respect and not impute motives to either side or to any

individual in the House that would indicate insincerity.

HON. MR. KING: I accept the Member's statement, Mr. Speaker,

thank you. However, it is somewhat significant that he had

failed prior to that demonstration to register his concern with

my office in any way.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce at this point that the

mediator has been involved — who sat very, very long hours

during the weekend with the two parties to the dispute, till 2

o'clock in the morning on Saturday morning, throughout Sunday

and again early this morning — has now made a recommendation

for the settlement of the dispute, which the parties have agreed

to take back to their membership from their principals for

consideration. I think that it is rather regrettable while this

type of sensitive negotiation is going on that it becomes a

matter of political debate, which certainly does nothing to

contribute to an amicable settlement.

Mr. Speaker, to get on with the main thrust of the remarks I

have to make today, I just want to say that this is a

government dedicated to the principle of justice for all and

recognition that human dignity and worth shall be supreme.

Already we have amply demonstrated in the establishment of our

Mincome programme our concern for people — a guaranteed

monthly income of $200 a month for every British Columbian

citizen. We are in the process of expanding the amount of

parkland available to the public and will be preserving

farmland for the use of future generations.

Our programme also includes full bargaining rights for civil

servants, certainly something that has been too long neglected

by the previous administration and something that should bring

greater efficiency and harmony in the field of the civil

service.

In the realm of labour it is our earnest intention to

improve the conditions of those who work for a living. Our

record to date proves our sincerity, I think. After only a few

months in office we have increased the minimum wage to $2 per

hour effective on December 4, 1972, and to $2.50 per hour

within 18 months' time. At the same time the number of minimum

wage orders in existence has been reduced from 27 to 13, and

this is an administrative improvement. We combined the male and

female Minimum

[ Page 227 ]

Wage Act to remove the inference that different standards

should apply for male and female workers.

I think that is something that is highly significant and

bodes well for the intentions of this Government. For instance

in the funeral undertaking business the rate was increased and

now it applies to all parts of British Columbia — the minimum

wage rate — rather than to certain built-up areas as previously

provided. At the same time rates have been increased quite

dramatically for bus drivers, cooks and bunkhouse workers,

patrolmen, taxicab drivers and truck drivers. All these people

had their rates increased from $1.00 per hour to $2.00 per hour

effective as of December 4, 1972, and subsequent increases to

$2.50 an hour by 1974.

Motorcycle operators went from $.70 per hour up to $2.00 per

hour, and I am sure the House can agree with me, Mr. Speaker,

that anyone who tried to exist on the rate of $.70 per hour in

this day of high inflation would be in a very unfortunate

position indeed.

Truly, there is proof, if proof is needed, of the

Government's determination to help those who need it most. Our

great concern for the vast area of unorganized labour who lack

the upward mobility to keep pace with the cost of living

continues to display itself, and I think that legislation to

relax the provisions of certification for these unorganized

workers is something that is imperative in the future.

Of course there have been objections; there are those who

claim that increases in the minimum wage were too much and too

fast. My answer to them, of course, is: let them try and live

on less. In fact let them try and live on $2 per hour in this

type of economy we have today.

If the business world is operating on such a narrow margin

that they are obliged to pay substandard rates of pay to

maintain an economically viable business, then I suggest that

they perhaps look to a reorganization of their business or to

an area of interest in some other field of endeavour. Because I

suggest that although small businesses have been hard pressed

in the past, certainly they shouldn't look to their employees

to subsidize their business.

Now the industrial relations area has been updated — the

regulations have been improved, and the administrative arm of

the department and the labour standards branch have been

actively engaged in administering all legislation under its

branch.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

HON. MR. KING: That's nice to hear a voice of support from

the Opposition benches. I might observe, Mr. Speaker, that a

great deal of balance and ability has been achieved on the

other side. (Laughter).

During the past year — 1971 — the industrial relations branch investigated

48,611 cases. These resulted in $961,899 being collected in unpaid wages and

so, and holiday pay and minimum wages. Our calls also included visits to employers

to explain the requirements of legislation because we believe, and I think this

is significant, that most employers want to observe the law and would gladly

comply, certainly more readily, if the requirements were known to them. Good as

the job of the branch has been, though, I am convinced it could be better. And

to this end a number of legislative changes will be made at as early a date

as possible.

Now, I had announced at an earlier date that changes would

be forthcoming in legislation, and I hope to announce within a

very short period of time the new vehicle that will be

considering legislation and recommendations throughout the

province. I would expect, Mr. Speaker, to be able to make an

announcement in this regard within a very, very short period of

time.

Now one of the other branches of the Department of Labour

that has been doing good work is the apprenticeship branch. I

presume the House is fairly well acquainted with the services

that have been provided by this branch. Not only must the

people of this province, we believe, be educated academically,

but they must be well qualified in a particular skill or

occupation. To this end a highly sophisticated branch of the

department has been developed over the years.

As you no doubt know, our training programme consists of

three separate levels. The first is pre-apprenticeship training,

and I am pleased indeed that we are one of the few provinces

which provide this type of free training in the course.

Pre-apprenticeship provides basic trade skills training for a

period of up to six months, depending on the trade, and allows

a person who has ended his or her formal education to make an

easy transition into employment. It also acts as a preparatory

period allowing the trainee to acquire a marketable skill

before seeking employment. Last year over 1,400 pre-apprentices

were under training.

Secondly, regular apprenticeship training is offered in 88

trades and occupations. Apprenticeship training qualifies the

worker to become a fully competent member of the work force.

Such training enables him to qualify for a good rate of pay and

excellent working conditions. It also assures industry that a

supply of journeymen capable of meeting its labour requirements

will be available.

At least that is the ideal, but unfortunately it is not

always borne out by fact. In some instances it is evident that

companies would rather hire qualified workmen away from other

industries than train their own. Companies having a work

force sufficiently large to enable apprentices to be trained

should accept the responsibility of doing their own training,

or at least training their fair share.

[ Page 228 ]

If they do not, perhaps we should be looking into some form

of requirement that companies employing a given number of

persons shall employ a set percentage of apprentices. At the

present time there is a shortage of heavy duty mechanics,

automobile repairman and industrial electricians, and yet there

are those employers who are not training any apprentices, or

considerably less than they should be.

In 1972 there were 9,083 apprentices under training. This is

an increase of 1,531 over the previous year and 2,744 more

than were under training 5 years earlier, so one can see that

there is a real demand for an expansion and extension of this

type of training facility.

Tradesman qualification is the third area in which we help

qualify workmen. By this means we upgrade tradesmen who have

been working in a particular craft, and we provide them with an

opportunity to write papers or exams to gain certification in

that particular craft. By obtaining this documentary proof, they

then obtain standing in their trade and the rate of pay they

could not otherwise obtain.

Although the branch has done a great deal to provide the

necessary skill training for our work force, and I commend them

for it, I am convinced it can do much more. New vocational

schools are coming into operation, and as they commence

accepting students, apprenticeship and industrial training

counsellors will be stationed at these schools to provide the

necessary liaison and guidance for the pre-apprentices,

apprentices and tradesmen attending upgrading or refresher

courses.

Similarly, more liaison with industry and unions is

necessary if we're to project and provide for the manpower

needs of the future. I also expect greater contact with

apprentices than in the past, and to this end recommend an

increase in the staff of this particular branch. The factory

and elevator branch is another important branch of the

Department of Labour. I think it's significant to point out

that rates of pay and fringe benefits and so on are certainly

minimized if we have inadequate lighting and poor ventilation

and poor lunch rooms in the places of work throughout the

province. Certainly workers spend a good deal of their time in

their work environment, and these kinds of factors are of great

significance to their safety and to their comfort.

It is the function of the branch to check these and other aspects of the work

places, in offices, shops and factories — and to see that working people do,

indeed, enjoy suitable standards. Inspections are increasing, and enforcement

is improving. It is my intention to ensure that effective administration is

pursued more vigorously in the future. Because, Mr. Speaker, while we may have

good and reasonable standards, these standards are only effective if they are

enforced properly. Therefore it's imperative that we have adequate staff to

effect the investigation and regulations that are set.

There is no one who will quarrel for the need, of course,

where the

provincial labour department cooperates with the federal

government to conduct the elevator inspections in the province.

It's a function that is very, very important to the safety of

the public. Certainly, people are using elevators on a very

frequent basis in this day and age, and it's imperative that

the safety standards of those elevators be maintained

effectively.

In the area of human rights, Mr. Speaker, this province has

one of the statutes which certainly has come under a lot of

scrutiny during the past few years. I think it is, in fact, due

for a thorough overhaul. It is typical of the previous

Government, Mr. Speaker, that they paid lip service to this

ideal and did very little else. I believe that it's not

necessary at this point to outline more than a few factors

contained in the legislation which I think are ineffective. I

expect that consideration will be given shortly to this vital

topic and amendments will be suggested that will make British

Columbia a leader in the field of human rights.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, equal pay provisions should be

amended, I believe, to provide the same equal treatment for

males and females. I also feel the term "self-contained

dwelling unit" in

section 9 of the present Act should be

deleted and, in its place, the term "housing accommodation"

substituted. This is necessary, Mr. Speaker, because of the

difficulty in defining exactly what a self-contained dwelling

unit really is. I would like also to see the sections relating

to publications and inquiries and the displaying of signs, et

cetera, extended to include marital status, sex and political

opinion. Undoubtedly

section 11 too, should be amended to

include universities in the list of organizations that are

exempt. However, all the non-profit groups mentioned should be

subject to investigation and the onus placed on them to justify

any discriminatory action on their part.

Also I would like to see a much broader publicity campaign

undertaken, and the establishment of a storefront human rights

depot in the East End of Vancouver, which would be manned by

qualified officers, competent to assist complainants who would

otherwise be reluctant to request help. These are but some of

the weaknesses I see in the present Act. You may be sure that

when a new statute is introduced it will be one of the leaders

in this, or any other, country and one that our citizens will

be duly proud of.

The Women's Bureau continues to do a good job within the

confines of its present structure. However, I expect much more

will be accomplished in the future. It is all very well to

provide information, assistance and advice to school students,

individual women, employers and employees and their

organizations

[ Page 229 ]

on matters respecting the employment of women. But, I

expect more emphasis to be placed in future on the abuses women

encounter in the market place. I think this is one of the more

significant and practical ways that the Women's Bureau can be

of direct help.

As an example, a great deal of discrimination still exists

in the employment of women despite present legislation which

prohibits an employer or a trade union from hiring, promoting,

training or paying a woman less, just because she is a woman.

Perhaps it might also be a good idea to have a Women's Bureau

representative present in the storefront establishment in the

East End of Vancouver, which I mentioned a moment ago.

Without a question workmen's compensation is an important

element in the lives of many of our people. It affects not only

the workers, but also their families. There is absolutely

nothing more frustrating or deadening for an individual than to

be hurt in an industrial accident and then denied proper

recompense for his injuries. I realize that only a few years

ago a royal commission enquired into the Workmen's

Compensation Act and its administration.

I give the former Government full credit for implementing

all the recommendations of that commission, except the one

which would have resulted in a decrease in workmen's

compensation payments in certain circumstances. Nevertheless,

the Government has decided to completely review the

Workmen's Compensation Act . I think it's imperative that

the administration of the Act become somewhat more related to

the needs and the realities of today and that the Act itself

become a more humane piece of legislation.

In this respect, Mr. Speaker, I'll just comment that, during

the few short months that I have occupied the office of

Minister of Labour, there are literally hundreds and hundreds

of workmen's compensation cases which have come across my desk.

Many of them are a number of years old. Nevertheless, all were

brought to my attention by workers who felt that they had a

legitimate grievance — that they had in fact a compensable

injury for which they had been denied recognition and

recompense.

It's all very well to say that the Workmen's Compensation

Board handles a large volume of cases each year and the rate of

cases that are turned down is somewhat less than 3 per cent.

But 3 per cent of 100,000 cases, in excess of 100,000 cases a

year, represents a lot of people. And it's certainly my

observation, on the basis of reviews of many of these cases,

that the legislation has been somewhat stringently applied.

I would expect, among other things, that we'll be looking at some of the review

machinery which is provided under the present Workmen's Compensation Act with

a view to providing an impartial system of review; one which not only gives

justice but one which appears to give justice. I think this is an important

element.

The research branch of the Department of Labour, I believe,

is one of the most significant branches that we have in the

department. It's continued to expand, year after year, in its

role and range of activities to more adequately serve the needs

of the department and the general public as well.

The important role of research in the overall scheme of

things was apparently envisaged in the Department of Labour

Act when it was first passed back in 1917, although it

wasn't until April of 1966 that a separate research branch was

established in the department.

Since that time and despite a small staff, the branch has

steadily increased and the scope of its work and the number of

its publications have certainly broadened. The research branch

has received strong endorsement from labour and management

groups in the province for the excellent reports and

publications it has issued. Works published by the branch are

really only the tip of the iceberg. Much of its activity has

been directed to supplying specific data to the department and

to inquiring labour and management personnel, as well as the

public.

In addition to preparing material and publications based on

information on record with the department, the branch initiates

projects on its own into many topical areas of interest. Last

year was a most fruitful one. Utilizing the collective

agreements on file with the department, the branch established

the wage data bank, which is used extensively. The branch also

completed a number of studies for the other divisions of the

department. The subject matter ranged from various aspects of

apprenticeship to labour standards.

As operational requirements often preclude individual

branches from examining problem areas within their own

jurisdiction, it is a most valued function of the research

branch. Since its inception, the branch has developed a

recognized expertise in connection with the analysis of

collective agreements. Its studies report current trends in

negotiated working conditions and provide sound knowledge for

labour and management groups engaged in collective bargaining.

Certainly, this supplies a wealth of knowledge for those

concerned in such matters.

In this respect, Mr. Speaker, I think that it is absolutely

imperative that the Department of Labour be activated to a role

that is more conducive to today's climate in labour-management

relations; more conducive to providing an atmosphere of

assistance and cooperation, rather than one of hostility and

one of holding the hammer in case the parties are unable to

settle their own affairs.

I've said before on many occasions that I do, indeed,

believe in free collective bargaining, but by that statement I

certainly don't want to imply that

[ Page 230 ]

we eliminate objectionable legislation which is on the

statute books now and simply leave the parties free to resolve

their own differences and their own problems without any

participation by government. I think the department, and

particularly the research branch, has a unique opportunity at

this particular time to provide very meaningful aids to the

parties in collective bargaining. There are many new concepts

being developed, not only in North America but in many other

jurisdictions. I certainly expect to utilize all the ideas that

I can possibly gain in providing material to management and to

labour which will bring them closer together in their initial

stances before they start to bargain collectively.

During 1972 another study was initiated into technological

change, and a study was completed on dental plans available to

trade union members. This is an emerging type of health and

welfare benefit and of great interest to all. Additionally, a

major study of collective agreements was completed last year.

It consisted of an analysis of 140 subject areas and covered

255 collective agreements and an estimated 181,000 workers.

Despite past accomplishments, I instructed the research

branch to improve the amount and the type of work it is engaged

in. Among other areas, I instructed the branch to continue and

improve the research activities previously carried out by the

Mediation Commission.

Another area in which the branch has been required to expend

considerable energy is the very important study of the effects

of our revised minimum wage. You may be sure this Government is

most interested in these effects on employees. We do not

anticipate any reduction of staff, but rather increase the

earnings and standard of living of the ones who need it

most.

Undoubtedly much of the increased activity of the branch

will lie in new directions, in areas where in the past, due to

lack of staff, major commitments could not be made. In future

the branch will engage in manpower studies aimed at reducing

occupational shortages as well as surpluses, and provide

direction for provincially sponsored training programmes.

Research is also needed into the socio-economic factors

influencing employment to include job satisfaction, motivation

and worker alienation.

In the future, I think the success of the department and the

programmes they sponsor will require the provision of a soundly

researched bank of material. Accordingly, the role of the

research branch will certainly grow in importance.

Undoubtedly, one of the most important functions of the

Department of Labour relates to labour relations as such. The

successful operation of our entire economy depends upon a

smooth and harmonious relationship between the parties. It is

all very well to subscribe to a philosophy of a better living

standard for all our people, but if we don't export our goods

and have a viable commercial base, we cannot support the great

social reforms which are everyone's desire. Foreign buyers will

not forever put up with erratic deliveries and unjustified

price increases just because we demand them. Domestic business

suffers, the workers suffer, and employers become discouraged

and go out of business if we do not achieve a responsible

relationship that assures continuity of work, certainly insofar

as possible and under reasonable conditions.

In recognition of this, the Government has already

undertaken steps by amending mediation legislation to remove

compulsory features. Certainly it was amply demonstrated, I

believe, over the past number of years that the system of

compulsion did not work; did not improve the labour climate and

certainly created more problems than it solved. No longer do

the workers of this province have the threat of compulsion

constantly hanging over their heads. Nor do some employers have

an easy way of evading their responsibilities. They must

bargain. You may be sure there will be other amendments

proposed as quickly as possible.

Of course, with this new-found freedom must go greater

responsibility. I sincerely expect that work stoppages will

decrease as the parties advance into new ground and assume the

responsibility which they should have assumed in the past. I

expect also that trade unions will resolve their jurisdictional

disputes without causing delays and upsets through

disagreements over membership, particularly at a time when so

many workers are unorganized. They must concern themselves with

organizing the unorganized instead of fighting over the

converted.

Because there is such a need for a thorough, ongoing

revision of labour legislation, the Government is considering

early changes and, as I indicated earlier, will be making a

specific announcement in this regard within the very, very near

future. I expect, to some degree, that a blueprint for a new

way and a new thrust in labour relations will be proposed. When

I say "blueprint," I say that advisedly because I certainly

don't believe that there is any mechanism that can be developed

which will guarantee industrial harmony. We'll undoubtedly

always have conflicts, but this is the price that we must pay in

a free democratic society.

What I am concerned with, though, is improving the climate.

Certainly, I think — and this is somewhat of a commitment, Mr.

Speaker — that if under my administration of the Department of

Labour I fail to reduce the incidence of strikes and lockouts

to a very significant degree over the next number of years,

then I'll certainly consider that I have failed.

It's a fairly exciting and appropriate time, I think. We

have a new government. Many of the old political

[ Page 231 ]

fights that have been associated with labour and management

and the government in the past are wiped clean, to some extent.

We have an opportunity to establish a new climate, a new

relationship. Certainly it's my intention to make that

relationship one which gives preference to neither side but

certainly sets up a fair, equitable climate so that collective

bargaining can indeed be free and fair to both parties. In this

objective, I'm pleased to report, Mr. Speaker, to this date

I've had a good deal of co-operation from the parties

involved.

I have over the past number of months had a great deal of

consultation with management groups, trade unions and so on,

and I think there are high expectations out there. I think

there's an eagerness to co-operate and find new ways, and

certainly this is the challenge that they must meet if we are

indeed to realize an improvement.

I've given a fairly broad outline of some of the functions

that the department has been involved in over the past year.

Certainly, many of its activities were set and undertaken before

the new Government assumed office. I would expect, consequently,

that more evident changes will be occurring in the coming

year.

I do want to assure the House, Mr. Speaker, that we will be

pursuing with vigour and determination some of the matters

which I've outlined this afternoon. Some of the programmes will

provide material of assistance to the parties involved in

collective bargaining in the province, some of the programmes

will bring greater benefit to the working people of this

province in terms of educational opportunities, in terms of

safety standards and health standards and so on.

It's a very broad area. I want as broad a possible input as

I can obtain, and this is the way we're going. I certainly seek

the co-operation of all the Members of this House in trying to

establish the kind of climate which will be conducive to

greater harmony than this province has ever known in the field

of industrial relations. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North

Vancouver–Capilano.

MR. D.M. BROUSSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. I thought for a while on Friday that I would not get

the opportunity to enter this debate. I do want to start off by

thanking the Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips)

because I think if he had not moved that motion of non-confidence at 5 o'clock, I'm not sure, after his two-hour

sermon, if the House was in really good condition to receive my

remarks. So thank you very much to the Member for Peace

River

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): You left early anyway.

MR. BROUSSON: Mr. Speaker, I was somewhat disturbed on

Friday afternoon by the speech from my colleague in North

Vancouver, the Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr.

Gabelmann). He made an interesting, philosophical and

thoughtful speech, and I think he's going to be a very good

Member. But I thought that thoughtful and philosophical speech

was somewhat spoiled by a very unfortunate attempt to get a

newspaper headline.

I want to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it's politically naive

to pick a fight with the municipal council of the district

which one represents. In particular — on the basis of the

evidence that was offered on Friday afternoon — to call the

District of North Vancouver "a crooked outfit, one of the worst

rip-off artists in the province," I think is a

disgraceful thing to do in this Legislature.

The exact words: "…we have one of the worst rip-off artists in

this province, Mr. Speaker, and that's the District of North

Vancouver. They act more like a land developer, more like a

crooked outfit, than any other developer I can think of in this

province…."

Well Mr. Speaker, I think it is true. I'm sure that there

are some land developers that are crooked. There are also some

union leaders and union business agents that are crooked. There

are virtually crooked people in virtually every walk of life,

and I am sure there are some developers that are crooked. But

to imply that if one is a developer he's automatically crooked,

I think, is a disgraceful thing to do on the floor of this

chamber.

Going further, Mr. Speaker, almost all, if not all, of the

examples listed by the Member are outside of the District of

North Vancouver, so it would appear that he doesn't even know

the boundaries of the district in which he lives. He should

talk to the provincial government. They're responsible for the

problems — most of the problems — that he raised. They're the

people that are going to have to make decisions about the land

use on Indian Arm.

Now it is true that the District of North Vancouver does

sell its land. I want to point out that the District of North

Vancouver was bankrupt in the thirties and up to the late

forties, and only in the late forties did they come out of

their financial problems. They came out of those financial

problems by land sales, by good management, and first-class

administration of the affairs of the district with dedicated

and responsible mayors, aldermen, reeves and councillors in the

old days and administrative people — to the extent the former

manager of the District of North Vancouver was hired away to

the City of Halifax two or three years ago because Halifax

[ Page 232 ]

wanted to find the best municipal business manager they

could find in Canada. They selected that man from the District

of North Vancouver.

Certainly they sell their land. I think any district that

has land available for sale might be prepared to sell its

property. It sells its property by sealed tender, and as a

result of this administration's responsible approach, there

have been many fine housing developments in North Vancouver.

Furthermore, the residents of the district have had a great

many services provided for them, and their tax structure has

been kept from growing too high.

So I think that while one might differ with some of those

policies, to call that one of the worst rip-offs in the

province is certainly a very poor thing to do. I want to

suggest, through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Member that if he has

some criticism to offer he should go directly to the district

council and say it to their face, not in the safety of this

chamber.

As a matter of fact, I was at the only council meeting, to

my knowledge, where this particular Member actually met with

the council. He made a number of excellent comments to the

council that evening. It was a good meeting. He gave them

straightforward answers, and he had an opportunity then to make

any of the criticisms that he made last Friday afternoon. I

would suggest that was the time — or at some future meeting

that he might seek with the council. Then he can call them what

he wishes in public.

Mr. Speaker, referring further to the speech on Friday

afternoon, the causeway across Indian Arm that he mentioned was

first proposed about 100 years ago.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you propose it?

MR. BROUSSON: It was turned down then, and I hope, Mr.

Speaker, that it always will be. But I don't think anyone is

really thinking very seriously about it at all.

I also would like to comment, Mr. Speaker, that I'm very

pleased that the Member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr.

Gabelmann) has joined my campaign for amalgamation on the North

Shore. But I want to make it very clear: there is no emergency

situation there, and except in very, very special cases where

there are emergency problems of that sort, I would not support

compulsion of any sort. Let the people decide if they want to

amalgamate. It seems that compulsion is one of the policies

that goes with an NDP Government.

Well, Mr. Speaker….

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

That's what you were asking for in labour.

MR. BROUSSON: It's fairly hard, Mr. Speaker, in the Speech

from the Throne to find very much meat to talk about. But I

thought I would take one quotation and perhaps use it as my

text today. "…our Government will bolster services to our

country, our people, industry, and labour, to catch up with

modern society's demands for quality services provided by

skilled people." "…our Government will bolster services

to our country, our people, industry, and labour." I want to

look at some of the implications of that statement.

First of all, though, I should explain to some of the newer

Members in the House, it's been my habit in the last three or

four years to make some remarks in the debate on the Speech

from the Throne and the budget debate and certain other areas,

on the Skagit Valley.

MR. CHABOT: Oh no!

MR. BROUSSON: I had not intended, Mr. Speaker, to speak

about it today…

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. BROUSSON: …but certain things came to my attention

over the weekend, Because of this, I now have to add them to my

remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say very sincerely that what I am

going to say about the Skagit today is not in any way critical

of the provincial government. I want to say I'm gratified and

pleased — and I think so were all the citizens of British

Columbia, except perhaps the former Government — that the

Premier and his Government and the Minister of Lands, Forests,

and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams) took the strong stand

they did in November. I'm pleased that the federal government

and the provincial government have agreed to work together and

are working together on this.

There has been a great deal of talk about the Federal Power

Commission hearings in the United States. These hearings have

required that on January 29 last Seattle City Light's

application be filed with the Federal Power Commission, and

then those of us who were registered as interveners in that

matter would have had to have filed our reply on March 5, I

think.

But it's very interesting that three or four days ago these

hearings were postponed until the fall. Actually the March 5

date has been postponed to November 1, and it's November 1 this

fall now that the interveners must file their criticisms and

evidence.

And what's interesting about this is the reason why the

Federal Power Commission made the postponement. Not because

they had heard anything from the province or Canada. The reason

for postponement,

[ Page 233 ]

Mr. Speaker — let me read you the reason from the

order which they issued on January 24: "The court of appeals in

the United States held that an environmental statement must be

prepared by our staff," meaning the FPC staff, the

Federal Power Commission staff, "in advance of the hearing and

that such statement must be subject to the full scrutiny of the

hearing process."

So because of that requirement under the federal United

States National Environmental Policy Act , this complete

study of the environmental impact, done by the staff of the

body holding the hearings, must be prepared before any further

hearings are held. And that is why this postponement.

I think, Mr. Speaker, we have a very valuable lesson to

learn in British Columbia from that point, and I think our

party, perhaps a little later in this session, will be

introducing a bill to provide this kind of environmental

protection, to guarantee this kind of environmental

protection.

But the problem that I want to bring to your attention today

is that no one in British Columbia appears to realize how

really serious Seattle is. Perhaps you may have heard on the

radio this morning Mayor Wes Uhlman of Seattle saying, "The dam

is never going to be built. The valley will never be flooded.

The governor is against it; John Biggs of the State Ecology

Commission is against it; I'm against it — it'll never be

built."

But let me try to tell you, Mr. Speaker, just how serious

Seattle really is about this. First of all, here's a

publication from November, 1972, by the City of Seattle

Department of Lighting, put out by the International Skagit

Ross Fishery Committee. This is interim report, volume one — that's November, 1972 — "The Aquatic Environment, Fishes,

Fishery, Ross Lake and the Canadian Skagit River." That shows a

good deal of determination.

This is not my speech, Mr. Speaker. However, I have Vol. 1

and Vol. 2 of exhibits, Vol. 2 of testimony, and Vol. 1 of

testimony on behalf of the application of the City of Seattle

Department of Lighting. And this is the document that was filed

on January 29 with the Federal Power Commission in Washington.

That's a lot of determination.

I announced in this House just a year ago that the Slaney

firm of Vancouver had been paid at that point something in the

order of, roughly speaking, nearly three-quarters of a million

dollars one year ago. I would venture to say that by now that

figure is at least $1 million. I have copies of correspondence

from the City of Seattle that indicate that the Seattle City

Light is prepared to spend and expecting to spend another

$500,000 on these hearings before the F.P.C. That's the kind of

investment they are still going forward with.

The volunteers involved, if you like, the volunteer

environmentalists in Seattle — the North Cascades Conservation Council — are budgeting as of this past weekend

$30,000 further for the work that they feel they have to do.

They came to Vancouver over the weekend to ask what the

volunteers of the Ross Committee were prepared to spend on

their intervention with the F.P.C.

So I guess the point I want to make, Mr. Speaker, is that we

have somehow to convince Seattle that we will not allow the

valley to be flooded. I want to suggest to the Government three

things that perhaps they could do, apart from the things that

are being done through the regular channels in this regard. Now

despite all the political things that went on in this valley,

as recently as last June the former Government was still

allowing the area down in the bottom of the valley to be logged

off — against the advice of their own Department of Recreation

and Conservation, the Fish and Wildlife branch. December, Mr.

Speaker, there is still logging being done on the very edge of

the valley, on the very edge of the area that is dedicated as,

I think, a Class A provincial park. Now, that's not in the

valley itself, but it's on the very edge; generally speaking,

it's a sensitive area. And the thrust of some of the evidence

that's in here, the thrust of this evidence, is to say, "Nobody

in B.C. really cares. Look, they're using it for logging

anyway; what are you worried about it for?" That's what some of

this evidence in here says.

So I urge on the Government, Mr. Speaker, a moratorium.

Because of the sensitivity of this particular project in this

area, I urge on them a moratorium of all logging in that whole

general area until the whole matter is settled.

Second. This area is directly north of the North Cascades

National Park, which is a national park of the United States — a very beautiful playground. I have suggested before in this

House and I recommend to the Government again that they

consider looking at this whole area as a future national park

in conjunction with the federal government — hooked on at one

side to Manning Park and extending across the border with the

North Cascades National Park, to make a very exciting and very

wonderful international playground. The closest thing of this

kind is Glacier Park in the Rocky Mountains, where there is an

international playground of this kind. And this would be

another opportunity — perhaps the only other opportunity in

British Columbia — to have this kind of development.

So I would urge the Government to take a look at this

programme. It has never been looked at, as far as I can

determine, by anybody in the parks branch from this point of

view.

And third, to strengthen our hand in these negotiations, to

show Seattle that we really are serious about this, I would ask

that the Minister or the Premier make a very strong policy

statement within this House. The feeling that comes from

[ Page 234 ]

Seattle is, "Well, these are politicians, they make press

statements, they make public announcements, they do all of that

sort of thing. They're just talking for the press." So I would

urge them to make a strong policy statement within this

Legislature. I think this would have a useful effect as to just

how determined the Government is to carry through the policy of

not flooding the valley.

I would ask them to consider announcing that they have

declared this moratorium on logging in the area and that they

are studying the possibility of this great international

recreational area. And perhaps, Mr. Speaker, the Government

might consider rejecting any further payments from Seattle

right now. There are rent payments coming every year. Perhaps

they should tell Seattle: "We don't want any more of your rent;

we don't want to flood the valley."

Now I'd like to turn to another matter, Mr. Speaker. I am

sorry the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) is not in

the House right now, because I wanted to tell him how grateful

I was for the announcement he made the other day of the removal

of the Vancouver Island traffic from Horseshoe Bay. I realize

how serious many of the problems are in that regard. I'd like

to promise to him my support as the time goes along in solving

those problems.

I enjoyed very much his recital of the Socred policies and

correspondence over the years — back to 1964, I think he said — as they considered this move and rejected it each year. I

couldn't help wondering if perhaps forcing the north shore to

accept the Vancouver Island ferry traffic through Horseshoe Bay

all these years — maybe that was the means the former Premier

was using to revenge himself upon the north shore for

consistently electing such a fine Liberal group through all of

those years.

But as early as 1964, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. First Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) made a suggestion that the

ferry should be moved from Horseshoe Bay. At that time he was

suggesting, perhaps, Point Grey when he was beginning to point

out the problem in public. In 1966 he proposed that it be moved

to Iona Island. In 1968, when Sandy Robertson ran as the

Liberal candidate in Vancouver South, I think, part of his

campaign was that very point. 1968 was interesting — the

present Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) made some

comments in which he said, if I can quote from the Victoria

Times of September 12, 1968:

"The bill for a Vancouver Island mainland bridge or tunnel

would be about $200 million, NDP Leader Robert Strachan

suggested Wednesday." He said, 'it would be worth the cost in

improving the economy of the Island by removing the transportation

tariff holding back development.' Mr. Strachan was supporting

the by-election campaign call of federal leader T.C. Douglas,

who will seek the Nanaimo–Cowichan–The Islands seat.

"He said the federal proposal to spend a similar amount for smaller

that such massive land links are possible and worthwhile. He said, 'the party

at this point primarily is stressing the need for a feasibility study of the

idea put forward by Mr. Douglas.' And Mr. Strachan said that besides eliminating

a tariff wall against the movement of goods a bridge connection would enable

Vancouver Islanders to go to ballet, opera, theatre and sports events on the

mainland more conveniently."

In 1969 and 1970 the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey

(Mr. McGeer) repeated this policy, and since 1971 I have

personally been talking about trying to move the ferries from

Horseshoe Bay to the Iona, Steveston area.

Last Fall, Mr. Speaker, because of the announced policy on

the Burrard crossing by this Government, I stepped up my own

campaign, and I'm very pleased that the Minister agrees with me

on this. But there are some very obvious problems involved.

There are problems at Steveston, there are problems at Iona

Island, and there are problems at Gabriola.

I want to urge on the Minister and the Government the same

comments that I made with reference to the Environmental

Protection Act the United States has. I think there must be

hearings on the location of those landings, and there must be

environmental impact studies. We must not do just the economic

studies, just the physical problem — we must examine the total

environmental impact and find just what the cost is.

I've been considerably involved in some of the problems on

Gabriola, and I've been concerned before, and I am concerned

now, with the results of this. I very definitely put this

forward, and I think that probably Gabriola is where the ferry

has to be. But I want to suggest one possible solution which

may help to at least improve the conditions that might come,

which many Members have spoken of, including the Member for

Saanich (Mr. Curtis). And he suggested the other day that he saw

the serious problems of this kind of link to the Gulf Islands,

and to Gabriola.

May I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we do not want a freeway

from Gabriola to Vancouver Island; we do not want a limited

access highway from Gabriola to Vancouver Island. We want a

no-access corridor from the ferry landing, wherever it is, to

the mainland of Vancouver Island. So that when one got off the

ferry at the — let's say the Gabriola end to use that as an

example — we get into a no-access corridor which you cannot get

off in any way, or get on to it, and go straight to Vancouver

Island.

The Minister suggested that one of the savings might be

removing the ferry between Nanaimo and Gabriola. I would

suggest that that ferry should be

[ Page 235 ]

continued if the people on Gabriola so wish it, and that

people have to go directly from the ferry on to Vancouver

Island, and then on the highway system there. This would be a

new concept in British Columbia. It's used in other parts of

the world, this no-access corridor. And I would suggest that

it's a concept that we could consider on some of our highway

systems in the province where they go through certain areas

where there are particular problems.

Of course the guarantee that has to be attached to that is

the fact that the only way that no-access could be changed

would have to be only by Act of the Legislature. So this would

become a very serious thing, and a very difficult thing to

change.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. BROUSSON: Well, as a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, he

would go the same way he goes today He'd take the ferry from

Gabriola to Nanaimo, and he'd still be back in Vancouver

slightly faster than he could under present circumstances.

Which takes him now something in the order of four hours

plus.

Now, I want to go on from there, Mr. Speaker, to say a few

words on transportation generally in the lower mainland. I'm

glad the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) is in

the House, because I have a suggestion or two for him.

I think transportation in the lower mainland has caused more

sound and fury than almost any other subject that has been

raised in my very short political life. And we've probably had

fewer results and less light on the subject than many I can

think of too. But unfortunately our new government seems to be

practicing some of the same policies as the old government.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot solve these problems by isolated

solutions. What have we done so far — or what has the

Government done so far? Well, they ordered 99 buses. They've

set up a bureau of transit — it doesn't say bureau of

transportation, covering all the problems, but the bureau of

transit. The implication there is that it's a bureau of rapid

transit — one segment. And they've agreed they're going to move

a ferry terminal, or move two ferry terminals. These are

isolated solutions. They may all three of them be excellent

things, but they're in isolation again. If there was a criticism

to be made, the most serious criticism that could be made of

the problems of the Burrard crossing last year when it was

debated in this House was that it was an isolated solution to

the problem and no one was really taking the overview.

I've talked for three years in this House about the

different items that are part of this equation. We're still not

looking at them as a whole. What are some of those problems?

Well, to summarize them, we've got freeways and highways coming

from the north, from the east and from the south; we've got the Burrard Inlet

crossings; we've got a variety of river crossings involved;

we've got this ferry traffic we've just mentioned, and a study

of what kind it is — the tourist ferry traffic, the

residential, and of course the very important commercial and

industrial ferry traffic. There is the effective recreational

traffic, and how that's changed in the last year or so. The

commuter traffic and its effect — these new routes that are

developing to the Interior and elsewhere. Then there's all the

problems of bus routes, and these again are a huge problem by

themselves. And the rapid transit part of the equation.

I talked last year, and I want to mention it again because I

found very few people have really got to the point. Parking in

the central business streets of Vancouver. Downtown Vancouver

has more parking spaces per 1,000 people, than any other city

in North America that's comparable to it. Three times as many

as Toronto. Three times as many. And as long as you've got 15-cent parking in the central business district of Vancouver

everybody's going to drive their cars downtown.

So I say that if you're going to discuss rapid transit, and

transportation, and all of these other problems, you'd better

include parking as part of the equation. Where are you going to

build shopping centres? All of these things affect the total

transportation picture. And all we get so far is isolated

solutions looked at with blinkers on.

I'm gratified with the ferry announcement, but I find it

incredible that the Government didn't at the same time announce

a complete overview of the whole situation. Ninety-nine buses,

a director of transit, moving a ferry terminal — it's just

simply not good enough, Mr. Speaker. That's the same kind of

answer the former government used to give us. This new

government, with their new ideas and all their promises, ought

to give us something better. We must have that three-level

study of the problem. The federal government's ready; the

regional district is ready — only the provincial government has

so far failed to move. Is this quality services by skilled

people? Not so far, Mr. Speaker.

Well, Mr. Speaker, to move on, I want to say how much I

always enjoy, and I think the whole House does, the comments of

the first Member for Vancouver East (Hon. Mr. Macdonald), now

the Attorney General and the Minister for, I'm not sure of the

name of his department — at present he calls it trade

promotion, or trade development or something — he's not quite

sure what the name of it is. He's looking it up; he's checking

the name right now.

Mr. Speaker, that Member is usually relaxed and humorous in

his speeches. But I couldn't help feeling when he spoke last

week that he was ill at ease. As I say, he's forgotten the name

of his department. He's going to have a new name for it; he

[ Page 236 ]

couldn't quite remember it. He used it, I think, two or three

different ways in the course of his speech. He even, Mr.

Speaker, he did something that I've never seen him do before.

He read quite a large part of his speech. So, Mr. Speaker, it's

quite clear that that Hon. Member is obviously out of his

element when he starts to consider trade development, or trade

promotion, or industry or whatever that's called.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): I didn't read a word of it.

MR. BROUSSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, I saw him holding a paper up, and in

his very relaxed way he was reading it like this, I think. And I….

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, that was merely copious notes.

(Laughter).

MR. BROUSSON: Thank you very much for your advice Mr. Speaker.

But Mr. Speaker, I couldn't help thinking what a magnificent

opportunity the Attorney General has. He could be the greatest

Attorney General in the history of this province.

HON. MR. COCKE: He is.

MR. BROUSSON: Mr. Speaker, just consider all the legal

reforms, the law reforms, that have been left behind by the

former Government for this Attorney General to now bring

forward. Some of my colleagues on this side of the House have

presented over the years all sorts of bills suggesting these

things. He used to present them himself when he was on the

Opposition side, and do it very well.

I think if he will pay a little attention to some of those

matters and not concern himself so much — get rid of these

responsibilities on someone who is more at ease with his office

of trade promotion — and pay attention to the problems of the

Attorney General's department, we may get some more of those

quality services by skilled people. I'd like to give some

suggestions to him in this regard, Mr. Speaker. (Laughter).

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear. (Laughter).

MR. BROUSSON: I can see we're now getting quality service by

skilled persons, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I want to draw to the attention of the Attorney General and the

House the Mortgage Brokers Act , which was passed two years ago by this House.

I think at that time it was very little understood by most of the Members who

voted on it. I would suggest that today, Mr. Speaker, first, it's not being

enforced. Second,

part 2 of it, one of the most important parts, on disclosure,

has not yet been proclaimed. Third, it needs very badly to be amended and made

tougher.

Because these things are not being done, Mr. Speaker, I

suggest to you that hundreds of the poor people of British

Columbia are being gypped, and that this is one huge rip-off by

people who are on the verge of being crooks.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Name names.

MR. BROUSSON: I'm going to name names right now. Mr.

Speaker, I want to tell you first of all how I got involved in

this particular area.

Last December a young couple who live in North Vancouver

came to see me. They have four children. They own part of a

house in North Vancouver worth something over $25,000. They had

been to a finance company on the north shore, a finance company

which is fairly well known by a slogan "Never borrow money

needlessly." Someone in that finance company's office suggested

to them that the problems which they had could not be solved by

a conventional finance company, and they should go to see a

mortgage broker. They suggested which mortgage broker they

should go to see.

Their problem was this: they bought this house worth $25,000

four or five years ago and then had gone off to work in Hong

Kong. The house had been rented in the meantime. He'd returned

from his job in Hong Kong about a year ago last December and

came back, I think, pretty broke — four children. He'd wanted

to buy a car and needed some other money to re-establish

himself in Vancouver, and there were some small balances still

owing against the house. Anyway, he went to see this particular

mortgage broker.

Oh, I forgot to explain that against the value of the house

there was a first mortgage of $9,000. There was a further

equity up to $25,000 which these people owned at that

point.

He arranged with this mortgage broker to get a loan of

$6,000. There were legal fees and that sort of thing of $200.

In effect, we might say the total proceeds were $6,200. This

was to be a second mortgage. The bonus, as it's called, charged

by this particular company was $1,700, which is 29 per cent of

the proceeds. The interest rate was to be 17 per cent. The

payments were to be made at $118 a month. Buried away in the

fine print near the end there was a clause that said the entire

balance still owing was due in five years.

Just supposing he'd made all his payments on time. At the

start he had received $6,200. Excuse me if I go over this a

couple of times, because you need a blackboard to do this sort

of thing, really. At the start he would have received $6,200

proceeds on this second mortgage. In five years he would have

paid

[ Page 237 ]

$7,080, approximately, and he would still owe at the end of

five years $7,300 — due completely at the end of that five-year

period, right now — a lump sum. If he kept his payments on

time, at the end of the five years, he would still owe $7,300

out of the $7,900 which was what the mortgage became because of

this bonus.

What actually did happen — remember, he got $6,200. He's got

to repay $7,900 at 17 per cent, but in fact, at the end of one

year — it's a young couple, the wife is working, he hasn't been

able to get much of a job yet, he's got four children, and

he's paying $150 on his first mortgage — he'd missed a payment

or two. So now, including the rate of interest at 17 per cent

that they added on, at the end of the first year he owes $8,250 — $350 more than it was at the beginning of the year.

Well, it's very clear, Mr. Speaker, what the result of this

was going to be: one, that sooner or later these people were

going to lose their home — there was no way they could live

with this situation. Sooner or later they were going to be on

welfare, and the whole thing goes down the drain. This is one of

the things we've been trying to avoid in this useless Act.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: What are the dates?

MR. BROUSSON: The mortgage was written — I'm not sure — December 1971 or January 1972, just over a

year ago.

AN HON. MEMBER: Isn't that an unconscionable transaction

under the Consumer Protection Act ?

MR. BROUSSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, so far the use of the

Consumer Protection Act on unconscionable transactions

has not been really very successful. Let me come back to that a

bit later.

I want to mention a sidelight, Mr. Speaker, in this

particular case. Maybe this is not unethical; maybe it is. I

don't really want to pass judgment on this. As it happened,

there was a certain law firm involved who were the solicitors

of the mortgage broker. They drew the papers up, received a

payment for it. A few weeks later, after the second mortgage

had been signed, it was assigned to another mortgage company,

which turns out to be owned 50 per cent by one of the partners

of the law firm that had drawn the previous documents. I found

this personally slightly unethical, in my opinion, Mr.

Speaker.

I mentioned names. I'm not going to name names in this particular case, Mr.

Speaker. I'm going to name some names in a minute. But I'm not on this example

because after I got involved — and I've checked this out pretty thoroughly — I made sure that, in my opinion, this story was completely on the level. These

people were just honest, stupid — they'd been sucked in. Frankly, that's what

you could call it. They'd been sucked in.

I went to visit personally the mortgage broker concerned, and

I explained my position and that I was interested in this case

and was looking into the matter generally. He said, "What do

you want me to do?" I said, "Well, supposing some other

mortgage company were found who would pay all of this off, how

much would you take to write the thing off?".

Well, I mentioned there was a bonus of $1,700 in this

particular case. The mortgage broker offered to reduce that by

$1,200 to $500. This has now been done. They are in the

process, with the documentation being done, for a new first

mortgage at a reasonable rate that will pay off all of the old

things and will allow them to make their payments at a monthly

amount that they can afford at a reasonable interest rate — and

they're going to come out of this.

I think in fairness — because these people did react, not to

pressure but just to a casual visit — I don't want to use their

names in particular. But I have some other examples. I think

they are worthwhile. Perhaps you might like to jot the figures

down to appreciate just how bad some of these things are.

I have one written by Westview Properties. It's a second

mortgage, Mr. Speaker. The proceeds, including the legal fees,

were $5,300. The bonus was $1,700. That's 33⅓ per cent of

the proceeds. So, the face value of the mortgage became $7,000,

to be repaid at 14½ per cent at $109 a month.

There's another one I have here from a firm called Modern

Finance. It's owned by a man called McCallum. This is a first

mortgage on a property worth something of the order of $100,000. The first mortgage is for $4,800; that's all. That

sounds like pretty good security, eh? Well, the proceeds were

$4,000, and the bonus was $800. That's 20 per cent bonus and a

10½ per cent interest rate. That gentleman, or the wife of

that gentleman who signed that — she alleges that her husband

arranged for the mortgage and that a man from Modern Finance

attended at their home and had Mrs. Kenny and her husband

sign.

She states that she knew nothing at all about the bonus and

was simply told to sign by her husband and the mortgage

company, and assumed that everything was properly done. She

states that she would not have signed had she known about the

bonus. She states also that her husband told her that he

thought the 18 per cent and the $800 was one and the same

thing, and that is the problem. That is how they do this sort

of thing.

They give the impression that this is like an agreement of

sale with a finance company, that the statement of the bonus is

the same as the total amount of interest. In fact they are not.

They are quite separate, as I am sure you all understand.

Another one from the firm called General Securities.

[ Page 238 ]

It is owned by quite a well-known firm, Burrard

Mortgage Investments. It is a first mortgage on a property

estimated to be about $15,000 in value. The mortgage face value

is $6,000. That's reasonable — $6,000 on a $15,000 property,

first mortgage — but the proceeds were only $4,000. The bonus

was $2,000, 50 per cent bonus. The interest rate in this case

was only 10½ per cent. It turns out that the man who took

this first mortgage out with General Securities speaks very

language and was clearly, again, sucked in.

Another one by Modern Finance, a second mortgage. The

proceeds were $8,700, the bonus $1,800 — 24 per cent interest in

this case. So his monthly payments pay off $50 a year on the

principal; that's all. At the end of five years he would have

only paid off $250 on the $10,000.

Another one — Trinity Properties. Trinity Properties has

quite an interesting history, part of a pretty big group in

this field — owned by a man called, I am not sure how you

pronounce it, Mike Poppel. He's got quite an empire — finance

companies and mortgage companies, used car lots; there's a

string goes on around in a big circle here. This was a third

mortgage, and the proceeds were $2,150. This was November 1972,

written just 3 months ago. As a matter of fact, there is still

$150 of the proceeds hasn't been paid as of last week. Proceeds

$2,150, the bonus $1,000 — a 47 per cent bonus, nearly 50 per

cent — and 24 per cent interest. On this one he pays off about

$15 to $20 a year off the principal.

I should explain every single one of these is due in full at

the end of 5 years. So, the total amount of that principal has

to be paid in full in one payment at the end of the 5 years,

unless you can arrange some refinancing. But you are pretty

much at the mercy of the mortgagor at that point.

Here's a well known name — Dupont Acceptance Corporation.

Dupont Acceptance — that's owned by a man called Walter Link.

He changed the name of his company from Dupont Acceptance to

Link Developments now. Talk about rip-off developments, I think

there's one that could be used. There have been a lot of things

written and said about Walter Link. Incidentally, he sold the

name Dupont to a man called Margolis, who also owns Columbia

TV. But here we are, this was a second mortgage. The total

amount was $4,500. But all the mortgagee got was $3,500 — a $1,000 bonus — that's 29 per cent — and the rate of interest 24

per cent. 24 per cent.

Now, this particular one has got a really interesting

feature about it. He had to pay $90 a month for five years. So

consider. He received $3,500 proceeds. In five years he has

paid out $5,400, and he still owes $4,500. The interest rate

exactly matches what he is paying every month. He hasn't paid a

dime off the principal. So, he owes at the end of the five

years exactly the same amount he did at the beginning, which is

$1,000 more than he actually received. That's what the 24 per

cent rate does.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Highways): That's a long

time.

MR. BROUSSON: How does all this get to happen, Mr. Speaker?

You should take a look, if you never have, at the classified

columns of the Vancouver Sun . I have last Wednesday's, January

31, with me, and there are three headings here, "Money to Loan,"

"Money for Mortgages," and "Mortgages for Sale."

If you look down them you find some interesting things. For

instance, here is one — Provident Mortgage. Let me read you

this one.

"Provident Mortgage Corporation. Our specialty; we can do the deal that others

can't. Up to 100 per cent of appraised values. Bypass the middle man, and deal

direct. Free appraisal. 15-minute service. First, second, thirds, fourths." Right?

"No payments for one year, providing arrangements made at time of signing mortgage."

That's in very fine print, that part.

Most of this is in great big letters like "Deal Direct" an

inch high — but "providing arrangements made at time of signing

mortgage" — that's pretty small. "Phone for a monthly payment

rate." Then it says, "No obligations — borrow $2,500; pay

$24.59 per month." But what it doesn't say is that when you

borrow $2,500 and pay $24.59 per month you haven't paid

anything off the principal at all. At the end of five years you

still owe almost all you started off to. So they make it due

in five years, but it's a 20-year amortization rate.

"More important, mortgages can be paid off at any time…" and so

on. "We will give you short term loan anywhere in B.C. Phone

collect…" and two numbers. That's a column that I think is 15 inches

long. Even at the 30-day rate, that's worth about $120 for one

insertion in the classified.

Over here in the other column is one by Trinity Properties.

"Instant Mortgage Money — fast, friendly, convenient – 8¾ per cent."

Remember Trinity Properties? I read you the example about

them — 24 per cent was the one I read you about. 24 per cent

rate. They're talking about fast, friendly, convenient, from 8¾ per cent — but it turns out that Trinity Properties and

Provident Mortgage are the same company — or at least owned by

the same man.

There are many, many examples on these pages of ads that are

for the same companies with different names or different

telephone numbers, so the people are confused. There is

something else that I think the Attorney General should pay

careful attention to, Mr. Speaker, because all the way through

here you have ads like this — this is a very small ad. "Private

funds

[ Page 239 ]

available for the first and second mortgages. Reasonable

rates…" and a phone number.

Another one. "Private investor. Have funds available for

9¼ per cent on first mortgages, 12 to 14 per cent on second

and third. On $10,000, payments as low as $90 per month. No

brokers, please. Phone evenings. Private investor wants to buy

mortgages. Need cash? Phone so-and-so, evenings."

So, you do a little work on these and you phone some of

these people, Mr. Speaker, and you discover that these

so-called private individuals are not private individuals. They

work for a mortgage company all day. But at night they do a

little moonlighting with their own phone number. They give the

poor guy who is in trouble — he needs to raise money for some

problem he's got, so he thinks that here's a way. He's not

going to be stuck with this big, ugly outfit like Trinity

Properties or whoever the other people are. He can phone

someone and get private money, which is maybe a little cheaper.

He thinks somebody will give him money cheaper that way, but if

you check it all through, it's the same people.

Well, Mr. Speaker, in the Mortgage Brokers Act it

says very clearly — it's really about the only thing, the only

regulation the Act really does lay down clearly — it says, "No

persons shall carry on business as a mortgage broker otherwise

than in his registered name or elsewhere than at or from his

registered address."

Yet here we have these people who have a direct relationship

with people who are clearly mortgage brokers, and I presume are

properly registered, but they are without any question at all

carrying on business otherwise than in the registered name of

that company. Or they are leaving an implication that they are

doing so.

MR. LAUK: What's the penalty?

MR. BROUSSON: I'm not sure what the penalties are under the Act. Never

have been enforced yet, but there are some substantial penalties. I'm not sure

if that's the problem. I think it is the lack of enforcement, Mr. Speaker. There

are three kinds of mortgage brokers. I want to make this very clear. I'm not

trying to condemn everybody who is in the mortgage business. I think there are

three kinds of mortgage brokers.

There, without question, are many ethical and legal people

in the mortgage business. If you look through this paper you

can, in these same classified ads, pick many of them out quite

clearly. Many of us have dealt with them, I am quite sure, with

some of the names you find in here. I sure have, with my home.

That's one kind. The ethical and legal group.

Second, there are some that are outright crooks. Third are the weak ones that

are tempted. One of our problems in society that we do have, is that people

who are weak, if the opportunity is given them, are tempted and they do

as the other guy does.

So, Mr. Speaker, what is our responsibility as a Legislature

in this regard? I think first it's to make laws, to protect the

public; second to make those laws available to the public so

they do some constructive good in a useful way. I'm not in any

way in what I'm saying suggesting any sort of indictment of the

present Government or the present Attorney General (Hon. Mr.

Macdonald). If there's an indictment to be made here, it's of

the former Attorney General (Mr. Peterson) from the former

government, who had all the information in this regard at his

fingertips for many, many months over the last two years. But

simply the Act has not been enforced, and a good part of it has

never been proclaimed.

But, Mr. Speaker, our new Government has been in power for

five months and still has not acted. What can it do now

specifically? The Hon. Attorney General can press enforcement

of the law now. His department knows all about these cases;

without question, he knows of them. There must be investigation

of these people who are misleading the public by claiming that

they're private. There needs to be investigation done on

those.

Second, the disclosure section, part two of the Mortgage

Brokers Act , needs to be proclaimed — next week, this week.

Proclaim it; that's all you have to do.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That won't solve the problem you're

speaking of.

MR. BROUSSON: Now, Mr. Speaker, it will help solve some of

the problems. Mr. Speaker, I suggest then we study the

operation of this over the next six months and bring in

amendments this fall if we're unable to do them now. Maybe we

can do them in this session. But if you're not ready for them,

let's for sure have amendments to this Act in the fall, in the

second session, to tighten this thing up. And perhaps later on

in the debates in this session I can suggest some amendments

myself.

Mr. Speaker, those were great words in the Speech from the

Throne, "bolster services to people, industry and labour." I

suggest that it's time that the Government put its money where

its mouth is. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Rossland-Trail.

MR. C. D'ARCY (Rossland-Trail): May I commend you, Mr.

Speaker, on the dignity which you have lent to our

deliberations. This House has always had a certain distinctive

personality to it, although I believe there has been a marked

change for the better under your Speakership in the tenor of

the debates here.

[ Page 240 ]

But I feel that the particular, peculiar individuality

and vitality which I have always associated with this House is

still alive and well and a credit to all British

Columbians.

I am going to stray briefly from strictly provincial affairs

to say how happy I am about the de-escalation of hostilities in

Vietnam. I cannot call it a ceasefire, because it's obvious that

no political settlement is in sight. I don't believe peace will

ever come to that unhappy land until a political settlement has

been found.

Mind that the Prussian Baron Karl von Clausewitz said 140

years ago that "war is not merely a political act but a

political instrument carrying out of the same by other means,

and in fact the two are one and the same." I hope a political

settlement is found soon.

I am pleased, Mr. Speaker, to note the Hon. Minister of

Health Services and Hospital Insurance's (Hon. Mr. Cocke)

policy regarding facilities for extended and intermediate care

patients. During last summer when, for one reason or another, I

seemed to be meeting thousands of people, I became aware very

early that many elderly citizens with chronic problems were

being passed from one hospital to another — 30 days here, 30

days there, 30 days over there — as acute patients. Not because

there were any super-bureaucrats playing games with the system,

but because the kindly doctors and administrators who were

indulging in this practice knew as professionals and

humanitarians that the only other place that many of these

people could go was out to the street.

So apart from the human consideration, as has been pointed

out by several other speakers in this House, it is very bad

management for certain patients to occupy $60-a-day beds when

their particular needs would be better served in accommodations

costing around $20.

It seems most, if not all, of the persons in dire need of

intermediate and extended care have made a singularly valuable

contribution to the standard of living and the quality of life

which we in Canada enjoy today. They have paid their dues, not

just in taxes but in toil and initiative during their

productive years, and the fruits of that toil and initiative

they have already bequeathed to us and we enjoy every day.

I would hope — in fact I am sure — that both Ministers with

an immediate interest in this field are acting with all

deliberate speed in allaying this very pressing problem.

I would hope also, Mr. Speaker, that the Department of

Rehabilitation and Social Improvement will concern itself, or

is concerning itself with, a reduction in what is known as

peripheral services in the Province of British Columbia. Most

of these services — crisis centres, marriage counselling,

volunteer help — would cost the Government a great deal more

money were they not being done, in many cases, by private volunteer

help. They have been operating on funds from government grants, LIP grants and so on. And there has been a reduction in

these grants due to a new federal policy that seems to be

opposed to what some people would call "bleeding heart"

policies, and I think that this Government should pay attention

to this.

I note just in the last few days in this town of Victoria — and I think some of the local MLAs are probably aware — a

volunteer service, a very active one involving many numbers of

people, has, temporarily at least, gone out of business for lack

of funds. I think there were only two paid people involved in

this particular organization, but large numbers of

volunteers.

I see today that we had until I started to speak, for some

reason, Mr. Speaker, a fairly good representation from the

Opposition, which is unusual during a sitting of the House, and

I was very glad to see especially the Liberal benches fairly

well filled up. I thought perhaps there had been some

resignations from that party over the last few months that I

hadn't noticed, because it was so seldom there was more than

two or three. However, I'm glad to see that handsome group is

quite well represented here today — or they were until a few

minutes ago.

I also welcome, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Minister of Trade and

Industry's (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) statement — and we'll name it

that for the moment — on his economic development policy. You

know we up in the Kootenays know all about no growth; it's not

a new term. We've had no growth up there, not since the war,

not since 1929, but since the outbreak of hostilities in 1914.

I note that equity assistance for labour intensive developments

can take several forms, not just the obvious initial capital

assistance. In many places plant capacity and markets are

available but start-up and working capital are missing. I think

many farmers have been in that situation.

In some cases personnel assistance is needed. We have at

least one heavy industry in this province, with operations in

various locations, which in fact is a marginal operation, or a

sub-marginal operation, only because of personnel and

management problems. It's simply difficult to keep the thing

running efficiently in terms of productivity. I think that the

government can help in this regard.

In other areas, as the Minister noted, finding markets by an

aggressive policy is essential. I believe those markets are

there, and I believe this government capable of taking that sort

of action.

I note, Mr. Speaker, that the Cape Breton steel operation

became viable after the government took it over — not because

of massive and expansive technological changes, which no doubt

were needed, but because of a new management attitude that

raised morale and allowed workers to increase productivity

[ Page 241 ]

by their own initiative. And also an aggressive and

resourceful sales force that found markets in Europe, the

United States, Latin America — markets, Mr. Speaker, that Dosco

had for years maintained did not exist.

I'd like to say a word or two about two words that have been

tossed around in this House with kind of wild abandon at times — initiative and incentive. The Hon. Member for Chilliwack (Mr.

Schroeder) has said that he does not believe in handouts but in

encouraging initiative. I agree, Mr. Speaker. And while I may

find certain of that Hon. Member's ideas rather quaint, to say

the least, he does say some things that were as apt in

antediluvian times — with which I am sure he is familiar — as

they are today. When he speaks of incentive he means something

rather different, though, from my

interpretation. I think, from

his statements and other statements from the official

Opposition, that he means handouts, welfare for entrepreneurs

pure and simple. And why not? It's nice work if you can get it.

If you can obtain taxpayers' funds readily from some

yet-to-be-defined DREE agency up in the sky, why should any

developer go through that messy formality of selling shares or,

even worse, debiting his own bank account?

Mr. Speaker, we too on this side of the House believe in

initiative, and we too believe in incentive, as I think everyone

does here. I believe that there is plenty of both in this

province — plenty of drive, plenty of initiative and plenty of

resources.

There will be no marginal operations, I would hope, Mr.

Speaker, under the economic policy outlined by this Government.

We do not need in this province enterprises which depend for

survival on the kind of subsidies that became commonplace under

LIP and DREE-sponsored programmes. I would submit that the

dividing line between subsidy and political patronage — the old

pork-barrel — is a very thin one indeed.

I don't think this province needs to indulge in marginal

enterprises, whether they be public or private. We're too well

endowed with natural resources and human resources for that

ever to be necessary. All we need is imagination and good

management. The Hon. Minister's statements on the seeking of

markets for manufactured goods on the Pacific Rim is, I hope,

only the first step in this direction.

I would, if I could, quote Winston Churchill. I think the

people of this province look at their own resources, which they

believe in. They look at their own ability, which they have

quiet confidence in They look at the markets for manufactured

goods in the Pacific Rim. They look at our unemployment. And

they look to this Government, whatever party is in, and they

say, as Churchill said to Roosevelt: "Give us the tools, and

we'll finish the job."

Certain Opposition Members have said that there is amongst the

business community a lack of confidence in the B.C. economy. I would

like to meet some of these people. You can bring them over to my

office. I would like to talk to them. They're certainly lying low, as

far as I'm concerned. They're not speaking, apparently, of the forest

industrialists, whose mills are stuffing boxcars with everything they

can lay their hands on, including some things that look suspiciously

like what used to be called "slabs", and selling them at — not the

slabs but No. 1 lumber — at prices ranging from $150 to $200 per

thousand. This is a resource industry that contributes better than 50

per cent of every dollar to the B.C. economy.

We in the Kootenays have a lot of people in the forest

industry — large corporations and small operations. I find no

lack of confidence here. It's true, Mr. Speaker, that the

worldwide slump in many base metal prices has created a certain

amount of uncertainty in the mining industry in B.C. But since

this Government has jurisdiction over scarcely 1 per cent of

the North American economy — and we're talking about world

prices — I hardly think that this is something that we can

really concern ourselves with at this time.

I find one area, though, of a great deal of uncertainty.

This is the continuing spectre of inflation, which has

continued unabated, despite the continuing recession which began

in late 1967. Many small businessmen and working people have

been forced to delay or scrap expansion plans because of rising

costs that have forced them to invest capital to look after

their daily needs. I would suggest that these plans were for

going into labour-intensive manufacturing industries in many

cases. Growth funds have been sidetracked by many persons in

order that they may survive at all. In fairness, I believe that

the previous administration was aware of this problem and, in

its halting, unimaginative, misguided way, attempted to deal

with certain particularly blatant aspects of inflation.

However, unlike Mr. Bunker, we don't need a man like Herbert

Hoover again. I think we had one for 20 years. In fact, we had

several of them on the Government side of the House.

I don't realistically expect this Government to deal with

inflation either. But I think we can show some leadership and

perhaps the senior government in Ottawa — and when we're

talking economics we have to talk about the senior government

in Washington too — may take heed. In this vein, I welcome the

Premier's action in regard to price increases in the petroleum

industry. It seems to me that a former Member of this House,

Mr. Shelford, was years ago so concerned with inequities in the

retailing of petroleum products that he prevailed upon the

government of the day to commission the Hon. Judge Morrow to

study the situation. Judge Morrow found, amongst other things,

that the planned proliferation of unneeded gas stations created

unreasonably high costs of retailing gasoline, which justified

very high retail prices.

[ Page 242 ]

As the Federal Prices and Incomes Commission has

stated and as John Young of that commission has also stated, it

would appear that the entry of petroleum companies into the

retail field has resulted in an interference with free competition at the retail

level. When free competition is tampered with, the consumer

pays more, and he is paying more.

I would further suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the uncontrolled

entry of large corporate interests into all aspects of

manufacturing and marketing of a particular group of products

is detrimental to the quality of life of all of us. In B.C.

it's not just the petroleum industry — and that industry pumps

oil, refines it, distributes it and retails it — but certain

forest conglomerates are moving into the building supply field. Large food retailing chains, not content with

retail-wholesale control, through subsidiaries are becoming

corporate farmers as well. I don't believe this is healthy, and

I think it's incumbent upon this Government to protect us from the evolution of an economy

totally controlled by a corporate few.

In all fairness, I believe, Mr. Speaker, that there are

people in the corporations who are aware of the problems, but

they find themselves tied to a competitive situation in which

they have no choice but to comply.

Before I leave the petroleum industry, Mr. Speaker, I would

note that few workers in B.C. have to contend with the business

conditions of a service station lessee. He has no union, no

pension, no real estate, no Hours of Work Act , in many

cases no choice of wholesaler — all he's got is customer

goodwill and his lease. That can be terminated at any time. I

hope that the Government recognizes that workers in B.C. are not all in industries and offices. Many

are in retail businesses and are at the mercy of corporate

overlords — overlords which, Mr. Speaker, I would note are in

fact individually, let alone collectively, larger than this

Government. I would endorse the Hon. Member for Oak Bay's (Mr.

Wallace) plea for controls on foreign and corporate ownership

of land. I am sure he speaks of the territory in and around

Victoria, but in the west Kootenays over half of all the

alienated Crown land is owned by four firms, apparently

associated with head offices in that great, huge, west European

industrial state known as Liechtenstein.

I note that a great free-enterpriser, Mr. Lougheed, despite

his stated fear of a socialist advance into Alberta…. His

government has taken steps in regard to controlling this sort

of thing, which in many aspects are more extreme than those

taken by the neighbouring government of Mr. Blakeney. I would

note, too, that large foreign owners of property in B.C. have

adopted what is the heretofore unheard of practice of excluding the

public from underdeveloped land when entry is sought for legal

recreational purposes.

I would submit that the corporations who have control in the forestry, mining

and railway business, who have controlled large sections of land, have not followed

this policy in the past and are not following it today. There may have been a

few untimely exceptions to this rule, but by and large the public of B.C. has

always had access for hunting and hiking and fishing and mountaineering and

so on in private lands, providing commercial operations were not interfered

with and vandalism was minimal.

In the Kootenays that is not the case today. We have

properties in excess of 250 square miles which are literally

fenced off to the Canadian public. I would hope that the two

Ministers with jurisdiction over lands and resources and

taxation will be addressing themselves to this situation. I

think that the countryside needs to be saved for ourselves and

for our descendants.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Government to consider

some method of rationalizing transportation costs in this

province. I know that this is a very fuzzy area, but I think

it's a very important area. We've always been ready, ever since

before Confederation, to expend vast resources on

transportation facilities, and vast amounts of inputs have been

needed, due to the terrain of this country, the climate and a

sparse population. But we have never known the real cost in ton

miles or passenger miles of transport, whether it be by rail,

highways, water or air.

With the remarks and the criticisms that have been made in

this House regarding ferries, rapid transit, railways and

freeways, I believe it essential that hard facts and real costs

be available to us. We Canadians are past masters at burying

transport subsidies. We built ferries, highways and airports at

all three levels, and bulk terminals in the Province of B.C. We

hope, in each case, to break even on operating costs, but we've

never expected a return on initial cost, and that's usually

astronomical.

No thought is ever given to the acreage — or at east no

thought until recently — used for transportation facilities and

— I think a very important area here — the rights-of-way used

by pipelines and power lines, and especially power lines.

In my own constituency we have one of the most beautiful

valleys in the Province of British Columbia, called Beaver

Valley. B.C. Hydro, that great corporate citizen, wants to

build a power line down the middle of the valley, along with

the other power lines, the railways and the highways. If this

sort of thing is not controlled, Mr. Speaker, I believe that

many of the valleys of the Interior will have nothing left but

corridors for rights-of-way for various transportation

facilities. At least in the Kootenays, there's not that much

flat land. Valley bottom is at a premium. The general level of

topography is 4,000 to 5,000 feet high and land in valley

bottoms is at a premium. It must not be used for rights-of-way,

especially when

[ Page 243 ]

those power lines can be put on rolling hills at perhaps a

10 or 15 per cent increase in cost.

Finally, I would like to note — I'm straying from my own

area — that the people of B.C. in this House owe a vote of

thanks to that farming couple on Saltspring Island, the

Ruckles, who forwent, I think, tens of thousands of dollars of

personal gain because of a moral commitment to the future of

this province and to the people of B.C. I hope it is an example

that we all can follow in our personal lives and in our

deliberations in this House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Omineca.

MR. D.T. KELLY (Omineca): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. At this

time I would like, if you wouldn't mind, conveying to the real

Mr. Speaker my congratulations to him for the manner in which

he has conducted this Legislature and looked after the business

of keeping the parties and the conversation at an intelligent

level.

Mr. Speaker, I am from a northern riding, and I would like

to mention some of the problems of that riding. I feel that for

too long, the previous government has ignored the real everyday

needs of our northern citizens. It has always been romanticized

that the north is a great place to live in, and so it is, but

there are many hardships to living in the north. The people of

our area are subject to the very high cost of living and, in

many cases, very substandard wages. We have long, cold winters

and high fuel bills and clothing bills, high-priced gasoline,

lack of cultural entertainment. Many areas lack essential

services such as doctors, hospitals, transportation, et

cetera.

Mr. Speaker, I feel that there are many, many things our

Government must do to overcome the disparity between those

living in the large centres and for those that live in the

outlying regions of this Province. Housing is in a terrible

plight in the north. The average wage earner in the north of

our province does not qualify for Central Mortgage and Housing

Assistance loans because he does not earn sufficient wages, or

the land he has isn't the type that suits Central Mortgage

regulations. We have hundreds of our citizens that haul water

from the local towns, and this in turn means that there are many

homes without flush toilets or other running water. Many

youngsters grow into adulthood without the luxury of running

water in their homes.

Although I have painted a picture of the hard facts about

living in our area, I really believe that for a great many

people it is the only place to live, and I also feel this way.

In fact, I encourage people with some assets to come to the

northern portion of our province to live. It is a great outdoor

wonderland, and we have majestic scenery. There is very little

unemployment in our riding, and it is confined to just one or two areas. In fact, in many regions of my constituency

there is an abundance of jobs. The lack of housing, plus the

lack of other facilities that I have mentioned, keeps these jobs

from being filled.

Existing employment is mainly with the woods and mining

industries, and this is going to bring me to a request from my

Government. I believe that they should give special

consideration to those people who are willing to live in the

more remote areas of this province. I believe that people

should be rewarded financially for going to the sometimes not

so nice climate and staying to help create a lot of the

productivity that makes our province so rich. I am thinking of

course in terms of relief in their income tax. Other countries

with not so nice climates reward their workers for putting an

honest effort to make the economy a good one. I believe that we

are certainly rich enough to make a decent effort to encourage

people to do the same thing.

Our Government must also institute a plan of equalized gas

prices throughout the province to bring relief to our citizens

in the north.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that our Government must create a

plan for housing people in the more remote areas. Mobile homes

are the kind I was thinking of. This I believe would help to

fill the jobs that are available in our area, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to speak momentarily of the tourist industry.

We live in an area that is virtually untouched as far as

tourism is concerned. We have beautiful lakes teeming with

fish. We have hunting. We have scenery second to none. There

are many hundreds of miles of access roads that are reasonable

to drive on. We have hundreds of campsites with easy access. It

is not uncommon to see moose or deer as you drive along. At

Fort St. James, we have a programme by the federal government

to re-create the old Hudson Bay fort, which will be started

immediately. This project will, in itself, attract thousands of

tourists to our area. We have hundreds of accommodations

throughout the riding.

In fact our area is an ideal holiday land. All I am urging

is that the Department of Recreation give us the promotion to

help bring tourism to our area. Very few tourists are urged to

come to the Highway 16 West area, which includes our own. I'm

suggesting that promotion of the high density areas of tourism

should be allowed to accept or accommodate the excess of

tourists that are available from these overcrowded areas.

Mr. Speaker, I am anxious to refer to His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor's speech, and to the portion which says,

"We abhor waste, and we will correct this waste if we see it."

Mr. Speaker, during the last year of the former administration,

an agreement was drawn by that Minister of Lands and Forests

and the Department of Recreation and Conservation with the

company by the name of Ootsa Reservoir Clearing Limited. The

principals of the company live in Burns Lake.

[ Page 244 ]

The agreement was that this company was to construct a barge

with a cutting device on it, and that they were to clear

certain portions of the Whitesail Lake, which were drawn by the

Alcan Aluminum Project. The firm constructed a barge with funds

that were advanced to them by the Department of Recreation and

Conservation. This firm then went on a spree of cutting off the

drowned timber in a previously designated area of the lake. The

timber was supposed to have been cut at an approximately 18 ft.

level below the lake's surface. On a recent visit to the area

that had been worked on, I found many sheer trees protruding

from the surface of the water, and many dozens more just below

the surface. At this time the draw down on the lake was less

than five feet. By the end of October, 1972 the operation shut

down for the winter.

The Department of Recreation and Conservation had advanced

this company in excess of $300,000 for the building and

operation of this barge. Very little thought had been put into

the whole scheme. The fact is that the whole area that was

cleared, or so-called cleared, will soon have to be re-cut, as

it is the plan of the aluminum company to increase their power

supply at Kemano, and in doing so, to increase the water

drawn down to a further 10 ft. There are some assets owned by

the Government — a barge that may be of some value, or it may

not. Certainly its location is not the best, but I would

suggest that our Government lost a quarter of a million dollars

in a scheme that had very little thought applied to it.

Also, Mr. Speaker, there were no tenders called for this

job. Not one other person in this province was allowed to bid

on this job, nor did they know of it. My contention is that the

principals of this company were friends of the former

administration and the whole deal was made with a great deal of

secrecy.

Mr. Speaker, this reservoir has a shoreline of 500 miles,

and approximately 80,000 acres of drowned trees. There is

another company that has been doing an excellent job of

clearing on this lake. They have invested hundreds of thousands

of dollars of their own money. They have not received one red

cent of subsidy from the provincial government. They take the

whole tree out of the lake and turn it into a finished product.

They employ many dozens of men and they do pay salvage royalty.

They are the Bond Brothers Operation of Vanderhoof. Quite a

difference when a company such as this, which could have

enlarged their whole operation, and which recovers the whole

tree from the lake, utilizing all the wood that is sound, was

denied any support from the former government. Yet this

company, that does not recover one particle of good wood, was

allowed this very large amount of money, which in the end may

be a large waste to our people.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to urge the Government that whenever there are contracts

to be called or public money is to be spent that it be opened to legitimate

bids from the public at large.

Mr. Speaker, I also urge the Government to support any

business such as the Bonds, who are clearing the lakes and

also making a good product from that timber.

I would like to go into another aspect of forestry, Mr.

Speaker, because this riding of mine depends to a large degree

on the forest industry. The industry comes under constant

scrutiny from the people working in it. We notice, for example,

that the forestry department, which manages our timber, is in

constant conflict with the logging contractors. They are

continually changing their regulations and making it tough for

the small operators to survive. They have instituted

regulations in our part of the country that I am sure were

never meant to be. One of the most recent ones is that a piece

of wood — I refer to a log — that is 4 inches in

diameter at the small end and only 8 feet long must be hauled

to a sawmill.

With the waste that goes on in our coast forest, I find this

especially hard to accept, mostly because of the difficulty in

hauling this very small wood and handling it. I know that

stumpage rates set up by the forestry for the small

agricultural lease holders sometimes make it impossible — that

a farmer or lease must actually pay money to have his lease

property logged off; that there are no profits, but that it

actually costs money to take this timber and put it in a

sawmill — depending on location, of course. This is required by

law.

In some cases some of the lessees have lost their property

back to the lands department because they could not afford to

have it logged. If there is a time limit in having your logging

completed, and this happens in practically every case, in many

cases a wet summer is all it takes to make this an

impossibility. It is just about impossible to log during the

wet weather in our region.

Some of the industry, Mr. Speaker, seem to have no problems

with the forestry branch. We have a large sawmilling

organization in our constituency that obtained a timber license

several years back. They were required by the licence to cut so

much timber annually. The figure is in the hundreds of

millions of board feet. They have never in all the past years

come anywhere near filling this contract.

Mr. Speaker, this company, by the very fact that it is

large, has been able to do with the forestry department what

none of the small operators can do. Hundreds of jobs have not

been given as a result. Also, the provincial treasury has been

short-changed by hundreds of thousands of dollars. Mr. Speaker,

I feel that this law that holds for the lessee farmer or the

small contractor, should hold for the large sawmilling concern

equally as well. I am concerned about the

[ Page 245 ]

manner in which the forestry department works. I would urge

the Minister of that portfolio to urge an investigation into

this department. I am sure that there could be considerable

input to the workings of the forestry branch by their

employees, with many of whom I have had discussions, This large sawmilling complex I refer to was just recently

burning 40,000 to 50,000 board feet of logs daily because they

were just too small. There was nothing illegal concerning this

burning, as they had paid the stumpage to the Crown. What must

be described as immoral is the very fact that this small wood

still has considerable value, and many of the small sawmills

would be very glad to obtain logs such as these. The people

could create an income out of this so-called waste and help the

productivity of their community.

Mr. Speaker, once again the actions of this large

corporation certainly aren't in keeping with what would be

considered the best way to operate. I would urge the Minister

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

have his department look into the operations of this company

and see that they live up to the conditions of their harvesting

licence. Many of the small mills in our area need logs. I'm

sure that if this company is not able to fulfil their end of

the bargain that the forest branch should make timber available

to these small operators.

Mr. Speaker, there is another subject that I would like to

talk about and I am very concerned about, and that is the

wasting of our game to hunters other than those that live in

Canada. Of recent years there has been a serious depletion of

our game in large areas of the north. This has occurred as a

result of many things — the continued clearing of land for

agricultural purposes, the diminishing habitat, et cetera.

This land is the normal wintering ground of our moose and

deer. The lack of proper control of hunting as to the number of

animals that are left in the woods — control of predator

animals that have tremendous advantage over the deer family,

especially after last winter's record snow fall. The deer and

moose spent six weeks at least where they had to literally swim

through the deep snows that were prevalent throughout the large

areas of the province.

There is also evidence that the big game guides do not hunt

these territories with proper control — that is to say, as a

farmer would, that he would take a portion of his herd of

cattle annually. It is common knowledge that the guide will

accept all the reservations for hunters that he can possibly

get. He will take these hunters to his hunting territory and do

his utmost to obtain for every hunter a moose, a deer or

both.

Most of them will do this without the slightest regard of

whether there are sufficient animals for breeding purposes to

keep the species in bountiful numbers to withstand the harvest

of animals during the next hunting season, It is my opinion, Mr. Speaker, that

we must control our wildlife so that at no time will there be

a possibility that the species may be endangered by

over-hunting or lack of habitat. I would so urge our Minister

of wildlife that he take steps to see that our wild animals do

have a place to exist without mankind crowding them out of

existence.

Mr. Speaker, I would also urge our Government to see that

there are sufficient conservation officers to enforce all the

regulations of the fish and wildlife branch. There are numerous

cases of taking of game during the out-of-season periods, and

this is prevalent all over the province. Our fish must be

protected too. If a lake or stream has been over-fished, I

believe these waterways should be closed to fishing until at

least normal stocks of fish have built up. Then the number of

fish per den should be controlled as to keep the number of fish

in our waterways at healthy levels.

Mr. Speaker, I am of the firm belief that the penalties for

infractions under the Fish and Game Act should be

increased considerably to be more of a deterrent to the

would-be law breaker under this Act. It is practically a joking

matter with some of our residents when the topic of infractions is discussed between each other. In parts of the province

where our game is quite plentiful, infractions of the Fish

and Game Act are taking place quite frequently. Convictions

are very few, and no wonder.

Our game branch has very little effect because of the lack

of conservation officers in strategic points and locations

through the province. If decent control of poachers is not

obtained within a reasonable period of time, Mr. Speaker, I

would suggest that the reward system be instituted to obtain

convictions under this Act until, at least, the people involved

realize the seriousness of their offences.

I also believe, Mr. Speaker, that snowmobiles and all forms

of mechanized transportation should not be allowed in the

taking of game in our province. I refer specifically, of

course, to the actual hunting of animals. People may complain

that this would be a very harsh move, but it would act as a

very good buffer between man and the wild animal.

Many of our hunters sit in their vehicles and drive hundreds

of miles, in some instances, on logging roads and other back

roads until they see a helpless animal cross the road. Moose

and deer are curious animals and are easily taken. The most

exercise these hunters get is to dress their animal and lift it

into their vehicles. Then the hunt is over.

I would urge the Government to consider this as being an

urgent matter that should be looked into. There will be

pressure groups that will attempt to stop legislation that may

help in this matter. But I am sure it must be implemented to

save the game. I am of the opinion also that while we are

having this increasing problem of a much shorter supply of

game

[ Page 246 ]

year after year, that we should consider allowing the

hunting of our game to Canadians only. I know that the guides'

association will be upset because, of course, several hundred

people make their living at catering to the American trade in

the hunting business.

Mr. Speaker, this industry advertises in sporting magazines

as to the high number of animals available and usually predict

90 to 95 per cent kills during the last season. This year they

barely went over the 50 per cent mark in my area, and I am

quite sure the numbers of animals are decreasing annually

because of pressure from the increased hunting population

besides other causes.

The guides should take up the slack in their hunting

territory by accommodating Canadian resident hunters. For some

reason or other, all the guides in my area of the province

failed to guide one resident hunter last hunting season in a

very large region of this province.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak momentarily of the

allegations that our Government has driven business away from

the Province of British Columbia. Omineca isn't an area with a

lot of big businesses. In fact, we have quite a sparsely

populated area, and even small businesses aren't numerous. I

have been approached by that business community, and they have

assured me that they are prepared to accept our Government and

feel that they will receive at least as much as they did from

the previous administration.

I have been approached also by a large international

corporation that would like to establish themselves in our

area. They are talking of several millions of dollars in

instituting a large corporation in that area in the primary

industry. We have other large corporations that have been

touring our area just recently to look things over, and I'm

confident that they will establish themselves in Omineca. And

they will do it quite soon.

We have many business people who are doing their utmost to

encourage business into the area, and I'm confident that they

also will be successful.

I thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for your patience.

MR.SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Skeena.

MR. H.D. DENT (Skeena): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Many years ago the British

Government decided to give up a piece of territory now known as the Alaska panhandle

as part of the boundary settlement with Russia — or the Imperial nation of Russia

in that day. The area that I'm speaking about you can see on this map that I'm

holding up that's on the cover of a booklet advertising the "beautiful centre

of Terrace in the Pacific northwest, the hub of the British Columbia northwest."

The

section in question is in white along the northwest coast of our province.

I'll just read the description that was contained in the

conventions that were drawn up between the Imperial nation of

Russia and Britain in that day — that was on February 28,

1825:

"The eastern limit is the line of demarcation between the

Russian and the British possessions in North America, as

established by the convention between Russia and Great Britain,

of February 28, 1825, and described in Articles III and IV of

said convention, in the following terms:

" 'Commencing from the southernmost point of the island called

Prince of Wales Island, which point lies in the parallel of 54 degrees 40 minutes

north latitude and between the 131st and 133rd degree of west longitude (meridian

of Greenwich), the said line shall ascend to the north along the channel called

Portland Canal, as far as the point of the continent where it strikes the 56th

degree of north latitude; from this last-mentioned point, the line of demarcation

shall follow the summit of the mountain situated parallel to the coast as far

as the point of intersection of the 141st degree of west longitude (of the

same meridian); and finally, from the said point of intersection, the said meridian

line of the 141st degree, in its prolongation as far as the Frozen ocean.' "

Now I'm sure that the Russians and the British who made that

agreement never actually saw the area that they were making

this agreement about. And of course a few years later, in 1867,

this territory in question was ceded to the United States from

Russia as part of a settlement between Imperial Russia and the

United States in that day.

And so it is today that that constitutes the boundary

between British Columbia and the State of Alaska.

Now this has not constituted any problem in terms of access

to ports until now. However, there are now a number of mining

developments proposed for the area lying behind the Alaska

panhandle, and also some forestry developments are likely in

the works as well.

Now the thing is that from an economic point of view, it

would be logical to export the resources from that region out

through the American ports of the Alaska panhandle. That would

make economic sense. The only diff