1973 Legislative Session: 3rd 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)

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 1973

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 75 ]

CONTENTS

Seating of new Member Mr. W.R. Bennett (South Okanagan) seated in the House

— 75

Routine proceedings Crown Proceedings Act (Bill 13). Mr. Gardom Introduction

and first reading — 75

British Columbia Ombudsman (Bill 14). Mr. Gardom Introduction and first reading

— 75

British Columbia Auditor General (Bill 15). Mr. Gardom Introduction and first

reading — 76

Public Scrutiny (Bill 16). Mr. Gardom Introduction and first reading — 76

Oral questions Export of Sukunka Coal. Mr. Wallace — 76

Intervention in Seattle City Light power application. Mr. McGeer — 76

Possible amendment of the Public Schools Act. Mr. Schroeder — 76

Exemptions from Public Works Fair Wages and Conditions of Employment Act. Mr.

D.A. Anderson — 77

Eurocan operations in Kitimat. Mr. Smith — 78

Willingdon housing project. Mrs. Jordan — 78

Strike at Sandringham Hospital. Mr. Wallace — 79

Throne speech debate Mr. Lewis — 79

Mr. Phillips — 83

Mr. Dent — 92

Mr. Rolston — 100

Privilege Filing of agreement on northern railway development. Mr. Chabot — 107

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, I would like

to suggest that you will be very pleased to know that we have a

guest in your gallery, Mrs. Agnes Kripps from Vancouver, who

sat in this House as Second Member for Vancouver South. She now

is president of the Social Credit Women's League Auxiliary and

an active member of our board. I know, Mr. Speaker, that you

will remember her for her clever and entertaining speeches in

this House and the public of British Columbia know her now for

her conscientious work and her fine humour. I would ask all the

House to give her a warm welcome, because she may be back.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I have the

distinct pleasure to announce that we have from that great

riding of Revelstoke-Slocan Mr. George Toma with us in the

gallery today. I would ask the House to join me in extending a

warm welcome.

MR. SPEAKER: Honourable Members, on the 5th day of June,

1973, I did receive a declaration from the Hon. William Andrew

Cecil Bennett, Member for the electoral district of South

Okanagan, of his resignation of his seat in the

Legislature.

Pursuant to

section 55 of the Constitution Act, being

chapter 71 of the Revised Statutes of British Columbia, 1960, 1

did transmit to L.J. Wallace, Esquire, Deputy Provincial

Secretary, my warrant for the issue of a new writ for the

election of a Member to fill the vacancy in the said electoral

district of South Okanagan.

DEPUTY CLERK:

Office

of the Deputy Provincial Secretary,

Parliament

Buildings,

Victoria,

British Columbia,

September

19, 1973

Mr. Ian M. Horne, Q.C.,

Clerk of the Legislative Assembly.

Dear Sir:

RE: By-election, South Okanagan electoral

district, September 7, 1973.

I enclose herewith certified copy of the certificate of Mr. K.L.

Morton, Chief Electoral Officer, representing the election of William Richards

Bennett to represent the South Okanagan electoral district in the Legislative

Assembly.

Yours

very truly,

(Signed)

L.J. Wallace,

Deputy Provincial Secretary.

Mr. L.J. Wallace,

Deputy Provincial Secretary,

Parliament Buildings.

Dear Sir:

RE: By-election, September 7, 1973, South

Okanagan electoral district.

The resignation effective June 5th, 1973, of William Andrew Cecil

Bennett, the elected Member for the South Okanagan electoral district, caused

a vacancy to occur in the Legislative Assembly. A writ calling for a by-election

to fill that vacancy was issued on August 1, 1973, polling day being September

7, 1973.

From the writ now returned to me, I hereby certify the election

of William Richards Bennett as the Member to represent the South Okanagan electoral

district in the Legislative Assembly.

Yours truly,

(Signed) K.L. Morton,

Chief electoral officer.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, I move

that the letter of the Deputy Provincial Secretary and the

certificate of the Chief Electoral Officer of the result of the

election of a Member be entered upon the Journals of the

House.

Motion approved.

MR. FX RICHTER (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, it

is with the utmost pleasure and a great deal of satisfaction

that I present the newly elected Member for South Okanagan, Mr.

William Richards Bennett, and ask that he be seated in this

assembly.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member take his seat?

Introduction of bills.

CROWN PROCEEDINGS ACT

Mr. Gardom moves introduction and first reading of Bill 13

intituled Crown Proceedings Act.

Motion approved.

Bill 13 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.

BRITISH COLUMBIA OMBUDSMAN

Mr. Gardom moves introduction and first reading

[ Page 76 ]

of Bill 14 intituled British Columbia Ombudsman.

Motion approved.

Bill 14 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.

BRITISH COLUMBIA AUDITOR GENERAL

Mr. Gardom moves introduction and first reading of Bill 15

intituled British Columbia Auditor General.

Motion approved.

Bill 15 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.

PUBLIC SCRUTINY

Mr. Gardom moves introduction and first reading of Bill 16

intituled Public Scrutiny.

Motion approved.

Bill 16 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders

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

after today.

Oral questions.

EXPORT OF SUKUNKA COAL

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, in light of the

comments on the conference on coal at the Empress Hotel, I

would like to ask the Premier if he could bring the House up to

date with the dealings regarding export of Sukunka coal, and

the information we had last session that Japan and Britain were

trying to determine whether the coal was suitable for exporting

and blending in these countries. Could the Minister bring us up

to date?

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, the blending

qualities of the coal are excellent. During my visit to Great

Britain I spoke to British steel representatives. Yesterday

morning representatives of British steel were in my office.

There is no doubt that the coal is excellent for blending.

Negotiations are still continuing with Brascan, a principal

holder in this kind of deal. We have not arrived at the formal

point of an arrangement yet; there is a great deal of

negotiating still to be done.

MR. WALLACE: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The economy, I am

told, in the Dawson Creek area is not in good shape. Could the Premier give

us any idea what length of time he anticipates will go by before negotiations

are likely to be finalized?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I really can't. I'd like to be able to

give you a date, but I really can't at this point. The

negotiations we are involved in are new for the Province of

British Columbia. In the past, resources were dealt with not so

much as commodities, but as grants. This is a whole new field

we are involved in, and as a result we have asked outside

consulting help as well as help from the Department of Mines.

We have also asked for outside legal help and, yes, there are

feasibility studies being done on Brascan's part to reinforce

positions they have taken in contrast to our positions.

I appreciate the need of the region for the project.

However, I want to say as Minister of Finance, I will not lend

my name to an agreement unless, backed up by facts and backed

up by the support information of outside consultants, I feel

that there is a new commitment in terms of return of funds out

to the people, different than there has been in the past out of

the resources.

INTERVENTION IN SEATTLE CITY LIGHT

POWER APPLICATION

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, I have

a question for the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources. Has he given any indication to the Federal Power

Commission in Washington, D.C., of the Province of B.C.'s

intent to act as an intervener in the Skagit Valley application

being put forward by Seattle City Light?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources):

Mr. Speaker, the province has no intention of being an intervener in a foreign

country.

MR. McGEER: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the

Minister, or has the government in general, received any

communications from the Federal Power Commission of the United

States regarding this matter?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Not as far as I am aware, Mr.

Speaker.

POSSIBLE AMENDMENT OF THE

PUBLIC SCHOOLS ACT

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): This question is for the

Minister of Education. Has the Minister of Education given any

indication to the president of the B.C. Teachers' Federation

that the Public Schools Act would be amended to provide the

[ Page 77 ]

compulsory negotiation of teacher working conditions?

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): No, I have

not.

MR. SCHROEDER: Could the Minister offer any comment to the

House which would relieve our anxiety about the president's

reference last night on CTV that boards should negotiate

working conditions on a voluntary basis rather than wait for

legislation?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I regret I did not hear the beginning of

your question. Would you repeat it?

MR. SCHROEDER: Yes, ma'am. Could the Minister offer any

comment to the House which would relieve our anxiety about the

president's statement that boards should negotiate working

conditions on a voluntary basis rather than wait for

legislation?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I am not in a position to relieve your

anxiety. (Laughter.)

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, a question to the

Hon. Minister of Public Works.

MR. SPEAKER: Oh, excuse me a minute. Would you give up the

floor for a minute on a supplementary?

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): To the Minister of

Education: has the Minister any guidelines to offer the B.C.

Trustees' Association on meeting the teachers' demands at this

time?

MR. SPEAKER: Are you asking as a fact or as a policy?

Because if it is policy, the Minister is not required to make

statements on policy unless it is a fact.

MR. PHILLIPS: All I am asking her is if she has any

guidelines to offer the trustees. They are meeting now and has

she any guidelines to offer?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: You are asking me with reference to the

present negotiations?

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes.

HON. MRS, DAILLY: I think you should be aware that the

Minister does not involve herself in the negotiations. They

take place between each individual school board and each

individual teachers' association.

MR. PHILLIPS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I think you have pursued it far enough in view

of the fact of the Minister's statement.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I

think we might as well throw this question period out

because…

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. There are set rules on question

period and if you are not prepared to abide by them, I must

rule on them.

EXEMPTIONS FROM PUBLIC WORKS

FAIR WAGES AND CONDITIONS OF

EMPLOYMENT ACT

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: To the Minister of Public Works: in the

light of his statement that certain firms and certain

industries can be exempted from the P ublic Works Fair Wages and

Conditions of Employment Act, may I ask him how these

exemptions are decided on?

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

think it goes without saying that we do prefer that the people

of the province are given an opportunity to join a legitimate

trade union, and we prefer to deal with people so

organized.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. In view of

the fact that Members of this House do prefer the government to

obey the laws passed by this Legislature, and as there is no

legislative authority which I can see in the Act for exemptions

of the type that the Minister has said outside the House that

he will make, can I ask the Attorney General when he's going to

instruct this Minister to follow the law? And if not, Mr.

Speaker, as the Attorney General seems unwilling to look into

this matter of the failure of the cabinet to follow the laws

passed by this Legislature, can I ask him what the legal

position might be in terms of cabinet Ministers who fail to

uphold the laws passed by this Legislature?

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): Any citizen of the

province, Mr. Speaker, who feels that a cabinet Minister or

anyone else is not observing the laws of the province could

take the matter to court and get a judicial ruling.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: As it is impossible to sue the Crown, Mr.

Speaker, can I suggest then…

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You can sue the Crown for an

interpretation.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: There's no problem in

[ Page 78 ]

this case — you might allow it. That's very kind of you.

Well, can I ask when we can have some definitive statement

from the government as to when we are going to have the

executive act in accordance with the laws of British Columbia,

or when they are going to continue to act in the preference for

certain unions which they might or might not like?

MR. McGEER: I would like to ask the Attorney General, since

the invitation is for any citizen to challenge a Minister who

oversteps his authority, whether the Attorney General himself

would be prepared to do that to see that the laws of the

Legislature are upheld?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Of course, if it was my conclusion that

a Minister of the Crown was not observing the terms of a

statute, I'd get in touch with that Minister and ask him to do

so, based upon our legal advice. Now, if there is a difference

of opinion about it, then I suggest that the courts are there

to make sure that we interpret the laws correctly.

EUROCAN OPERATIONS IN KITIMAT

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): My question is to the

Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. It has to

do with his recent trip overseas to the country of Finland. I

would like to ask the Minister if, while visiting Finland, did

he have any discussion with the government of Finland or the

Bank of Finland concerning an equity position in Eurocan and

their operations at Kitimat?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SMITH: Supplemental, Mr. Speaker. There is no intent

upon the part of the government to enter into an equity

position in Eurocan, period. Is that my understanding?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I answered the question, Mr. Speaker.

WILLINGDON HOUSING PROJECT

MRS. JORDAN: I'd like to address my question to the Minister

of Human Resources. He will recall that on Monday night last,

the Burnaby council expressed alarm and concern at the lack of

consultation between the government, or the Minister, or any

member of his department with their council on the Willingdon

housing project. My question to the Minister is: why was this

consultation not forthcoming?

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Human Resources): Mr. Speaker, the consultations:

I wrote to various municipalities; I also spoke as recently as two weeks ago

to Mayor Muni Evers about this situation. He is on the Greater Vancouver Regional

District. Mrs. Dailly also…

MRS. JORDAN: Who is the Minister who is answering the

question? The Minister of Finance or the Minister of Human

Resources?

HON. MR. LEVI: It is my complete understanding that they

were quite aware of what was going on. I informed Mr. Muni

Evers; they were quite aware of what was going on. We had made

some indications, on a private nature, quite some time ago

about this situation.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, am I to understand from the

Minister's statement, or is the House to understand from the

Minister's statement, that in fact the statements made by the

council Monday night last are not true?

HON. MR. LEVI: I'm not saying that. All I'm saying is that

the Greater Vancouver Regional District, of which Burnaby is

part, were aware of the direction we were going.

MRS. JORDAN: A supplementary Mr. Speaker. Is the Minister

then saying there was consultation about the Willingdon School

housing project with the Burnaby municipality, which was

directly effected by himself or a member of his department?

HON. MR. LEVI: No. With the Burnaby council, no, there was

not. I wrote them a letter some time ago that we were not

prepared to consider it as offices for the Burnaby council.

That was some months ago when I wrote that letter.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, the Minister will perhaps recall

that the Minister of housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson) stated that it

would be government policy, whenever housing was involved, to

have prior consultation with the municipalities that were

affected. Are we to assume from this Minister's statements — the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) — that that in

fact is not government policy? Or are we to assume that he sets

his own policy of making statements in the corridor rather than

in this House…

MR. SPEAKER: Order please.

MRS. JORDAN: …and are suggestions that the words of newly

elected councils in fact are not true?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! What you assume,

[ Page

79 ]

madam, is your own business. If you have a question, ask

it.

MRS. JORDAN: I would like an answer.

MR. SPEAKER: An answer to what?

MRS. JORDAN: Is the Minister of Human Resources accusing the

Burnaby council of making a false statement Monday last?

HON. MR. LEVI: It was a ridiculous statement.

STRIKE AT SANDRINGHAM HOSPITAL

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I thought I'd never

make it. I'd like to ask the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr.

King), in light of his statement on the two-year-long strike at

Sandringham Hospital, two quick questions. First of all he

mentioned that bargaining has not taken place in good faith — and I'm not questioning that I'm just making the statement

plain. Can I take it from that statement that the Minister has

no power to attempt to bring about bargaining in good faith?

Secondly, if this is something that cannot be achieved, could

he report at what stage negotiations to take over such a

private hospital are? Or perhaps the Minister of Health (Hon.

Mr. Cocke) should answer that.

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

question of good faith bargaining was dealt with by the Labour

Relations Board over a year ago. It was the finding of the

board at that point that the employer had in fact failed to

bargain in good faith. Now the penalties under existing

legislation for such a failure are less than meaningless; and

there's no way under existing law that adequate penalties are

available to induce parties to so bargain in good faith.

Efforts were made through my office to introduce a third party

to the dispute, which might find a basis for resolution. These

overtures were not accepted by the employer. Really there

remains no economic question on which the parties are in

disagreement, and it would appear that good faith bargaining is

still in fact not taking place.

With respect to taking over Sandringham Hospital, I would

submit, Mr. Speaker, that this is not a satisfactory device in

terms of solving labour disputes. If that hospital should be

taken over, I would presume and recommend that it be on other

questions of economics and social policy rather than an effort

to resolve a labour dispute.

MR. WALLACE: A supplementary question.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm afraid we've done more than the full 15

minutes.

Orders of the day.

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued)

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Shuswap.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Tell us about that

fire.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about the two roosters?

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Well, I'm glad you brought up the

subject of the two roosters, because one of the first things I

intend to do in this session is introduce a private Member's

bill, "The Protection of the Rooster Act." (Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker, it's a great honour for me to again stand in

this House in the throne debate, representing the beautiful

constituency of Shuswap.

In the last week there's been a tragedy in the Shuswap area,

I think as most people here are aware, when a fire swept down

off the Fly Hills area from a 5,000-foot elevation to the

valley floor in a matter of a couple of hours. This fire was

ignited by the co-op crews under permit from the forestry

system.

Mr. Speaker, I know that a lot of people in my riding, and a

lot of people in the province, expect me to come out and attack

the Forest Service. Well this isn't my intention whatsoever. I

feel that these people are working for the province, that

possibly a bad decision was made, but it's not up to me to be

the judge.

I've asked the Minister to conduct an investigation into the

fire, independent from the Forest Service. To this time he

hasn't made any public announcement on this, but I feel that

the people in Shuswap, the people in British Columbia and also

myself, expect this type of investigation. I'm not saying that

the forestry wouldn't be fair in their deliberations; I'm just

asking that everybody's minds be set at ease.

The damage in that fire was extensive, and people are going

to suffer for many, many days to come. I'm asking the

government to be most lenient in their appraisals of the losses

of the people. I'm asking that they be very fair in the

compensation it pays them. To this time I've had the best of

cooperation from the Minister, the Premier and the

cabinet.

The morning that the fire was running wild I had a phone

call from the radio station getting me out of bed at 6 o'clock

in the morning. At that point I contacted the Minister, and he

immediately got the ball rolling in regard to bringing in

personnel from the Prince George area that were efficient in

forest firefighting. I think everything that was humanly

possible was done by the Minister and his staff. I would also

like to thank the people in the Salmon

[ Page 80 ]

Arm area at this time, Mr. Speaker, I believe the majority

of them remained cool and that the civil defence did a good

job. The council did a very good job in regard to the number of

council members left in the area, and the spirit of the people

in the area was tremendous.

There's one thing that does worry me and that's any

recurrence of this in the future. I believe an investigation,

by the Forest Service and an independent investigation, will

bring out recommendations that will alleviate many people's

fears in regard to this happening in any part of British

Columbia in the future, not just in my riding.

I have assurances from the Forest Service that the area will

be rehabilitated, and I would like to make the request to the

Minister that this is done as fast as it's humanly possible

because it's an area that depends heavily upon tourism. It's a

mountainside that has completely been destroyed and it's going

to be an eyesore for years to come. But I think, with

cooperation from the forestry, the area can be rehabilitated

in a short time.

I think Mr. Speaker, I've dealt enough with the fire. I know

there's a lot of emotions in my riding, and in the province,

with regard to it. I just hope that the people will be

reasonable and wait until the results come out from the

hearings.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to leave this subject

and move on to agriculture, seeing that I'm from a riding which

is heavily based in that area. I'm not too happy with all

things that have happened in agriculture, but most things have

gone quite well and the Minister has done a good job.

There have been many progressive steps made by the Minister

in the past year and he's had very many problems to contend

with. I think he's had one advantage that the past Minister

never had: he's had a cabinet that listened to him; and I would

like to thank the cabinet for that.

The things that he's had to contend with are crop failures

in the Peace River, a drought in a big part of the province,

which caused chaos to many, many farmers. There's also been

inflation in all livestock inputs during the last year, some of

them going as high as 300 to 400 per cent. He had the situation

that was brought on by the national rail strike to contend

with, as well as the strike that was on with the ferries. I

think his department and other departments did a very good job

in trying to overcome this situation.

There are problems in the fruit industry that are far from

being resolved. I don't think anyone in this chamber knows what

the answers are.

There was much work brought on his desk by the Land

Commission and I expect this will continue in the future until

it's straightened out.

I would like to thank the staff from the Department of Agriculture for the

cooperation that I've received from them. During the agricultural committee

tour we met many, many qualified people working for that department. I think

the Minister has an excellent department.

There are some areas that I'm not very happy with. I'm the

Member for Shuswap, and prior to becoming a Member I

continually voiced my opinion with regard to the right of

agriculture to grow in the Interior of the province. It's been

badly neglected in the past and in some areas it's still

neglected.

Marketing boards have caused much distress to the Interior,

as those are the areas where farming is more remunerative to

the people involved in that industry. The big part of that type

of industry is centred in the lower mainland of this

province.

Prior to being elected I ran an extensive campaign in regard

to the things that were happening in marketing boards — and in

regard to the broiler board in particular. Some problems have

been straightened out with some boards but the broiler board,

as far as I'm concerned, is a catastrophe. I've been in contact

with the Minister continually on this since being elected and

he's assured me that he's working on it.

Just prior to making this speech today I contacted the

Minister and asked what progress is being made. He said that he

had sent a letter to the B.C. Broiler Marketing Board saying

that something had to be done to see that a viable industry was

created in the Interior. He said that this was somewhere in the

neighbourhood of August 8, and up to this time he's received no

answer.

Well, Mr. Minister, I don't think that this is good enough.

I know that you are a very busy man and you have been doing

everything that you possibly can, and the problems have been

great. But I think that the broiler board is responsible to the

people in British Columbia — responsible to the farmers of

British Columbia, not just responsible to a group of farmers in

the lower mainland. If they're not being responsible, then I

say that it's up to your department and your staff to overrule

them.

There have been applications gone before this board

throughout the years for the right to produce broilers in the

Interior of this province. The board says, "We haven't turned

them down; their names just haven't come up on the list." Now I

don't like that attitude. This could go on for 100 years. I'd

just like to give you some figures with regard to how the

broiler industry has grown in the lower mainland-Vancouver

Island area since 1968.

In 1968 there were 30 million pounds of broiler meat raised

in these areas; in 1969, 35 million; in 1970, 39 million; in

1971, 44 million; in 1972, 50 million. The estimate for this

year would be 9 to 10 per cent above that.

In my view, some of that increase in permits should have

gone to the Interior of the province to help establish the

industry in that area. I think we all have to remember that the

Interior is an area that is

[ Page 81 ]

very, very low on industrial development. There is very

little industry in any part of the Interior when you compare it

with the lower mainland. Agriculture is one area that we have a

chance to grow in. If we're denied that chance, we're going to

stay stagnant forever.

I would also like to point out things that are happening in

the industry in regard to secondary permits which they

absolutely refuse to give to the Interior whatsoever. Our names

have never come up on the list. In 1971 a secondary permit was

given out to practically every broiler producer in the lower

mainland-Vancouver area — in the number of 5,000 birds. In 1972

they gave out an additional 5,000 birds, Now here is the cruncher. In 1974 that permit that was given

out for nothing to the growers of the lower mainland-Vancouver

Island area will become worth $3.50 a bird. So in a short

period of four years, besides what profits they've made from

selling their product, they're going to realize an additional

$18,000 from the value on their quota.

Now it's reasonable to expect that if this happens in 1974,

in 1975 the same thing will happen with the 1972 permit that

was issued. I say that we're making a lot of "fat cats" at the

expense of the people in the rest of the province.

Here's something that should shock you a little bit: some of

this permit that was given out went to that poor little fellow

called Panco Poultry. Do you know how many broiler birds they

already have in their operation? Between 180,000 and 190,000

broilers.

Interjection.

MR. LEWIS: Well, that's not indefinitely. But that's the

rotating crop that they take off at least four times a year.

Now that 180,000, as a minimum, are worth $3.50 just for the

right to raise those broilers. So you can see what type of

thing we have done in this broiler-quota situation.

I have every reason to believe that there's been a trade-off

with the broiler board in regard to the Kootenay area. I have

information that I can't substantiate — but it comes from a

good source — that Alberta Poultry Marketers have agreed not to

put products into other parts of the Interior, providing the

broiler board lets them have the Kootenays. I think this is

disgraceful when the industry could be set up in that area — when some farmers and a processing plant could operate in that

area.

The broiler board made a token effort this summer and said: "Well, we're not

going to let any quota into the Interior, but we'll be really nice and we'll

let you have some permits for roasters. There's not going to be any processing

plant there, so you'll have to truck your roasters all the way to the Fraser

Valley to be killed in a processing plant in the lower mainland."

Now I've talked to people in the Department of Agriculture

and they told me that they ran a test case on turkeys. In a

12-hour shipping period there was a 14 per cent shrinkage in

those turkeys that were shipped. I say their intent was to give

out these nominal permits; after a period of a year or two

years the farmers wouldn't be able to make it — they would go

broke. Then the broiler board would say, "I told you; they're

not smart enough to make it in the interior."

A man in the Sorrento area, not far from where I live, had

requested the right for broiler growing to go into the Interior

back as early as 1968. He put an application in to the federal

government under the federal incentives plan. They granted

$40,000 towards the building of a plant at that time. But the

broiler board refused the right for the product to be grown in

that area, so it dropped dead; the area lost the $40,000 that

could have been used in a killing plant.

I've talked to many store-owners in my riding and I'm sure

that the same things exist throughout the Interior. Their

attitude towards the B.C. Broiler Marketing Board is absolutely

hostile. The field man that comes around to their stores they

don't refer to as a field man; they refer to him either as the

"gestapo" or the "policeman." I think that when relations

deteriorate to this extent, something has to be done to check

into the situation.

Mr. Minister, in the other provinces of this country we have

a board set up by the province — of course, this isn't the same

in every province, but they do have a board — with a member

from the Attorney General's department, a member from the

Consumers Affairs department, a member appointed by the

provincial government and a farmer — all of whom sit on a board

once a month to review actions by all marketing boards in those

provinces.

I'm making a very strong appeal that this type of thing

happen in this province to keep an eye open to see that the

producers, the public and the consumers are protected.

I also would like to make the request that an appeal board

be structured in this province whereby, if there's any

injustice to a producer, any injustice to a store-owner, he has

an independent appeal board that he can go to. I would suggest

that one member on this appeal board should be from the

Department of Agriculture.

I think that only through actions like this and direct

action by yourself will the board come around to moving in

these areas. I certainly urge that you do this as soon as

possible. I think the people in the Interior of the province

have been very patient in regard to the problems that they've

had with agriculture and with not having the right to grow. I'm

sure that it's not going to last much longer.

[ Page 82 ]

There have been some people in the Interior who say "there's

no hope beyond hope." I would hope that they're wrong. I would

like to say that in no way am I running down the Minister of

Agriculture for the work that he's done in the province. Only

in one area.

I would like now to move on to problems that I am

encountering in my area with highways. I am sure that every

MLA, or nearly every MLA, in this House has problems with the

bureaucracy that exists in the Highways Department. There are

applications for subdivisions, which I think are justified,

that have been lying in somebody's office for two years. It is

quite often that a person will apply for the right to subdivide

and the Highways Department won't give them approval until they

get permission from the Board of Health or from some other

board. In 90 days the Highways Department says, "Well, your

application has run out. You will have to re-apply." This

sometimes goes on for two years, and I think it is

shameful.

I think that if we are understaffed in this department we

should correct it, but I am sure that the people in my

constituency aren't going to put up with it forever.

There are things happening in that department with regard to

subdivision applications that I am very unhappy with. In an

area called Pritchard, which is halfway between Kamloops and

Salmon Arm approximately, there have been applications to put

in two different subdivisions well back from the river in a

flat area on land that is not suitable for farming, an area

that I feel would be suitable for a subdivision. The Highways

Department turned it down. And what is the reason? "You're too

close to Kamloops." Well that's too bad, if it's too close to

Kamloops, then move Kamloops. Because as far as I am concerned,

my riding is not going to be frozen forever.

I would like to point out that "too close" to Kamloops is 30

miles. Now if that's the case, possibly Langley, Chilliwack and

other municipalities out in that area had better stop building

because they are too close to Vancouver.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): They've already been

stopped.

MR. LEWIS: There is another area where I am not too happy

with the Highways Department, and that is in regard to hired

equipment and the people who get the jobs. I say that everybody

in this province should have a chance at the work that public

money puts into these jobs.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Even if they aren't

NDP.

Interjection.

MR. LEWIS: Yes this is very true. The situation hasn't

changed whatsoever and this is what worries me. The same people

get the same jobs and I am getting considerable flack in my

riding.

Interjections.

MR. LEWIS: Well, there's the odd Liberal that would like a

job too.

Interjections.

MRS. JORDAN: If you come, you'll get re-elected next

time.

MR. LEWIS: I would like my noisy friend to be quiet down

there and I'd carry on.

I would like to give you an instance of one situation in

regard to seal coating in the Highways Department, where there

is a trucking firm called Joe Hall Trucking. Now this has

happened in the past; it hasn't started yesterday.

About the day after I was elected I had a delegation of

truck drivers come to see me about the situation, complaining

that they weren't able to get their trucks on the job but that

Joe Hall Trucking was able to pretty well assure themselves of

having the majority of the trucks on the job every year.

AN HON. MEMBER: Carrying the wrong card.

MR. LEWIS: They also gave instances of when these trucks

moved from one job to the other, Joe Hall Trucking would always

have one little piece of machinery in their truck. They got

paid mileage and time for travelling to the next job, but the

unfortunate truckers who were outside of that organization were

forced to move on their own time without any mileage. I think

this is shameful.

I brought it to the Minister's attention. He said he was

looking into it, but one comment he made was that we would have

to be careful because we could be accused of racial

discrimination. Now it so happens that these people are East

Indians. I have nothing against the East Indians; I have

nothing against black people; I have nothing against any race;

but maybe there's some discrimination against the rest of

us.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about political parties?

(Laughter.)

MR. LEWIS: I would like to make a few comments in regard to

the civil service legislation that is coming before the House

this fall, being that I was once a civil servant myself.

Civil servants have been treated as second class citizens in

this province for many years. It seems to be an attitude of the

public that, if you work for the

[ Page 83 ]

public you should be willing to take less. I certainly don't

support this theory in any way. I think we have some very

capable civil servants out there. Many of them are doing a fine

job, and they should get the same conditions and the same pay

as anybody else in the same type of work.

I do question the ferry service and the right to strike. I

am very reluctant to say that anybody should not have the right

to strike, but surely there can be some machinery worked out

that would assure these people as good working conditions as

other people, that Province of British Columbia wanted them.

They told yet would not tie up the complete Vancouver Island

during a strike.

I suggest that the ferry service has a tremendous tool of

power. I would also suggest that if they are allowed to use it

continually, the spread between them and other qualified civil

servants in this province could become very great. I am not

suggesting that they shouldn't have the right to strike; I am

suggesting that we should take a look at every means available

to us before that's allowed.

I would also like to comment on labour, management and

government, period. It is quite easy for me to make some

remarks on labour because I am in a riding where there are very

few labour people. I want it understood that I am sympathetic

to labour people and sympathetic to everybody in our society,

but I think it is time that all of us got together — labour,

government and management — possibly at a conference or

something where we could start to work out some guidelines for

the future.

One suggestion I would like to throw forth is possibly

labour could say: we are willing to hold our wages at the

present scale this year, but we want a reduction of 10 per cent

in lumber, we want a reduction of 10 per cent in this field or

that field. I think that we would gain the same ends and our

economy would be able to thrive much better in the future. I

know that this could be torn apart in many ways, but I think it

is time that we started to think about the whole thing, that we

get together and try to work out some sort of solution instead

of continually being at each other's throats.

I know that some of the things that I have said in my speech

aren't very nice and the opposition are going to say, "Oh he is

a nasty guy. He has criticized some people in his own

government." But I would like to tell you one thing,

that I was elected in my riding to do a job for the

constituency of Shuswap, and if it means speaking out in this

House against my honourable friend from North Okanagan (Mrs.

Jordan), or one of my buddies in the cabinet, I intend to do

so. Thank you.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Before

I start my talk I would like to take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to congratulate

you again and to congratulate you for your efficient way in which you are handling

the question period. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: Then we are all agreed. Thank you.

MR. PHILLIPS: Today, Mr. Speaker, has been a very important

day in the history of British Columbia. A very important event

took place in these buildings today when William Richards

Bennett took his seat in this House after being sworn in.

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of the House,

that it was just 17 years ago today that the Socreds swept to

power in British Columbia on September 19, 1956. I will let

those who hear these words be a judge as to whether this has

any great meaning or connotation, but in that election, Mr.

Speaker, the Social Credit government swept the province with

39 seats, the NDP had 10 seats — just about the reverse of what

it is today — and there were two Liberals and one independent.

Just as today these splinter parties in the House really don't

have much bearing on what is going on, or much significance, in

the political scene in British Columbia.

MR. CHABOT: Only one.

MR. PHILLIPS: The significance, Mr. Speaker, is that this

young man, who took his seat in this Legislature today to

represent the electoral district of South Okanagan, is a young

and very astute businessman, and certainly, Mr. Speaker, this

young man understands the problems of today's generation. He

understands the problems of business and he has the ability and

the business sense to work out solutions in a businesslike

manner. That is unique, Mr. Speaker, because, as I will mention

later, there is a great lack of business experience in this

British Columbia Legislature.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Commonwealth Trust.

MR. PHILLIPS: Now, Mr. Speaker, it's good to hear a few

words from our friend, the Premier, who says he is endowed with

such great business experience. But, Mr. Speaker, the thing

about this is that the people of this province will be very sad

in a few years when they come to realize that our Premier

really hasn't got that much business experience and that some

of the decisions he is making are going to have dastardly

effects on the economy of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, it's certainly an honour for me to stand in

this Legislature again and represent that great riding of South

Peace River, that part of the great

[ Page 84 ]

land mass east of the Rocky Mountains, that part of British

Columbia which became part of British Columbia through a quirk

of history.

HON. MR. BARRETT: They've been making political mistakes

ever since.

MR. PHILLIPS: And, Mr. Speaker, I'm glad the Premier brought

this up because that party is making a political mistake by

forgetting about the Peace River entirely. They have an

aggressive MLA — and you recognize that, Mr. Premier. One thing

you are astute about is recognizing the great MLA whom they

have for the South Peace River area.

But, Mr. Speaker, this government has forgotten about that

great land mass east of the Rocky Mountains; that great area,

Mr. Speaker, that supplies the rest of British Columbia with

its natural gas; that great area, Mr. Speaker, which supplies a

lot of the oil to the rest of British Columbia to keep the

wheels rolling; that area, Mr. Speaker, which supplies the

majority of the hydro power to the rest of the Province of

British Columbia; that area that has the capability of feeding

the entire Province of British Columbia.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Then you don't have any problems.

MR. PHILLIPS: We have problems, Mr. Speaker, because that

great government over there doesn't recognize the potential and

forgets about it. I'll be speaking a little later on about some

of the needs of that area, but I want to point out that this is

a very important area.

This area, Mr. Speaker — if this government ever makes up

its mind as to what it's going to do — has the potential of

being the coal capital, not of British Columbia, not of

Canada…

MR. G. S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): How about the world?

MR. PHILLIPS: …not of just North America, Mr. Speaker, but

the coal capital of the whole world.

MR. WALLACE: Yea! (Laughter.)

MR. PHILLIPS: This area, Mr. Speaker, has been hard hit by

this government: mining exploration in the area has practically

ceased due to the policies of this government; petroleum

exploration is at an all time low due to the policies of this

government. They have effectively stopped the coalition mining

deal while they are making up their minds.

Now it's amazing, Mr. Speaker, that while this socialist government was in

opposition they had all of the answers. But now that they're government, faced

with making a decision, lacking in business ability, they haven't been able

to make up their mind. And I can understand them, Mr. Speaker, wanting to hire

lots of consultants. If I were sadly lacking in business experience as that

government over there is, I'd hire lots of consultants too.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, we're not going to give it away,

like you.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well now, the Premier says, Mr. Speaker, he's

not going to give it away. I didn't ask him to give it away,

but what I am saying is that while in opposition he knew how

much he was going to charge for it. Check the records.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's right.

MR. PHILLIPS: Check the records: it was $1 a ton. I haven't

got it here but with very little effort I can dig it up. It's

$1 a ton and I don't think the Premier disputes that.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's just the royalty.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, I see. Well anyway, Mr. Speaker…(Laughter )…while the Peace River area waits in

anticipation, this government flounders, lacking in experience.

They have created uncertainty in the area, Mr. Speaker, and

they have created despondency among those great voters up

there. And, Mr. Speaker, the voters have long memories. The

people of that great Peace River area should receive a bonus

for living up there in the first place, putting up with the

hardships. But instead of that they get the back of the hand

from this government.

AN HON. MEMBER: Anything to upset that Member.

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

have you got against the Peace River?

MR. PHILLIPS: They get the back of the hand from this

government.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it's certainly a pleasure for me to

comment on this newly-decorated chamber. I don't know, Mr.

Speaker, whether it's the fact that the throne speech had very

little meat in it or whether it's the sort of sleepy effect of

the chamber, but I notice, Mr. Speaker, that debate is very low

key and it's not that there aren't issues. I don't know whether

the Premier has put his Members to sleep. There are very few of

them in the House; maybe they're out sleeping. I thought with

this newly-decorated chamber they'd be spending more time in

it.

[ Page 85 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: It must have something to do with the

speaker.

MR. PHILLIPS: There is a possibility that they don't want to

learn the facts and that's why they are out of the House. They

don't want to learn the facts. But anyway, Mr. Speaker, I must

say that I do not like the colour of the rug. (Laughter.) I

think it's a dumb colour. It must have been designed by a

committee. Maybe, Mr. Speaker, because the chamber has such a

deadening effect, is that why the government is going to

introduce booze in the dining room — to liven up the

debate?

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I would like a statement. I've heard it

rumoured that you're going to introduce booze in the dining

room.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Hon. Member must know that

the dining room is under the jurisdiction of the Speaker, not

the government.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, thank you very much for informing me of

this, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're going to get that booze poured down

your throat whether you like it or not.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, it is really my hope, however,

that this session will not be as hectic as the spring session

when the Premier outspokenly condemned the previous

administration for working such long hours and then

purposefully had this House sit in the morning when the Members

either had to be in the House or miss being in the House to do

their research. That, Mr. Speaker, is, in essence, stifling the

work of the opposition Members in doing their research.

I don't like to see this Premier going on open-line shows

and saying he has introduced democracy into the Legislature in

British Columbia when he's doing everything he can to stifle

debate.

I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that this Legislature will not go

into morning sittings, to allow the Members to look after their

constituencies and do the proper amount of research when

research people are available and when the civil servants are

available. As I say, Mr. Speaker, it bothers me that the

Premier goes around the province saying how he introduced

democracy into the Legislature.

HON. MR. BARRETT: How much research staff did we have when

we were opposition?

MR. PHILLIPS: Now, the Premier knows full well that research

staff can't answer your constituents' mail. Now I know, Mr.

Premier, that you have a stream of stenographers down there a

mile long answering your mail. When you became Premier you

said, "Write me; I'll answer your letters." The former premier

maybe didn't answer his letters and the present Premier doesn't

answer his letters.

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: At least it's not making a mockery of

democracy by having somebody else answer his…the letters

went unanswered…rather than have a puppet, a party hack,

who you hired in your office, answer your letters. You never

see half of them, and you know that, Mr. Premier; you know

that. And here are these unsuspecting people in this great

Province of British Columbia receiving letters, some of them

signed by you — which I doubt if you even take time to read — which are typed up by some stenographer in your office.

Mr. Speaker, I was going to deal with a few pieces of

legislation that were crashed through in the spring session,

before I resume my seat. But, as I say, I do hope that the

Premier, if he really wants democracy in this Legislature, will

stay away from morning sittings. I would far rather sit in the

evening and all night if necessary because I can't be out there

working for my constituents — which I have to do in the morning

— or attend committee meetings, and the Premier knows this.

I hope that the people of this province are intelligent

enough, and I know they're intelligent enough, to see what the

Premier is doing, in opposition to what he is saying he is

doing.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the session opened with all the pomp and

ceremony that was due a coronation of the Queen. This sort of

amazes me because this government said that they were a little

fed up with some of the pomp and ceremony that used to go on in

this House with regard to openings and with regard to dinners

at Government House. It amazes me, Mr. Speaker, for a

government that is supposed to be going around in shirtsleeves,

and who at times show disdain for time-honoured practices, to

have so much pomp and ceremony at the opening of the fall

session.

It reminds me, Mr. Speaker, of the story of the prince and

the pauper. Mr. Speaker, the pauper is learning and learning

very fast: blue suit, the new offices, chauffeur-driven

limousines, troop of public relations men, sherry parties and

jet airplanes — all within 12 months. Soon the dreamer, in his

dreams scorned, will from now on be unrecognizable by the

hordes in his new role. However, I'm glad to see that our

Premier, Mr. Speaker, is learning.

The speech itself, Mr. Speaker, the throne speech,

[ Page 86 ]

had no surprises. The reason it had no surprises is because

the legislation that it talks about, such as agriculture and

labour, was revealed in the press weeks before the opening. So

there was nothing new. But I was disappointed, Mr. Speaker,

because there was nothing in the throne speech with regard to a

bill of rights — a bill of rights, Mr. Speaker, that we were

promised in the throne speech on January 25, 1973.

If you go back in Hansard , Mr. Speaker, you will see where

that promised bill of rights was lauded in debate by many of

the government Members. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, what happened to

that bill of rights…the people's party who are so

interested in the rights of individuals.

Mr. Speaker, since the spring session we have had a

by-election in South Okanagan, and the people of that riding

spoke loudly and clearly. They told the right-wing capitalists

that, in essence, elected this government — and I'm referring

to the Conservative Party — that neither South Okanagan nor the

Province of British Columbia wanted them. They told the people

of this province that Social Credit was the answer to the

socialist hordes. In spite, Mr. Speaker, of great support by

the Conservative mouthpiece, the Province , they still couldn't

win the election.

The people of South Okanagan also said to the Liberals that

the people of this province didn't want an Ottawa-controlled

party. I feel sorry for the Liberals in this House because of

the frustration they must feel in having to…well, the one

Liberal in this House…the frustration they must feel with

having to put up with their counterparts down in Ottawa.

The people of South Okanagan also spoke out loud and clear

against the policies of this socialist government; they reject

it. The people know, Mr. Speaker, that you can't buy people

with their own money. The Premier endeavored, did his best, Mr.

Speaker, to throw out some election goodies ahead of time to

convince the people of South Okanagan that he was going to be

good to them.

Now I mention, Mr. Speaker, that the debate this far on this

throne speech…and I think I got the cue as to what is going

on, on opening day. The Premier made a little faux pas that

would, in essence, have stopped all debate on the throne

speech. He said, "That's just fine with me; that's just fine

with me."

That is the attitude, Mr. Speaker, of our Premier, who goes

around boasting that he introduced democracy into the British

Columbia Legislature. He would be well satisfied if there were

no debate whatsoever. He would be happy if the Members of this

Legislature had no opportunity whatsoever to speak and to voice

their opinions. This, Mr. Speaker, is this people's government

that our Premier brags about so loudly and so clearly.

He would like to effectively shut up the opposition at any

cost. This is our Premier's true feeling, down beneath all of

that great front of his, Mr. Speaker. (Laughter.)…down underneath all of those

great smiles…down underneath those great outbursts over the

media that he "introduced democracy into British Columbia."

The mover and seconder of the speech on Friday last really

had very little to say. The Member for Kamloops (Mr. G.H.

Anderson) gave us the history of agriculture and the history of

labour, and the Member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) tried to talk

about policies for people — the policies for people that this

socialist government has introduced.

I want to talk for just a few moments on some of these

policies for people. But before I do I want to say, in

listening to the Member for Delta (Mr. Liden) yesterday

afternoon, that I agree with him when he says we should

dispense with the compensation board.

I stood in this Legislature in 1968 and said, in essence,

the same thing: people who are injured are going to have to be

looked after. I feel the same way about all the multitudinous

programmes we have for pensions — pensions for the widows,

pensions for the blind. We should have a guaranteed annual

income for all of those people.

Do away with all of the various bureaucracies that have

built up over the years — and they have built up. We're

entering an age — and I don't disagree with him — where people

in need, regardless of the cause, should be looked after.

I want to say — and you may not agree with this, Mr.

Speaker, and the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) may not

agree with this, but this would take the burden of

compensation, which is a very high cost, to certain highly

dangerous industries. This burden should be borne by all of

society, the same as the rest of the burden such as hospital

insurance and so forth. So I just wanted to say that I did

agree with the Member from Delta.

Before I get into these people policies that I want to talk

about that have been introduced by this government, I want to

congratulate the new cabinet ministers, only one of which is in

the House. I'd like to congratulate in particular the new

Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea), and state that the best

way for him to look at the roads is to drive on them. Now, Mr.

Speaker, I know that our new Minister of Highways, the Hon.

Member for Prince Rupert, is new in his job, and I want to

advise him that flipping over these roads up north in a

helicopter is not really the way to see them. He should get

down and drive them in an automobile, because that's what uses

our highways. I'd be quite happy to provide him with one if he

comes up, but…

I want to congratulate the new Minister of Recreation and

Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford), and I want to wish him well in

dealing with all of the biologists in his department. And at

the same time, I want to offer my assistance to him, if he

needs any

[ Page 87 ]

assistance, in dealing with these biologists.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, but I know something about them. I know

that their mind is sometimes completely and utterly closed.

I want to congratulate the new Minister of Industrial

Development, Trade, and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Lauk), and wish him

well and hope that he speedily gets to work, because if that

department is going to do anything to fatten the coffers of

this province, they better get busy in a hurry because it may

be too late.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): You voted against it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, go on and talk about that.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'm going to talk about that. I'm going

to discuss that, and I hope you stay in the House.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Unfortunately, I have a 3:30 appointment.

(Laughter.)

MR. PHILLIPS: But I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of

Housing… And I hate to say this, but I don't know whether he

has the business experience to carry out this tremendously

important portfolio. It involves a lot of dollars, and it

involves a great problem, a problem which this government has

helped create.

Also, my congratulations to the new Minister of Consumer

Affairs (Hon. Ms. Young), and I'm sure that she's going to miss

being the Chairman up here and having to deal with the Member

from South Peace River, but I wish her well in her new

portfolio.

During the summer, I had the opportunity to travel with the

agricultural committee, and I had the opportunity to witness

first hand some of the frustrations of our farm population. A

lot of this frustration, Mr. Speaker, was caused by Bill 42,

because Bill 42 took away any hedge that these people in the

agricultural industry had against inflation. If they thought

that their land was some type of a pension plan for them, it

was eroded away when Bill 42 came in in this province.

The farmer knew that the people of the world had to be fed and they also knew,

prior to Bill 42, that a few lean years they could always survive. So Bill 42

created a lot of their frustrations. They also know, Mr. Speaker, that federal

government agricultural policies have led the farmers down the drain to protect

eastern industries. I do hope that our government in Ottawa will recognize that

they must come to grips with the agricultural industry and, if necessary, close

the borders to some of the agricultural products that are now entering Canada.

I also had the opportunity while travelling with the

agricultural committee to show the committee the great Peace

River area. I had the opportunity to let them see first hand

that the Peace River area has the greatest potential for

agriculture of any part of British Columbia. I had the

opportunity to travel with them to Beaver Lodge where

experiments are carried on with regard to agriculture in

northern Canada. It was a great awakening to them, Mr. Speaker,

to learn of some of the facts and figures, mean temperatures,

rainfall, et cetera, which does away with some of the myths

that agriculture can't be a viable industry in the north.

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, and I want to say this for every

member on that committee, that they were a hard-working,

conscientious group, and I would not hesitate to hire any one

of them in my own business.

I want to review some of the dismal record of this

government of the first 12 months in office. No matter how much

light the Premier tries to pump in, he can't hide the darkness

that the shadow of doubt is casting over the Province of

British Columbia. Mr. Speaker, our Premier tried at Williams

Lake to prove that he was the best thrower of bull in British

Columbia.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: But you weren't there. (Laughter.)

MR. PHILLIPS: No, but I had the opportunity to see it over

television — that media that brings us all the great news. But

to me, the Premier didn't have to go through all this bull

throwing at Williams Lake to prove to me that he was the best

bull thrower in British Columbia.

Then, Mr. Speaker, the Premier went fishing, and he proved

himself to be a fairly good "happy hooker." (Laughter.) I hope

that maybe he's going to come back and teach the rest of his

cabinet some of the tricks of the trade.

AN HON. MEMBER: I think it was Strachan that was on the

hook.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, there's a lot of them on the hook and

the Premier's got most of them in that position.

What about these policies, Mr. Speaker, that are supposed to

be so good for the people of British Columbia? This government

has a sorry, sorry record in its first 12 months of office.

Most of the policies that they have brought in, and most of the

things they have done… And they have set the example in

being the biggest contributor of all to number one enemy, which

is inflation — inflation that erodes away the savings of the

elderly; inflation that wrecks

[ Page 88 ]

the futures of the young people of this province; inflation

that, in essence, sends up in smoke most of the payrolls of the

labouring force in this province.

This government can say that there is inflation in all of

Canada, not just in British Columbia, and that doesn't impress

me, because this government has the opportunity, like the

previous government to set an example for the rest of Canada to

follow.

AN HON. MEMBER: They have, but not to follow.

MR. PHILLIPS: This government is setting an example of

feeding the rampaging fires of inflation. How have they done

it? What did Bill 42 have to do with inflation, Mr. Speaker?

Well, I'll tell you what it did — it sent the price of land for

housing out of the reach of the young people of this province.

That contributed to inflation, Mr. Speaker. It created a

shortage of homes, and when there's a shortage of anything, the

price goes up. That contributed to inflation.

On August 28, 1972, the Premier of this province conceded

that the housing situation had gone from bad to worse during

his NDP's first year in office. He went on, Mr. Speaker, to

predict that the situation would get worse.

There is an extreme shortage of apartments and again this

shortage creates inflation because the price of apartments is

going up all over British Columbia.

Wage settlements made in the recent ferry strike are highly,

highly inflationable, and again contribute to this government's

sorry record of creating greater inflation.

Mr. Speaker, when this government took the lid off

educational spending they led the way to greater inflation

because of the increase and the trend, and there will be more

said on this in the session, in teachers' salaries.

They set the trend themselves, Mr. Speaker, and I think they

will rue the day when they increased the wages of every Member

in this Legislature. It is very difficult to negotiate with

anybody when they can look you in the eye and say: "What did

you do with your own salary?" And as I said in the spring

session, Mr. Speaker, in my talk on the budget, this act alone

would lead to the greatest rise of inflation in the Province of

British Columbia. I compared it with

an act similar to the

Pearson government when they settled the wages of the St.

Lawrence Seaway.

This government and all governments have the responsibility,

Mr. Speaker, to lead. This government has done a very, very

poor job in setting an example for the control of inflation,

our number one enemy.

Inflation will bring down this province and this nation to its knees quicker

than a nuclear war. Inflation in this province and in this nation will be in

the long run more damaging than all the pollution, and it is interesting to

hear the Minister of Health and Welfare (Hon. Mr. Cocke) — and I hope and pray,

Mr. Speaker, that when in his department, when he brings in new legislation

and when he has his hand in dealing with that great spender, that he will consider

what inflation will do to the people.

Yes, I'm interested in the people and I'm interested in

policies that will protect the people. I want to tell you

again, Mr. Speaker, that inflation, not only in Canada and not

only in North America, is the biggest problem that governments

today are facing.

Another bill, Mr. Speaker, that so far as I am concerned

contributed greatly to inflation, a bill which I was fairly

vocal about, is Bill 153 — the Public Works Fair Employment

Act. You might well ask, Mr. Speaker: how was Bill 153

contributing to inflation?

No. 1, Mr. Speaker, Bill 153 will create price fixing in

bids where people are bidding to work for the government. That

will create inflation. It will lead to increased costs of

government contracts.

I was amazed — and this is nothing to do with inflation — but I was amazed to return to my riding where a certain

contractor is building a new provincial government building,

and that particular contract was let quite some time ago before

Bill 153. Goon squads from the labour unions were up there

harassing that contractor, trying to give the impression that

that contractor had to go union before he could complete this

government building.

Recently, Mr. Speaker, and I'm not going to mention names

because the contractors who want to work for the government in

this province are scared spitless, some of them are taking out

NDP cards so that they can be guaranteed the opportunity to bid

on government work.

HON. MR. COCKE: What a pack of nonsense!

MR. PHILLIPS: I want to tell you, Mr. Minister of Health, in

a recent Public Works contract to build maintenance depots on

the Stewart-Cassiar Highway, one electrical bid alone because

of Bill 153 came in at $25,000 higher. A non-union electrical

contractor bid on this particular contract. The person who got

the bid just recently went union. His bid would have been

$25,000 less.

I predicted this, Mr. Speaker. I predicted this would happen

because of Bill 153. And I am disappointed that the movers in

Victoria didn't take Bill 153 to court to prove its validity.

I'm disappointed. I wish they had.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): The Minister surrendered

to them instead.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

[ Page 89 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: I think that they would have found that Bill

153…

MR. SPEAKER: May I interrupt the Hon. Member to cite to him

May's Parliamentary Procedure , the 18th Edition, page 416.

"Disrespectful or abusive mention of a statute would seem to be

partly open to the same objection as improper language as

applied to Parliament itself, for it imputes discredit to the

Legislature."

I would ask the Member to contain himself in his

indignation, if possible.

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to say then,

Mr. Speaker, that recently since certain legislation was passed

I estimated that there would be a 50 per cent increase in the

cost of hydro line construction. In a particular hydro line

that I would like to see constructed in my riding, the Lone

Prairie hydro line, and I've talked of this before, the cost of

this hydro line has jumped 40 per cent in the last six months.

Since I can't mention the legislation or speak disrespectfully

of it, I will leave you to decide what bill I am referring

to.

Not necessarily is it the cost of wages, but it is the cost

of a lot of regulations the union lays down. Some of them are

good and some of them are unnecessary. Costs of this line

jumped from $1,600 a mile to $2,200 a mile, and puts it

entirely out of the financial reach of those good people in

Lone Prairie.

Twenty-seven miles of line that would have cost $38,000 will

now cost $50,000. That's how the policies of this government

work for the people of this province, and that's how that

particular policy has contributed greatly to inflation.

More recently in the Nass Valley, for a line from Greenville

to Aiyansh, the price of that line last fall was $100,000. This

year the contract was just let for $126,000.

In a year when most of the hydro line contractors are

sitting twiddling their thumbs the price shouldn't go up

because they are not looking for work, or because they don't

need work. Last year when these low prices came in the hydro

contractors were all very, very busy.

The fact that there are no long-range plans, Mr. Speaker, is

caused by uncertainty. Uncertainty has prevented risk capital

from coming into British Columbia. In the lumbering industry,

plans should now be developing for construction and expansion

five and six years from now but, because of uncertainty, there

are no more long-range plans. What will happen, Mr. Speaker? There will be shortage in

five or six years. That shortage will again lead to inflation,

more inflation, and who will pay, Mr. Speaker, who will pay?

The people of this province will pay, the very people for whom

this great socialist government purports to work so hard.

Their policies are very, very, very short-sighted, Mr.

Speaker.

You have created a false impression of profit from your

state-controlled forest industry, because any industry in

British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, that will pay lower and lower

taxes, lower stumpage fees, lower hydro costs, lower insurance

costs and have their research done for them by the government,

should be able to show a profit. And if the profit that is

going to come from the lumber industry is going to replace the

taxes on land, I would like to take a very close look at what

happens. How is this government going to set an example when in

settling disputes it is both the employer and the mediator?

Mr. Speaker, this government doesn't have the business sense

to run these big businesses. Your recent candidate in the South

Okanagan by-election was quoted as saying that he "wouldn't get

any votes from those bastards," referring to the members

of the chamber of commerce who were basically businessmen, and

I am wondering, Mr. Speaker, if this is the disdain that the

whole socialist party feels for business. He was a paid party

organizer. Does he voice the feelings of the whole socialist

party?

And he went on to ask, Mr. Speaker, and I am bringing this

up because it is very important, whether businessmen have the

sole right to politics? Just exactly what did he say? Oh,

"should they have the inside track on politics?" This started

me thinking and I thought: let's see if businessmen do have the

inside track on politics.

I went back and I did some research on those members who ran

for the NDP in the last election and I found approximately five

people who could be classified as businessmen. There were two

farmers, one chartered accountant, four lawyers, three

housewives — who always display a great amount of common sense — four social workers, quite a few paid organizers and quite a

few labour organizers.

We don't have too many businessmen in the cabinet, Mr.

Speaker. And what is government but business? It's the people's

business and it's the biggest business in the land; and no one

is going to tell me that you don't need business experience to

run the biggest business in the land.

So maybe this is the policy of the NDP government: disdain

for the business community, disdain for the businessman and

disdain for the small business people who are in essence the

backbone of this country.

What about the record of some of the other departments with

regard to inflation, Mr. Speaker, and with regard to policies

for people? What have we done in the field of education? — and

I am glad to see the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly)

is in her seat. We have appointed numerous inquiry boards,

which is fine. We took out the strap from the school, did away

with that authority. We have allowed kids

[ Page 90 ]

to smoke in school and we closed down Willingdon School for

Girls.

We had a very disturbing happening in our riding this

summer, Mr. Speaker, and I am not going to be the judge as to

why this happened. We had two young girls who had previously

spent some time at Willingdon School for Girls and they took it

upon themselves to burn down one of our schools. Another young

fellow, who is a product of our education system, a product of

a school-without-a-strap, burned down another school.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that

the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) says this has nothing

to do with it. If these girls had been in Willingdon School for

Girls or in some other programme that had been thought out

before the school was arbitrarily closed by our Premier… You

be the judge. Maybe it wouldn't have happened.

Those girls right now, Mr. Speaker, are in our community now

threatening to burn down another school. It's no laughing

matter. It's a very serious offence. The people of our riding

are quite upset about it, Mr. Speaker. If the Premier wanted to

close down Willingdon School, why was some other policy or

programme not developed prior to that to look after these girls

who were taken out of the school? And don't tell me that

putting them in foster homes and leaving them in the hands of

Social Welfare people is working because it isn't working. It

isn't working.

Social Welfare people are human resource people; everywhere

in the province they are trying to come up with new programmes,

something that will look after these people. I don't consider

that to be the greatest policy for people, Mr. Speaker, to rush

headlong down the road without giving proper thought and

without having proper consultation when before this government

became government all they could talk about is "Oh, before we

do anything, we'll consult. We'll consult."

The Mincome programme which this government so proudly talks

about — they boast about it. What about it? It was only $200

when it was introduced; it should have been $225. And the

federal government increase last year of $17.12, this

government put that money in their back pocket. Now they are

going to increase it to $209, which is woefully short. And why

is it woefully short, Mr. Speaker? Because this government has

contributed so much to inflation and while they tell the

elderly people of this province that they are doing so much for

them. They're in essence doing nothing for them, because of

inflation.

This Mincome, Mr. Speaker, regardless of how many times the Premier tries to

explain it away on a Jack Webster show, still requires a means test. Anybody

who has any assets other than their home is naturally going to be receiving

some income from those assets unless they've got it buried in a tin can in the

backyard. Maybe that is what this government is going to force people to do

so that that money can also be eroded away by inflation. The Premier encourages

the elderly people of this province to spend what they have, to take away any

security these people might have by some little nest egg they have saved up.

I guess, Mr. Speaker, that he wants them to spend it because he knows that it

will be eroded away by inflation at any time.

I find it interesting, Mr. Speaker, that our Premier and the

new Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Lauk) finds it

necessary to go around the province trying to reassure the

businessman that everything is going to be all right, trying to

smooth the waters. They know that uncertainty exists, Mr.

Speaker, and they know that they've created this uncertainty.

But I wonder if while they're trying to soothe the businessmen

of this province to sleep, they intend to come around later

while the baby sleeps and steal the rattle.

Mr. Speaker, the business community in British Columbia is

very perturbed because maybe private enterprise in British

Columbia is doomed as we continue to rush towards a socialist

state. This is not a social democracy similar to Sweden where

90 per cent of business is in private hands; this is a pure

socialist state where this government intends to own all the

business or at least be partners in most of it. This government

that we have in British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, makes Tommy

Douglas seem like a piker when he went in and started buying

out businesses and running the business of Saskatchewan.

No, Mr. Speaker, this great province of ours is slipping

from a bastion of individual enterprise and private initiative.

The Premier of our province is tipping the scales away from

private enterprise and personal incentive to government control

by his ruthless, unwarranted interference into personal,

corporate and daily lives. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the people

of this province will take time to be aware of what is

happening.

The legislative programme passed in the spring session of

this Legislature has brought about this uncertainty — and

uncertainty is the arch enemy of investment. Confidence of the

mining investors has been shaken and what happened? The cash

goes elsewhere. During a year when mineral prices were at an

all-time high there was a 30 per cent drop in mining

exploration.

The Premier explains this away by saying that this is strictly capitalist hogwash.

When will the Premier come to grips with the problem that he has created? When

will he realize, Mr. Speaker, what he is doing to business in this province?

A 30 per cent reduction in

[ Page

91 ]

British Columbia, while in the Yukon and the North West

Territories there was nearly a 100 per cent increase.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, uncertainty is certainly the arch enemy of

investment. The last land sale by the Department of Mines and

Petroleum Resources was just over $3 million — 50 per cent

reduction from last year's figure of over $7 million. Mr.

Speaker, I want you to know that I stood in this Legislature in

the spring session and predicted this would happen. I told you,

Mr. Speaker, that the August sale of petroleum rights and lands

in this province would be practically 100 per cent less than it

was last year. And that happened. It happened because of the

uncertainty that this government has created.

The Premier, just yesterday in the House, talked about the

shortage of natural gas that we could have this winter. The

shortage of natural gas in this province will be due to the

policies of this socialist government.

The attitude of this government towards the petroleum

industry has created uncertainty. Exploration and the money

necessary for exploration has gone elsewhere. The petroleum

industry realizes by past policies that this government cannot

be relied on, so they stopped exploring for new fields.

The dogmatic attitude of the socialist government has

created this problem. Both the Member for North Peace River

(Mr. Smith) and myself tried at great length to point out to

the Premier and the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources

(Hon. Mr. Nimsick) what he was doing to this province. Is this

another one of the great policies for people, Mr. Speaker?

Starve them out of their own resources; let them go

undiscovered; create unofficial shortages so that you can shove

up the price and create more inflation, more unemployment. Is

that a policy for people? Is that the policy of this socialist

government?

The Attorney General tried to make big political hay out of

"B.C. gas first for British Columbians." So far as I'm

concerned, Mr. Speaker, that's just a bunch of big political

buffoonery, a fraud comedy that should be exposed. This gas

shortage is a serious business.

MR. H. STEVES (Richmond): You don't seem to be short of

it.

MR. PHILLIPS: This government again yesterday showed its

disdain and disregard for existing contracts. I'm beginning to

believe, Mr. Speaker, that this is the inherent policy of this

Marxist socialist government: complete disregard for

contracts.

This government again yesterday showed its arrogance and its disrespect. You

make a big deal about cooperating with your neighbours. You go down to Washington

in the big government limousine and make big fellows of yourselves. Then you

turn around and say — and this is almost exactly what you said yesterday — and

I'll use the words of Rex Harrison, "Let the hellcats freeze." That's what you

said when you explained your gas policy yesterday afternoon, Mr. Attorney General.

Let those people south of the border freeze; the existing contracts don't matter.

Typical of the way that you treat contracts with disdain: the PNE existing contracts,

the Energy Act , the Mediation Commission, leaseholds — all part of the inherent

policy of this government.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to say just a few more words on the

waste and extravagance of this government, how it contributes

to inflation, and how, as I said before, inflation contributes

to the eroding away of the future of the youth of British

Columbia.

The Premier, Mr. Speaker, last session rushed through the

Development Corporation of British Columbia Act, and he said

that this Act was needed immediately so that we could get

several projects underway. And yet the British Columbia

development Act has not even yet appointed its directors. I

wonder why, Mr. Speaker, there was so much urgency. When we

tried to bring in an amendment that would have set this

legislation over till fall so that all of us could have a

better look at it, the Premier says, "You don't want anything

in your riding; you're against the bill." But, Mr. Speaker,

nothing has been done with the British Columbia Development

Corporation. I cannot think of one single investment or of one

single enterprise that this Development Corporation has helped.

So we have to wonder: why the big rush to get it through the

Legislature?

It seems to be generally felt throughout British Columbia

that the high level of new investment in British Columbia will

not be continued. And yet the Premier seems to take a great

deal of joy, Mr. Speaker, in going around the province saying,

"Business is great; we've received more tax dollars this year

than last year."

I wonder if the Premier really stops to analyse just exactly

what happened in British Columbia this year. Does he realize

that it is mainly the forest industry and the high price of

lumber that is contributing the greatest amount of taxes to the

province this year? Does he realize that this could be

short-lived? Does he realize that mining money is going

elsewhere and new mines which could and would be brought under

production will not be brought under production three or four

years from now because of no plans being made, because of no

exploration? I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if the Premier really stops

and thinks before he makes some of his absurd, unbusinesslike

statements. And it bothers me, Mr. Speaker, that the people of

this province, the ordinary people of this province, might be

believing exactly what the Premier is saying.

[ Page 92 ]

But there is uncertainty. Why were the parity bonds

returned, Mr. Speaker? That in itself created uncertainty. The

way in which the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia Act

was brought in created uncertainty. No regard, Mr. Speaker, for

existing contracts created uncertainty. The way, Mr. Speaker,

that lumber industries in this province were purchased creates

uncertainties. Bill 42 created uncertainties. Bill 153 created

uncertainties.

The plans by this socialist government to enter all phases

of business as partners or competitors causes uncertainty. The

plans of this government to set up a provincial television

works causes uncertainty. The statements by this government

that they will nationalize pipelines create uncertainty. The

plans of this government to set up their own oil refinery

create uncertainty. The plans of this government to take over

mining industries in the province create uncertainty.

Legislation passed to give municipal governments the right

to undertake business ventures creates uncertainties. Some

socialist-minded civic government could take the whole of this

legislation and create havoc in a given community.

No, Mr. Speaker, what we need in this government is more

business experience, or at least a showing on the part of the

government that they will listen to someone who has business

experience.

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk just for a moment, in closing,

on my own constituency. It's unfortunate that the Minister of

Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) is not in the House, but I asked during

the spring session for some action to be taken to build a road

into the Monkman Pass area so that the Province of British

Columbia would reap the benefits of some of the development

that is going to take place in that area. But this government,

Mr. Speaker, that had all the answers before they became

government, this government that knew everything, this

government that was going to do everything, has done

nothing.

In that area just recently, and I'm sure the Premier must

know about this, a new coal deal was signed which involves

about 47,000 acres — coal equivalent in quality to that in the

coalition deal and a coal deal that could be larger than the

coalition deal. There was another $13 million deal made for gas

in the area which, if properly developed, could alleviate some

of the shortage. But that area, Mr. Speaker, remains accessible

mainly through the Province of Alberta; the development that

takes place in that area will benefit mainly the Province of

Alberta.

Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to discuss agriculture to any great length because

I will be discussing agriculture when the new agriculture legislation is brought

in, but I do want to remind the House of some statements I made in this Legislature

on February 22 regarding agriculture. I laid out, Mr. Speaker, a few points

which I hope the government will see fit to bring into legislation, and I just

want to remind the House of some of those points. This was the Socred stand

on agriculture and I'll just outline them for the House, Mr. Speaker: the farmer

should be helped to stay on the farm by giving him a guaranteed annual income;

I ask, Mr. Speaker, for low-interest or no-interest loans to help either directly

with the farm or to help farming industries; I ask to have land taxes taken

off agricultural land; I ask, Mr. Speaker, that more services to farmers in

the way of veterinary services, better weed inspection, more personnel, be given

to the agricultural community. And I hope that some of these points, Mr. Speaker,

will form part of the new agricultural policy which this government is going

to bring in.

I hope that soon, Mr. Speaker, it will realize the benefits

that the Peace River area gives to the rest of the province,

that it will recognize where the area is, and take some

immediate steps to alleviate the economic doldrums that that

area is in at the present time — economic doldrums, Mr.

Speaker, caused mainly by the policies of this government.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to make one more plea to the

government to look closely at its policies, not only for what

they will do today but for what they will do to the future of

this province and, if possible, to set an example to the rest

of our country that will lead in curbing, what I have said

before, is our number one enemy, inflation.

MR. H.D. DENT (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, since the previous

speaker has already entered the leadership contest, at least in

terms of making comments on it and seemingly campaigning on

behalf of one of the MLAs, I thought it might be worthwhile to

offer some of my comments before I start in on my main

speech.

While I was sitting here waiting for my opportunity to

speak, I was looking at the order paper and I was amazed at the

number of questions that have already been asked after only

four or five days in session. I believe 98 questions are

already on the order paper and about 10 bills or so, or a

little more than 10 bills.

Now, if assigning one point for a question and two points

for a bill, I've determined where all of our potential

leadership contenders stand in regard to asking questions or to

putting bills on the order paper and this is the result: In

first place, with 25 points is Mr. Fraser. Now, unfortunately,

Mr. Fraser hasn't declared himself yet.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Will the Hon. Member refer to

Members by constituency.

MR. DENT: I'm sorry. The Hon. Member for Cariboo.

MR. SPEAKER: No advertising, I mean.

[ Page 93 ]

MR. DENT: In second position is the Hon. First Member for

Victoria (Mr. Morrison) with 20 points. He is a declared

candidate, so of the declared candidates, he would appear to be

the front runner. In third place, the Hon. Member for North

Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) with 15 points; and inasmuch as the lady

Member for that constituency has not yet declared herself, she

is not actually yet in the running. In fourth position is the

Hon. Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) with 12 points — and I

might point out that the fourth Member is declared. In fifth

position, undeclared, is the Hon. Member for

Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Richter) with 11 points. In sixth

position is the Hon. Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith)

with 9 points. In seventh position is the Hon. Member for

Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder), my first choice, with 6 points — I'm going to have to talk to him. Tied for eighth position are

the Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr. Smith) and the Hon.

Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot), each with 4 points.

I want to congratulate those who are leading the group on

this statistical return at the moment. Mind you, there are

other considerations as well. But I just thought, since the

previous speaker had sort of entered upon this discussion, that

I would follow up as well.

Mr. Speaker, Skeena constituency, which I have the pleasure

to represent, is the keystone constituency in the whole current

development programme taking place in northern British

Columbia. Skeena constituency has felt the positive impact of

the present NDP government more than any other constituency in

British Columbia. In order to dramatize this impact on Skeena,

I will outline in some detail various ways in which the New

Democratic Party government of this province has made such a

remarkable impact on Skeena.

First, I would just like to give you a few facts about our

riding. There are four main centres: Terrace, Kitimat, Smithers

and Hazelton. Other polls include a good number of Indian

reserves. The total number of voters was about 18,000 in the

recent election and, therefore, I would calculate that the

population of the constituency is in excess of 50,000; I think

it's probably higher than that. About one-third of the

population would be in the Terrace area, about one-third in

Kitimat and then the rest spread out over the rest of the

riding.

The main highway running through the riding is Highway 16,

running east to west from Prince George to Prince Rupert. It

runs along the Bulkley Valley, first in the eastern part of the

riding and then along the Skeena River.

Now, in order to consider the positive impact that the government has had on

this constituency and on the centres in the riding, on the various parts of

the riding, I'll start first by just mentioning what might not be otherwise

an important thing, but I think it's important.

I'm beginning with the Attorney General's department and the

appointment of a new judge in Terrace. I wish this new judge,

who has just recently been appointed by the Attorney General's

department, every success as he now takes upon himself this

very important task in Terrace. The administration of justice

is, without a doubt, one of the most demanding, exacting jobs

that any person can have and I think we would wish success to

all of the magistrates, all of the judges throughout the

province in this kind of work. But it's part of the impact of

the government on our constituency.

Similarly, this has been the centennial of the founding of

the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Again, this is part of the

responsibility of the Attorney General's department and it has

an impact in our riding. I'm very pleased with the work that

the RCMP have done in the Skeena constituency. They have a very

difficult task because there are many people coming and going

in the riding. There's a fair amount of turnover, especially in

certain industrial jobs and so on, and it's a difficult task to

sort of relate to the people on a continuing basis. I think

that they've done a first-rate job.

However, I would ask the Attorney General, as I have asked

before, that there be an increase in probation services,

especially for young people, first offenders. I think, when it

comes to the administration of justice, that every effort that

can be made to assist a young person before he gets started on

a career of crime is a benefit, not only to that young person

but to the whole of society; it's money well spent. Again, as I

said, I would request that there be an increase in probation

services, especially for young offenders.

Education. Since October 1, 1972, the Department of

Education has approved $2,350,835 under

section 190 of the

Public Schools Act for school building in School Districts 88,

Skeena-Cassiar; 80, Kitimat; and 54, Smithers. This includes a

new junior secondary in Thornhill, just across the river from

Terrace, additions and renovations to Mt. Elizabeth Secondary

School in Kitimat and minor additions to other schools,

including three gym additions to elementary schools in Terrace.

The construction of most of the projects included in the above

total is still underway.

Now I wonder whether this would have happened under the

previous government, whether this construction would now be

underway had the other government, that was in power until last

August, remained in power.

When our government came to power, they set upon a policy of

deliberately ensuring that there are adequate school facilities

and other kinds of facilities available to the people of the

province. This is just a

[ Page 94 ]

concrete example of the attitude of the government in this

kind of situation.

But there are little things that are important. For example,

it gets very cold in some parts of our riding and the previous

regulations made it impossible to transport even young children

to school if they had to walk a certain distance — even if it

was 20 or 30 below zero. However, on the initiative of the

Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly), there was money

provided for extra busing to ensure that children would not

have to walk in sub-zero weather, even for a relatively short

distance to school. This is just a little thing, but it shows

the kind of concern that the Minister of Education has for the

people and for the problems that they face.

[Mr. Fraser in the chair]

Health Services. We have four hospitals in Skeena

constituency: in Smithers, Hazelton, Terrace and Kitimat. There

is presently under construction an expansion and renovation to

the Bulkley Valley District Hospital in Smithers, costing

$2,345,000. This work is presently underway. In Hazelton,

Terrace and Kitimat bylaws have been approved for expansion

work to those three hospitals and is expected to get started

next year. In Hazelton there will be a new hospital costing $2,100,000; in Terrace it will be an addition to provide 15

acute-care beds and 15 psychiatric beds, costing $2 million; in

Kitimat it is to complete some unfinished areas for some 35

extended care beds and diagnostic equipment and the amount will

be approximately $527,000. All four hospitals in my

constituency are having the work done that they need to have

done, and again this is the concrete dramatization of the

difference between the previous government and our government.

This is in my constituency. These are the people whom I see

every day. They are going to have the kind of hospital

facilities that they require. But again, there are the little

things. These are just projects, and projects don't mean too

much in human terms.

But there are a number of little things that have happened,

too. In the Skeena View Hospital, which is a mental health

facility, an extension of Riverview designed for elderly men,

they have just added or are in the process of adding ten new

staff. Eight of this new staff have just arrived. The Minister

visited the riding early in July. He saw the need and the

request was made — the order was given, if you like — and the

increase in staff was forthcoming.

There is a little tie-up at the moment in the civil service

for the last two, but this is not the fault of the Minister and

it is expected to be cleared up shortly.

Also, the clothing allowance for…

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Point of order, Mr. Speaker. Does

the Hon. Speaker have a copy of the standing orders of the House before him?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Not before me.

MR. SMITH: You have them there, though, Sir.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I don't think you have a point of order, Mr.

Member. Carry on.

MR. DENT: Right. I needed a breath anyway. (Laughter.)

Interjection.

MR. DENT: Those men who are in the Skeena View Mental Health

facility now receive $120 each for clothing allowance. This

again is a new thing introduced by the present government. It

may seem like a little thing, but it is really a very important

thing and a very human thing to those men who are there and to

other people in other mental health institutions through the

province. It's a further thing that I think is, again, one of

the things that isn't noticed — there's not much news about it — but it gives an idea of our style of government and how we

operate.

A letter was sent to me by a Mrs. Constance Holly, who is a

coordinator of a task force consisting of personnel from the

Health Department, from BCHIS, from Human Resources and, at one

point, someone from the Attorney General's department — from

probation services. This task force invited me to meet with

them when they were in Smithers in order to get an

understanding of what they were doing in that part of the

country.

Now they were on their way through the riding, actually to

Houston; but since many of the services for Houston originate

in Skeena, they asked me if I wouldn't mind participating with

them. This task force was very well selected. The personnel

that were in this group were very personable people and very

conscientious and extremely sincere in their efforts to improve

health care and human care, generally, in the north.

The very fact that there were two departments — and at one

point, three — working together and cooperating together to

solve human problems made a tremendous impression on people

with whom they came in contact. Here was a group of people with

no prejudices about…. They weren't trying to build empires

for themselves or anything. They were concerned people anxious

to see that the people in these communities, and especially at

Houston, received good health care.

Again, it illustrates the human approach of our present

government, and of their impact in my constituency.

[ Page 95 ]

At this particular point I am going to mention the students'

summer employment programme because this was mainly under the

direction of the Minister of Health as well. This programme

went over very well in our riding. There were a number of young

people employed by the various government departments and also

in the hospitals in the constituency. The whole project met

with nothing but approval and praise from the people in the

area. These young people were gainfully employed and gained a

great experience while working in these institutions for the

government departments, and I trust that this programme will be

repeated again next year.

I think that this programme had a great deal to do with the

fact that you heard very little about student unrest or youth

unrest during this past summer. Our government showed a

positive interest in young people of high school age and above

in my constituency.

Human Resources. We have an institution in Smithers known as

the Northern Training Centre. Now the Northern Training Centre

is a facility for mentally-retarded young adults mainly; maybe

some of you did not know of its existence. This institution was

undergoing considerable problems up to the time that our

government came to power and in the early months after we had

come to power.

But again, the Department of Human Resources, in particular

the Minister of Human Resources, gave this a great deal of his

personal attention. And it took a lot of thinking about the

right way to solve it; it was not done quickly or hastily or by

any autocratic or dictatorial methods. It was done in

consultation with the people in Smithers — I was involved in

those consultations — and it was done in consultation with the

B.C. Association for the Mentally Retarded.

The solution that was finally arrived at was one that was

completely acceptable to all people involved: it was to have

the institution administered by a board appointed by an

organization known as the Smithers Community Resources

Committee. The community, the people in the community, are now

the ones who have the responsibility for this institution, and

they are taking a tremendous personal and human interest in the

way it is run and in the young people that are in this

institution.

Again, it is not the kind of thing that makes the headlines — like tunnels and things like that — but it is the kind of

thing that shows the kind of government that we are and the

kind of interest that, in particular, the Department of Human

Resources is showing.

I would like to personally, at this point, say that I believe that the young

— and most of them are young — social workers that are working in my constituency

are some of the finest young people that I have ever met, and are dedicated

and conscientious in doing their job. In the Smithers area in particular they

showed a great interest in this whole thing, and worked this thing through on

a very human basis. I was proud that we were able to be part of that operation.

I could mention Mincome under Human Resources because, after

all, we have a fair number of old-age pensioners, of people

that are over 60, who will now benefit from this programme. But

since it is something that affects the whole of the province I

am not going to dwell on it, other than to say that the older

people are genuinely grateful that they can enjoy at least a

little more of a decent living than they had before, and that's

something.

Indian Affairs. A number of things have happened over the

past year that have affected people of the native population in

my constituency. For example, they are now able to benefit from

the Home Acquisition Grant, and that was an action of the

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

government.

There is a particular project that is of great interest to

people especially in two of the native villages in my

constituency — Hartley Bay and Kitimat Village: that is the

projected cannery to be operated by the North Coast Indian

Co-op which we hope will be finalized in the near future. The

manager, the chairman of the board for this co-op, is from

Hartley Bay in my constituency, and one of the chief directors

is from Kitimat Village. They are taking a very strong personal

interest in this whole operation.

Also, I have faith that the native Indian people will soon

benefit more from provincial services such as improved roads

and so on to native villages. There are a couple in particular

that I have been asking for attention to, and I have been

assured by the Highways Minister that consideration would be

given. The two in particular are Fort Babine — which is remote

and was cut off on the ground all of last winter, and was

supplied by air during that period — and the road from the City

of Kitimat to Kitimat Village. I am very confident that the

Highways Minister will take some action on these two

matters.

Highways Department. I might point out before I move on to

Highways that I was very impressed with the speech of the Hon.

Second Member for Vancouver South (Mrs. Webster) yesterday. She

certainly has shown, I think, a good understanding of the most

important facet of native-non-native relationships — and that

is the cultural gap, the cultural barrier.

I was the co-chairman of the Integration Council in the

Cariboo for two years, and we addressed ourselves to that very

thing — the cultural alienation. Really, the long-term solution

is the building of many bridges between the two groups — so

many bridges, in fact, that there doesn't even appear to be a

bridge any more. I think that's happening through groups like

the B.C. Association of Non-Status Indians, the

[ Page 96 ]

Union of B.C. Chiefs and many other organizations — the

friendship centres, and so on. There's very rapid growth in

crossing this cultural barrier, and I hope that there won't be

too many years go by before there isn't any more cultural

barrier between us. But there will be the respect,

nevertheless, for cultural values and traditions.

Highways. We have been very fortunate in Skeena; not only

have we had a considerable amount of money spent on school

facilities and hospital facilities, but we have also had a

considerable amount of money spent on highway construction. The

one thing that really makes me happy about the highway work

that is going on in the riding is that it is not tied to

politics any more. If the work needs to be done it is being

done. At least, I have a couple of things that I want to get

done; but the work that is being done isn't sort of being

hampered or slowed or interfered with for political

reasons.

The bridge across the Skeena River at Terrace is now under

construction and it appears that it will be in soon. The steel

work will begin in March. I might point out that this bridge

was promised by the previous government every election for the

last 20 years, and now the bridge is under construction. I

might point out that I think credit should be given where it is

due.

AN HON. MEMBER: Build a tunnel.

MR. DENT: I think that credit should be given where it is

due, and that is that the former Member for Skeena

constituency, Dudley Little, worked very, very hard for that

bridge and I am just sorry that he did not live to see the day

when it would be completed. But I think the credit should be

given to him for that bridge.

We have 10 bridge projects either under construction or

projected shortly. Six of them are now under construction, and

they are in the

section from Terrace west, to connect with

some work that was coming from Rupert. Also, a number of

highway projects are under construction. It is very difficult

terrain and they are very costly projects; however, it is going

forward. The total amount of contracts is in excess, I would

say, of $9 million either under way or about to be under

way.

Now, again there is the human thing and I think that this is

the really important thing. The Minister of Highways came into

my constituency and we flew over the area in a helicopter and

looked at some of the projects that were under way. Then we met

in a hotel room set apart so that people could come and make

appointments. A number of people came in and they were really

impressed with the fact that they could come in and they could

present their problem to the Highways Minister and to the chief

engineer, who was with him, and to the Deputy Minister of Highways. They felt this was really something, that they had

access and that they could discuss their problem freely with

him.

MR. CHABOT: Well.

MR. DENT: I might point out that the Hon. Minister of

Highways showed a good understanding, a real understanding of

the needs of Skeena. Of course, he is from the neighbouring

riding of Prince Rupert and therefore has a little better

knowledge, but we were very pleased with his trip through the

riding.

Municipal affairs. Again we had a visit from the Minister of

Municipal Affairs who came into the riding to look at some of

the problems firsthand. I am not going to comment any further

than that except to say that, like the Minister of Highways and

like the other Ministers who came in, he took a personal

interest in the kinds of problems that we were facing and has

therefore a much better understanding than might have otherwise

been the case.

MR. CHABOT: Well, well.

MR. DENT: But I would make a plea, and I am sure that the

person who is presently occupying the Speaker's chair, the Hon.

Member for Cariboo, would agree with me and other Members of

this House would agree that it is time for a more equitable

distribution of provincial funds to the municipalities. They

have been living under a very bad formula for a long time, and

the district of Terrace in particular is having great

difficulties, great difficulties, as a result of the fact that

they are in such a poor financial position because of the

present financing formula.

I just want to give you an example of how it works out.

Because of the fact that they have such a poor financial

position resulting from a low asset tax base and a high cost of

putting in services, they have not been able to take action on

a road which is considered a secondary road passing through the

municipality and connecting with a road we call the East Kalem

road. This is a logging road coming in from one of Colcel's

operations and has a number of houses along the road as well.

They have not been able to pave it simply because they can't

raise enough money to pave it. Now it is a 50-50 deal — if the

municipality puts up 50 per cent, then the provincial

government will put up the other 50 per cent. That may seem

like a very good formula, a very good deal, but the fact is

that with all the demands upon them they simply cannot raise

the money to pave that

section of road.

Now the Department of Highways had indicated that when the

time came, when the municipality decided that this piece of

road should be paved, they would go ahead and pave additional

miles of the same road outside the municipality — the so-called

East

[ Page 97 ]

Kalem Road or Kalem Road. So that project has been held up

because of the lack of money that the district of Terrace has.

Now there is tremendous traffic on this road, and it is

building up steadily. In fact, people have told me that it is

the most heavily travelled road in the whole of the Skeena

constituency, other than the main highway, but it is very

dusty. Even if you oil it, the oil doesn't do any good for long

because of the heavy logging trucks. They soon break the road

up when it rains and so on, and pretty soon you are back to a

very dusty situation.

There was an

article appeared in the paper just a short time

ago which illustrates the problem. The headline was "Petition

started over boy's death."

A boy of about 11 was walking home, he was sort of

half-carrying his bicycle, which was broken, and he was struck

by a vehicle and killed because the driver couldn't see him for

the dust. Now, this is not the fault of the Department of

Highways, or the fault of the municipality, or the fault of

anyone. It is a fault, in my judgment, of the fact that action

could be taken in a heavily crowded situation like that if the

district municipality had a better deal financially. It

actually comes down to that, because then they could go ahead

with their 50 per cent, or they could put up the needed money,

and the road could be paved at least out through where the

houses are. Visibility would be greatly improved, and so

on.

But again, it is this human concern. I understand from the

Minister that they now are making provision for consideration

of safety on the highways of British Columbia in a more formal

manner. In my opinion, this is long overdue, long overdue. One

of the highest priorities in highway and road construction

should be safety.

In Skeena constituency, we have some very dangerous pieces

of road. The highway itself follows the Skeena river for some

distance, and many cars have gone off the road into the Skeena

River and people have been drowned. Just a few months ago, two

small children were drowned when the car their mother was

driving left the highway. A guardrail is needed along the

highway.

It seems to me that before more money is spent in the lower mainland repaving

and repaving streets that have been paved over so many times they have six or

seven feet of pavement on them. I think by now we need some safety engineering

done in our constituency to protect people's lives, such as building a guardrail

along that road or else, in some other way, providing for a safer highway. Similarly

with back roads; I have two roads where they are actually grading the rock,

the bare rock. There is no gravel on the roads, and this is common throughout

the province. Now this makes for dangerous highways because there are large

rocks sticking up and people turn suddenly to miss some of these rocks, especially

when they come suddenly over a little hill. Again, the person occupying the

Speaker's chair is well familiar with that problem in his riding, and also Kamloops

— in fact, throughout the province.

People on the lower mainland have no idea of the dangerous

conditions under which many people in the country have to

drive. I believe that if there is now going to be an engineer

responsible for safety in the Highways department, he should

immediately press the government to establish safer roads and

highways as a priority. This would itself get a lot more work

done in our constituencies in the country.

One of the things that is happening that I would like to

press for, or about to happen, is that they are soon going to

be building a highway connecting Highway 16 to Stewart to

connect up with the Stewart-Cassiar highway. It is imminent. In

fact, it is my understanding that the Highways department has

selected the Kitwanga Valley as the route for this highway, and

a bridge is projected to be built across the Skeena River at

Kitwanga.

I just want to mention the fact, too, that I had my first

protest meeting in the riding a couple of days ago — the night

before last — and it was the people of Hazelton, three

communities, and Mr. Cyril Shelford was there. Basically, what

the meeting was about was that they wanted to have the Highways

department locate the highway up the Kispiox Valley. I have

asked the department for information on why they decided this

route rather than that one. No doubt we will resolve that

hassle, and certainly the people of Hazelton are angry, the

people of Hazelton have a right to be heard.

MR. CHABOT: 160 of them — the whole town.

MR. DENT: What I am concerned about is this: the decision is

going to have to be made quickly, and I would strongly urge

that it be a first-class highway immediately, and the reason is

this. There is bumper-to-bumper traffic on the old Kitwanga

road, especially on the long weekends, trying to get through to

Stewart, and the road is not built for this. It is an old

twisting logging road and is not designed for heavy public

traffic at all.

If the Department of Highways simply follow the idea of

maybe improving the road by putting a little gravel on and

taking a couple of turns out here or turns out there, that is

not going to help at all. We need a first-class highway through

there now, immediately. As I said, the location will have to be

determined, a decision made quickly, and then the work started,

not on an improved road, but rather on a first-class

highway.

MR. CHABOT: I notice that the Minister's not present.

[ Page 98 ]

MR. DENT: Recreation and conservation. Again the government

has taken action in regard to my part of the country, in Skeena

riding; the conservation staff, Fish and Wildlife staff, has

been doubled in the last year with a regional protection

officer, a regional fisheries biologist, a regional supervisor

and another conservation officer to add to the present staff of

three conservation officers. It's still not enough. It's a good

start, but it's still not enough.

The previous government completely starved the Fish and

Wildlife and Conservation departments in the past. The result

is there is a depletion of fish and game in the north; all

kinds of abuses were taking place simply because there were no

people to properly protect the area and provide the proper

supervision for the area.

I get all kinds of requests asking for more conservation

staff to ensure that a proper job is done in this department.

The men working in the field are doing a first-rate job under

difficult conditions, often having to travel over large

wilderness areas, under very primitive conditions, sometimes

flying in bad weather and so on, and more staff are needed.

One of the th