1971 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 29th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 1971

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 263 ]

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 1971

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

On the motion of the Honourable W.D. Black, Bill (No. 27) intituled

An Act to Amend the Public Libraries Act was introduced, read a first time, and ordered to be placed on the Orders of the Day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

BUDGET DEBATE

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.

MR. D. BARRETT (Coquitlam): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to

stand in my place to open the Budget Debate. I just want to refer

briefly to some warmth that was engendered or almost heat engendered

between some of the Members and the Speaker last Friday. I regret that

very much. Part of the difficulty arose, Mr. Speaker, because some of

the Members wanted to see the Budget as it was presented to this House.

I understand the press was frustrated. They were not able to see the

Budget before it was delivered. Well, I found out the reason after I

listened to the Budget. If I had to present a Budget like that, I would

want to keep it secret, too. As a matter of fact, I don't really know

why everybody was so uptight about hiding that Budget. We thought we

were going to get some miracles. I did find on February 5 that there

was actually a miracle. But it didn't come out of the Budget, it was

announced in a newspaper. I thought it was disconnected from the Budget

but, certainly, connected with the Government. It was a headline on the

sports page of February 5, that says, "Chant Reborn in Buffalo." I

wanted to share this with the Minister, because half-way through the

dynamic Budget, he was sound asleep. Along with him was his colleague,

the Minister of Trade and Industrial Development, who was so tired from

his travels, he, too, was sound asleep half-way through the Budget

presentation. The Premier had his face right at the Opposition, so the

Ministers were safe while they were asleep. I'll return to the Minister

of Trade and Industrial Development a little bit later.

There was one comment made in the wind-up of the Throne Debate to

which I wanted to refer. It was made by the Minister of Municipal

Affairs. A number of things he said, which, I understand, he is getting

some bad times for now. One of them was this business of health being

the best in the rural areas. I, in my travels in British Columbia, have

received complaints about whole public health unit areas that were

without directors, and during your Speech, through you, Mr. Speaker,

the Minister said that, "The health services were up to par all over

the Province." Well, in the Prince Rupert, I thought it was the Skeena

district, I phoned the Minister of Health this morning and I got the

reply back immediately. I wanted to know how many of the 17 health

units outside of the lower mainland were without directors — and there

are three. Prince Rupert hasn't had a full-time medical director for

their public health unit since 1967. The M.L.A. for that area knows

full well there is a serious problem in not having a full time health

director in that area. Dawson Creek, also, has not had an appointee

since April 1968; two years without a public health doctor. In Saanich,

the last appointee resigned in March of 1968. Three areas all of them

represented by Government Members. I would think that the Minister

would check more closely before he would make the kind of statements

that he did.

MR. D.R.J. CAMPBELL (Comox): I didn't talk about that at all.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, you did. You mentioned in reply to the

Honourable Member from Burnaby North who had gone through her speech

talking about children. One of the comments you made across the Floor — we'll check the tape, the daily Hansard

that we get and we'll go over that — the broken record. Ten months from

now we'll go over the very important documents of the day.

I thought, also, that the Budget Speech forgot to mention the hidden

taxes that we are faced with here in British Columbia. One is a 10 per

cent increase in automobile insurance, that free enterprise automobile

insurance, sponsored by this Government, which guarantees the companies

involved in automobile insurance sales the opportunity to act as if

they were the Courts, and there will be a general increase in the

automobile insurance. Also, we understand that the poor, debt-ridden

telephone company is having some problems again. That American monopoly

that reaches into every home here in British Columbia is asking for a

huge increase. We pay the highest rates in Canada now and we expect we

will be paying higher rates under the protection of the Public

Utilities Commission of this Province. The time is long past due that

the… (interruption) sorry, Ottawa. Right.

HON. L.R. PETERSON (Vancouver–Little Mountain): Does the

honourable Member know that telephone rates come under National

jurisdiction and are not under the jurisdiction of the British Columbia

Public Utilities Commission? (Interruption.)

MR. BARRETT: It's not a point of order, he doesn't even know

the rules of the House. It's not a point of order, but that's all

right. The Attorney-General is quite correct. It is the protection of

Ottawa. But there has been no move by this Government to protest the

increase in the rate. What is your position on the increase of rates?

Are you in favour of it? Or are you against it? Stand up and say that

if those rates go through, you are prepared to put the B.C. Telephone

under public ownership, because it hits the old age pensioners, the

people on fixed incomes, who you say you fight for. It hits them harder

than anyone else.

The previous Attorney-General protested. But we don't see that same

action from the present Attorney-General. They made a profit of $40

million last year under the current rates. Yet they now want to

capitalize for further expansion. They want to capitalize out of earned

revenue, rather than go into the market to borrow just like everyone

else has to. They have got a captured source of funds here in British

Columbia and they intend to up the rates as they wish.

The kind of things that were also missing from the Budget Speech was

some action of chronic care for senior citizens. I remember, in 1956,

the former Minister of Health, Mr. Eric Martin, announced in an

election campaign that the Social Credit Government was concerned about

those in need of chronic care and would incorporate a chronic care

programme, if re-elected in 1956. The same promise in 1960 by the then

Member from Burrard, his running mate, and the Honourable Eric Martin,

at that time. We're still waiting. We're still waiting. We still have

the pictures and we still have the pamphlets that were sent out by

those two Government

[ Page 264 ]

Members at that particular time.

In this regard, Mr. Speaker, I spoke during the Throne Speech about

the strike at Sandringham Hospital. That strike still lingers on, where

that national corporation is still making a huge profit out of illness,

illness of the aged of British Columbia, with the Victoria Council of

Churches that has taken an open position condemning the management of

that hospital. This Government has done nothing to provide services for

those people who desperately need chronic care and rest home care. The

kind of business that goes on there makes one wonder if this Government

really cares.

In the area of caring, we have the Minister of Welfare. Now he's in

a little bit of a jackpot again, because he's having running battles

with his Cabinet colleagues. We expected during the Throne Debate, Mr.

Speaker, that the Minister would stand up and tell us what he has been

doing in his department that allows us to have 120,000 people on

welfare in this Province. When he took over, there weren't 120,000

people on welfare. There are now over 120,000 people on social welfare

in British Columbia. Last year he couldn't wait to get to his feet in

the Throne Debate. Six days after the House met, he got to his feet and

told us there was going to be a complete and entire change in the

methods used by his department, without costing a dime more and, maybe,

using less people than we have today. Later in the Session, he gave us

his solemn assurance that he was working on a plan that would

"…straighten out all the problems relating to welfare. There would be

no such thing as welfare," he said. "The emphasis will be on

rehabilitation." I suppose his theory is, Mr. Speaker, before you can

rehabilitate you've got to put them on welfare first. That's why he's

got it up to 120,000.

We heard, too, you know, of a little tiff that happened. First of

all, we had to change a name. We went from the Department of Welfare to

the Department of Rehabilitation and Social Improvements. "I want

nothing to do with welfare," said the Minister. I don't blame him. At

the rates he pays I wouldn't want anything to do with welfare, either.

I don't know if he still keeps that hotel room in the Hotel Vancouver,

but that's a different form of welfare.

MR. R.M. STRACHAN (Cowichan-Malahat): Shelter allowance.

MR. BARRETT: Is that what it is? Shelter allowance. Well it's some shelter, some allowance.

Several months went by, then in June of last year, the Minister got

all fired up because the press was still calling the Minister,

"Welfare." "I am the Minister of Rehabilitation, not Welfare," said the

Minister. What's more, he sent out letters to all the media proclaiming

his new title with gold embossed stationery, that must have cost a

pretty penny in itself. For a Minister of Welfare it's really flying in

the face of reality to have that kind of embossed stationery. I'm sure

the welfare recipients like to have that kind of stationery, when they

get a letter from the Minister — "You're cut off" — in gold.

A few months went by and we came to October. At this point, the

former Minister of Social Welfare, who is the present Minister of

Municipal Affairs, tried to help out. On October 15, he made a

statement to the press to the effect that Rehabilitation Minister

Gaglardi would disclose a new approach to welfare-spending at a

conference of Provincial Welfare Ministers in November. That was from

the Victoria Colonist .

Next day, the Minister of Social Welfare or Rehabilitation made this

statement to the press, "Gaglardi said that Municipal Affairs Minister

Campbell was not playing cricket, when he announced, earlier this week

B.C. will present a new approach to welfare-spending at a meeting of

Provincial Welfare Ministers in November. 'I don't know why he is

making any statements about matters such as what I will be proposing,'

Gaglardi said. 'That isn't playing cricket, you know."' That's a long

way for the little boy from Mission to come. That little fighter who

used to represent the little man and his great struggles behind the

bulldozer is really pushing one out, now. "That's not playing cricket,

you know." Look what Victoria's done to that Minister.

MR. GAGLARDI: Send me over a cup of tea.

MR. BARRETT: Send you over a cup of tea? You bet I will. What's that play with a cup of tea? Arsenic and Old Lace . On October 27, the press again asked the Minister (interruption) .

Now you said you weren't going to interrupt, Mr. Speaker, through you.

Now, there he is. "Peace," he says, after he interrupts me. He wants to

be left alone. That's the man who proclaimed in this House, at one

time, that he was being attacked so badly that we thought the way he

was interpreting it he thought we were trying to say that he ground

glass in little old ladies' teacups. But you weren't nearly as bad as

the one who took over, two removed from you. You were a sweet Minister

of Welfare compared to the one that we've got now. Anyway, he was sweet

compared to you. He's got a heart and I mean that. And that's something

that is absent with the present Minister, in my opinion.

On October 27, the press again asked the Minister when his new

approach would be made public. His reply was, "Oh, you mean the one

released by Dan What's-his-name." He said, "It will be coming out in

due time." Now, Mr. Speaker, I have had some experience in a leadership

campaign and the first thing you do, when you are running against an

opponent, is to forget his name. The Minister has learned that very

quickly — "The one released by Dan What's-his-name."

Finally, at the end of last month, on January 29, the great new

approach was revealed. The Minister went off to Ottawa and presented a

brief at the meeting of the Provincial Welfare Ministers. The great new

approach was "Gaglardi wants welfare money to be subject to income

tax." What a great heart. What a great lover of the poor. "Tax them,"

that was his answer. Not being satisfied with paying social assistance

rates that don't allow people to maintain a decent standard of living,

the Minister wants to tax them. That's his great new approach.

However, something went wrong with the communication system inside

the Cabinet. This time it wasn't Dan What's-his-name who was in

trouble. This time it was Cec What's-his-name. What happened there?

When the press asked Cec What's-his-name for comments on proposals for

social welfare taxes, the Premier snapped, "What? I don't know anything

about it. He, the Welfare Minister, must have been misquoted. We want

to keep the taxes off the poor." Vancouver Province , January

30, two days later. "The Minister was asked about the Premier's

remarks. He said, 'I don't believe that the Premier said what was

reported in the newspapers. He's a very fair man and he wouldn't say

that."'

You know, Mr. Speaker, two more days went by and we came to February

3 and again the press questioned the Premier on the matter, and

according to the Vancouver Sun , "Bennett brushed by reporters

trying to clear up the matter Tuesday, shouting, 'old news, old news,

old news, I said all I'm going to say on that."' Old news. Two days

before, "Told

[ Page 265 ]

that Gaglardi said that Bennett must have been

misquoted, because he is a nice guy, Bennett retorted, 'I think he's a

nice guy, too."' What's his name? I added the last part. He knows full

well what your name is, Mr. Minister, it's give him enough of a

heartache.

In fact, there was no misquote or no misunderstanding. The proposal

to tax social welfare benefits was printed on page 6, paragraph 5, in

the Minister's brief to Ottawa (interruption) .

You mean that the Premier was misquoted. Well, I haven't had a copy of

the brief. I understand it's a real dandy. I am waiting for a copy of

the brief. Send a copy over, will you? As far as I am concerned, and I

know this isn't going to hurt you one bit, but as far as I'm concerned,

Mr. Speaker, you've been nothing but a "big bag of wind" as the

Minister of Welfare, or Rehabilitation, or whatever you call it. The

biggest failure we've had in that department. I withdraw the "bag of

wind," Mr. Speaker, I got carried away in a moment of emotion. I almost

felt identified with an applicant for welfare. Having faced that, I

withdraw that statement. You're a failure, you're a zero, you're a

blank. You've done nothing as Minister of Welfare that adds up to any

progress at all or, in terms of the kind of red-neck hostilities that

you've created in some rural areas by your statements, through you, Mr.

Speaker, about getting people off welfare. I suggest to you, Mr.

Speaker, that if you want to start getting deadbeats off welfare, you

had better start cleaning out that Cabinet. There are more deadbeats

per capita in that Cabinet than there are out in the general

population. I'll come to the much travelled Minister of…Name them?

Well, Mr. Speaker, I can't think of anything more that ambitious backbenchers would want named.

I don't want to believe that no matter how strong the ambitions of

some of those young, dedicated men of high principle in the back

benches of the Social Credit Party, that none of them would ever

attempt to usurp a Cabinet Minister. Never. The kind of loyalty,

dedication and love that exists between the backbenchers and the

Cabinet is a wonder to behold. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, it's a

question the love of loyalty (interruption) . We have the sweet voice again (interruption) .

MR. SPEAKER: Order.

MR. BARRETT: You know, Mr. Speaker, I'll name the Cabinet Ministers, a couple of them, later on.

I want to talk a little bit about the two sensitive Ministers, with

whom in the past, Mr. Speaker, I'll admit, I have had an exchange of

words, sometimes heated. There was an overreaction in the press to a

polite exchange that the Minister of Lands and Forests and I were

having the other night. The newspapers are just not used to heated

exchanges of opinion. Some of these reporters are naive and new and

just don't understand that, sometimes, politics calls for a direct

exchange of statements, both speaking at the same time, very loudly. I

just want to tell you that there is a great love affair between that

Minister and myself.

For example, I can remember when I first discussed Cypress Bowl. I

remember when I used to sit in a corner as a quiet little backbencher.

I remember when I'd sit in my place in this House, Mr. Speaker, and I'd

talk about Cypress Bowl and the kind of comments I'd get from the two

lead-desk twins, the Minister of Recreation and Conservation and the

Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources. I remember the kind of

response I used to get. I'd talk about Cypress Bowl and I remember I

read a letter from the Minister of Recreation and Conservation. I read

his own letter about Cypress Bowl, saying that it wasn't a park. I

produced the Order-in-Council at that time and the Minister said I was

being devious for reading his letter. I remember that. Well, it was no

smear to read his letter. He never even said a nasty word in his letter.

I remember, too, the flights of beautiful duet attacking me from

those two Ministers about Cypress Bowl, saying that I was a mountain

goat gone berserk, that I didn't know what I was talking about, that I

was fibbing, Mr. Speaker. Naughty, naughty, and the whole mess came

crashing in on their heads, and they blandly stand up and say, not that

they made a mistake, not that they goofed on this thing for five years,

not that they didn't heed the warnings that they were getting. They

just stood up and said, "We've decided that we'll make it a public

park."

The irony was, Mr. Speaker, throughout every one of the discussions

that I had with the Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources

about Cypress Bowl, he said to me, "We always keep the municipality

informed." And they did it again. They made it a public park and you

know how the municipality found out? They read about it in the

newspapers. They make policy on the seat of their pants, Mr. Speaker,

and when the going gets rough they just shift chairs. And they've got

very short memories.

Now, we did have an exchange that was a very polite exchange and I

want to refer to that. During the speech of the Minister of Municipal

Affairs, the Minister and I exchanged verbal, polite comments to each

other. I sent a note to the Minister and I said on this note, Mr.

Speaker, "Do you deny that Bulkley Valley Forest Products Ltd. controls

nearly 100 per cent of the saw log quota in the public sustained-yield

units within the boundaries of pulp harvesting area number 4?" Now, I'm

not going to discuss the private conversations we have and I am sorry

that the press attempted to intrude in the very pleasant, private

conversation we were having. It's none of their business. No, they are

not snoopers. It's just that they are young and new to this business

and they are eager to get on with the job. Now, look, if we are going

to pay for that hotel room in Vancouver, the least you could do is go

over there and use it. If you've got nothing to contribute, you can

just toddle off. I'm sorry you don't have your own aeroplane, but you

can get one fairly cheaply out here.

You know, Mr. Speaker, every once in a while, I remember I am a

social worker and how I have to understand all kinds of behaviour, no

matter how weird or how unbelievable it is. I want to tell you it has

been a long time since I have practiced professionally and I have

difficulty in accepting and understanding some degrees of behaviour.

There are exceptions, but I try, Mr. Speaker, I try my best.

But back to the dialogue between the Minister and myself. The quote

is, "Do you deny that Bulkley Valley Forest Industries controls nearly

100 per cent of the saw log quota in the PSY'S within the boundaries of

pulp harvesting area number 4." I want to talk about this, just a

little bit because, during the Throne Debate, the Minister of Municipal

Affairs reviewed some of my comments as I had travelled through parts

of British Columbia. Apparently, the Minister was most upset because he

interpreted my comments to mean something about the company land.

That's a matter of dispute, Mr. Minister, and let's dispense with that

right now.

I have stated that, in my opinion, Bulkley Valley Forest Products Ltd. will make money in the long run out of the

[ Page 266 ]

land development in the Houston area. They have not

made money yet, Mr. Minister. They have the land, they have bought it,

but in the long run, in my opinion, they will make money. Now, Mr.

Minister, if you feel that's a lie for holding such an opinion, that's

quite all right with me. Time will tell. Only time will tell. It's a

difference of opinion.

As you know, the town of Houston was a small village until the

Bulkley Valley Forest Products made an appearance on the scene. They

purchased land all around the existing town. Some they got from the

Crown, some they traded with the Crown, some they bought from private

sources. They created a land bank, a private land bank and the town was

given new papers of incorporation and it was formally a democratic

existing community that elected its own council. They went into the

format that the Minister outlined: two appointed by the Government, two

appointed by the company, and three elected by the people. Far from

being a real democracy. The biggest landholder in the area is the

company itself and it has a direct interest on that council. It doesn't

have to go through public democratic voting procedures, it's got two

people on that council. Well, it's a small empire. The area we are

talking about is equivalent to some small European countries, you know.

The area that they control in terms of logging, not the land within the

boundaries of the town, the area that they control in terms of the

logging and pulp harvesting is equivalent to a small European country.

Now, I asked the Minister this question (interruption) .

Some research? Now, I'm glad you mentioned that because the only

research I got on this was to write to the Minister himself. I find

that the best source and I did write the Minister. I wrote the Minister

last November and I wrote to him and I said, "Dear Mr. Williston: Would

it be possible for you, for your Department, to supply me with the

names of the operators and the amounts of their allowable cuts in all

pulpwood harvesting areas, plus a map showing the boundaries of each

area?" That was for the Province. The Minister was very prompt. He

replied, December 21, just a month later. "Dear Mr. Barrett: I have for

you a reply to your request for information on the allowable cut of

established licenses within managed units in each pulpwood harvesting

area. Enclosed please find a map of the Province outlining the pulpwood

harvesting areas and the lists of the established licenses. In the case

of public sustained-yield units, no parties are presently considered as

being established." This is the map the Minister gave me. It's freely

available to the public and the area that I am talking about and the

question we go back to, that I wrote the Minister is, "Do you deny that

Bulkley Valley Forest Industries Ltd. controls nearly 100 per cent of

the saw log quota of the public sustained-yield units within the

boundaries of pulp harvesting area number 4?" The Minister would not

answer the question.

HON. R.G. WILLISTON (Fort George): I said I would give it to you in writing.

MR. BARRETT: You'd give it to me in writing. You wouldn't

answer. I'm coming to that. "You would give it to me in writing." I'm

going to read your reply. Now, that's a very simple question, Mr.

Speaker, and it calls for either a yes or a no. I want to read the

reply that I got from the Minister and, then, I am going to go into

detail on your reply.

"I attach the statistical information to which

references were made in your note and in discussion last evening.

Within the last four years there has been a constant change in the

upgrading of the utilization standards and policy and I do not blame

anyone who is not in constant touch with the situation to be confused.

As you will note in the material there is a present state of change

between the IU and CU standards within the area of pulp harvest area

number 4. The former IU plus one-third quota arrangement no longer

applies in a practical manner, whether it is a large lift in third-band

material. This latter volume, in some units, represents a higher figure

than the original IU quotas which formed the basis of allocation. Third

band never becomes a quota allocation but is based upon performance in

a specific operation. Even here there is a present policy change being

considered insofar as efficiency of the plant is concerned. You may

have seen some reference to the debate on this point at the Truck

Loggers Convention. When PHA's were originally constituted, it was

considered that a specific volume of round wood had to be allocated for

pulp use. This was abandoned before most of the areas got into

operation. The reason was that round wood could only be cut after all

available chips had been used and the policy is to balance pulp in

capacity with residual supply. Therefore, if round wood were allocated

and could only be used for pulp, it remained in the forests and was not

available for milling purposes. Kamloops, Quesnel, Bulkley Valley never

will process round wood directly for pulp. The same will be true for

Northwood, Prince George, Intercontinental, within the near future.

(Signed) Ray Williston."

Is that yes or no? Now, we come to the question that I asked and

your answers, which jive completely with the information that I have

from your department, which caused me to write you the question in the

first place. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I am making the charge today

that Bulkley Valley Forest Products controls nearly 100 per cent of all

the saw log quota in the public sustained-yield unit areas within the

boundaries of pulp harvesting area numbered 4 shown on this map, which

include areas number 4, 68,40 and 13. There is no competition, Mr.

Speaker, in that area. The small logger that this Government used to

pride itself about, and that the Member from Skeena strongly spoke for

in this House, has been wiped off the face of the map in that area.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not true.

MR. BARRETT: That's not true? Mr. Speaker, they did not sell

their quotas because the Government discouraged it. What they did is

that Bulkley Valley Forest Products bought up all the little companies

and acquired the assets of those companies which were the quotas. At a

fair price! I'm not saying there was anything scandalous about that,

but what I am pointing out to you is the flaw in the system that allows

a large company, with headquarters in New York and in London, to come

in and control a whole huge empire in this Province. My friend, the

directors of the Bulkley Valley Forest Products largely reside in New

York and in London. Read from your own document — the British Columbia

Pulp and Paper Industry. "The Bulkley Valley Forest Products Industry

is a joint venture of Bowater's Canadian Corporation and Consolidated

Bathurst Ltd., which each hold 46 per cent of the company and local

interests have the remaining shares, 8 per cent." Their offices, Mr.

Minister, are in New York and in London.

I'm suggesting to you that when I ask a simple question, "Do you

deny that Bulkley Valley Forest Products Ltd. controls nearly 100 per

cent of the saw log quota?" it shouldn't require two pages of

explanation, which I will

[ Page 267 ]

come to in a moment, it should get a simple yes or

no. But, coming to your explanation, the reason I came to the

conclusion that they own nearly 100 per cent, is that I wrote to the

Department and the material you provided me last December indicates how

much they own. In the number one area, there's an 8,000 quota and

Bulkley Valley has got all of the 8,000 quota, except for 400 forest

service reserves. The allowable annual cut — 8,000. The increase is 89.

You know what's involved there (interruption) . OK. Look, I'll do your direct figures in your memo. OK? Now, Mr. Chairman, (interruption) .

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, here are the quotas. Here's the

allowable cut that you have given me. Now, you tell me the three levels

of bands. But the three levels of bands have got nothing to do with who

controls the quotas.

AN HON. MEMBER: It certainly has.

MR. BARRETT: Do you mean to tell me that the other quotas are

open, through you, Mr. Speaker, that if they don't perform that those

quotas will be open on the other two levels? (Interruption.)

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Speaker, the conclusion I came to is a

conclusion that I got from a Government document and I quote from that

Government document, known as the Bulkley Nechako Region British Columbia Regional Economic Study ,

April, 1970, published by the Province of British Columbia, Department

of Industrial Development Trade and Commerce, Economics and Statistics

Branch. I quote on page 58: "Bulkley Valley Forest Industry Ltd.

controls nearly 100 per cent of the saw log quota and PSYU's within the

boundaries of PHA number 4." There it is, in your own document. There

it is, in your own terms to me. Then you are telling me that I'm

telling a lie. I ask a very simple question. Do you know? Do you deny

that?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. WILLISTON: Mr. Speaker, I never accused the Member of

lying on that statistic. We were talking about profit on land sales, to

which the honourable Member mentioned that he did not speak about quota

when he was in the House.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I made it very clear that it is a

matter of opinion on profit of the land. Only time will tell. The two

representatives, Gallagher and Waller, were in my office from Bulkley

Valley Forest Products and I put the question to them about the land. I

have the dates that they were in my office and they said they were

losing money on the land. I said, "In the long run will you lose

money?" And they said, "We can't answer that, now." I want to tell you,

Mr. Speaker, it was very clear what I was talking about because I wrote

the note to the Minister, and I said, "Do you deny that?" I took the

quote exactly from the Government's publication.

Mr. Speaker, the fact simply is this, that Bulkley Valley Forest

Products controls that whole area in terms of the resources of that

forest. There is no way that any one else is going to get a break in

there and don't tell me different. We have a multinational corporation

that went in and bought out these small loggers, levelled the small

sawmills that were there. I saw two sites that they had levelled and

burned and they have centralized the whole industrial development.

There has been a change in the whole social structure in that area. The

small logger, who did function in there, the pioneer of this Province,

no longer has any role in the forest industry in that huge empire. The

pioneer, who did open this Province, who this Government speaks of so

bravely, is no longer a factor in the forest industry in that area,

he's sold out. I suggest to you, Mr. Minister, that there should be no

price that allows sale of those quotas to cut out the small operator,

to allow only a handful of huge corporations controlling the forests of

this Province, Mr. Speaker. That's what I'm concerned about. I'm

suggesting to you, Mr. Speaker, that it should be looked at very

seriously because, Mr. Speaker, there is a total of some 39 pulp

harvesting units and the Minister doesn't deny that they control the

area. In 29 out of the other 33 public sustained-yield unit groups not

more than three companies hold the bulk of timber in each license. Some

of them are multinational and some are United States' companies. A

total of about 28 companies are involved. Now, there is a very

dangerous trend developing through this Bulkley Valley Forest

Industries Ltd. and I am warning you, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr.

Speaker, that I am expressing my opinion that that's a very dangerous

trend. There are little people of this Province who still believe that

they are pioneers. They are the little entrepreneurs who you say you

protect. There's a little guy out there who wants to believe that part

of his treasure of this Province is something he can have a hand in

developing and get some honest return from the sweat of his back. What

about that little man? When we have these startling facts and the

Minister can't answer yes or no until I have to squeeze it out on the

floor of the House, then, I tell you it's something to worry about.

Now, beyond that, Mr. Minister, I want to refer to something the Budget didn't deal with and that relates to the north as well.

Mr. Speaker, I am of the opinion that the best thing that could

happen to the northern part of British Columbia is to kick out every

Social Credit M.L.A. they've got. Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you that

they have never had it told the way it is in the north. They have been

led to believe that those seven safe Socred seats that the Premier

boasts about are there by divine right. If anybody needs a voice in

this House, Mr. Minister, if anybody needs a voice in the north, it's

those pioneers, who have not had fighting M.L.A.s in that area for

years. The last time we had a fighting M.L.A. from South Peace River,

he stood up in this House and I remember it. He enunciated the problems

he had in his constituency, which I had not seen at that time, and he

said, "If five Ministers would get up off their seats my problems would

disappear like fog in the morning." He stood right there and said that,

Mr. Speaker, and do you know what happened? He disappeared like fog in

the morning, along with a number of his colleagues, who were taken care

of, not at a general election, Mr. Speaker, but at the Social Credit

Nominating Convention. That's where it was done.

I was in Dawson Creek and I walked down a street after doing a

television interview, after a list of complaints about the lack of

health services, dental care, huge welfare roles, no action being taken

on local problems. The Member tried his best on roads. I said on

television the Premier refers to this area as the seven safe Socred

seats. Those people should have

[ Page 268 ]

an alternative. Probably it's been our Party's

fault for not being up there, Mr. Speaker, and I am not denying that.

But don't let anyone fool you that the north has been well served by

this Government.

I went into the town of Chetwynd, Mr. Speaker, and it didn't give me

great pleasure to see what I saw. I didn't feel happy about what I saw

in that town. But if you think I was going to give the generalized

Junior Chamber of Commerce flack-type claptrap about the beautiful

little town I was coming into — there was no way, Mr. Speaker. I said

as I came into that town that I saw a ring of shacks around that town,

the poverty of which I had not seen comparable to, other than in

Mexico. I said that right in town. I understand the Mayor of the town

was upset. It is a shame, Mr. Member, to have ever said it back there.

You should see that town. You should see some of the housing. It was

comparable to some of the housing I saw in the Minister's riding of

Nelson-Creston.

After I went through the town, the Mayor was very up-tight, because

I said what I said. He issued a public statement saying that I had

better not come back up and that the Leader of the New Democratic

Party, Mr. Tommy Douglas, should not come to town. I issued a counter

press release saying that Tommy Douglas could take care of himself. He

used to be the former bantam-weight boxing champion of Manitoba. But I

wasn't concerned about Tommy Douglas, I wasn't concerned about the

Mayor's bad feelings. I was concerned about the fact that the people of

this Province, who are the pioneers of this Province, have to live in

abject poverty in the rural parts of this Province, Mr. Speaker, while

huge corporations dominate the north and reap huge profits and will

reap huge profits.

The local newspaper was upset by my remarks, and I received the

following letter from the Chamber of Commerce, which I intend to read

to you, along with my reply.

The Chamber of Commerce sent me this letter:

"Dear Sir:

I have been instructed by the membership of the

Chetwynd Chamber of Commerce to express their dissatisfaction over the

statements you have recently made about our town. We appreciate your

effort and concern about the north country and it is encouraging to

note that the opposition parties in the Provincial Government are also

beginning to show an interest in our northern development."

That's not so. But that's the line they have been fed, Mr. Speaker.

"We are also critical at times of our Government and

feel that a more rapid approach should be given to our needs. We must,

however, give them credit, due to the fact that any spending in our

area receives criticism from your Party in the House."

When? When has any Member in this House stood

against welfare payments or housing payments for people of the north?

We have fought against the outside interlopers who have taken the

treasures out of the north.

"Mr. Member, your statements do not compliment the

effort by local people who are Canada's last pioneers" — the irony of

this — last pioneers — " and have every reason to be proud of their

accomplishments. Chetwynd is one of the better towns of British

Columbia and we would like to show it to you next time you are here."

One of the better towns, Mr. Minister, remember you said, "Hear, hear, " to that. You just sit there for the next ten minutes.

Here's my reply, Mr. Speaker: "I want to thank you for your letter

of November 5, 1970." To Mr. Martin, President of Chetwynd Chamber of

Commerce. "I appreciate your concern of the severe conditions of

inadequate housing surrounding Chetwynd. I repeat what I said when I

visited Chetwynd earlier this spring, that I was shocked to find

housing ringing the community, that was comparable to what I had seen

in northern Mexico.

I can understand your feelings but, nonetheless, I must call things

as I see them. I am not alone in my assessment of your problems,

because I enclose a photostat of an excerpt of the Alaska Highway News ,

that quotes your own Chamber of Commerce, with its analysis of housing

around Chetwynd. It seems to be almost exactly the same as mine. I

suppose that once the Mayor sees that you have been saying the same

things as I have, he will ask the Chamber to close up. Seriously

though, I deeply regret that you say in your letter that we criticize

expenditures in the north. That it is not only malicious, but foolish.

The reason you have received little attention to your local problems in

the north is because the Premier of this Province refers to your area

as one of the seven safe seats in British Columbia.

In our democratic system it is frequently the squeaky wheel that

gets the grease. The Government is so sure of the Social Credit

majority in the north that it need not hasten to complete projects

because they have adopted the attitude that the north will vote Social

Credit in any event.

I recommend for your consideration a very good thought that a

fighting Member of the Opposition might be more beneficial to your area

than having a quiet backbencher sitting in support of the Government

moves. As to your comments of the pioneers, the Social Credit

Government is busy giving away vast empires of the north to outsiders.

Its only responsibilities are to the boards of directors in New York,

London and Tokyo. The multinational corporations that now dominate the

north do not give a tinker's damn, and I can't say that word, Mr.

Speaker, for the pioneers of your area who have sacrificed their lives

to open the north. In contrast, we of the New Democratic Party, say of

the north that it should be developed with the interests of northern

residents and pioneers in mind, rather than serving the needs of

outside corporations. I would appreciate it if you would read my reply

to your membership." And I signed the letter.

In December of this year I received a letter from the Chetwynd Reporter , the Chetwynd published paper. The name is Mr. George Peck. Mr. Peck works for the Chetwynd Reporter

and was upset by the remarks that I made. He, too, felt that the

Chamber of Commerce attitude was the best approach for the community.

So he decided to go out and do a study of his own to prove that I was

wrong. This is the

article that he wrote, published in December in the

Chetwynd paper, by Chetwynd reporter, George H. Peck. "Thirty-five

point eight per cent of Chetwynd's families live in poverty and live in

housing 27 per cent of which can only be referred to as shacks." This

is the reporter of t phe localaper. "Forty-six point four per cent of

our families form a distinct lower financial class and earn less than

four thousand dollars per year. Their numbers are probably greater per

family than any other class. Forty-seven per cent of our families are

in the middle class, financially, earning four thousand to ten

thousand." He calls four thousand to ten thousand, middle class. "Six

per cent of Chetwynd's families are earning more than ten thousand per

year. Only six thousand. Maybe that is why 8 per cent of our houses can

be termed 'fancy' but, certainly, not at all elaborate. 8 percent. Dave

Barrett is right. I took a trip around Chetwynd and 31 per cent of the

buildings we live in can only be described as shacks." Actually, I

discovered that Chetwynd has two very distinct social classes. A lower

class, call it as you will, and an

[ Page 269 ]

upper or middle class. He goes on to give an

excellent breakdown of some 500 homes; 658 homes that he personally

surveyed with his secretary, starting out on a theory that my

statements were incorrect. He came up with the following figures: 55

fancy houses, which would be normally compared to the kind of average

subdivision in the lower mainland; 369 adequate houses, which would not

be called adequate in a normal subdivision in the lower mainland; 55

inadequate houses; and 179 shacks. That's what you've done for the

people of the north.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nonsense.

MR. BARRETT: To allow this kind of situation to exist in my

Province of British Columbia and you say it's nonsense. I say, "Shame

on you and shame on this Government for allowing this to happen in our

Province." A Province as rich as ours — 37 per cent of the people in

one town living in shacks — and all you've got is a response of

"nonsense." These are figures and are available to anyone who wants to

read them. That's all you can do for the north of British Columbia?

Then we get this hot air in the Budget Speech, about how you are going

to create jobs, create development. You know the Minister of Industrial

Trade and whatever-else-he-does and travel that he does for twelve

thousand bucks worth, sent out a little booklet today. You've got a

habit of putting your statistics in your mouth, Mr. Speaker, that can

only embarrass the Government. On Friday, we were told by the Premier

that there were going to be 25,000 created in the Province of British

Columbia. J-O-B-S was his four letter word. I want to tell you I've got

another four letter word that I've heard. It might more appropriately

describe it — B-U-L-L.

Look at your own statistics. In this booklet that I got in my office

today from the Minister, "In 1964, we had 639,000 people in the labour

force and that year we increased the job opportunities by 29,000; 1965,

28,000; 1966, 11,000; 1967, 47,000; 1968, 27,000; 1969, 44,000." Mr.

Speaker, no figures for 1970 and the forecast is a dynamic decrease

down to 25,000. Your economy is wound down and you are bragging about

it in your Budget Speech. The normal increase that we could expect

because of the pattern of growth here in this Province, that you

boasted about in your Throne Speech, you are now decrying and

predicting less than what your own department has been projecting over

the years. Read the Speech again — 25,000 new jobs! What a slap at the

Minister of Trade and Industrial Development. But, you know, that

Minister is really something to behold. If he sticks to that 25,000

figure, Mr. Speaker, we will be going backwards. Just to take up the

slack in the increase in the work population, 25,000 won't even touch

it, and that's below the average. What have they done about creating

new jobs? Mr. Speaker, what have they done about creating new jobs?

You tell me about the thousand new jobs, Mr. Speaker. I'll just

digress on that for one moment. Last September, twelve girls came to my

house who had just graduated from the Riverview Mental Hospital

training course as psychiatric nurses. They had finished the course.

The job openings were frozen and eleven of those twelve girls had to go

on welfare within a week after they had graduated from the Government

training course. Those are the frozen jobs you held and forced people

on welfare and then you announce you've got all new jobs. Don't talk

about a thousand new jobs. Those girls had a bitter, bitter experience.

I ran across one of them up at the Skeenaview Hospital, which I'll talk

about later to the Minister of Health, in Terrace, the Skeenaview

Hospital, where the M.L.A. visits at least once a month to see how

those old people are being taken care of. Have you been up there, Mr.

Member, to Skeenaview? Yes, well, you should visit more often, because

I was just as shocked about that and I'll come to that in the estimates.

I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, that Minister has spent over $10,000 of

taxpayers' money, hard-earned taxpayers' money and you produced nothing

last year. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that that Minister is the

Minister of Nonaction. What have you done with that money travelling

all over the world? What have you produced? We've peddled away the

resources of this Province to any promoter who can grab it fast enough.

The Wenner-Gren deal was the best example of that. He's a good dummy

hand at bridge. I don't know how to play bridge, so I don't know what

the word, "dummy hand," means. But I will tell you this. He hasn't

produced.

Your own statistics, and the Dominion Bureau of Statistics in their

publication 31-002 on pages 11 and 16, show new manufacturing all

across Canada. Between 1960 and 1969, 1,977 new manufacturing

establishments were in B.C., the normal growth. How many of those, Mr.

Speaker, were involved with petroleum and coal products? In those

years, we saw huge fortunes being reaped out of the natural gas of this

Province and the oil of this Province. Five industries in petroleum and

coal products in ten years were established. Five, local bait, that's

all. In the primary metals industries, 24 — a total, of all those

companies, of 48 jobs out of the metal resources and the petroleum

resources of this Province at the secondary industry level. Forty-eight

jobs in ten years out of the natural resources from those two areas. Is

that something to be proud of?

Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that if we had a Minister of Trade and

Industrial Development and Commerce, he would be out beating the bushes

around the world, selling British Columbia as the new nerve centre of

the Pacific rim trading community.

Mr. Minister, I spent a day, Saturday, with the leading economist in

British Columbia and within the first few minutes of discussing the

Budget, he shared with me that the most obvious role that British

Columbia could play, in terms of industrial development, would be to

attract the head offices of major companies here to British Columbia,

with the sustained employment those head offices would give. We have a

natural setting — geographic and weather. But he stated to me that

there has been no aggressive moves by this Government in the secondary

industrial development area.

We hear many, many times, that that's not a factor. If you read the

Employers' Council of British Columbia's own research, you will find

that labour-management relations are not their first concern. In the

weighty study that they did in 1966 it's their sixth concern. One of

them, ahead of that, is this Government, and this is the Employers'

Council of British Columbia's own work.

We hear so often, Mr. Speaker, "What is the Opposition going to do

about it?" Well, I'll tell you, for a couple of dollars. I've been very

busy. Tomorrow morning, Mr. Speaker, at ten o'clock, Mr. Fujita of the

Toyota Motor Company will be in my office, out from Toronto to discuss

with me the feasibility of establishing an automobile plant here in

British Columbia. Ten o'clock tomorrow morning and I will be discussing

with him, Mr. Speaker, the kind of terms and the kind of development,

that if we were Government, we would like to see. After I've had that

discussion with him,

[ Page 270 ]

if the Minister of Trade and Industry cares to, if

he has some time, I'm sure that I can make an appointment on your

Government's behalf, Mr. Speaker, because if you are concerned about

jobs, it's just a short walk over from my office to the Minister's

office. The backbenchers are too anxious. What have you done about

getting jobs? You could have written to these people. I suggest to you,

Mr. Speaker, that, if the Minister wishes to meet with these people,

they are invited. I gave him the invitation before, Mr. Speaker, and he

turned down my invitation before. Well, I don't know if you want to

sell any wine to Toyota. You can speak to them yourself. You've got

enough problems.

I am suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that at ten o'clock tomorrow they will

be in my office and, if the Minister cares to, I will extend to them an

invitation to meet with the Minister after they are through with the

meeting in my office.

Mr. Speaker, there was really nothing new in that Budget. There was

no new philosophy. There was no new drive. There were no new

directions. There was no leadership given to the people of British

Columbia. Ali that was new were the taxes, Mr. Speaker, and, for the

most part, one of them anyway was completely frivolous, in my opinion.

We'll have an opportunity to debate those later on.

Because this Government has been in office so long, they have come

to rely on their rhetoric. They have come to believe that this Chamber

is the boundary of the world of British Columbia. In the past, they

have delivered their speeches to the applause of backbenchers, that

have echoed throughout this Chamber, and their way of pounding of their

desks was a marvel to behold in the past. Even this Budget never got

that kind of pounding.

Mr. Speaker, this Government has reached a point in its life where

it is no longer worth living as a Government. This Government has

nothing to offer the people of British Columbia except its own memory.

It reminds me of the last paragraph of a great novel by F. Scott

Fitzgerald. It's called The Great Gatsby .

Nothing could be more appropriate to sum up the Budget of this

Government than this paragraph: "Gatsby believes in the green light,

the orgiastic future that year by year receives the forest. It eludes

us then, but that's no matter. Tomorrow, we will run faster. Stretching

out our arms farther, one fine morning. So we beat on. Boats against

the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past." And that's this

Government, living in the past, nothing to offer the future. And, for

no other reason, this Government, because of that Budget, should be

swept out of office as soon as possible.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

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

Budget was just a little bit more austere this year. I noticed instead

of having a flamboyant, dateful picture, like last year, it was done

just with a simple neatly etched diagram. Of course, last year's model

was that beautiful new extended care unit in Campbell River. I am

always fascinated by the pictures, Mr. Speaker, in the Budget (interruption) .

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MIL McGEER: I see this lovely one of the legislative lawn

and, on the back, another beautiful picture of the ferries. I like that

one because the ferries are giving such a wide berth to one another,

which is kind of reassuring. Then there is the picture of the regional

colleges. I thought that picture would have meant a little more if

there had been a few of the people that we always would like to see in

these Budget pictures, but who never seem to get there. Mind you, as

far as people go, there's always that marvellous picture of the

Minister of Finance. He looks very youthful in the picture, this year.

I notice that the blend of the brown wood in the background matches

almost perfectly the colour of the Minister of Finance's hair. You

know, there are none of those creases, there isn't that worried

expression on his face, that seemed to cross the faces of so many of

our municipal leaders, this past summer, with so many on welfare and so

many unemployed. Well, there may have been creases of concern in his

brow, too, but then I'm not sure that one would expect them since this

is exactly the same picture that appeared in last year's Budget.

Unless, of course, there is a little bit of trick photography there.

But I thought it would have been appropriate, instead of reprinting

that youthful looking picture of the Premier for Centennial Year, how

much more appropriate it would have been if we could have had some

action pictures of the Premier visiting around the Province. How about

instead of that… (interruption) .

Well, I'd like to tell the Minister that we are a little more modern in

our thinking than to feel it appropriate to ride around the Province on

an elephant. That may be the Social Credit style for the second

century. In any event, I have one picture here that might have been

appropriate rather than that one of the junior colleges, which showed

nobody present. This one has the Premier meeting people there. Do you

remember how he left? He wouldn't even stay for the opening. They were

picketing him for some facilities (interruption) . "That's not true," says the Member. Well, the people who were there were all of the same opinion, except you, Mr. Minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: Were you there?

MR. McGEER: No, but the picture is right there. It shows the

delighted subjects showing their gratitude for what the Premier had

done. Then, of course, that one on the legislative lawns, again,

carefully taken this summer, in that tranquil state. But, if we had the

Premier meeting the people when they came to the Legislature to meet

him on Opening Day, we'd have had an interesting action shot of what

went on in British Columbia during the past Budget year. That would

have been a nice interaction between the people and the Government, the

kind of thing that you might expect for this rather expensive little

booklet.

But, Mr. Speaker, the expense of that booklet is small in comparison

with the expense of what is going on across Canada this very day.

Because the sensation in the East is a scandalous series of

advertisements, which are appearing in every newspaper in eastern

MR. McGEER: Yes, the Montreal Star . I take that back I'm sorry, Mr. Member. A former Montrealer and Godspeed if you wish to go back. The Halifax Chronicle .

These are all carrying, today, on the very day the Federal-Provincial

Conference starts in Ottawa, the following three-quarter-page

[ Page 271 ]

advertisement: "Send for it today, British Columbia

Centennial Budget," and there's a picture under it of you-know-who. A

record pay-as-you-go, completely financed, with Canada's lowest

Provincial tax structure. Create more jobs and relieve unemployment.

Provide more money for education, health, hospital care, medical care,

housing, social services, etc. Improve the total environment to give

B.C. the best ecological climate in the world. Keep the development of

B.C.'s vast natural resources and job-creating industry forging ahead.

You know, Mr. Speaker, I've always told visitors coming to hear one

of the first of the Premier's Budget Speeches to look forward to a tick

finish, where he does this terrific

summary and all the loyal

backbenchers, in turn, beat their desks to give that final sprint down

the wire. You know, it didn't happen on Friday. Everybody kind of

limped in gasping. I think they could hardly believe what they heard.

But it's reassuring to know that, over the weekend, the Social Credit

backbenchers have regained their breath a bit and they can come up with

a little bit of applause for this advertisement. Here's what it says,

"…meet the needs of a population expanding twice as fast as the rest

of Canada." That wasn't what the Budget said, though, was it? The

Budget complained about how rapidly the labour force had expanded and

about the difficulty that it had in meeting the number of people

demanding jobs. "…guard against inflation by continuing B.C.'s strong

financial position with no public debt or resulting interest or service

charges, thus enabling the total budget to be used to benefit every

citizen." Didn't say anything about the increases in gasoline tax. How

does that benefit every citizen? The increases on his vacation this

summer, when he has to pay a tax for motels. "…maintain B.C.'s high

credit rating in the financial capitals of the world," it says. But

where does it say all the borrowing has to come from for all the Crown

corporations? Not a word about borrowing one penny on the open markets

of the world. We've been avoiding them like the plague and the

consequences of that to the B.C. economy are something I am going to

deal with shortly. But it says here, "For your free copy of the latest

Budget in B.C.'s first one hundred years as a Province of Canada mail

this coupon now. (Signed G.S. Bryson, Deputy Minister of Finance)."

Then the blank, "Please send me a copy of the 1971 British Columbia

Budget Speech. Please indicate if you require more than one copy."

Well, Mr. Speaker, after all this complaining from the Minister of

Social Rehabilitation, as he calls himself, and the Premier, and the

Finance Minister, and all the Members of the Cabinet about all these

people who have been trooping to British Columbia from all over Canada,

what do we do? We give them a pitch that would embarrass the flimsiest

con man in Canada, and every incentive to rush out to British Columbia

and say, "I want a stake in the gold rush."

I wonder if the Premier's down handing out autographed copies now to

the welfare recipients in Toronto, so they can catch the first bus out

here. But that's not the stupidest error in planting these

advertisements in all the eastern papers at our expense. This was done

just as we are rushing into a Federal-Provincial Conference where every

single Province in Canada is angling for the best financial

opportunities for their people. This is like rushing into a game with a

group of professional poker players bragging about a brace of deuces.

It's the kind of stupidity we can do without. I don't know whether it

were placed there to satisfy someone's personal vanity so they could

strut like a peacock in eastern Canada, but I can tell you this, it

will do us no good to solve our problems. It won't improve our

bargaining position at Ottawa. I can tell you… (interruption) .

"Ridiculous statement," says that Minister. Well, all I can say is,

that for a Minister, you are short on horse power and long on exhaust.

That's what we heard from you last week.

Which Province? Which Provincial Government was moaning its loudest

about bad treatment from Ottawa? Who needed the $500 million in Federal

land-outs? The last time there was a Federal-Provincial Conference,

that's in the appendix of this very Budget, this Government made those

demands on Ottawa. Then all these advertisements about the wonderful

debt free Province! How does that square with the argument presented in

the briefs to this conference? I am telling it the way it is and that's

what hurts.

The second thing, if people are really coming to this Province and

loading up our welfare rolls, this is a fine way to discourage them. A

newspaper costs only a dime and you couldn't blame the welfare

recipients in these other Provinces for believing what they read, even

if those of us out here know better.

I say this, despite this stupid and extravagant series of

advertisements, which will cost the taxpayers of British Columbia

dearly, not just in the cost of their presentation, but in their

results.

The Budget was the most disappointing ever presented by Social

Credit to the Legislature. It has marked a bleak start to our

Centennial. All the little man can look forward to in our Centennial

Year is a higher price for his cigarettes, a higher price for his

vacation motels, higher property taxes on his home, despite the $10

increase in the home-owner grant. The municipal per capita grant didn't

go up — that's going to be more than offset.

I intend, Mr. Speaker, to continue the tradition I have started by

presenting a third Liberal Budget to the Legislature and to the people

of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, in past years Social Credit Members have scoffed at my

Budget proposals and they've roared with laughter, as the

Attorney-General just did, at the revenue figures I've given. But, as

the years passed, Mr. Speaker, and the accuracy of the figures become

evident, the scoffing of Social Crediters may die down and the people

of British Columbia will come to recognize the value of forward looking

spending proposals and will realize how much more can be done with the

resources that are available to Government. How much farther British

Columbia would be ahead, today, if the Liberal Budget proposals for the

past two years had been implemented. We wouldn't be falling so far

behind. A year ago in my second Liberal Budget, I said this: "The taxes

being paid this year demand a better Budget than the one which it had

for last year. The Minister of Finance continues to allow his services

to drag behind both the needs of the people and the taxes he collects

from them Because of these great needs, Mr. Speaker, I put forward,

then, a Budget of $1,317 million which was $137 million more than was

proposed by the Premier. It was greater even than the Budget proposed

by the Premier this past Friday for our coming fiscal year 1971-72.

That one was only $1,300 million. This year, the Premier was $17

million behind where he should have been last year. In other words,

he's more than a year in arrears, yet Members from the Government side

roared with laughter when I presented this Budget. The Member from

Kamloops was incredulous. Yet, I stated that such a Budget was not only

possible but it should leave a generous surplus.

As Members will see when Public Accounts for the

[ Page 272 ]

current fiscal year finally come out, that Budget

would almost have been balanced, despite the staggering and colossal

mismanagement that the Provincial Government has been guilty of this

past year. I stated this in the distributed text of a year ago and,

again, I am quoting: "Dangers of a recession, dangers of deflationary

pressures and dangers of loss of productivity due to strikes, may cause

the revenues to be lower. In view of these uncertainties, a surplus

cushion of $82 million was built into the spending proposal." Those

remarks don't appear on our peculiar version of Hansard

All that is noted, Mr. Speaker, was that an uproar took place, no doubt

indicating that Social Credit Members were drowning out the tape with

"cat calls."

I want to draw to the Members' attention that, while final revenue

figures are not available for the current fiscal year, they are

available for the year before that. That covers the period of my first

Liberal Budget in 1969. That one called for a spending programme of

$1,130 million or $106 million more than predicted in the Premier's

Budget. The Member from Vancouver Centre scoffed at that Budget, too.

Yet, now, the revenues for that period are before the Members. They are

in Public Accounts for 1969-70 and they show that that Budget was

conservative, because the revenues were $1,179 million. That would have

not only covered the Budget that was proposed, but left a $40 million

surplus.

Now, for this past year, the second Liberal Budget. Had we put that

Budget into effect, we would have had a stronger economy, one that was

more dynamic and one that would have enjoyed the long-range benefits,

amongst other things, of a $15 million industrial development fund. I

had hoped that reminder would wake up the Minister of Industrial

Development, because it was he who was complaining all year long about

the lack of a Federal programme to help out the depressed areas of

British Columbia. Do you remember those complaints, Mr. Minister, the

wires you sent to Ottawa pleading for help? We could have done those

things and still had a surplus of $49 million. What would have happened

if we'd put these spending proposals into effect? I want to underline

this for the Members, Mr. Speaker. They would have directly created six

to seven thousand jobs and more than twice as many more people would

have indirectly benefited. Between the effect of that Liberal Budget

and our willingness to deal effectively with the labour disputes, B.C.

would have had the lowest unemployment in the Nation instead of the

highest. Because the policies of this Government, and I hope the

Minister of Labour is listening to this, led to 2,900,000 man-days of

work loss and that, Mr. Speaker, is equal to wiping out 11,000 jobs for

a full year. Remember, for every new job created by a new industry, the

multiplier effect of indirect benefits creates another one and one half

jobs. In other words, the 11,000 jobs eliminated in lost time, plus the

1,400 people let out of the Civil Service — no, I apologize, Mr.

Speaker, 1,400 people who were not replaced in the Civil Service when

they left — had an effect not of 12,400 jobs down the drain, but 31,000

jobs down the drain. Now, (interruption) . I think it does, Mr. Speaker. The Member says it doesn't apply to the Civil Service.

Where do you think the planning in this Province has to take place?

If the Civil Service doesn't do it, who does? When you dig your knife

into the Civil Service it slows everything up, in the public sector and

the private sector. If you take these jobs that Social Credit threw

down the drain, 31,000 of them, add the 6,000 jobs that the Liberals

would have created and the secondary effect of those jobs, which was

another 15,000, you would have had a total, this past year, of 46,000

more jobs. How many were looking for work in British Columbia last

year? Seventy six thousand. Our unemployment shouldn't have been

76,000, but 30,000. That 76,000, Mr. Member from Vancouver Centre, was

during the peak employment period. Think what would have happened if

we'd had 46,000 more jobs, 40,000 more families off welfare. Perhaps 70

to 80 thousand people in all. What a difference that would have made to

municipal tax costs. What a difference that would have made to the

Provincial Budget, a Budget that is going to be overspent by $40

million on welfare costs alone. Wouldn't it have been better to spend

that $40 million on jobs? We say it would have been better. In fact, we

said it a year ago.

Now, Mr. Speaker, my Budget prediction a year ago that revenues

would be $1,400 million is going to be far off the mark. But who could

have envisioned the colossal mismanagement that took place this past

year? And it was this mismanagement that led to the disastrous drop in

revenues. Who could have predicted that the industrial relations

policies of the Government would lead to nearly 3 million man-days of

work loss? Eleven thousand jobs down the drain. Who would have

predicted that the Minister of Labour and that divided Cabinet over

there, would have wrung its hands for three months while our largest

industry was shut down? Who would have predicted that housing starts

would be off 75 per cent during the best construction season? Who would

have predicted that the Government would have allowed 1,400 Civil

Service jobs to lie vacant? Who could have predicted that a Government

would graduate psychiatric nurses from its own school and then fail to

hire them when the hospitals were short of staff? Who could have

predicted that the Government, every time that an important decision

was needed, would have its key Ministers making one of their

boast-to-boast tours?

Well, given the lack of leadership and confidence over there,

perhaps we should be grateful that matters weren't worse. But even with

all that colossal damage, even with the do-it-yourself depression that

you people so skillfully managed for us, we still obtained enough

revenues to almost balance the Budget that I presented in the House a

year ago. "Interim financial statements indicate that Government

revenues for the full fiscal year, ending March 31, 1971, will be

approximately $1,265 million." And when you add to this the windfall of

$39 million from the Federal Government and this comes from those

advanced payments the Federal Government is making on income tax and

its contribution towards technical and vocational education, you get

slightly over $1,300 million. But had this Liberal Budget of a year ago

been followed, the revenue picture would, obviously, have been far

brighter (interruption) .

No, it's not out $100 million. That's right. That's what we should have had. That hundred million…

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order. Will the Members please address the Chair.

MR. McGEER: …was what that mismanagement of your Government cost us (interruption) .

No, my Budget was for $1,300 million. What I told you is, even with

the colossal mismanagement, that the revenues will be close to what

that Budget forecast. Remember, when I presented the Budget, a year

ago, I warned that there would be deflationary pressures and it was

wise to build that surplus cushion in. But no one could have conceived

of the kind of stupid management that the Government gave us during the

[ Page 273 ]

entire year. All I say is, that if our Budget had

been followed, people would not have been receiving welfare but would

have been working at productive jobs.

What was the welfare bill for the first nine months? The Minister of

Rehabilitation has left his seat, but it was $97.8 million, $3.3

million more than the Budget for the entire year. Those payments also

imposed a colossal drain on municipal financial resources, which slowed

down their development work. You will remember how the Members on this

side opposed that move to double the welfare contribution of the

municipalities from 10 to 20 per cent.

Had the Liberal Budget been followed, the Government would have been

receiving income from taxes, the private sector would have been richer,

there would have been a multiplier effect to the economy and the

municipalities wouldn't have beer back to the wall.

Well, we had a four-letter-word Budget on Friday. "J-O-B-S," the Premier said, "25,000 of them," blazed the headlines in the Daily Colonist .

But that's a statement that should have been made a year earlier,

because the 25,000 jobs were needed during this current fiscal year.

Those and 40,000 more will be needed next year.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, there wasn't a provision for 25,000 jobs

in that Budget of the Premier's. Do you know he stated on television,

Friday, after he left the Legislature, that part of that 25,000 figure

was the thousand new Civil Service jobs he was creating. He didn't have

the honesty to admit that the Government had closed out 1,400 positions

and that, in truth, the Government had decreased the number of Civil

Service jobs rather than increasing them.

What's wrong in the planning, Mr. Speaker? It's perfectly obvious.

On page 14 of the Budget Address, you see this quote, "Not

surprisingly, the labour force rose from 836,000 in 1969 to 877,000

this past year, an increase of 5 per cent." Well, if it weren't

surprising, then why wasn't there provision for jobs? If it were known

that the international markets in forest products were weak, that's

mentioned too, then why wasn't it evened out by accelerated public

works? If there were deflationary pressures, and almost every week the

Premier went into orbit about Ottawa, why didn't the Government reverse

the trend with its own spending?

Mr. Speaker, the primary task of Government is to go against

business trends. You lead and you don't lag. You flatten out the

business cycles, you don't exaggerate them. But the Government didn't

do any of these things. You added to the problem by slowing down on

public works. You laid off civil servants. You stood by while

industrial disputes took place. If the press reports are correct you

even redeemed parity bonds, effectively taking your own money out of

circulation and adding to the deflationary pressure.

Mr. Speaker, that's "hardware store economics." We need better. Now,

what was the result of these hardware store economics? Where did the

increase in the labour force go? They went on welfare. That's where

they went. The increase in the size of the labour force was almost

exactly equal to the increasing numbers on welfare. The increase in

numbers on welfare almost exactly equalled the increase in the

unemployed. The average number of people unemployed in British

Columbia, average for the year, was just under 70,000, almost twice the

previous year. This is a lesson in simple arithmetic. You can't hide

people. You can't put them in a deep freeze for a year. You can't shirk

the labour force. Your choices are only two: either you provide jobs or

you provide welfare. It's a pretty simple equation, isn't it? And it

doesn't do any good for the Cabinet Ministers to sit on their behinds

and whine about the Federal Government. That's not going to make the

problem go away. It isn't going to start British Columbia moving again.

Mr. Speaker, we don't excuse the Federal Government one bit for its

fiscal and monetary policies. We haven't before and we don't now

because the Federal Government has worsened the unemployment situation.

We admit that. But a Provincial Government that has pursued the kind of

economic policies that you over there have pursued this past year,

should have very little to say to any Government. You've got too much

to answer for yourselves. Here we have twice the unemployment in the

Nation. If it were all the Federal Government's doings, why did we have

that unemployment, double the Nation's average? Why did we have almost

40 per cent of all the man-days lost in industrial dispute, right here,

at home, in good-life British Columbia?

How much better it would have been to have followed our proposals,

instead of moaning about Ottawa. Take, for example, our proposal for

highways, a year ago. Our Budget was $170 million. Do you remember

that? What have you got this year? Still not that high and if you add

the gasoline tax which I presume will be added, in fact, it has been

added, there is going to be a net reduction in a commitment to highways

isn't there, Mr. Minister of Highways? How does that square with the

Premier's boast on page 32? "The Government is introducing bold, new

spending programmes in resources development, designed to create a

maximum number of jobs. Major projects planned include the Vancouver

Island Highway extension…" Got that one in. We proposed that a year

ago. Our Budget for highways was greater, a year

ago, than the Premier's is now. How silly the term "bold" has become,

with its Finance Minister, who has begun to enter his dotage.

How much better it would have been

to follow our education budget of a year ago — $402 million. That's $4

million more than your Finance Minister proposed a year later. What was

the money intended to do? Well, it was intended to provide these long

overdue facilities for post-secondary education. Remember when the

Premier went to the opening of Douglas College? He was picketed there.

No facilities. The Minister of Public Works says, "They weren't

picketed at all." As a Minister of Public Works, you should have been

getting that job done. He'd be the first to excuse the Premier. Well,

what does the Government note? Here it is, right on page 27 of your

Budget. "Total enrolment in the universities will be an estimated

34,750 in September, 1971, a rise of 175 per cent over 1960. In the

fiscal year ended March 1, 1970, Provincial operating grants to

universities made up 78.1 per cent of the total university operating

budget." But, it also notes that the current enrolment in the

Provincial vocational schools is up 13.8 per cent in a single year. The

only mention made in the Budget is for operating expenses, nothing for

capital to provide the needed facilities. Still not there in the

Budget. Yet our Budget of a year ago… (interruption) . Mr. Minister, surely, you don't think $14

million is going to…might I add, even what was budgeted last year

hasn't been spent…surely, you don't think $14 million is going to

cover these enormous increases in population which, you, yourself, or

your Minister of Finance, forecast in his Budget.

Where is the capital budget to provide these facilities? It isn't

there, Mr. Speaker. The people who should be building these facilities

are looking for jobs. The people who are attending the schools need the

facilities and, instead of having a Budget that will get on with the

work, all we do is

[ Page 274 ]

add to our welfare rolls.

How much better it would have been to follow our Budget for

recreation and travel industry of a year ago. The increase of $5

million still hasn't been met by the Provincial Government. Provision

was made in that Budget, Mr. Speaker, of last year, for money to make a

Provincial Park of Cypress Bowl. Now, a year later, the Government

announces it will make a park of it but there's still no action on the

job, and it was the jobs we needed this past year. Last summer, when

there were 76,000 people unemployed, that's when the work should have

been done. We should be skiing up there in our Centennial Year, not

wringing our hands wondering how we are going to escape the clutches of

the Mafia.

How much better it would have been, Mr. Speaker, to have followed

our Industrial Development Budget of a year ago? We proposed an

increase of $15 million last year. Far from matching that Budget, this

year, the Industrial Development Budget was slashed again — the only

Minister to take it in the neck. He doesn't know what he can do with

the Budget he has already. The Department of Industrial Development

will not miss that Minister. What we provided for in our Budget of a

year ago was incentives for secondary industry to be established in the

Province, because we've got to have the long-term stability of

manufacturing jobs in this Province. All these things we talk about,

these public works projects, are all short-term things, only to get us

out of the slough that we are in. But, sooner or later, these have got

to be covered by stable, long-term manufacturing jobs. That's why we

had a Budget of incentives of $15 million, why we provided for a start

on our Science City — that was in the Budget — why we provided a

departmental Budget that would have helped a confident Minister, not

the present Minister, to further the cause of industrial promotion. You

know, we've been critical of the Minister because he racked up this

record spending, travelling around. I don't begrudge it. I think that

the department would run far more smoothly if the Minister were

travelling permanently. It would be an economy to the Province.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, our Industrial Development Budget provided for

an economic council to be established, that would address itself to

future economic goals for the Province and lay down appropriate ground

rules of management and labour. I've discussed with the honourable

Members before the details of duties of such an economic council.

There's only one part of that Liberal Budget of a year ago that was

less, and that was the Budget for welfare. The money wouldn't have been

needed because there would have been jobs instead of breadlines in the

Province. I'm sorry the Minister of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation

isn't in his place. He's been the big spender this past year. But what

a failure his Provincial Alliance of Businessmen has been. All the jobs

that were promised, and the only increase that has come is on his

welfare rolls — 30,000 of them. His policy is weak and confused and the

interim financial statements that were presented show that less than a

quarter of his Budget was spent. I'm talking about less than a quarter

on the Provincial Alliance of Businessmen. When it comes to welfare, he

was already overspent before the end of December. You know, in the

middle of the year, when unemployment was soaring, the welfare rolls

were bulging and revenues to Government were down, the Premier told the

gullible press what a disaster it would have been had McGeer's Budget

proposals been followed. Let the Premier tell the people, now, now that

he stands in the economic rubble of his own bad judgements.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to move on to a happier topic. I hope that

there will be a little less scorn and skepticism from the opposite side

as we present a third Liberal Budget. Mr. Speaker, this is a Budget for

the people and not against the people. It is a second-century Budget,

because it's forward looking and not backward looking. I thought how

appropriate it was, really, on the Opening Day, that so many of the

Social Credit Members came in last century's dress.

Well, these are the main spending features of the peoples' Budget. I

know the Member from Cowichan-Malahat, as a friend of the people, will

be interested in these spending proposals. I want to add, once more,

this will be a fully balanced Budget, with revenues sufficient to cover

the proposed expenditures. No tax increases, they aren't necessary. I

notice that even pleases the Social Credit Members. As we go on, you'll

see that all of these tax increases, really, weren't necessary and that

we could have done great things in British Columbia without the

necessity of giving that dose of sulphur and treacle to the little

people of British Columbia during their birthday year.

Now, these are the main spending proposals and I am just going over

the high-lights, Mr. Speaker. First of all, for the pioneers, and I

think that we've got to recognize these important people in our

Centennial Year, I suggest free bus passes, good at all times, for all

citizens age 71 and over. Why not as a Centennial present? Secondly,

all property taxes on personal homes eliminated for persons 71 years or

older. Now, the Members look sceptical at that. But let me explain how

it can and should be done (interruption) .

Well, we could, perhaps, improve it to 65. I think that's an

interesting suggestion. I'd be happy to incorporate, if the Member

would care to join our group, and put his suggestions into a future

Budget. You know, that Member, Mr. Speaker, is very interested in

Social Credit theory and he keeps reminding me that one of my

relatives, who sat is this Chamber many years ago, had some interesting

ideas about what should be done with money during tough times. I hope

the Member is paying particularly close attention to what we could do

in British Columbia just by spending money and getting it into

circulation.

The second proposal for our pioneers — eliminate all their property

taxes, because those people, with one or two exceptions, Centennial

people, who are semiretired but still receiving an emolument from the

Legislature, although most people of that age are on fixed incomes.

What we could do, when they die, is to add their taxes as a surcharge

to succession duties. In the meantime, one could pay, from current

succession duty revenue, a grant to the city and municipality in lieu

of the taxes. This way, we would give the people their Centennial

grant. We don't give it to their heirs, because we added whatever their

taxes would have been as a simple surcharge to their succession duties.

You see, this way it would be very simple to relieve these people of

all taxes, without taking away essential revenue to Government. All you

do is just say, "We won't charge you any taxes. Whatever it is, we'll

pay the city or municipalities." Then, when the time comes to add up

the bill on the estate, just put a surcharge on succession duties. A

very easy way. Take the dollar taxes away. It's not really a home

acquisition grant, it's a home retention grant, if you want to put it

that way.

The third thing, and I know the Minister of Health Services will be

in favour of this one, and I realize there is a financial problem here,

and that's the commencement of a programme of Centennial homes to

provide chronic and

[ Page 275 ]

custodial care to the citizens no longer able to

care for themselves. The idea would be that these homes would be

operated at cost, or modestly subsidized by Provincial Government, just

the way it's done in that wonderful Social Credit Province of Alberta,

and has been done for many, many years. I think if they can do it

there, it can be done here.

My second programme for the people, Mr. Speaker, is for the poor and

the disadvantaged. I know that the Leader of the New Democratic Party

has a particularly keen interest in the poor and the disadvantaged and

we are coming to that. We have not left anybody out in this people's

Budget. First of all, Mr. Speaker, the provision of day care centres

for children of working mothers and single-parent families. I've

suggested one source that we could pump into this and that's the

Provincial Alliance of Businessmen, because there are $500,000 that are

just smouldering away. The Minister of Social Rehabilitation is just

incapable of doing anything useful with it. He's not spending it. Why

not put this into day care centres and this would really enlarge the

work force?

The second and this is a very vital one, Mr. Speaker, is to provide

a guaranteed annual income to all B.C. citizens. The New Democratic

Party and I agree on this. I want to say how it should be done, though.

This is to provide a rebate, or negative income tax, on the Provincial

portion of the Federal income tax returns. In other words, the vehicle

is already there for doing it and all that's required are a few simple

changes. No a few changes on that involved form that we get given to us

with that coloured booklet from the Minister of Finance in Ottawa.

Thirdly, for the poor and disadvantaged, and this is only a partial

programme that we would have to expand, depending on how well it

worked, and this is a grant of $25 annually to all tenants who are not

sending children to school, in lieu of the home-owner grant for school

purposes. This would be a first stage of a plan to eliminate disparity

in school levies. As the Member from Vancouver Centre knows and has

often mentioned to the House, the higher the home-owner grant goes, the

more the tenants get shafted on school taxes. People resent this

because almost half the people of the metropolitan area rent rather

than own homes. There is simply no way that we can get everyone in the

Province owning a home. Not that everyone wouldn't want to own one,

simply, that it is mechanically or engineeringly, to use a bad word,

impossible. Yet, we have this discrimination and this $25 grant would

be a first step, perhaps, a tentative first step, but it would be a

move in the direction of tax equality. But, in that rental, Mr. Member,

as you know, has to be included the taxes on the apartment or whatever

building you rent, even if you are renting a home owned by some one

else, he can't qualify for the home-owner grant and he has to include

those taxes in the rent that you pay.

Now, next in the series of proposals for the people is for the

Indians, the original citizens of this Province. We are honoured in our

Centennial Year to have an Indian sitting. I only wish he were with our

Party because we are going to put forward an exciting programme for the

Indians and I'd like to put this one up especially for that outspoken

Member. This is to have a North American Indian Festival during 1971,

with tribes from all parts of North America being invited to the

Province (interruption) . No,

I didn't, Mr. Member. But, in any event, for this great Indian

Festival, that we should hold here in 1971, I would suggest the

Government offer a prize of $100,000 to the best Indian art exhibit,

with an additional $75,000 for the best Indian art exhibit, from within

British Columbia. Now, the purpose of this isn't just to put on a

display for our Centennial Year. It is to attract attention to the

craftwork of the Indians and help them to stimulate an industry where

they would not just serve a domestic market of British Columbia, but

would serve a market all over Canada. I'm talking about a $100,000

prize for an Indian Festival.

Now, the next proposal for the original citizens is free

post-secondary education, including tuition, books and living

allowances, for all reserve Indians who can qualify at any institution

in Canada because, if we are going to help these people help

themselves, we want to give them the very best tools that we can and

that includes the finest education that the country has to offer.

Now, next, the environment. A proposal for the ecologists. Once

more, $10 million for a Department of Environmental Control. We

detailed a year ago what we would do with this Budget, how we wanted a

Cabinet hawk, to control environment, instead of all those Cabinet

chickens, who make up the present Land Use Committee. We decided that

one way would be to use part of this money to commence construction on

a Centennial thermo-electric generating unit, to be located near

Victoria where there is a power shortage but, perhaps, we could add a

small addition to the Burrard thermal unit. It would be fueled from the

wood waste from the beaches, harbours, coves and rivers of the lower

mainland and Georgia Strait, and it would operate on a combination of

wood waste and natural gas. It would be a start on a Centennial

clean-up.

You know I used to… (interruption) .

Yes, that was provided for and I don't want to go into all the details

of our Department of our Environmental Control. We will be getting to

that probably during discussion of the estimates.

I used to, Mr. Speaker, own a summer place on Bowen Island and we

sold that property, not because of the air pollution of two pulp mills

in Howe Sound, but because the beaches were virtually unusable, due to

the clogging and contamination of wood waste which abounds in all our

lower mainland waters. There is a hazard, in addition to virtual

destruction of the beaches, for any small boatman who goes out. He

never knows when he is going to hit a deadhead and wind up in the

bottom of the Straits, a permanent addition to our underwater park. We

have had many people drown as a result of deadhead accidents.

Lastly, and this is the last of the main spending features of this

Liberal Budget, and this one is to create jobs. We are not satisfied

just with the incentives of higher spending in so many of these key

departments. The first would be to remove the 5 per cent sales tax on

all building materials used in construction during the six winter

months. Again and again, we have heard the Premier and Finance Minister

call for the removal of this tax at the Federal level. He suggests it

be done to stimulate construction, and I say he's right. But he has

within his power and so do you, to remove this 5 per cent Provincial

tax which is levied on top of that 11 per cent tax and so stimulate

construction right in the Province, at a time when the construction

industry is flat on its back. The idea in taking it away during the six

winter months is to stimulate construction during the time when

normally it tags. It is not enough to leave an open-ended tax

incentive. If you put time limits on it, you force people to make

decisions to go ahead, or do without that tax concession. This is the

kind of thing that would start movement of the private sector during

the slack months (interruption) . No, I'm just following through on the Premier's idea, but he doesn't have the

[ Page 276 ]

courage to do it himself. He just demands that others do it for him (interruption) .

Well, I say he's the one who moans to Ottawa about the 11 per cent tax.

Why doesn't he take it off, here? Well, he doesn't have the courage of

his convictions. His conviction is that the tax should be removed.

We'll wait and see.

Do you know what the Premier was doing at my age, Mr. Speaker? He

was a Member of the House, a backbencher, as the Member from Kootenay

well knows, supporting a Government he called, then, the greatest

Government British Columbia had ever had. Then, shortly after that, Mr.

Speaker, he deserted that Government. Do you know why? Because he

couldn't sit with any Government that was cruel enough to bring in a 3

per cent sales tax. That's why he crossed the Floor, plunging a knife

into that Government. If they had made him a Cabinet Minister or Leader

of the Conservative Party, when he tried for that, and failed, any of

those things…But what happened, as the Member from Kootenay well

knows. What was the first thing he did when he got to power, through

the back door, preferential ballot? What was the first thing he did?

Why, he raised the sales tax from 3 per cent to 5 per cent. There's

consistency for you. But, I'll tell you this, Madam Minister without

Portfolio, you are going to find consistency in this Party right down

the line.

Now the second of our policies for providing jobs is a provision of

a Centennial fund of $50 million for municipal projects all over the

Province. This is so that every community in B.C. can have a

celebration worthy of the name and get on with important projects in

their own local area, that have been long delayed.

Then, lastly, is an Industrial Development Budget of $20 million,

Mr. Minister of Industrial Development. His brow furrows in wonder. The

figures make his head spin. He's literally staggered at the thought of

an industrial development programme. I understand that. It's more

complicated than being the Premier's partner in a bridge game. But we

wouldn't have you as a Minister in our Government, so you can breathe a

sigh of relief. What this Budget is for is a construction of a Science

City, the provision of incentives for new secondary industry in all

areas of the Province, and I can't emphasize too strongly, Mr. Speaker,

how important it is when other Provinces in Canada are offering these

industrial incentives, how important it is for us to match them or do

better. Because if we fail to do that, can you blame these industries

for establishing their future plants in Ontario or some other Province

that offers the incentives that we are not prepared to equal? Those are

the highlights and I'd like to move, Mr. Speaker, to a transportation

policy for the second century (interruption) .

Give me time. It's early in the Session and you know how the Speaker

feels about giving notice of motion. You know, this motion that we are

debating is that the Speaker do now leave the Chair. I've never made

that motion that he leave the Chair. It has always been your side.

We've always voted that he stay in the Chair but, after Friday, I'm in

a bit of dilemma. I'm going to have to hold my feelings back a little,

I think, when the time for the vote comes.

As the urban Members from the other side, and if the Member from

Skeena will excuse me for a few minutes while I talk about urban

problems, I do want to say this. That, really, one of the greatest

tests of Government competency in this modern age is developing

adequate transportation systems. I don't want to take a thing away from

the Social Credit Government during the years of its prime — that was a

long time ago, but we should remember because, during the time when

what was needed in British Columbia was a transportation policy of

moving people quickly and easily from the far-flung communities of the

Province — that was one that Social Credit understood.

The great highway systems were built, some say designed by a former

Coalition Government, but I wouldn't be able to testify to that. I can

only say that these great highway systems, which abandoned the old

principle that linked up communities, and moved traffic across the

Province, the ferry policies that linked the mainland with Vancouver

Island, these were great policies. We use the past tense because the

programme petered out and, really, what we're into now is just kind of

a mopping-up operation. We're just getting the very last bits finished,

like Highway 16. Some areas, you know, such as the Pemberton-Lillooet Road, they haven't got to that yet, but we are gradually mopping up with dibs and dabs the last of that policy.

There is a place, Mr. Speaker, where the Social Credit

transportation policy has come unstuck. That's when this kind of

baffled, rural Government had to deal with the modern transportation

problems of urban communities. These are the ones that have to be dealt

with if we are not going to have the rancid odour of stagnation over

our great metropolitan areas. The transportation policy for our urban

areas should hinge on three great developments. One, the completion of

an adequate crossing to the North Shore. Two, the commencement of a

rapid transit system and, three, the installation of a one-hour ferry

crossing to Vancouver Island.

Now, so far, there has been a negative response to the third

crossing plan from many quarters. The Mayor and City Council of

Vancouver deserve the dressing down of their lives for their negative

do-nothing attitude towards commencing this vitally important project

for downtown Vancouver. Our Provincial Government became a dropout in

this whole thing sometime ago, but I've got a proposal to drop the

Provincial Government in again.

Before coming to that, I want to say that this third crossing would

have already been completed had the Premier not greedily gobbled up the

Lions Gate Bridge in order to subsidize the money-losing bridges in

Kelowna, Nelson and Agassiz. When it became politically expedient to

remove the tolls on those rural bridges, the obvious source of funds

for this new crossing was cut off. I'll say this — the tolls were taken

off — the Agassiz-Rosedale Bridge hardly collected enough tolls to pay

the wages of the toll-taker. I'll say this, that Mayor Rathie, who was

far more imaginative than our present incumbent, warned the Provincial

Government of the dangers of removing the tolls on the Lions Gate

Bridge and said it would stall completion of a new crossing. That has

happened. It held us back for a decade, but this is all past history.

The problem today is that populations are expanding ominously and so

much buck-passing is going on between the responsible officials of the

various levels of Government, that the problem isn't being met. I want

to use some of the Premier's own words. They have usually been applied

to projects that are more to his liking. What he said is, "They will

never be cheaper than today." This applies to that third crossing. I

just want to apply this particular one because the Federal Government

has been persuaded to take on the bulk of the financing.

We desperately need jobs. The crossing is desperately needed. It's

going to be more desperately needed by the time it's completed. So

let's get on with the job without delay. We've been invited to express

opinions on whether we would

[ Page 277 ]

prefer a bridge or a tunnel. I want to express

mine, and I know I am going counter to the generally accepted choice. I

say that we should build a bridge rather than a tunnel. It's a personal

opinion. I said I knew it was going counter to opinion. Let me explain

why. I know your opinion is that we shouldn't built it at all. Right?

Well, the Members from Vancouver Centre want to build it, so we are

together, anyway, on that. The NDP don't want to build it. "Why build

it?" say the NDP. Well, we know where we stand. But the idea of a

bridge, as the Minister of Public Works knows, is to display a

structure. It's audacious. You put it out there in front where you can

see it. The idea of a tunnel is that you hide something. You pretend it

isn't there. A tunnel is a policy of concealment. A bridge is a policy

of display. You know, I think industrial sloppiness has really

destroyed our conviction that the works of man can be beautiful and

attractive. We have had so much, and, perhaps, all the dams that have

been created around British Columbia with the debris behind them and

the pulp mills and so on, have made us doubly sensitive in British

Columbia. Still, in all, there are works of man that are beautiful and

attractive. The soaring bridges that span some of the world's greatest

harbours are architectural masterpieces. They stand the test of time,

as do the great works of the master painters and the master sculptors.

The model of the proposed new bridge, to me, is breathtaking. I'd like

to see that bridge as a stunning new centre piece to our harbour.

"Never cheaper than today," my friend in the NDP. The problem of the

NDP is that it has this preoccupation with welfare and not with

projects. I'm going to come to how we finance it, because it is very

simple. When we get to financial things, the Member even puts the

hearing-aid on, so we are going to come to that. It really isn't

difficult.

I want to give a contrast, Mr. Speaker, between bridges and tunnels.

I don't know how many of you have visited New York. There are two

absolutely breathtaking bridges that span the mouth of the Hudson

River. One is the George Washington Bridge at one end of Manhattan, and

the other is the Verrazano Narrows Bridge that runs at the other and

actually goes across to Brooklyn. These two bridges are breathtaking

architectural pieces. In between, we have the Holland Tunnel and the

Lincoln Tunnel (interruption) .

We are not talking about the Brooklyn Bridge. The Verrazano Bridge is

one of the largest bridges in the world. If any of you have not driven

across that bridge, it's worth the toll, if you are ever in that area.

The view is breathtaking. That bridge doesn't detract from the

magnificence of the Manhattan skyline, it adds to it. It's a backdrop,

the work of man enhancing the backdrop of nature. The Golden Gate

Bridge, I think is, another. Although I've never seen it, the Sydney

Harbour Bridge is supposed to be another. Who would say, today, that

the Lions Gate Bridge detracted from the beauty of the harbour or the

beauty of Stanley Park?

I can remember, as a little boy, when that bridge was first being

put up, the vigorous opposition to it and I remember how my own uncle,

who was then Mayor of Vancouver, was castigated for his support of this

project. People said it was foolish, it would ruin the harbour, it

would be ugly, all those things were said about that bridge. Yet, it's

one of the architectural showpieces of British Columbia (interruption) .

Oh, that's dreadful, abysmally ugly. I quite agree. I think that these

monstrosities have taken away our courage to create great architectural

structures. But this new bridge, and I've seen the plans and models, to

me, it's exciting, and I'd like to see it displayed (interruption) .

Let me tell you why. The Member from Burnaby-Edmonds hasn't read the

report. I'm going to lend him a copy afterwards with the suggestion

that, having studied it, he make a presentation to the NDP Caucus. If

he can't do that, I'd be happy to come down and do it for you, so that

you would see that this is a necessity. Not just a toy. I'll say this,

that not only will that bridge be beautiful, but the distributor that

comes across and hugs the escarpment of the Vancouver skyline is going

to provide a platform for that dismal cliff that sits above our seedy

waterfront. At least, it will add a little bit of class to that dead

north end of the city.

Now for the NDP. What's the benefit to the city of Vancouver, or is

that of any consequence at all? The consultants and the planners

pointed out, in exhaustive detail, what the population growth would be,

how the choking of the downtown streets was already due to the lack of

a proper crossing and distributor system, that this would remove

something like 70,000 cars a day from the downtown streets and would

provide immediate release. I want to say that the Provincial

Government, with its project of widening the Upper Levels Highway, with

the new park at Cypress Bowl, with the expansion to the ferry service,

with the new highway up to Lillooet through Pemberton, we hope, all

these things are going to put added pressure, too, on the crowded

downtown area of Vancouver.

Mr. Speaker, for the Members from Vancouver Centre, the downtown

area has become the neck of a bottle and, as that bottle grows and the

neck remains the same size, the pressure is going to become unbearable.

To the west, water, to the north, inadequate crossings. All we have is,

to the south and to the east, uncontrolled sprawl. If we are to

preserve the agricultural zoning, which the Member from Delta advocated

that we do, we have to have some place to take people other than into

the urban sprawl in the Delta area. You can't use those North Shore

slopes, you know, for agricultural land (interruption) .

That was in our programme, too. All right, what I say is this, that

without any further delay, the city of Vancouver, the Mayor and the

City Council, should commit their $12 million share for the first stage

approaches. To do anything else would amount to gross irresponsibility

on the part of Mayor Campbell and the City Council. Those are my words

to the city of Vancouver. Twelve million dollars is a bargain to unclog

the city streets and we've got to have a city council that will wake up

and realize that.

The Provincial Government, Mr. Speaker, the consultants' report

calls for Provincial share of $40.7 million. The Act of the Provincial

Government provided $27 million, but, what I suggest to provide that

money is to do with that bridge fund the same as was done with the

Columbia River Treaty money, namely, the advance payment collects

compound interest. The Columbia River Bridges could have never been

built had that $273 million not been invested at compound interest.

Honourable Members, who were here at the time, will recall that a car

stood by so that when that cheque passed hands it would be sped to the

bank within the hour so the interest could be collected. Now, all we

suggest is that the same rules apply to this $27 million that were

invested for a third crossing of Burrard Inlet. What's sauce for the

goose, should be sauce for the gander and, if 8 per cent interest was

paid and compounded on that money, the following

schedule of funds

would apply; 1969, 29.2 million; 1970, 31.5 million; 1971, 34 million;

1972, 36.8 million; 1973, and this is the year when the funds would be

required, 40 million. In 1974, 43 million. I'm only taking the rate

that you invest for

[ Page 278 ]

Canada Pension Plan money. I think that's fair. It

is the lowest interest rate but, still, in all, it's the market. All

this says is that the Provincial Government's $27 million should have

been protected against the inflation that's taking place, with the huge

wage increases that the Minister of Labour has helped negotiate, that

we should protect against the erosion of that dollar value. After all,

that was the principle behind the Columbia River Treaty and those dams

couldn't have been built if that advance payment from the U.S. had been

$273 million and no interest. So this third crossing can't be built

unless this advance payment of $27 million carries the interest it

appropriately should (interruption) .

Their $1.2 million, they haven't put it up. They are carrying the whole

financing. What more do you want? I say this, Mr. Speaker, if we delay,

through ineptitude on the part of either the Provincial Government or

any of those municipal governments, we face two things. First of all,

much higher construction costs at some future time and, secondly, the

ugly possibility that the Federal Government will lose its interest and

wash its hands of the whole project. I just say, Mr. Speaker, we should

strike while the iron is hot. And that requires… (interruption) .

If you had been listening, Mrs. Minister without Portfolio, you would

have heard a description of how the Provincial Government funds

requested, $42 million in the consultants' report, could easily be

provided by the $27 million if the simple and obvious thing were done,

namely, to supply compound interest from that original investment (interruption) .

Well, that is what the report said. I'm not trying to invent a new

finance formula. All I'm saying is that if everybody gets off their

behinds and carries out their share of the job we can let this contract

next month. Look, the plans are ready. Jobs are needed. You'll never

get a better price than now, if you try to get a contract with the

present conditions in the construction industry. Wake up, political

leaders in British Columbia, get a job done. I say that to you because

you have a responsibility, just like the city of Vancouver and the

North Shore municipality have.

I want to say something about the next step. And that is the transit

system, because here the demands are a little more leisurely. If you

look at the consultants' report, which came out this past year, you

will see that the cash draw-down is considerably less and, by the time

the bridge is completed, providing it goes ahead now, the emphasis

could be shifted for the following ten years on to development of rapid

transit facilities. The report made it clear that, in the early stages,

what should be done is merely to acquire property. The building of the

rapid transit system in downtown Vancouver could be nicely phased with

the approach system of the First Narrows crossing, because that

approach system requires a tunnel underneath Thurlow Street and, by the

time that was completed, we could then shift the tunnel work to

commencement on the subway system for rapid transit. Then the

north-south corridor of this rapid transit system, which will go to

Richmond, Delta and Sea Island along the current B.C. Hydro track, can

go to the airport to connect up with the new one-hour ferry crossing

from Iona Island, just beyond the airport, to Gabriola Island.

You see, we don't really have three separate projects. We have a

continuing phase of one transportation policy and, by getting on with

this total job, one can phase the construction beautifully to even out

the number of people who will be employed and the cash draw-down that

will be required by Government. I only say that a Liberal Government

would immediately embark on this second-century transportation

programme. The tenders would be called by spring and, again, one could

expect a very favourable contract for construction work at the present

time. But, best of all, we could provide a steady and phased

development of employment to give rather steady jobs in a notoriously

cyclical industry.

I'd like to carry this forward to Vancouver Island because people in

the Victoria metropolitan area might think all of this is something

apart from their immediate interests. This isn't so because the

Victoria area should be tied in with this, too. I recently made in

Vancouver a speech concerning rapid transit and my subject was "How

Rapid Transit Would Affect the Lower Mainland." I talked about the

terminals at Horseshoe Bay and Departure Bay and the need to shift them

to Iona Island.

Let's start on Vancouver Island with where that new ferry terminal,

the one-hour crossing with reduced rates would leave off. Now, first of

all, to complete the link to the mainland, you'd have to build a bridge

from Gabriola to Vancouver Island proper, which would carry a motor

expressway and a rapid transit line for both passengers and

containerized light freight. That would run just a short distance to

reach a transit interchange. This would be the master transportation

complex serving as a core for all the Island's transportation needs. It

would be located near Nanaimo, probably in the Cedar or Cassidy areas.

It would consist of a bus terminal, a rail terminal, freight

distribution centre, and an airport. The airport should be planned and

be capable of expansion into a major air terminal at some future date.

From that master interchange would run a thoroughly revamped rail

network for both passengers and freight, providing rapid service to all

major Island communities on a frequent service basis. That would take

us down past Duncan, with a stop and, then, from there on to Victoria.

I want to say, for the Member from Cowichan-Malahat, that this would

put the Vancouver Island transportation network on a solid footing. The

Island communities would be brought closer together, in a time sense,

if not a political sense. Time, not distance, is the over-riding

determinant of economic patterns in this new jet age. The key to it all

is the recovery of the use of the E & N right-of-way, either

outright or under a use agreement. E & N years ago ceased to

deserve the vast lands on the Island, which they were given in exchange

for providing rail passenger service on the Island. The Canadian

Pacific Railway pioneered its passenger service with trenchment

procedures on Vancouver Island almost 25 years ago. It is what we are

seeing, Nationally, today and the CPR has been in reverse on Vancouver

Island ever since. The equipment became old and the service was bad

and, as a consequence, the passenger use declined. As passengers stayed

away, service was reduced leaving still less reason for the public to

travel by rail. Today, the E & N stands as a modern mobile monument

to negative salesmanship and narrow-gauge thinking — "Toonerville"

trolley in the jet age.

The facts of Island transportation are such that either a freeway

must be built from Victoria to Courtenay or alternative needs found to

move people and goods. I favour the alternative reason (interruption) .

Because your highway isn't finished. You have to deliver on your

promises first. An I can say is that that Member, if he ever gets more

authority than he has today, with all his broken promises for highways

and everything else, is going to be the death of the Party.

If we recapture the use of the E & N right-of-way and build an

integrated transportation system to serve the needs of the present and

future, the charm of Vancouver Island can

[ Page 279 ]

be maintained and there will be room left and

opportunity to use motor-vehicles in the noncongested areas. There is,

certainly, noncongestion of automobile traffic in the riding of the

Minister of Municipal Affairs.

We can evolve a high-speed rail service connecting all

transportation facilities on the Island, with only a few extensions

required. The first one, of course, is to Gabriola Island, the second

into the harbour and downtown area of Victoria. Ironically, this is

where the E & N terminal used to be. The third would be to Pat Bay

and Swartz Bay. Now, what you would have on Vancouver Island is a

single system connecting bus, rail, air and ferry terminal, speeding up

the movement of people, and making more readily accessible to them the

transportation facilities of the world. It would bring to an end the

ridiculous situation of inconveniencing Islanders, something that has

become an increasing irritant for them in the recent years. You know,

Mr. Member from Cowichan-Malahat, it's almost as fast to go from

Vancouver to Toronto, as from Vancouver to Duncan but, if we were to

equalize the time, I'm certain that Vancouverites would prefer to go to

Duncan.

To make this all happen, with this second-century transportation

policy, we are going to have to recover the E & N right-of-way. I

think a use agreement might be reached but I would be prepared to

recommend expropriation, if necessary. Under expropriation laws, we

won't trample on any little people. The reason I would be willing to go

to that length is quite simple. I don't agree with unending subsidies

to private companies. If the E & N system couldn't be operated

profitably by the CPR for the past two decades, they aren't suddenly

going to operate it at a profit. I think we have had ample evidence of

the attitude of the CPR at those transportation hearings last fall.

What we'd be doing is relieving them of a losing proposition and I'm

sure they would welcome that step. We must face the fact that, while

the evolution of an integrated and rationalized transportation complex

serving the Island and lower mainland has to be a matter of high

priority, we can't kid ourselves that the system is going to pay for

itself at the start. It won't. But we've got to be prepared to

subsidize the system. After all, Mr. Speaker, we subsidize the PGE, we

subsidize the CPR, we subsidize the CNR and we subsidized the B.C.

Hydro system. Well, if we subsidize the transport of coal, if we

subsidize the transport of cattle and lumber on the PGE, and we do, I

think we ought to be able to manage equal treatment for people. If we