1974 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 1974

Morning Sitting

[ Page

239 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Budget debate (continued)

Mr. G.H. Anderson–– 239

Mr. Morrison –– 243

Division on motion to adjourn debate –– 247

Mr. Morrison –– 247

Ms. Brown –– 251

Mr. Lewis –– 256

Privilege

Amendments to budget. Mr. Bennett –– 259

Hon. Mr. Strachan –– 259

Mr. Speaker's ruling –– 260

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

ON THE BUDGET

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): Mr. Speaker, it is certainly a

privilege to stand and represent that great riding of Kamloops — the

big sunshine sky country — in this House.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Yay! R-r-r-right on!

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: And I was wondering if I'd be able to,

because I was watching television a week ago Tuesday after the abrupt

end of the throne speech debate, and I heard the leader of the official

opposition (Mr. Bennett) say that that was it for the backbenchers.

They wouldn't have a chance to speak now for the rest of the session.

But it looks as though his information, as usual, was not quite correct.

I've had the impression, Mr. Speaker, as a new Member since this

session started that someone must have been reading Lewis Carroll's

books. Because I get the feeling that instead of coming through the

door I've come through the looking glass. This is quite often supported

when we have our own Queen of Hearts from North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan)

get to her feet periodically and yell, "Cut off their heads! Cut off

their heads!" I'm expecting any time to enter this chamber and find a

tea party going on in that corner.

I'm impressed with the fact of the opposition having so very little

to criticize both on the budget speech and on the throne speech. I've

watched, as I waited for my turn at the microphone, which I didn't

think I was going to get, and I see the opposition Members with very

sharp pencils leaping through the budget, red-lining and penciling and

desperately trying to find something to criticize the government on

that has some meaning to it.

The result has been, of course, that most of the criticisms have

been facetious, frivolous and frantic. You have a government that can

compare its performance after 18 months of office with the pledges it

made before coming into office, and I feel that there hasn't been one

for many, many years in the province with the record of the New

Democratic government.

One of the things that I appreciate in the budget is the beginning of the removal

of school tax from homeowners' property.

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Double the homeowners' grant.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: This has been one of our pledges for years

and years and years, as elections came up. We're in a position to put

it into effect now and the criticism is, of course, that it doesn't go

far enough. Well, that's a natural opposition statement. Nothing ever

goes far enough. But we said that we would progressively remove school

taxes over a five-year period and we have taken the first step in that

direction. I am very satisfied to see that come about.

One of the things that I have observed for the last 18 months is how

there is a little bit of order overcoming the disorder that has been

prevalent in various government departments. The one in particular that

I would like to mention is the Human Resources department.

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): What about the Education department?

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: The idea of a human resources council in

Kamloops that is on the scene, and that knows the various organizations

that apply for funds and that will approve all applications for funds

before they come into the buildings in Victoria and to the Minister

(Hon. Mr. Levi) is another step forward. This is the best example of

local input that I can think of. We had situations in the past where

organizations would apply to three different government departments for

grants. In some cases I hear that the grants would be received from two

but not from the third. But none of the three departments knew that an

application had been made to any other department. This human resources

council is going to take care of that.

When the provincial government took over the Human Resources

department from the municipalities, it was of great benefit to the

riding I represent. At one time there were two offices, one for the

city — but with the city growing so fast they extended the boundaries

out into the unorganized territories — and one for the rural areas.

You would have the picture of some unfortunate person who had to

apply for welfare making a 40- or 175- or 100-mile trip into Kamloops

to make the application, and being told that they were at the wrong

office. Well, they only had three miles to go over to the other side of

the river to apply to the other office, only to be told on finding

exactly where they lived, in looking at the line that was drawn on the

map, that they were at the wrong office there, and had to go back to

the other one. Now we have one office in one location, and this is

certainly a thing

[ Page 240 ]

that is going to be appreciated by the people who have to use this service.

The Pharmacare programme was introduced by the Minister (Hon. Mr.

Levi), I've had many phone calls and letters in appreciation of this

effort. I'm sure all Members of the House support free medicine and

drugs for people over 65 years old.

However, like anything else, Mr. Minister, it can be improved. When

these people were paying for their own drugs they were able to order

them by mail — a matter of 70- or 75- or 100-miles away. And the

problem they are running into now is that they have to present their

Pharmacare card before they can receive the medicine they require. I

would ask the Minister with his staff to try and arrange some kind of a

system so that elderly or ill people can leave their card on file with

the druggist and order the prescriptions by mail as they did before. It

is a hardship in many cases for some of these people in the outlying

areas.

We've heard many criticisms of municipal aid; there was not enough

help for the municipalities. And I agree that if you take each item

separately of the aid to the municipalities, it doesn't amount to an

awful lot. But with the removal of the cost of the courts from the

city, a per capita increase of $2 which is added to the $2 increase

last spring, the 5 per cent drop in the share of welfare that the

cities have to put up — I'm certainly not an expert on civic affairs or

taxes, but it would seem to me on a rough calculation in the Kamloops

area that this is going to amount to about one or two mills, which in a

15 mill tax basis is going to be quite significant. The interesting

thing will be to see if the municipalities pass on this saving to the

residents of their areas.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver-Point Grey): That sounds like vintage Bennett!

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Check your taxes.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: On the municipal question, Mr. Speaker,

everyone knows of course about the unification of Kamloops last year.

I'm glad to see the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) is

in the House, because there are problems in that area, Mr. Minister,

that I'm sure are not being brought to your attention forcefully enough.

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Some of the municipalities were never so well off.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: One of the areas that came into the new

City of Kamloops was an area called Westside. I moved to Kamloops in

1956; the growth was slow till about 1962, but then it has grown at a

faster and faster rate until we're looking at a population of about

60,000 people. The Westside area is in the area of 8,000 people.

There are two subdivisions out there that have flooded two years in

a row from melting snow coming down off the hillside. People are

looking at cracked foundations. People are looking at damaged

electrical circuits. They're looking at refurbishing to do in their

basements for two years in a row.

Now I know that the government cannot be responsible all the time

for people who build houses in a creek bed or a river bed. I would feel

also that that is their responsibility. But in this case it is a

natural run-off from a gully on a hill that the developer filled in

that has caused the flooding in the area, plus the fact that there

aren't sufficient culverts underneath the highway to carry the water

away.

The new City of Kamloops is not in a financial position to put in a

storm-drain system or a drain-off system that this area requires. These

people didn't build their houses; the developer built them. The

development was approved by the Highways department. The permits were

issued by the provincial building inspector, and the people that are in

those homes now bought them not knowing what the future held. We are

looking at a relatively small amount of money for the provincial

government, but a large amount of money for the city faced with all the

problems that it has on its new and enlarged basis.

The Highways department has agreed that they will look after the

drainage under the highway and down to the river. The problem is in the

subdivisions themselves, and they are quite small subdivisions. I don't

believe it would affect the budget that much if the provincial

government were to assist, and at this time I am urging very strongly

that the provincial government assist in this matter in these two

particular areas.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Get the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) before he buys all those Datsuns.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: I enjoyed particularly the speech given by

the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A.

Williams). And I enjoyed particularly this reference to the old tenures

in the province. We have a unique situation, Mr. Speaker, that I

mentioned last spring that in the north river area, extending about 150

miles north of Kamloops on No. 5 Highway, because of the moving in of a

large pulp and timber company, smaller sawmills have shut down and the

area is in a bad financial situation.

One of the biggest tenures in the province is located in Blue River.

It was taken out about 1908, and has been held in almost a fee simple

basis ever since. There hasn't been any logging done; there was a

little high-grading after the way. But people are

[ Page 241 ]

sitting in a depressed area with a timber base,

looking at 21 timber claims comprising an area of 30 miles by 20 miles,

that is not being used and could be used to supply employment in that

area.

It has always been a question of which should come first, the

population or the services. But this area of Blue River is looking at a

situation where they have no doctor, no ambulance, no high school, no

liquor store, and a 150-mile trip every day for the high school

students to go to Clearwater on the bus. Fortunately, they are probably

having time on the bus to do homework or something of that sort,

because they're doing very well in their studies in school. But a

150-mile round trip in the bus is bad for any students to have to go

through at any time.

I realize that there isn't enough population of high school students

there to have a complete high school, but there are two empty

classrooms in the present junior high, and perhaps the teachers could

come on a semester system to Blue River instead of the busload of

students going down to Clearwater. Or perhaps if we can get those 21

claims in the Blue River area loose, I am sure that we can get industry

to go in there, employ enough people, and the population would then

warrant the amenities everyone should have in these days.

We have seen many problems, with the agricultural committee when we

travelled, of the conflict between grazing interests and forest

interests. We were taken to see a particularly good area of range

management in the Sullivan Valley near Kamloops, and we were also taken

in the early spring to see an entire clear-cut that has been reseeded

to grass and trees on a seven- to nine-foot span.

It was an experimental plot. It was felt that this would be an

attempt to see if grazing cattle would damage the young seedlings. I'm

happy to report to the House that I saw that area this fall. It had

been cross-fenced in two areas. The cattle had been moved when the

grazing was down far enough that they felt they would endanger the

seedlings, and a relatively few seedlings were stepped on. They were

not browsed in any way.

Yet I believe at the present time there has been some kind of stop

order come out that these clear-cuts cannot be seeded to grass. In my

estimation this is something that has to be done. We have to have more

forage. We have to have more protein and one of the best ways we can

have it is by seeding grass to a clear-cut area. The cattle can graze

until the trees get to the point where there won't be enough light to

support the grass, but by that time there'll be other clear-cuts that

can be seeded, and the production of beef and badly needed protein can

be increased.

I'm still not clear, Mr. Speaker, on the diking situation. I saw

that the Hon. Member for Dewdney (Mr. Rolston) was very happy with the

programme announced for diking. But we're looking at a very bad

situation in the Clearwater and Birch Island area where no one can

build below the 200-year flood plain, unless they build their lot up 10

feet in the air and perch the house on top of it. There is nothing

being done at the present time to dike the area so that it can be used.

If a person has a fire and is burned out, he cannot rebuild without

bringing in earth to build up the lot 8 or 10 feet in the air. This

would not require the type of diking that is on the lower mainland. I'm

hoping that in future discussions with the government we can find some

way that at least these two areas can be diked and can be used again by

the citizens and property owners of the area.

I know that as the Member for Kamloops I'm supposed to have the

greatest highway grid in the whole province within that riding. But it

just is not so. Our primary highways, I would say, are not too bad —

No. 1 Highway and No. 5 Highway.

When the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat (Hon. Mr. Strachan) was

Minister of Highways, I mentioned to him the secondary roads in the

area, and now I would like to convey the same information to our new

Minister of Highways. There is $32 million more in the budget for

highways. It isn't going to take but a small fraction of that. We're

looking at 18 miles of road from Lewis Creek to Admas Lake, and I hope

you'll note these, Mr. Minister. We're looking at about 40 miles of

road on the east side of the highway and the river for about 40 miles

from Barriere to Clearwater.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): That's $31.5 million right there.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: And the Wells Gray Park Road. These are

all gravel roads. They are all secondary roads, and there is no one in

the area that wants or needs a super highway built out of them. But the

logging activity has been increased over the years in these areas, and

it is impossible, particularly on the curves, to keep gravel on the

roads. The gravel trucks throw it off into the bush and the residents

of the area and the school buses have got to travel over a road with

large rocks sticking through and many potholes. Frankly, it's an

impossibility for your department to maintain in proper condition with

the increased traffic that's on them.

We're talking about 125 miles of road with a small amount of

upgrading, a little cutting away with a bulldozer at some of the bends

to straighten them out a bit, and a layer of cold mix on top. With $32

million, I think that 120 miles of a little bit of upgrading and a

covering of cold mix that would be of such benefit to the area should

be fitted into that budget.

The Wells Gray Park Road for 16 miles has quite a population on the way into the park. I've been over it

[ Page 242 ]

many times. It's in terrible condition. The school

district bought a brand new bus and put it on there in September to

bring the students into Clearwater to school, and before Christmas

arrived that bus was in the shop to have the frame fishplated and the

cracks welded in it, because of the condition of the road. The

warranty, of course, would cover a problem with the motor, but the

warranty would not cover the damage to the frame of the vehicle.

We are moving a little bit in Kamloops on the hospitals, I'm glad to

say, since I stood last year in the same debate. As I said, before our

election we were trying for five or six years to get an addition to the

Royal Inland Hospital, and I'm pleased to report that tenders have now

been called for another floor on the hospital which will bring it to

its maximum capacity of 475 beds, which most people agree is the size

for that area. It is a reference hospital with patients being referred

for a long distance around Kamloops. We have a good array of

specialists there now in the various fields of medicine.

So now we have to move to an extended- or secondary-care hospital.

We only have one — privately-owned Mount Paul Hospital — and in many

cases when an elderly person has to go there, there is no room and he

has to go to Vernon, or Kelowna, or the Cariboo, or the lower mainland,

with the resulting splitting up of people who have lived together for

many years, because in many cases the partner cannot afford to go.

There has also been movement on that. I believe it was a 12-acre

site that was purchased a month ago, and the approval, I understand,

was given by the B.C. Hospital Insurance for a 12- to 14-acre site for

the building of an extended-care hospital in the Kamloops area.

You notice, Mr. Speaker, that I address myself to various Ministers

when I talk about the problems in my area. One of the things that

raised a lot of criticism before with the previous government was that

it was a one-man show. Unless you could get the approval of the former

Premier nothing could be done, and he just didn't take assistance from

his other Ministers. Well, after listening to the criticism in this

House over the last few days, Mr. Speaker, I can understand why he

couldn't accept advice from that group. He would have to take it on his

own. So I have altered my opinion a little and decided that it was

something that had to be due to the circumstances that he was in.

The Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) talked at length about

the plans for Prince Rupert — those great and glorious plans for Prince

Rupert. Well, Mr. Speaker, I've lived in the Prince Rupert area for a

while and many of my family live in that area, but if you talk to any

of the old-time residents of Prince Rupert you'll find that they've

been living on promises for at least 40 years. This is the history of

the area.

I wonder of any of the Members here remember when the Hon. Member

for Prince Rupert was a man named Pattullo. He used to come to Prince

Rupert about every four years, just before the election. Here was a

community that was connected to the Interior by rail but no highway,

and the only way that you could get out of there was by boat or train.

It was all of 90 miles to Terrace, but it was the longest 90 miles, I

suppose, in Canada, from the way the money was being spent to build

that road. Mr. Pattullo used to come up and promise that there was

going to be a tremendous amount of work done on that road if we just

sent him down to Victoria.

Well, of course, this was done a few times and the result was that

about 40 men got work to build about a half-a-mile of road with picks

and shovels and dynamite, and that happened every four years. At a

half-a-mile every four years it is no wonder that we had to have a war

with Japan and the Americans come in and build that road from Terrace

to Kamloops, because it didn't look as though it was going to be done

by any government in Canada.

We've heard some pretty strong criticisms of the auto insurance. I

can say to you, Mr. Speaker, that certainly there are bugs in the plan.

You cannot set up an insurance company of that size and train your

computer programmers and train your keypunch operators and have

everything come out as smooth as silk as though it had been operating

for 50 years. These few little kinks will be taken out. There's no

doubt about that.

I suppose I shouldn't mention my own insurance because then they

would say oh, well, yes, he's got a special deal arranged somewhere.

But I did buy it from a private agent and it came right off the books.

Last year, Mr. Speaker, I was faced with $254 for two vehicles with

Allstate Insurance, $23 for one licence, $25 for another, for a total

of $302 with a teenaged driver. This year I am looking at $94 for the

car, $73 for the van, $10 for my driving insurance — $177 for a saving

of $125. And I still have a teenaged driver.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Just pull!

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: I deliberately bought this from a private

agent, Mr. Speaker, to make sure that no one could say that there must

be a special rate for MLAs down at the Motor Vehicle Branch.

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: I've had a few complaints come into my

office in Kamloops. I was on an open-line show this morning for an hour

in Kamloops by telephone, and there were some complaints about the auto

insurance but there also were many, many

[ Page 243 ]

compliments. From my own experience I cannot agree

with the Hon. Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis) that 60

per cent are facing higher charges. I think you are looking at more

like 15 to 20 per cent, and they have been promised rebates so that

they do not pay more.

Before the session started, Mr. Speaker, I had a truck driver who

owns a tractor and trailer and does contract work, and he also moves

mobile homes with the tractor when there isn't the other kind of work.

He made a special trip, took some time out of his day to come up to the

office and tell me that he was looking at $470 instead of $1,100 that

he paid last year.

MR. McCLELLAND: No way!

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: No way? He would make a trip to the office

just to tell me a lie? Impossible. I don't understand the reasoning. It

sounds like some of the criticism we've heard in the House up to now.

MR. McCLELLAND: Bring it here and show it to us!

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: I'm very pleased, Mr. Speaker, to see the

advances in the housing field, and I certainly appreciated the speech

of the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson) the other day in this

House. Housing in an area like Kamloops, which is growing as fast as it

is, has brought tremendous housing problems. There has been a

tremendous rise in land costs, and these land costs were going on for

the last 10 years that I have lived there and did not begin in any way

with the introduction of Bill 42. That had nothing to do with it.

I said last spring that we had a new gold rush in Kamloops, but the

land was the gold, and it is still the same situation. Fortunately, I

say to the Minister of Housing, we have much Crown land in the Kamloops

area and we are not going to be faced in that area with the purchasing

of high-cost land such as in some areas of the lower mainland. The

Minister mentioned the project that was being started in Kamloops. I'd

like to add a few details to that.

There are 65 acres of Crown-owned land that have been up behind the

Royal Inland Hospital for years and years and years and years and used

for nothing. On this acreage the Minister of Housing, in combination

with the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley) and the City of

Kamloops, is putting in 65 acres of housing — 65 acres of a variety of

housing based on income, based on best land use. The cost of servicing

is going to be taken care of by the Department of Housing, and the

leasing of the lots left up to the civic authorities.

I know that this was an experiment and I know that there are some

people in this country who do not believe in the theory of leasing

land. They believe that if you don't own your own land then you just

might as well return to Europe or somewhere. This is understandable; in

an area like Europe it is impossible in many areas to own land, and the

urge there is to purchase and own something you can call your own. But

it is my understanding from talking to some of the people at city hall

that there are already over 40 applicants to lease these lots in that

subdivision. So everyone does not have the same hand-up and I am

looking forward to a successful completion of that project and some

badly needed housing in Kamloops.

And I would also say to the Minister that we also, on the North

Shore, have 2,000 more acres of Crown land surrounding the subdivision

that is going in at the present time, and I look forward to the time

when this can be developed for the assistance of the people of the

area. And it will be badly needed. In the next eight years it is fully

expected that we will move from 60,000 to 100,000 people in that area.

To the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Ms. Young) I didn't see a

great increase in the budget for the Minister but I understand that she

will be opening some offices in the province. I would say to her that

she cannot find a better place than Kamloops. It's the home of the

rip-off artist.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Yes, there's one speaking.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: Ms. Minister, we'll just ignore that. It's

the Queen of Hearts again — "Chop off their heads! Chop off their

heads!" (Laughter.)

I don't know how often the Minister has been to Kamloops, but I say

to you with the city growing to the extent of 100,000 within the next

eight years, we service an area for 150 miles in about four different

directions. With the shopping centres, the stores, and the businesses

that are coming in it's almost impossible to keep track of them all,

and I cannot think of a better place to put an office for your

department to assist the citizens of the area — particularly the new

ones coming in who do not know the businessmen to avoid.

We've been trying for years and years to get a Better Business

Bureau, and we've simply been talking in deaf ears. The businessmen say

"we can't afford it." I would think they can't afford not to. But when

you're considering an area for these openings, Madam Minister, I would

suggest that you give Kamloops very serious consideration.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to

represent the beautiful city of Victoria, and take my place in this

budget speech debate. Only history will tell us whether this budget was

a realistic budget or just simply another piece of fiction, similar to

the budget we had a year ago. Our

[ Page 244 ]

Finance Minister likes to talk about his wise fiscal management of

the economy, and this budget is predicated on the booming economy,

created, incidentally, by private enterprise, continuing in British

Columbia.

Strangely enough, the very day this budget was brought down, the

newspapers were headlining the spectre of the possibility of a

world-wide depression, being stressed by Mr. Kissinger. He brought to

the attention of the world that day the dangerous game that we're

playing. There it is, the spectre of a depression, as stressed by

Kissinger. And yet, we like to have our head in the sand.

We're a resource and export economy and we are so dependent on world

prices. It's true, we may have some long-time sales commitments to

Europe and to England. But it may very well also be impossible for

England to live up to her past commitments. The problems with the

affect us in the near future.

Everywhere we turn, the world economy is at best, shaky. Yet, we

pretend to believe that next year will be at least as good as last

year. Mr. Speaker, this budget is all based on our present prosperity

with particular emphasis on resource industries. Our Finance Minister

likes to call this a Robin Hood budget, but history records that Robin

Hood was still a bandit.

He talked about no tax increases. But everyone knows that Big

Brother B.C. Government has its hand in his pocket. Somehow, some way,

that hand seems to be taking more out of our pockets every day. He

talked about no increase in tax rates. But what he doesn't say is that

inflation is increasing and taking out of our pockets more money for

everything we buy.

He knowingly underestimates revenues by 25.6 per cent. Yet we know

that before long we'll be faced with Hydro rate increases, natural gas

increases to B.C. users, and that property taxes will take more

dollars. Before long, even the mill rates will have to rise. He gave

the municipalities a per capita grant increase of $2, which is about a

7 per cent increase. But with inflation last year in British Columbia

of almost 10 per cent, this did not even cover or keep pace with

inflation.

There are no new revenues reflected in the budget from all our new

acquisitions. Perhaps our Minister should attend a few seminars on

mergers and acquisitions, and find out that the theory does not always

work. Sometimes these mergers and acquisitions so overtax the abilities

of the parent company as to sink the whole programme. Acquisitions can

be a very dangerous game; if the economy slows down or slumps, the

whole thing collapses.

But the important thing in examining budgets in today's world is to

seek out whether or not the budget tries to come to grips with the

problem of inflation. Inflation has been described as the cruelest tax

of all. Many economists today suggest that the kind of inflation our

world is experiencing is the result of activities of large industrial

unions and large corporations being in the position of seeking to get

out of the economy more than is really there. The principle of a fair

share for everyone is sometimes lost when the conflicting power

interests of large industrial concerns are lined up against large

industrial unions.

However, in this part of the 20th century, it is an

oversimplification to suggest that the root cause of inflation is to be

found in the activities of these two groups. In my view, the root cause

of inflation here and around the world is found in the activities of

government itself. Inflation seems to be the inevitable consequence of

big government. As governments in this century sought to do more and

more for people in a central way, political goal posts are set far

beyond the ability of the economy to absorb it.

In the view of our party, inflation must be laid at the doorstep of

government itself. We view the British Columbia scene today as an

example of how inflation can be described as the cruelest tax of all.

Early in the life of this government clearly inflationary taxes were

levied. For example, the 20 per cent increase in corporation taxes was

quickly passed along to the consumer. The consumer immediately paid

more for goods and services in British Columbia at a time when the

government itself was boasting about increasing surpluses, and that it

did not need such taxation to meet its needs nor its goals. Therefore,

inflation was the inevitable result.

Having set its goal as an inflationary government, the consequences

of establishing inflationary psychology were quick to appear on the

British Columbia scene. British Columbia led the nation in an average

wage increase last year of 14 per cent. British Columbia led the nation

last year in the price of basic commodities — butter, eggs, milk.

British Columbia led the nation last year in spiralling land costs....

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): You're picking on the farmers.

MR. PHILLIPS: Just the chicken farmers.

MR. MORRISON: ...up over 50 per cent of the increase

experienced in urban Ontario. British Columbia led the nation in

escalating housing costs — up over 40 per cent of the national average.

In short, this government itself the stage again with extravagant

expenditures inflating the civil service by over 8,000 people in a

single year. Extravagant attention to the salaries paid to the

hierarchy of the government set examples throughout

[ Page 245 ]

the province. Extravagant salaries were set to induce people into

new Crown corporations. As a result of setting the psychological stage

for inflation, the government is admittedly in good shape financially;

but the people are not.

If one just takes the situation as it affects Mincome recipients who

now receive a minimum of $213.85 — if those people were to have a fair

deal, this budget would require a lift in the Mincome payments of 14

per cent which would require a $30 increase. But even if this were

done, it is clear that this government has set itself upon a course

which will require, at a minimum, a 15 per cent increase in the cost of

salaries for government employees in the coming year. If this is the

case, we would find that in order to do right by Mincome recipients, we

would have to increase the $213.85 by the $30 catch-up, and to protect

them from what is happening to the British Columbia economy this year,

we would have to add, at the rate of 15 per cent, a further $36 to

Mincome payments.

In other words, because of this mismanagement of the British

Columbia economy, this budget really requires that the Mincome payment

be increased by $66 simply to reflect what the management of our

economy has brought about.

The longer-term implications of inflation should not be lost on this

Legislature because the implications of inflation in just the last

10-year period are frightening, to say the least.

Using the Canadian Cost of Living Index, a fixed-income person in

1965, if he had a pension of $290, would by 1974 find that fixed-dollar

income reduced by $49. No matter what activity of people we talk about,

again using the Canadian Cost of Living Index, if this government

continues its present pattern of financial management, the inflation

created will look like this in just six years from now:

Food for a family of four by 1980 will rise from $52 to $75 per

week. A new house will rise from $33,000 to $52,000. A hospital room in

British Columbia averaging $68 will rise to $126. A man's suit

averaging $94 will rise to $129. A package of cigarettes averaging 60

cents will cost 92 cents. Bus fare averaging 30 cents will cost 61

cents. A pair of shoes averaging $26 will cost $39.

These are serious facts with which government today has to deal.

Government can look after itself but not all the people of British

Columbia can look after themselves. Inflation hits hardest those people

in the province who are least able to foot the bill.

The quickest cure for the inflationary course upon which this

government has set itself is an immediate tax decrease. This would have

two immediate effects:

First of all, it would deny the government money which it admits it

does not require and would therefore slow down the activities of this

big government.

Secondly, it would deflate the inflationary psychology which this

government has permitted to permeate the economy. Therefore, this

province can help its people by tax policies over which it has direct

control.

The tax on business, which passes taxes on to the consumer anyway,

should be reduced by removing last year's 20 per cent increase.

The Province of British Columbia should enter negotiations with the

federal government calling for a lifting of the exemption called for in

personal income-tax purposes. A family unit of two should have

exemptions of $4,000 and, for each dependent, an exemption of $1,000.

The sales tax should be removed from all activities associated with

construction of a home.

I am amazed that this budget does not have any evidence that the

government understands the consequences of its inflationary activities

to this date. However, the man on the street understands this very well

because the people instinctively and fundamentally would prefer to look

after themselves. Instinctively people want to have a high proportion

of discretionary income in their own hands and less of their income in

the hands of the government and in the hands of a stockbroker Finance

Minister.

If the government deliberately sets out on an inflationary course,

all these instinctive feelings of people are lost. That is the basic

condemnation that can be levelled against the financial management by

the government opposite on the economy of British Columbia to date.

In my riding in Victoria, Mr. Speaker, there are many, many people

who have been prudent over the years, who have saved for their old age,

who have put money in pensions, life insurance and investments of all

kinds. Today they see these savings eroded away by inflation. They are

helpless to combat inflation. It was not their intention to be placed

in a position of having to look to the government for their needs. They

resent, and resent bitterly, the waste they see and sense in this

budget. They want you to show leadership and to show it now.

The size of this budget of over $2 billion is impressive, but they

resent the careless, wasteful way in which it is spent. They know that

they end up each day with less.

Over the years parity bonds have always been considered a good

investment and I'm surprised to hear the Minister of Finance announce

that he's worried about them, so worried that he has taken upon himself

to redeem $74 million of them. Perhaps a prudent Finance Minister, if

he was so worried, should have used some of that surplus revenue to

redeem the balance of $179,515,000 of parity bonds. Frankly, I hope he

has some form of contingency plan prepared if 1974 does not come up to

his expectations.

[ Page 246 ]

I see in reading the budget that there is not even an explanatory

note of caution concerning the pending labour problems facing us in the

months ahead. There are about 400 major contracts, affecting over

two-thirds of all the unionized workers in the province.

I cannot let this opportunity pass without commenting on the fact

that, once again, school children are being used as pawns in a labour

negotiation. Last year here in Victoria our children were denied their

right to attend school due to labour problems. Now in Vancouver our

children are used unfairly to force a labour settlement. Is this an

example of the things we can look forward to as the bulk of our labour

contracts come up for settlement this year? A full-time strike is one

thing but the method of rotating school stoppages is impossible.

Working parents cannot plan for certain their children's care when they

do not know whether school will be in or out.

Now, for a minute, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to talk about ICBC, or icky-bicky as it's known on the street.

Interjection.

MR. MORRISON: Well, there are a lot of good names for it.

Frankly, it's no wonder that the people are confused. The rates are

changed practically daily. Even this morning there were notes on my

desk of some more rate changes. Even if the rates aren't changed, the

schedules are absolutely ambiguous.

I'd like to have you look with me, if you would, for a moment at The

British Columbia Gazette of January 22,

Part II of regulations, wherein

they list the descriptions for rating purposes of various passenger

vehicles and commercial vehicles under 8,000 pounds. I'd like to have

you refer, if you would, to the classification on Chevrolets, a subject

I know a little bit about. You will notice at the bottom of that

classification it states that if a vehicle body style is either a

convertible or a station wagon you add one to the rating group.

Now, if you will, imagine the agent who is confronted by a customer

who comes in to have his vehicle rated. Let's assume for a moment that

that customer is driving a Chevrolet station wagon.

Before we go any further, I'd like to ask the Minister (Hon. Mr.

Strachan), through you Mr. Speaker, if he would care to tell me exactly

in that rating group what a Chevrolet-Chevrolet is. In rating group

for 1973-75 they list a Chevrolet as rating group 05; in other words, a

Chevrolet-Chevrolet, whatever that is.

But look at the customer who arrives with a Bel-Air station wagon.

If the agent looks in that rating classification, a Bel-Air is listed

as rating group 06. But if that happens to be a station wagon, the note

at the bottom says you upgrade it by one and therefore make it a rating

group 07.

However, about three lines further down we come upon the description

of the word "Brookwood" which, in fact, is a Bel-Air station wagon.

That is its definition by the manufacturer. That particular model

carries a rating group 05.

Now, therefore, if the agent knew what a

Brookwood was, he would rate that vehicle at rating group 05. If he

didn't know what it was, he might rate it as rating group 06 since it

was a Biscayne or a Bel-Air, But then if he took the note on the bottom

he would therefore upgrade it to rating group 07. Can you wonder why

people are confused and why the agents haven't any idea what's going on?

Interjection.

MR. MORRISON: Well, I'm quite sure the Minister of Transport is going to be out before long.

Then you go through the rating groups — all the way through — you'll

find those kinds of impossible situations. When the agents ask for

explanations from the Minister, even he doesn't know what it's all

about.

MR. FRASER: You take it over; you take it over.

HON. MR. LEA: We're going to call Waldo back in. (Laughter.)

MR. MORRISON: He couldn't do any worse. (Laughter.) Furthermore....

Interjections.

MR. MORRISON: It's really no wonder. Why should anyone have to pay in advance for your mistakes?

Let me give you an example of a man who owns a small fleet of

trucks. His premium amounted to about $4,000. Being a conscientious

type, he went to the bank early in January, borrowed $4,000, went to

his agent, paid his premium, got his licences and his insurance and

went home. A week ago, a friend of his who owns the same size of fleet,

whose premium was almost exactly the same, went to get his insurance.

He was told that he did not have to pay the full $4,000, because he was

entitled to a $1,500 interest-free loan, which would only have to be

repaid if he had a poor accident rate. So he paid, borrowing again from

his banker, $2,500.

Now the first man wants to know what happened. Here he is, out of

pocket $4,000. He's told that the only way he'll get his $1,500 back is

to wait till next year, and that that amount will apply towards the

premium. The Minister says that he can apply for a rebate, but he

qualifies that by saying that he may

[ Page 247 ]

not qualify if it's a commercial vehicle. So that man, again, is out

of pocket $1,500 for the full 12 months, simply because this company

cannot make up its mind what the rates are, cannot make up its mind

what the rating schedules are, cannot make up its mind who pays for

what and when.

I'd like at this moment to quote a letter which was sent to the

Minister of Transport (Hon. Mr. Strachan) from the Prince George

Jaycees. I'll read just a part of the letter:

"In the effort to provide a community service by

making public officials aware of trends in public opinion concerning

seriously controversial issues, the Prince George Jaycees have

conducted three public opinion surveys in the past two years. As

Minister responsible for the provincial auto insurance programme, we

believe that the results of our latest survey will be of interest.

"On three occasions during the latter part of January,

copies of the attached questionnaire were passed out to the general

public at an area shopping centre — 710 of the forms were deposited in

the ballots. A

summary of the results and additional breakdowns of the

data are attached.

"In short, the results show a substantial shift of

public opinion against auto insurance, particularly among car owners

who believe their insurance rates have increased under Autoplan."

Now, the survey itself is attached and, if you wish, I'll be happy to file this with the House.

Of the total survey of 7 10 replies, with six spoiled, the questions were as follows:

The first question was: "Do you own a car?" Ninety-four per cent of those people — 664 — replied yes.

The second question was: "Do you know your rates?" Eighty-seven per cent of the people who replied knew their rates.

The third question was: "Have your rates increased?" Fifty-eight per

cent of those people replying had, in fact, had a rate increase. That's

58 per cent of 664 people.

MR. LEWIS: Who conducted the survey?

MR. MORRISON: The fourth question was: "Will you request a rebate?" Fifty-four per cent of them replied that they would request a rebate.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to move adjournment of this debate to the next sitting of the House.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 14

Bennett

Richter

McGeer

Smith

McClelland

Anderson, D.A.

Jordan

Morrison

Gardom

Fraser

Schroeder

Wallace

Phillips

Curtis

NAYS — 23

Macdonald

Levi

Gorst

Strachan

Lorimer

Rolston

Nimsick

Williams, R.A.

Anderson, G.H.

Hartley

Lea

Barnes

Nunweiler

Young

Steves

Brown

Radford

Kelly

Sanford

Gabelmann

Webster

Cummings

Lewis

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): Mr. Speaker, a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: State your point of order.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Despite the fact that the Member has now

lost his right to speak, I would ask that he be given the permission of

the House to continue.

MR. SPEAKER: I think it should be pointed to Hon. Members.

that once a Member has unsuccessfully moved the adjournment of the

debate, he has lost his right to speak and sits down. That is the rule.

In order that he may continue, he must have the unanimous leave of the

House.

Leave granted.

MR. MORRISON: I'm happy to see that the Minister of Transport

and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) is back now so that I can

continue reading to him the letter which was sent to him.

I was referring to the Prince George Jaycee letter, Mr. Speaker,

through you to the Minister of Transport, wherein they were recording a

survey of people in their area concerning how they felt about Autoplan.

Fifty-four per cent of them were asking for rebates. A year ago, they

asked how many people were in favour of Autoplan, and 50 per cent of

them said yes. But today they asked how many were in favour and only 27

per cent were. The survey is fairly comprehensive, and I'd be happy to

file it with the House.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You're not reading it correctly.

MR. MORRISON: Would you care to have it

[ Page 248 ]

correctly? I'd be glad to go through it in complete detail, and I am reading it correctly.

HON. MR. LEA: It's his letter.

MR. MORRISON: I said they took the survey in January. The

letter was sent to you on February 11, 1974. The survey was conducted

in January, 1974. Perhaps you ought to open your mail.

MR. FRASER: Your mail, your mail!

Interjection.

MR. MORRISON: Well, I'm glad to hear that.

MR. PHILLIPS: Do you always turn your back on the Speaker?

MR. MORRISON: I believe that somewhere between 100,000 and 250,000 drivers will be without insurance on March 1 of this year.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You hope.

MR. MORRISON: I didn't say I hope that. I simply say that you

set impossible goals for your people to meet, and you're sticking your

head in the sand and refusing to make any kind of a contingency plan

for those people who will be without insurance on March 1. You've made

a last-minute change for those people to get insurance for the last two

weeks of February at the expense of those people who were already

insured.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Standard practice.

MR. MORRISON: Standard practice? Nobody ever kicked the

insurance companies out of a province before as you did. How can you

call that standard practice?

Where does the money come from if someone has an accident between

now and then? Do you take it out of your pocket or do you take it out

of the people's pocket? It's an absolutely ridiculous argument that it

is standard practice.

MR. PHILLIPS: Substandard practice!

MR. MORRISON: I believe that we will not have a single claim

centre open on March 1, and apparently we will have very few body shops

willing to accept your rates on March 1. I'd like to ask you, Mr.

Minister what you will do in your City of Duncan if you should have an

accident after March 1 and there's not a body shop in Duncan prepared

to accept your rates. Will you have your car taken to Victoria or some

other centre? And if so, who will pay the towing charges and who will

pay the extra costs? You've got a problem in your own riding and you

don't know it.

I find it also interesting, Mr. Speaker, to notice in last night's

Vancouver Sun a very interesting article, and I'd like to quote some of

it to you. The headline is: "Premiums Rise as Manitoba Loses on

Autopac." It's datelined Winnipeg:

"Autopac, Manitoba's compulsory government automobile

insurance programme, has increased premiums, zeroed in on business with

still higher rates, and has warned that drivers will pay heavily if

they make more than one claim a year."

Is this the direction we're heading?

"The (Manitoba) government claims an $8 million loss on last year's operation, but private companies..."

MR. PHILLIPS: Who picked up the loss?

MR. MORRISON: "...say accurate accounting would place the figure at $14 million.

"Manitoba motorists fear that with the NDP

government's insurance they face decisions that could use financial

pressure to force many of them off the road."

Is that a new lever for this government?

"There is no denying that Autopac has had its

troubles. But many of the troubles are self-inflicted.... Being

politically sensitive at the time the plan was started by Premier Ed

Schreyer in 1971, it squeaked through the Legislature only with the

support of a defected Liberal Member."

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Defective. (Laughter.)

MR. MORRISON: Well, you're probably correct, although that wasn't the word they used. Then it says:

"The government didn't want trouble with body repair

shops, towing companies or claimants, so, initially, adjustments were

generous, as were dealings with tow truck operators and repairmen.

There were holes in the original scheme...."

Interjection.

MR. MORRISON: No, I'm not. I'm merely telling the public that they can anticipate the same sort of things that are happening in Manitoba.

Interjection.

[ Page 249 ]

MR. MORRISON: Oh, no, I'm not. You put your own head in the sand. I didn't force it in there for you.

" From the start Autopac insisted on charging everyone

who drove his car to work a higher rate, reversing what had been the

policy of private companies. This year an extra new rate has been added

at an increase of 40 per cent for everyone who uses his car for any

business movement other than to and from work.

"The trucking industry" — which we talked about just a

little while ago — "claims that new conditions imposed on it this year

may force many operators out of business. Each firm will be surcharged

if they have claims exceeding 80 per cent of their premiums in a scheme

described by Truckers Association president Jack Veitch as guaranteeing

the government a profit on every policy."

MR. FRASER: Your truck company went on strike this morning. Why don't you do something about it?

MR. MORRISON: "But the real blow will come to every Manitoba

motorist who attempts to treat the government insurance as insurance —

a pooling of money to offset individual losses. Everyone in Manitoba

who is at fault 50 per cent or more in two accidents within a year will

be surcharged $50 on his driver's licence. A third accident will cost

him an extra $100 and so on."

Are these the things that we can look forward to next year, when it

is impossible for anyone to be able to compare what their rates should

have been, because there are no independent insurance companies around

to compete with?

Mr. Speaker, I think that ICBC is a pending disaster, and I predict

it will be a money loser — another bad decision of this inept

government.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You hope, you hope.

MR. MORRISON: No, I don't hope, because I know that it is,

and I predict that it will be. All of us — even you — will pay, unless

of course the government pays your premiums for you.

Interjections.

MR. MORRISON: Yesterday our Housing Minister (Hon. Mr.

Nicolson) told us of some of the programmes we could look forward to

from his department. And let me tell you of one scheme proposed for

Victoria. It is called the Springridge-Pembroke Transplant, and I would

like to give you an example.

Now, at this moment I have no way of knowing whether this plan has

been accepted, approved, will proceed or what, but it is a proposal

that has been submitted. It was submitted by the Urban, Design Centre

on January 7, 1974. At this moment I don't even know who the Urban

Design Centre is, because I can't find a listing for them, nor do I

really know what this Springridge-Pembroke Transplant is, except that

it is to take place on Pembroke Street, about half-a-block off

Fernwood, near Victoria High School. And the government owns a lot

described in this plan as lot 1 and partial lot D. I'd like to give you

just an example of the proposal. There are eight various proposals, and

I won't go into all of them, but I will describe the first one.

This proposal suggests that they will take five houses, which are

now located in Oak Bay in an area which is going to be redeveloped by

the Oak Bay council. The houses which are to be used are coming from

1975 Foul Bay Road, 1911 Foul Bay Road, 1932 Erie Street, 1956 Bee

Street, 1924 Bee Street and 1965 Foul Bay Road. Now, those houses are

to be removed from their present location, and moved onto this lot 1

and partial lot D. In other words, we will have a zero-lot line

proposal with six houses on one lot and a small portion of another one.

It is suggested that one of those houses be converted into a duplex.

In the proposal they suggest that the moving and insurance costs will

be about $1,700 a house; the servicing costs, which I assume mean

foundations and water and sewage, will be $6,092 per house; the

additional foundations, repairs, redecorating and landscaping will be

$3,360 per house.

For this they propose to get a mortgage for 10 years at 8 per cent

and repay it at the rate of $120 per month. Now, you can assume that if

they are getting a 10-year mortgage on the houses the houses have, in

their opinion, a remaining life expectancy of about 10 years. I want

you to realize that these houses that are being moved are already old

houses. They have pretty well lived their life where they were built

but obviously they are good enough, or someone thinks they are good

enough, to move them to a new location.

The land, which I believe is currently owned by the province, is in

this proposal at $48,500 and apparently is to be paid for at 4 per cent

over a 60-year period. Now, here I find a rather strange situation.

Here are houses which are going to be mortgaged for a 10-year period,

which have a life expectancy of about 10 years, but for some strange

reason this group of Pembroke Transplants, whatever they are — and I

understand it is some kind of a co-operative organization — are being

given land which they don't have to pay for completely for over 60

years at 4 per cent interest. But I'm a little curious

[ Page 250 ]

to know what the land will be used for after the houses are long gone.

Then they go on to say that the taxes on each unit will average

about $160 a year. Now, on this first proposal that means that in order

to recapture just their out-of-pocket expenses, those houses will have

to rent for $158 per month. There is nothing in there for maintenance,

for insurance, for depreciation, for all the other expenses that a

normal householder has to face. Some of the questions that I am curious

about on this particular proposal were: Where did lot I come from? Who

owned it? Who bought it, and how much did they pay for it? So I did a

little search at Land Registry, and I think you might be interested in

knowing a little of the history on that particular lot.

The lot size of 1 is 123.6 by 140 feet, and lot D is 32 feet by 60.9

feet. It is now owned by the Crown provincial. It was purchased on

November 8, 1973 for $36,750, and yet it appears on this proposal to be

listed out at $48,500 — a rather nice little profit for Crown

provincial.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you against profit?

MR. MORRISON: No, I'm not against profit. I'm just against

people who try with one hand to say they aren't and with the other

don't mind taking it.

There is another lot next door. It is 1251 Pembroke Street.

Incidentally, I suggest that anyone who is interested take the time and

drive by Pembroke Street, have a look at the lot I'm referring to and

the houses around it. That lot next door is owned by the Victoria Self

Help Society and that particular lot is 44 feet by 143.04, and that was

purchased in 1972 for $13,000. This proposal suggests there are other

lots in this immediate area which are vacant and can be purchased and

used for play space, et cetera, for easements, for public property or

public space, but there is no way I can find out what they are worth or

whether they own them, or whether they intend to own them, or whether

they are, in fact, negotiating with people who now own them.

But it looks to me that we have an interesting proposal and I would

like the Springridge group, whoever they are, to tell us — I would like

to find out who they consist of, how they propose to rent these houses

and who they propose to rent them to. Will they in fact become members

of the co-op, and what will happen when the houses are no longer of any

value and yet they still have the land and the rights to that land for

60 years?

The other question I would like to ask is: how did we get these

houses apparently for nothing? If the municipality of Oak Bay didn't

want them and wasn't prepared to tear them down, how did we acquire

them? Was there a value paid for them and, if so, where does it appear

in the proposal? Who negotiated it? Does the city council of Oak Bay

know what happened, or is this just another wild proposal? I'd like to

know how we acquired lot 1 and lot D and for what reason, and why those

prices should vary between the $37,500 which was recorded on Land

Registry and the $48,500 they propose to charge for it. I want to know

again what they will use that property for for the balance of that 50

years, and whether they will acquire the property around it.

MR. FRASER: Tell us, Mr. Minister of Public Works.

MR. MORRISON: I would also like to know who the Urban Design

Centre is. Apparently it is based in Vancouver. I'd like to know who

paid for that proposal, and I'd like to know who authorized it.

I notice a newspaper clipping where they announced the employment of

a design consulting team to bring in proposals to the government in 30

days. I notice that the 30 days are up today and that the head of the

consulting team was to be paid $125 a day plus $1,500 and some in

expenses for that 30-day period. I'd like the Minister of Housing (Hon.

Mr. Nicolson) to give us a report as to the results of that team, and

of the money that was spent, and exactly what we can look forward to

from that proposal.

I believe that this is probably a sample of the type of co-operative

housing programme that we are going to be faced with in the next few

years, and probably will be repeated over, and over, and over again

throughout the province.

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): Are you against co-operative housing?

MR. MORRISON: No, I'm not against co-operative housing. I'm

just against not knowing the facts. I'd like to know where the money

comes from, who subsidized it, where the LIP grant came that may have

paid for those proposals. I'd like to have all those facts laid on the

table, because you prefer to say that you can be competitive with

private enterprise, and yet you subsidize your own enterprise and you

bury the facts.

Well, there they are. Bring them out. Show me where I am wrong. I

hope I'm wrong. I hope I am wrong, because if I'm not wrong, it's

disgraceful.

Interjections.

MR. MORRISON: Well, I say I hope I'm wrong, but there are the

facts. I'd be happy to show this to you after. There is the proposal —

it's a factual proposal. And you already own the property, so obviously

there's something there. Why did you buy

[ Page 251 ]

it if you didn't intend to proceed? There's your answer. But I'd be

very happy to take the Attorney-General this afternoon and drive him by

that piece of property and we'll go and walk over it. I'd also like to

have him tell me after we walked over it why anyone would pay $48,500

let alone $37,500 for it.

Interjection.

MR. MORRISON: Do me a favour and have a look at it.

Interjection.

MR. MORRISON: We also keep hearing well-founded stories of a proposed satellite city to be located in the highland district of Saanich.

AN HON. MEMBER: I don't think it's in Saanich.

MR. MORRISON: Well, wherever it is. I gather that part of it

is in the edge of Saanich. Maybe he's just as glad it isn't and he's

probably just as glad he isn't mayor any more because the details of

the proposal tell us that none of the property will be available for

private ownership — that the entire city will be a rental proposal.

Interjection.

MR. MORRISON: Well, we've got some pretty detailed facts on

that one too. I can produce some of the people who have sold the

property and the stories they were told when the property was acquired.

But what I'd like to know is who is going to administer the

satellite housing and, particularly after the bill that the AG brought

in yesterday or the day before, I'd like to know who is going to police

it. Because here we have the opportunity for the government to

establish, completely within their own jurisdiction, an entire city. I

wonder if this is a pilot project which again is to be repeated and

repeated throughout the province.

Today I'd also like to talk about assessments, but having taken

considerable time I'm going to leave that to another day. But I would

like to close in saying that this government has taken control of our

lives so quickly and in so many ways that most of us cannot believe

that it has happened. To top it off, the Finance Minister has become a

stock market player, a speculator and a corporate manipulator in front

of our very eyes. He's learned a whole new language. But I don't think

he has any comprehension of the forces he has let loose or the eventual

outcome of the dangerous game he is playing. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, it had been my

intention to concentrate in this debate on those items in this very

exciting budget which specifically affected the riding of

Vancouver-Burrard. I had intended to be as brief as possible.

However, in the daily Province of yesterday, February 14, there was

an

article which so distressed me that I feel it is impossible for me

to speak of anything until I say a few words about this article. I am

referring, Mr. Speaker, to the

article by Nicole Strickland on page 44

in that

section of the paper dealing with life styles. In this

article

one Nigel Nixon, supervisor of probation services at the Vancouver

family and children's court and one Jack Gillis, chief probation

officer in the same court, have viciously slandered all the women of

this province who have had the great misfortune to have had to pass

through that court.

Now I have always been very careful not to express my true feelings

or opinions about the Vancouver family court publicly because, quite

frankly, my opinions have been and continue to be very negative. I have

never been able to find anything good to say about that court or about

what it does to people who, because they are poor, have no option but

to use it.

However, the statements of these two gentlemen, officers of the

court, have brought into the open the attitude and philosophy of some

of the people involved in that court system who have served to make the

whole experience such a destructive and psychologically brutalizing one

for the women who have had the great misfortune to find themselves

there.

The fact of the matter is that the attitude displayed by these two

men in their statements is not only punitive, but also serves to imply

that all women who are poor and all women who have to apply for welfare

are dishonest. The only thing that has kept poor women from ripping off

the welfare system was the careful scrutiny which their application

used to get before the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) of

this government put an end to that degrading practice. I'd like to

quote Mr. Nixon:

"As a result of a letter to court officials last April

from Human Resources Minister Norman Levi, separated and deserted women

are no longer required to appear in family court before making

application for social assistance. In consequence, they charge, unknown

numbers of women are now drawing welfare cheques who formerly under

examination by this court would not be eligible to obtain assistance."

I'm not surprised, of course, that their attack is launched against

women, because most people in this country who find themselves deserted

with children are women. Most deserted parents who find

[ Page 252 ]

themselves without financial resources are women. Most deserted

parents who have to apply for welfare are usually women. That's the way

our system has always worked.

We have always extolled the virtues of motherhood. We congratulate

mothers for their wonderful contribution to our society. Then when they

are deserted by their spouse, we drive them onto the welfare system.

And not satisfied that welfare has honoured them enough, the past

government used to humiliate these women further by forcing them to

appear before people like this Nixon and Gillis for these men to decide

whether these women and their children were worthy of support.

Well, in April of last year, this Government put an end to that. The

Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi), a more humane human being

than the probation service of the family courts will ever be able to

understand, decided that these women were entitled to some dignity.

This decision apparently so enraged these two men that they are now

laying this accusation of fraud on us — fraud not against the wheelings

and dealings that are going on in the boardrooms of this country; not

against the wheelings and dealings that are going on in the stock

market, but against the poor desperate women of this town who find that

they have been left to raise their children without any financial

assistance, without any moral support, and without any help whatsoever

from anyone.

I do not want to labour this point, Mr. Speaker, but I feel that

there are a number of things that I should clarify for those people

here who, like these two men, Nixon and Gillis, may be labouring under

the impression that the life of a mother on welfare, who is the sole

support parent in the home, is one long carnival at the taxpayers'

expense.

But first of all, I'd like to quote again from Mr. Nixon. He goes on to say:

"A woman may leave her husband and apply for social

assistance. The husband, however, may own three apartment buildings and

be worth $1 million."

Point No. 1: what a married man in this country owns is his. What a

wife in this country owns is also his. If Mr. Nixon and Mr. Gillis

doubt this, I'd like to draw their attention to two recent court

decisions which prove this.

The first one was that of the Supreme Court of Canada in its

decision in the Murdoch case. The other was that decision recently

handed down by Mr. Justice Didsbury of the Court of Queens Bench in

Saskatchewan in the Rathwell case. Both of these decisions maintain

that the wife, one of them of 23 years and the other of 25 years

duration, had no claim and were not entitled to any of their husbands'

extensive assets — even though in the Rathwell case it was Mrs.

Rathwell's cash which was used to purchase the first half

section of

land which finally became the family farm.

So it is quite possible and indeed I know that it does happen. I

know of many cases where the wife of a man with considerable assets can

find herself left destitute with children with no alternative but to

apply for welfare.

In this instance, Mr. Speaker, surely it is the husband and not the woman who is guilty of abusing the taxpayers' purse.

But even that case is an exception. Believe me, Mr. Speaker, 99 per

cent of the people who use the family court are not millionaires. Most

of the families who use the family court have so little income that the

men are often not able to pay more than a mere pittance towards their

maintenance, and the women and children end up on welfare anyway.

So after all the hassle and all the scrutiny and all the time involved, the women and children usually end up on welfare anyway.

Mr. Nixon stated — and here again I quote directly from his article: "In

my view the family court appearance is not an ordeal. This is a conciliation

court."

If this were not such a tragic situation, one would have to laugh at

that statement — at anyone referring to that court as a conciliation

court. Mr. Nixon should be reported to the Minister of Consumer Affairs

(Hon. Ms. Young) for being guilty of misleading advertising. The family

court of Vancouver is not a conciliation court; it is an ordeal and a

psychologically brutalizing experience for the women who pass through

it. It is destructive; it is degrading; it is anguish.

Before entering the political arena I worked for two years as

ombudswoman for the Status of Women Council in Vancouver. During that

time, and since then, I have been in contact with many women who have

had the misfortune to pass through the family court. Without exception,

without one single exception, Mr. Speaker, they were scarred by that

experience. Without exception they stated, in one form or another, that

they would do anything they could to avoid ever repeating that

experience.

Through its policy of what Mr. Nixon euphemistically refers to as

"applications for maintenance by women, " which correctly is

interpreted by the husbands as laying a charge against them, that court

has been responsible for destroying any chance of conciliation in more

families than we will ever dream of.

Why the hue and cry by so many people to look at that Vancouver

family court? Why the recommendation of the social service blue book to

wipe out the probation service? Because people who have worked with

that court over the years have known that the punitive attitude

reflected in the

[ Page 253 ]

statements of these two gentlemen have been rampant in the court and in that service for years.

It is an attitude that reflects a lack of respect for people simply

because they are poor. It is an attitude that questions the integrity

of people simply because they are poor. It is an attitude that makes

people look with hope to the Family Law Commission, headed by Mr.

Justice Berger, for an alternative. Surely, we cannot continue to

tolerate the attitude reflected by these two gentlemen toward people,

female or male, any longer.

It is precisely to eliminate the necessity for deserted or divorced

women having to go through family court, it is precisely to eliminate

the necessity for widows to end up on welfare that I suggested last

fall that the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia address itself

to the matter of income support for the spouse who works in the home

caring for the family and the home.

The Insurance Corporation of British Columbia has been in the

business of selling general insurance. The budget tells us that, to

date, over $12 million in general insurance has been sold. Surely it is

time that they took my suggestion seriously. Surely it is time that

they involve themselves into seriously looking at the matter of

supplying income support for the spouse who remains in the home.

No ideal family court, no increased welfare payments, nothing can

guarantee the deserted wife or the widowed mother the kind of financial

support without humiliation that would be possible under a general

insurance scheme like the one which I outlined in the fall of last year.

This is a matter of urgency, I say to my government. This is a

matter requiring priority attention if we are serious about our

commitment to the dignity of the individual.

Having made that brief statement, Mr. Speaker, I would now like to address myself to the budget.

The first area I'd like to talk about is the area of housing. This

section of the budget most affects the city ridings, and certainly it

most affects Vancouver-Burrard.

I greet with pleasure the allocation of the more than $100 million

to help meet the need in this crucial area. And I listened attentively

to the Minister's (Hon. Mr. Nicolson'

s) outline of his policy and the

direction which he intends to take in dealing with this crisis.

I am satisfied that through judicious utilization of the

neighbourhood improvement allocation we may be able to stop the rampant

destruction of the older homes in our area and their replacement by

monstrous high-rises and condominiums.

We in Vancouver-Burrard feel there is a unique character about our

part of the city. We have been watching with helpless horror while

bulldozers have been razing some of our more beautiful older buildings

— replacing many of our senior citizens and lower-income families.

Our citizens have taken the first step in helping preserve this area

by forcing the City of Vancouver to downzone much of the area. Now that

these funds are available it is my hope that they will help us to

preserve it while creating additional housing through the conversion

plan, the duplex plan and the plan to legalize and upgrade some of the

suites in the area. Hopefully Kitsilano, Mount Pleasant and Fairview

will continue to be livable for a while longer.

But that alone is not enough; government housing for lease must be

built. We have no land left in our area for single-family housing, but

there is space for low rise multiple-family dwelling. And we hope the

government will acquire even more land in this area and become

aggressively involved in the business of building rental units for

families.

Although I support the idea of co-ops, it is my firm belief that

co-ops will never meet the needs in our particular riding. The private

sector, Mr. Speaker, is not interested in the needs of low-income

families. One only has to read the

article which headlined the

Vancouver Sun yesterday: "How to Get Really Rich in Real Estate." I was

horrified as I went through it and read all the addresses....

MR. GARDOM: Written by Bob Williams.

MS. BROWN: Unless he's been christened and changed his name ... to find that most of the homes which were sold....

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Jealousy will get you nowhere.

MS. BROWN: Despite the levity, Mr. Speaker, the fact that my

riding is an endangered riding and is threatened by the private

developer was amply demonstrated by this article. And those fantastic

profits that were made on the buying and selling of property — most of

it went on in Vancouver-Burrard.

These people who do this, the private sector, are not interested in

addressing themselves to the needs of low-income families. Their needs

can only be met by government-built housing. Not on the size and the

scale of the infamous projects of the 1950s and the 1960s, but lowrise

multiple-dwelling units compatible with the surrounding

neighbourhoods.

We do not believe that the core of the city should be the private

preserve of the near-rich, the rich and the super-rich. But we are

aware that only through government-built housing will we ever be able

to reverse this trend which is forcing all but the most affluent out of

the city core into the suburbs and outlying areas.

Before I leave this topic.... And I really would recommend that everyone read this page 1

article in

[ Page 254 ]

the Vancouver Sun — a perfect description of the kind of abuse my riding is taking from the private developers.

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): Is that free enterprise?

MS. BROWN: Free enterprise.

A short statement, Mr. Speaker, addressed specifically to the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson).

To the Minister of Housing re the proposed high-rise on the corner

of 7th and Maple: As the duly elected representatives of this

constituency, both Norman Levi (Minister of Human Resources) and I have

already conveyed to the Minister that the residents of this riding do

not want a high-rise to be built in that particular parcel of land.

They fought for and succeeded in having this area rezoned.

Unfortunately, the city's approval was given prior to the downzoning,

so by law this high-rise can still proceed. However, if the provincial

government gives funds to help with this project it will be doing so

against the express wishes and against the best interest of the

residents of this riding, both old and young.

This is a government which prides itself on the fact that it

listens. I hope it will listen to the people of Kitsilano who have

given an over-riding no to this project and who have worked hard to

prevent it going through. As their duly-elected representatives, both

Norm Levi and I respect the wishes of the residents of this

neighbourhood, and we can only hope and ask that the Minister do so too.

Most of the people who live in my riding are tenants, and so the

renter's grant was greeted with much enthusiasm by these residents of

my riding. Indeed, many of the people living there have already taken

the time to phone and ask me to convey their congratulations to the

government on recognizing the contributions which they as tenants have

made to this province, to its growth and to its development. They

welcome the decision to share the resource dividend with them.

For many, many years, this government when it was in opposition and

people outside of this government asked that tenants, the people in

rental accommodations, be recognized in the same way homeowners are

recognized, and finally this is done. This renter's grant, coupled with

the amendments to the Landlord and Tenant Act which we were promised in

the throne speech — an excellent speech that, because the opposition

had nothing to say against it, closed down before I had a chance to

take my place in it, Mr. Speaker — indicates this government is still

attuned to the needs of the people and people still count before things.

Our social services, Mr. Speaker, are among the best in the world

and they continue to improve. One has only to compare our health-care

system with that of the free-enterprise system to the south. In this

regard, I would like to recommend to everyone an

article called

"Hospitals for Sale" ( Ramparts , February, 1974) which described in

detail what is happening to the delivery of health care in California.

Once it became evident that the private hospitals were losing money,

the government closed down the public hospitals, forcing people to use

the private hospitals which actually meant that poor people who

couldn't afford to pay for hospital care had to do without. Everybody

in California is now being billed for hospital care whether they can

afford it or not. This kind of free-enterprise health-care delivery

system is not the kind of system this government would ever tolerate.

I really think everyone in the opposition should read that article.

Specifically, I would like to address it to the Member for Oak Bay (Mr.

Wallace) and the First Member for Vancouver-Point Grey. (Mr. McGeer).

The Member for Oak Bay criticized us because we are not immediately

meeting the need for intermediate hospital care. He's not in his seat,

but if he were I would like to assure him that we have recognized that

this need exists — and to recognize it is to meet it. The past

government didn't even recognize that the need existed. We recognize

that it exists; we will meet that need. We may not meet it today, we

may not meet it this afternoon, but that need will be met.

On page 17 of the budget we learned that an additional $5 million is

to be added to the B.C. Cultural Fund; a very modest addition, a

welcome addition, but a modest one. The interest from that $5 million

means another $350,000 will go toward supporting the cultural

development of this province.

The fund, as you know, was started in 1967 by the previous

government with an endowment of $5 million. In 1969, this was increased

to $10 million; in 1972, to $15 million; and now has been increased to

$20 million. What this means in terms of our overall population is that

approximately $1.4 million annually, or 60 cents per person, will be

spent in this area; not an over-generous amount, especially when one

considers the importance of the contribution which the arts and culture

make to the quality of all our lives.

Yet in his budget speech, the Member for Oak Bay accuses the

government of depriving the old and the sick of this province and

squandering its money on culture. Not only can 60 cents hardly be

referred to as squandering but it really is unfortunate that that

Member should attack the government for wanting to enrich the lives of

all the people of this province through making our heritage more

accessible to all of them.

[ Page 255 ]

The rich have always been able to afford to enrich their lives, Mr.

Speaker. Now this government is saying all people should have equal

access, and that's what this is all about. It is our belief that this

province is greatly endowed with talented people, and further, it is

our belief that all the people of this province should benefit from

their talents. So I applaud the decision to add $5 million to this

fund, and I ask all the Members of the House to join me in exhorting

the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) not to stop there but to

commit an additional $5 million to the fund each year for the next four

years until the investment per person is well beyond the 60 cents

figure.

I'd like to mention the State of New York, Mr. Speaker. Every now

and again the free-enterprisers surprise us, and this certainly is one

occasion on which they do so. There's an

article in a 1972 issue of

Forum and I want to quote from it: "New York state under Nelson

Rockefeller has been appropriating truly astonishing sums each year for

the support of the visual arts." It goes on to say that he appropriated

in 1970, $20 million, and in 1971, an additional $14.4 million.

It turns out — and this is the interesting thing about this

article

— that this is not merely good policy but was also very good business.

Somebody figured out recently that the new space programme proposed by

President Nixon will create 50,000 jobs at the cost of $100,000 per

job,

whereas the New York state council with its appropriation will

create 2,000 new jobs at a unit cost of $7,000 per job.

The

article goes on to say:

" I'm not suggesting that the space programme be

turned over to the New York state artists, though the prospects of

having Bob Rosenberg rather than NASA explore outer space is an

exhilarating one. What I am suggesting is that the massive infusion of

dollars in the general direction of the arts may be one way of making

the recession recede. The sums dispersed by art councils not only

support artists, who themselves pay taxes like everyone else, but also

electricians, carpenters, stagehands, ticket takers, popcorn sellers

and even, in one instance, tent makers, when a tent was rented to use

to display an exhibition in."

So it's good business. The old attitude towards the arts was that

this was kind of a handout thing to keep artists from starving. But

we're beginning to see that all of us benefit from it. Not only are our

lives enriched by it but, because these people and all the peripheral

people who deal with them pay taxes, in the final analysis the money

keeps going round and round. So it's good business.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, the Arts Access conference in the fall of

1973 generated a great deal of excitement and enthusiasm on the part of

all the creative people and many other people in this province.

MR. ROLSTON: Many Socreds there?

MS. BROWN: No, now that you mention that.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: He wasn't there. I'm going to keep trying; I'm not going go give up.

As you may also know, the government is now struggling to design a

really comprehensive cultural policy for the province. This increased

funding is, I hope, only the beginning indication that we are taking

seriously our commitments toward the enriching of the lives of all the

people of the province.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Like I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, the rich have

always been able to afford it. We want to make sure that everyone else

enjoys it too.

I've lost my place.

MR. F.X. RICHTER (Boundary-Similkameen): Take your place then.

MS. BROWN: Forever more. (Laughter.) And that goes, Mr.

Speaker, no matter what their economic status, no matter where they

live, whether it's in Golden, B.C., Fernie, the Stikine country, or

even Victoria which is so richly endowed.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Point Grey, even Point Grey — why not Point Grey?

Let's not discriminate against Point Grey — especially Point Grey.

(Laughter.)

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: A brief word, Mr. Speaker, about the Orpheum Theatre. I understand the Royal Theatre is in the same position in Victoria.

I support all attempts to save the Orpheum Theatre. The Vancouver

MLAs were sleeping on that one. I have been assured, however, by the

statements of the Mayor of Vancouver that he is going to save the

Orpheum Theatre. I certainly wish him all the good luck in the world in

his endeavour.

I understand that he has already raised $4,000 of the $6 million that he needs. (Laughter.)

However, I am not going to have a closed mind on this. If the

decision is ever made that all of us together should save the Orpheum

Theatre, then I will be very willing to appeal to this government to

[ Page 256 ]

support this effort on behalf of all the people. As long as the

mayor finds that he can do it single-handedly, of course, then there

really is no need for this government to interfere.

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: No, he said he's going to save it, so let's not interfere with him.

MR. GARDOM: You don't believe it?

MS. BROWN: Oh yes, yes I do. (Laughter.) I believe it.

In closing, Mr. Speaker...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: More, more, more.

MS. BROWN: ...I would just like to make one brief statement about the appropriations being made to the universities in this budget.

I support completely the decision that any additional funding for

the universities should be tied to the universities accepting their

responsibilities to the community. I support completely the freezing of

funding until this is achieved.

However, I am in a dilemma, Mr. Speaker, because here again, as so

often happens when budgets are frozen and funds are cut, it is the

people at the bottom of the pile who suffer the most. The people at the

bottom of the pile in the universities are the women. In the

universities like Simon Fraser and UBC, for example, that is the only

place you will find the women — at the bottom of the pile. The clerical

and the support staff at these two bastions of higher learning have

just begun to organize. In some instances they are trying to reach the

minimum wage level, if you can imagine that, Mr. Speaker.

This decision by our government to freeze funds will deal a severe

blow to their efforts. The women on the teaching staff who are

organizing and fighting for parity with their male colleagues will also

be dealt a severe blow.

The tragedy of the situation, Mr. Speaker, is that the

administration of these two major institutions have never cared about

women. They have exploited them shamelessly over the past. They have

refused their request for resource centres, women's studies, relevant

courses, equal treatment in all of their faculties. Now these two

administrations will be able to claim this government as an ally in

their continued exploitation.

So I appeal to this government; I appeal to this government to find

some other way of getting these institutions to live up to their

responsibility to the community. I appeal to this government to find

some other way of getting these institutions into line, because it is

my belief that if we all put our heads together we can come up with a

plan to make the universities accountable without giving them the

licence to continue their shameless oppression of women.

This is a great budget, Mr. Speaker, and it's been a pleasure to speak in support of it. Thank you.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I take great pleasure in joining this budget debate representing the beautiful constituency of Shuswap.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't lay an egg!

MR. LEWIS: Before I go into my prepared speech I would just

like to respond to the Hon. Member for Victoria (Mr. Morrison) in

regard to ICBC. He has letters that he read out. Now I would like to

read one out that I received from an agent that's selling the

insurance. It starts out....

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that a relation?

MR. LEWIS: No, I haven't got many relations. It says:

Dear Don;

Autoplan is going well with us. We have seen many new faces and

we have seen many happy faces when the dollar amounts are shown. We have had

a few whose premiums are more than last year, but they are very few. We have

now remitted well over $30,000 to ICBC — not bad when you still have the majority

to go.

Keep up the good work.

I would also like to say that the Minister in charge of this

programme has my complete support. In my view he is doing a tremendous

job against tremendous odds. I think we hear all the criticism in

regard to this Crown corporation because many, many people in the

opposition don't want it to work.

But you know, it's funny — mistakes are made among free enterprisers

as well. They've been in the business for years and years. You know

that I even once had a chartered bank put $600 in my bank account that

I never had coming. (Laughter.)

This government has only been in power for a matter of 18 months.

It's taken on a tremendous task in many areas and ICBC was one of them.

And I'll stand or fall in my riding in support of the plan.

MR. GARDOM: Bye, bye.

MR. LEWIS: No, I'll be here long after you've left. (Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker, this 1974 budget....

[ Page 257 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Where's Willis?

MR. LEWIS: Oh, he's around yet. As a matter of fact they've even elected him to run against me next time.

Interjections.

MR. LEWIS: Mr. Speaker, this 1974 budget is not only the

first budget to exceed $2 billion, but it's also a budget that will

allow the Ministers to proceed in a planned economy.

This budget is generous enough to allow the Ministers' departments

the latitude they need in hiring qualified consultants to take this

province in its proper direction.

The decisions that will be made by the cabinet with the advice of

these consultants will be decisions that are made for people. This is

what this party has stood for, and this is the direction in which we

are going. The great strides to be made in planning the future

development of the north will not only benefit this generation but also

future generations that are to follow. The actions taken by the Hon.

Minister of Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) and his staff in the past 18

months is clear evidence that the money spent on consultants and

planning will bring the desired results.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on. Right on.

MR. LEWIS: Mr. Speaker, while the Hon. Minister of Resources

(Hon. R.A. Williams) was outlining the programme for the north, I

happened to glance down towards the opposition. You know, to my

surprise, there was a look of admiration in every one of their eyes. As

a matter of fact, I even saw the Hon. Member for North Okanagan (Mrs.

Jordan) smiling at him. I think that this has to be a vote of

confidence. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

MR. LEWIS: Mr. Speaker, if there were an election tomorrow I

would predict that 75 per cent of the opposition Members sitting in

this House would vote for us.

MS. BROWN: Yea!

MR. LEWIS: I would just like to mention a few items of the budget that

impressed me. I believe that No. 1 in the budget would have to be housing. Now

I come from a rural riding where probably this programme won't have much

effect. But I do see the problems in the urban ridings, the very great problems

that exist there at the present time. I'm sure that under this Minister

of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson) and the amount that is made available to him

we can look forward to great things in the future.

Mr. Speaker, the 42 per cent increase in funds directed to the

resource sector is most gratifying. At long last we have a government

that realizes that if we wish to harvest our trees on a cropping basis,

we also must see those trees are replaced to have a new crop coming.

Actions were taken in this budget to assure this. Last year we had

$5.116 million in the budget directed towards reforestation. This year

we have $12.925 million for reforestation, an increase of 152 per cent.

There have also been substantial increases in Water Resources, Lands

Branch and in funds for the environment. I think this is what this

government's all about. We realize that if we are going to have a

future population, we must have something there for people to live on

in the future — something for them to enjoy.

Increases in the Fish and Wildlife budget are also most gratifying.

A $2.958 million increase in the Wildlife budget: this is an area that

has been really neglected throughout the last 20 years — an area nobody

seemed to worry about. There was also an increase of $7 million for the

acquisition of new parks, and I certainly hope the Minister uses some

of this money in the Shuswap area.

In that area we have one of the most beautiful lakes of anywhere in

the world, yet we have a very limited amount of land available to the

public, that's accessible to the public. I think the figures are that

about one-third of it presently is tied up almost completely by private

ownership around the lake. Mind you, there are vast areas which are

still in Crown hands, but this area isn't available to the public. They

can't get to it, there is no road. I would hope that in the future this

two-thirds of the lake will be retained for the public. The lake itself

has adequate numbers of people living on the shoreline now. The people

living on the shoreline and in other areas depend on the quality of

that water for their human consumption.

Mr. Speaker, I would say that with a budget like we have, directed

toward the environment, towards reforestation, that the children who

will follow us will have something to look forward to.

I've touched on a few of the dramatic increases in the budget which

impressed me. Now I would like to touch on some things that I think

could help the economy of my riding or the economy of the Interior.

I think we all realize that the lower mainland, Vancouver Island

part of the province is quite heavily endowed with industrial

development, thus leaving the people living in the area a much wider

range of job opportunities. This type of thing does not exist in the

Interior, and I'm looking for programmes that will change this.

Hopefully, this one will be a

[ Page 258 ]

suggestion that the Minister or Ministries involved will look at.

Many times in the past I've heard Members of the cabinet say that

they would like to see the population dispersed throughout the

provinces. I've also heard the Ministers of the past government say the

same type of thing. Now, up to this date it hasn't been happening.

MR. FRASER: Change the cabinet.

MR. LEWIS: No, it hasn't been happening. Not just the cabinet. Probably you and I would be the only ones who would vote for it.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make some suggestions in regard to the ICBC.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): You're too late.

MR. LEWIS: ICBC is a corporation that's going to be here for

many, many years and at the present time is operating in rented

quarters. Mr. Speaker, I would like to see the cabinet and the Minister

in charge of ICBC (Hon. Mr. Strachan) take a real look at establishing

the headquarters for ICBC somewhere in the Interior.

MR. J.H. GORST (Esquimalt): Sicamous? You won't get my vote. (Laughter.)

MR. LEWIS: Well, don't laugh. I'll have to give you some good

reasons why I feel the movement of the ICBC into the Interior would be

to the benefit of the whole of the province.

Large blocks of cheap land could be purchased in advance to accommodate

housing for a new town site or for adding on to an existing town.

New towns could be planned to meet the needs of the people with all services

being installed prior to street construction.

Congestion of the lower mainland would decrease, thus alleviating many costly

freeway and bridge projects.

Pressure would be taken off the ferry systems and the coastal islands.

Many people desire an environment removed from the large cities, thus an

opportunity here to alleviate mental distress and many other things that depress

a person. And you will have to admit that some of our large cities are depressing.

Mr. Speaker, the list goes on and on, and I believe that now is the

time for the government to act, to put their thoughts into action. I

can see one way that the government could go ahead and advance this

scheme.

MR. FRASER: Look out, Don.

MR. LEWIS: I've lost my place here. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member must have extensive notes.

MR. LEWIS: Well, Mr. Speaker, I have seen some of the other

Members reading completely from their notes. I am putting in the odd

word just out of them. (Laughter.)

Summertime conditions in the Shuswap area are some of the best in

North America. I think anyone who has been to the Shuswap Lake area

would agree on that. Mr. Minister, if you would consider building your

ICBC structure in the Shuswap area, you would have the most efficient,

happy, healthy employees anywhere in B.C.

MR. FRASER: Build a new office and keep them up there.

MR. LEWIS: Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, I'm asking

you to take a real socialistic look at this problem. Take a real

socialistic look at it. Share some of the wealth. Let some of the

people move throughout the province. Let them contribute something to

our economy, the same as what is happening in the lower mainland

through industrial growth.

Mr. Speaker, I would now like to touch on the problems which I have

in my riding in regard to the economy. One of them which concerns me

somewhat is the headline in yesterday's paper which my friend from

Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) held up in regard to $100 million projects stalled

throughout the province. I think many of the MLAs in this room will

realize that we have gone through a period of over a year where a large

part of my riding has already been frozen due to Bill 42. Now, I

totally support Bill 42, but at the same time there are many, many

people who are caught in a bind.

If we are now to go into a further freeze, with the Highways

department taking control over zoning in the area, it is of great

concern to me. I definitely say that the Highways department has to

have complete control of their accesses; I believe in planning. But if

there's going to be any action taken in regard to the planning away

from that highway, I believe that Municipal Affairs and people who live

in the area must have an input, must have a decision-making process in

regard to that.

In my understanding, and as I said before, I strongly feel that this

party is for people, and people first. Not for highways and highways

first.

I would like to touch a little on Bill 71, which I think had good

intentions by everybody. I voted for it. The Socreds didn't, but they

still don't know why they didn't.

[ Page 259 ]

MR. FRASER: Don't worry, we didn't.

MR. LEWIS: Yes, like you said, it's easy to be smart

afterwards. But as I said, we realized we are going to make some

mistakes, or some people were going to be put in a position where the

legislation would have to be changed if there was a mistake made. Now,

I think we are flexible, and the Premier (Hon. Mr. Barrett) has

indicated that he is appointing an all-party committee from this House.

Now some of the Members sitting in opposition will be in a position

where they will be able to put some input into what should happen with

the taxes and the tax assessments in this province. Now let's see how

smart they are.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: Give him the chance to be constructive.

MR. LEWIS: I'd just like to touch on marketing boards very

briefly. You know, in the past I've almost worn this subject out. The

Member for Skeena (Mr. Dent) touched on it the other day in the House,

indicating how distressed he was about the egg situation in the Prince

George area. I support the Member for Skeena in regard to this because

I do believe that that area is left, as are many, many areas, with

imported products from the lower mainland of the province.

I think a constructive programme has got to be taken by the B.C.

marketing boards — all marketing boards, not just the Egg Marketing

Board — to ensure farmers in the Interior of the province the same

right as anywhere else, that they have the right to produce the

products for their consumption.

I was a little discouraged by the amount of funds that were in the

budget for agriculture. I don't think too many people realize just how

severe the problems are in agriculture at the present time. There are

many, many people that are criticized on the prices of farm foods. I

think that if they would just take a week's time to go out and work on

a farm, go out and work in those conditions and have to live on the

receipts they receive from those farms, they may have a little

different outlook on what's happening.

I say that we've got to put much more emphasis on agriculture in

this province in the future. People are complaining now about high food

prices, but they just want to take a look at England where at the

present time a dozen eggs is worth $2.30. I think that they're in some

little different circumstances than we are. They're short of land. They

import many of their grains.

But in Canada here we have the land, we have the grain and we have

the people who can produce the food. The only thing is that those

people have to receive a fair return for their production.

I know that some constructive steps have been taken in the past year

and some people are benefiting through them. But there is a large

majority of the agricultural society out there that isn't benefiting.

The organized groups, the dairymen, the producers that are under

marketing boards, are in a fairly favourable position in regard to

their returns. But the hay producers, the grain producers, the many,

many people that are involved in vegetable production out there are

left completely without any sort of a support programme.

I would hope that something concrete will come out of this

Legislature in the next few years to see that agriculture has a chance

to thrive and has a chance to help the rest of the economy in this

province as well.

Mr. Steves moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of personal

privilege to claim the traditional rights of parliament that budget

details are presented to the Legislature first. The Minister of

Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) has this morning announced from the steps

of the building that more money will be made available for education

than is shown in the budget document. The public and not the Members of

this Legislature have been advised by radio of the statements of the

Minister. I ask the Minister of Finance to withdraw the budget document

for amendments and reintroduce it at the next sitting of the House.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I draw the Member's attention to page 134 of the budget for his budget speech of last Monday, and I will quote it to him:

Further, Mr. Speaker, along with this amount of money, we will make

available special supplementary warrants for any school district that

shows us an exorbitantly high student-teacher ratio. The Minister

herself will initiate that action upon completion of a survey, and she

has the authority from myself and the Treasury Board to come for

special warrants throughout this year if circumstances call for this

emergency help. Case-by-case, situation-by-situation study will be

given by the Minister."

She has been given the authority by the Treasury Board for those

special supplementary warrants, Mr. Speaker. We want these school

boards to become involved directly with the Minister. If they can make

the case, the money will be made available. We hope these measures will

lead to reduced class size.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, if the budget is to be meaningful,

these figures should be contained in the budget. I don't believe that

this morning there was any negotiation with school trustees or boards

of trustees or anyone else.

[ Page 260 ]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: She repeated the statement made by the Minister of Finance.

MR. SPEAKER: I think there is ample evidence of the proposal

in the opening of the budget speech that was presented on Monday. I

can't quite see what the question of privilege is. I would certainly

like the assistance of the Members in regard to that point before any

precipitate decision upon the matter.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, in 1949 when the government was

confronted by the teachers for not giving enough money to education,

the Finance Minister, Anscomb, brought in a special appropriation by a

bill, and thus amended the budget. I think the Members of the

Legislature here should have the same courtesy from the government of

today.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the usual rule in matters dealing with

over-expenditure or additional expenditure, whether or not it is

forecast in the budget, is for the government to return to the House

for a special vote at the next session of the Legislature on any

warrants that may have been granted in the interim period between

budgets.

Now if there's a proposal in the budget speech forecasting the

possibility of special warrants, undoubtedly the matter will come

before this House for debate and consideration and approval or

rejection at the next regular session where these warrants are reviewed

by the House.

MR.BENNETT: That's all I ask for, Mr. Speaker: that they withdraw the budget and amend it to the new figures.

MR. SPEAKER: I thought I clarified the matter of special

warrants. I think that the Hon. Member is aware that every year, at one

stage during the proceedings of the House, the question of special

warrants is taken up in a supplementary vote. Is there any special

point?

MR. SMITH: Yes, the point is this: the House is presently in

session and anything that is to be added or taken from the educational

vote can be done by the Minister in this House because we are here

discussing the budget at this particular time.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to the Hon. Member that that

subject is one of debate. In this particular debate that is taking

place now, you discuss the very point that you're raising as if it were

a point of privilege — whether or not you wish to give that authority

to the government or not. It's really a matter of debate.

HON. MR. LORIMER: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to table the special report of the commissioner in the matter of the Surrey inquiry.

MR. SPEAKER: Is this report by way of statutory requirement or order-in-council?

HON. MR. LORIMER: No, it is not.

MR. SPEAKER: Then you would ask leave of the House that the report be tabled.

HON. MR. LORIMER: I therefore ask leave of the House that the report be tabled.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:38 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright 1974, 2001, 2013: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada