1972 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 29th

Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is

for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 1972

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 293 ]

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 1972

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the

Members I sent the following telegram today:

MISS KAREN MAGNUSSON,

C/O THE PRESIDENT OF THE OLYMPIC ASSOCIATION, SAPPORO,

JAPAN. CONGRATULATIONS ON YOUR WINNING THE SILVER MEDAL FOR

FIGURE-SKATING AT THE WINTER OLYMPICS. ALL CANADIANS AND BRITISH

COLUMBIANS ARE PROUD OF YOU AND YOUR FINE EFFORTS.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

HON. D.R.J. CAMPBELL (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Mr.

Speaker, I would like the House to welcome today students and their

teachers from Campbell River District High School.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the first Member for Vancouver

Centre.

MR. H.P. CAPOZZI (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, I would ask

the Members to welcome a representative from the organisation known as

ATTAC, an organisation which is designed to tackle adverse conditions

in the eastern part of Vancouver. They are here on application for a

grant from the drugs, cigarette and education fund in relation to

glue-sniffing, and I'm hopeful that they will receive this grant. And I

hope you will join with me in welcoming Mr. Brian Jenkins, who is in the

Speaker's gallery.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Nanaimo.

MR. F.J. NEY (Nanaimo): Mr. Speaker, I'd like you to welcome

today Mr. William Coates from the Gabriola Island Ratepayers

Association.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the second Member for Vancouver

South.

MRS. A. KRIPPS (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, I would like

this House to join me in extending a hearty welcome to Mr. and Mrs.

Paul Ruben of the Canadian Folk Society in Vancouver.

Introduction of bills.

HON. L.R PETERSON (Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I have the

honour to present a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE JURY ACT

MR. SPEAKER: The Lieutenant-Governor transmits herewith a bill

intituled

An Act to Amend the Jury Act and recommends the same to the

legislative assembly. Dated at Government House, February 7, 1972.

House in committee on Bill No. 27, intituled

An Act to Amend the Jury Act .

On the recommendation of the committee, Bill No. 27 introduced, read

a first time and ordered to be placed on the orders of the day for

second reading at the next sitting after today.

Orders of the day.

ON THE BUDGET

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

Opposition.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I am

very pleased to again stand in my place on behalf of the wonderful

people of the District of Coquitlam, City of Port Moody and the City of

Port Coquitlam.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did they donate that suit?

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, that's known as a hound's tooth. My

clothier told me that 24 dogs wore out their teeth chewing to get to

the pattern.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're going to the dogs!

MR. BARRETT: Yes, that's about it.

Mr. Speaker, I was especially pleased with the number of people that

we have with us today. I was inclined to stand up and welcome the Hon.

Member from Nanaimo (Mr. Ney) for being with us today. (Laughter). But

since he's here I hope he'll enjoy the afternoon.

We have too, Mr. Speaker, some students from Campbell River, I

understand. They're especially welcome. While they're here perhaps they

might pick up some old government exams. They've been having a few

problems, and I do hope that their visit today won't be considered a

matter of playing hookey. They've come down to the real seat of power,

and they can watch their own M.L.A. — he's one of the aspirants for

that seat. Sometimes they say he flies by his seat. In any event I'm

glad that they're down here.

Also I would like to welcome the group from the ATTAC group in the

east end of Vancouver. There are some of us in this House that belong

to a very exclusive club — the Minister of Highways, the second Member

for Vancouver East and myself are all the products of the east end of

Vancouver and graduates of Britannia High School. The Minister of

Highways — and I speak to him as the Minister of Highways because he

can do more for me that way than he can as Provincial Secretary; if the

Premier doesn't have road problems in Kelowna I've got a few of my own

problems — but anyway we three are graduates from Britannia, and I'm

pleased to announce that I've been invited to play in the reunion rugby

game again on March 4. I've decided to get into shape again, I missed

lunch today, but we'll see how I perform. They want the Minister back at

the annual meeting this year, and I'm hoping that he'll be able to make

it.

When it comes to the budget, Mr. Speaker, I intend to be very, very

brief. When I was discussing the budget with one of my colleagues they

said: "Well, you really don't have to do too much work to answer the

budget," and I said: "Well, what do you mean?" They said: "Well, look at

it this way. It was done in 1965 style, 1965 words, 1965 promises — why

don't you just read your 1965 reply, and you'll be all even." Of course,

Mr. Speaker, I really considered that.

[ Page 294 ]

After that fantastic build-up that we were given about the budget,

the disappointments were very, very great. What the budget was really

saying, Mr. Speaker, was that this government plays politics for the

sake of politics. Not politics for the sake of people.

Mr. Speaker, it is my opinion that the budget has cheated the people

of B.C. of their expectations. There was a deliberate over-emphasis on

what this budget would contain, and the build-up led to disappointment

and renewed frustrations.

In terms of the people who really need some help in this province — especially the senior citizens — there was very little comfort that $4

a month could give to these people who are still in their own homes.

There are 203,000 senior citizens in this province, Mr. Speaker — 106,000 of them have an income so low that they qualify to receive the

federal assistance supplementary grant. A further 15,000 of these have

incomes even smaller that allow them to qualify for the provincial

supplement; 55 per cent of the 203,000 people who are senior citizens

of this province — 55 per cent of them live on the edge or in poverty

by the standards set by the Economic Council of Canada.

In one of the richest provinces of Canada — do you approve of that,

Mr. Premier? — 55 per cent of the senior citizens of this province

under your jurisdiction live on the edge or in poverty.

There was an opportunity to provide these people a basic income that

would allow them to have some comforts in their golden years, as they

are described by the young sociologists. Did the Premier announce the

elimination of premiums for medicare for the aged? Not at all.

Did he suggest that drugs should be made available at cost or even

free? Not at all.

Did he suggest that some special guidance services, other than the

pitiful attempts that have been made, should be provided these people?

Not at all.

But he did make a statement, and I read from the budget on page 8,

Mr. Speaker, about his approaches to the federal government, and I quote

on page 8:

…Second is British Columbia's long standing

proposals for the implementation of a nationally-administered

guaranteed annual income for all Canadians through a negative income

tax. Federal payments to any Canadian with income below a national

standard would create market demand and provide the opportunity for a

national standard of living.

Mr. Speaker, the facts are that this government under the Canada

Assistance Plan could initiate a guaranteed annual income for the

senior citizens of this province, and all costs would be shared 50-50 by

Ottawa. Although the Minister shakes his head, the federal Minister's

answer is on record in reply to Grace MacInnis in the federal House

that all supplements are shared 50-50 by law under the Canada

Assistance Plan, and if the Premier of this province wanted to bring in

an annual guaranteed income for senior citizens in this province, it

could be done immediately.

What about the costs? What about the costs? Let's examine another

figure in the Premier's budget. I refer you to page 40, graph A, Mr.

Speaker.

This province relies heavily, as the Premier announced in his budget

speech, on the natural resources of this province. Some of the

resources are renewable, others are non-renewable, and they must be

described, Mr. Speaker — the natural gas, the petroleum, the mineral

resources — as a life blood of this province that is non-renewable.

In 1959-1960, by the government's own graph, 14.6 per cent of the

general revenue came directly from natural resources of this province.

In 1972-73 that figure has dropped to 11.8 per cent, Mr. Speaker. With

all the expansions, with all the boom, with all the growth, there was a

2.8 per cent less addition to general revenue of this province out of

its natural resources.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I've broken down some figures to show how we could

pay the people of British Columbia who are 65 years of age and older a

minimum of $200 a month pension, guaranteed annual income $200 a month

each at age 65, if the Premier of this province had even allowed the

natural resources of this province to continue to pay their fair share

of the load in general revenue.

A 2.8 per cent loss of revenue, Mr. Speaker, would have meant in

this year's budget an additional $54 million. The total cost of

providing those people, the 203,000 who are senior citizens of this

province, the total cost of providing those people with a minimum

income of $200 per month would amount to the following breakdown:

106,000 presently receive a supplement, the federal supplement, and

to bring them up to $200 a month — the provincial share to bring it up

to $200 a month — would be $33 a month.

15,000 people receive the federal supplement and the provincial

supplement and the provincial share. To bring them up to $200 a month

would be $13 a month.

Of the 82,000 people left, Mr. Speaker, at least 23,000 of them are

above the line of $200 a month each. The remaining 50,000 would require

$55 per month from the provincial government to bring them up to $200 a

month.

The total cost, Mr. Speaker, per annum would be $96 million. If we

had no new taxes, Mr. Speaker, no new taxes whatsoever, if we had asked

the natural resources of this province to carry their fair share like

the home-owner does, like the working man does, like the retired person

does, like the civil servant does — just carry the same share they were

carrying in 1960 — we would have had an additional $54 million.

If we would ask the Kaiser Coal Company to pay $1 a ton on its

contract alone, plus the other coal that is going out of British

Columbia, we would have an additional $15 million a year. Coal is now

selling at $18.60 a ton — $5 million Kaiser Coal pays no royalty

whatsoever and the other coal shipped from British Columbia pays a

maximum of 25 cents a ton. A business-like administration?

On copper, Mr. Speaker, if we put a 15 per cent royalty on copper — a modest, reasonable, acceptable royalty — we would have collected

another $17 million last year.

We could have raised a total of $86 million by the three measures

that I have recommended here without touching natural gas, petroleum

or the other items that exist, and the difference between the $86

million and $96 million could easily come out of general revenue.

We could have been the first in North America to go on to an

expanded Townsend plan of providing income to senior citizens that

would be spent every single month and go back into the economy and the

life stream of this province, and provide these people with a decent,

adequate standard of living.

AN HON. MEMBER: Like you do in Manitoba?

MR. BARRETT: I'm glad the Hon. Member is here today — and

awake — because it's a pleasure to remind him that if

[ Page 295 ]

he checks the scale back in the budget he'll see on page 27 where the

Premier has the comparative provincial government tax rate, 1972. He

lists down here the amount of Manitoba — that they have to pay for

their hospital insurance. Then you go to the next column, over to

compulsory plan. They don't say how much they have to pay.

Senior citizens in Manitoba don't pay for their medical plan, Mr.

Member. They don't pay for their medical plan, Mr. Member. I'm talking

about the medical care and not the hospital insurance, and notice how

the Premier changes the wording as it suits him.

There is another matter that I wish to bring to the Premier's

attention in terms of his figures and his approaches to financing,

because I think that he should know this. On November 6, when the

Premier was speaking about his financing to the Social Credit

convention, he said, and I quote from the Vancouver Province :

Today there is no argument about whether or not the Government of

British Columbia is debt free or not. Financial people around the world

knows it. They've sent a man to Vancouver to find out how this

government handles its finances. He's been here four months, and he's

just dizzy. He knows less now than when he did when he arrived."

Well, he's just dizzy. What does the federal government say about it?

In answer to a question on the order paper, and then a personal

reply to the Member of Parliament for Surrey, Mr. Mather, Mr. Benson

answered as follows. January 14, 1972.

Dear Mr. Mather:

Thank you for your letter of January 10 in which you asked whether

the Bank of Canada sent a special representative to British Columbia to

study the financial methods of B.C. government. The simple answer is

that it did not.

Now who's telling the truth? Who's telling the truth, Mr. Speaker?

The Premier announces to the Social Credit convention — his political

arm — he makes a statement that Ottawa sent out a special

representative to study the finances of the Province of British

Columbia, and the Minister of Finance says the simple answer is it did

not send out a representative to study British Columbia's finances.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I expect that the Premier will

announce that he was mistaken perhaps in saying that the federal

government had sent someone out to study the finances. But the other

part of his statement is correct. The other part of his statement is

correct. Anybody who studies the finances of this government and came

out believing that we're still debt free would be dizzy after four

months, Mr. Speaker.

Our debt now stands at $2,600 million in this province. Mr. Speaker,

I checked with my banker about the mortgage on my home and said that I

would like to alter the approach that I'm taking to pay for my home

because I don't like being in debt.

I want my home classified as a contingent liability. Will I still

have to pay interest on the mortgage, and will I have to make my monthly

payments? Because I've been watching the financial genius that claims

to be the most unique accountant in all the world, explaining how, if

you change the name from "debt" to "contingent liability," you don't

have to pay any interest. Because you don't have any debt anymore.

My banker said that he wasn't interested in politics; he was just

interested in me keeping up my payments.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that the obligations of this province

are the same as my mortgage. I have a contingent liability — which is a

debt. This province has contingent liabilities, which are debts, and the

people of this province are paying interest on their own money,

collected by taxes in this province. Collected by taxes in this

province, loaned out to school districts, at an interest rate at the

market level, and people must pay interest on their own money because of

this contingent liability nonsense.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, you tell me who your banker is, and

if he tells you he'll cancel your mortgage because you call it a

contingent liability, I'd like to know his name. I'd like to know his

name, because there are a lot of people in this province that would like

to do business with him.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're out of your depth.

MR. BARRETT: I'm not out of my depth, and neither is the

Member out of debt. I heard what he said, and I'm glad that he's here

today from Victoria. I know that they're all excited about his

representation here.

Mr. Speaker, I noticed in the paper another statement from a

Liberal. Another ex-cabinet Minister, one that I find most interesting

observer of the Canadian economic scene. Mr. Kierans, a very

interesting fellow. Renowned business expert, ran a stock exchange that,

to my knowledge, didn't have the problems ours had, Mr. Speaker, left

the stock exchange and went into the federal cabinet, had a tiff with

the present federal ultra-conservative government, known as Liberal,

and left the cabinet.

I quote him out of the Victoria Colonist , February 4, 1972.

If Canada gets locked into being a supplier of resources and does

not develop industry, it could have problems that are now not even

contemplated. Unemployment could rise to 7 or 8 per cent in the next

few years, then to 9 and maybe up to 12, unless effective industrial

bases can be formed.

He's giving a very serious warning about a pattern of the

development of the economy of this country that many Members of this

House agree with. Yet the Premier's answer is to advocate free trade,

advocate free trade which would mean that Canadian manufacturers with a

10 million population of an adult consumer group would have to compete

with 100 million adults down there or 200 million total population to

our 22 million population.

The point is, Mr. Speaker, that you could not possibly develop the

manufacturing or secondary industry in this province to compete with an

open market down there.

I'll give you some specific examples. We make all of our milk

cartons here on the lower mainland out of a couple of box factories

that rely heavily on Canadian paper and Canadian labour. The number of

milk cartons produced provides approximately 300 people permanent

employment all year around.

If we had free trade, Mr. Speaker, the number of milk cartons

produced by those 300 people here on the lower mainland, would be a

production over-run in the Los Angeles

[ Page 296 ]

area that would amount to one month's work at a lower price.

Just in that one example alone, Mr. Speaker, one month's

over-production of the existing plant to make milk cartons would lay

off 300 people in the Province of British Columbia. That's what free

trade would bring.

The production capacity is so great, it's geared to such a large

market, that unless we have the protection at the border, that kind of

industry would be wiped out over night.

The Minister of Agriculture recognises that when it comes to the

production of fruit. The Minister of Health knows very well what I'm

talking about. He knows that on that basis in terms of numbers alone we

can't compete. Here's what Eric Kierans is warning us about, and what

does the Premier say? Let us go into free trade, which would commit us

completely to be the hewers of wood and drawers of water.

No destiny of our own for the use of our own products, no plan at

all by this government. The natural resource return from this province,

Mr. Speaker, has not been developed properly. They have had the idea

that industry could come into this province and create jobs at the

secondary industry level without any direction or leadership from this

provincial government.

What we need in this province, Mr. Speaker, is an industrial

development corporation, which would allow the citizens of British

Columbia to participate directly in the development of industry in this

province — and we need a government that is willing to bargain, to

stand up and fight for the people of British Columbia when it comes to

making deals in terms of the selling of natural resources in this

province.

Where are the jobs, Mr. Speaker? At this present time in the

B.C.–Yukon

section of the Unemployment Insurance Commission, there are

117,000 people drawing unemployment insurance benefits in B.C. and

Yukon.

The total population of the Yukon is only 16,000, Mr. Speaker. It

means that over 100,000 people in British Columbia today, for one

reason or another, are relying on unemployment insurance as their

income in this great Province of British Columbia. Last week there were

close to 8,000 applications for unemployment insurance in one week

alone.

I'm sure the budget was great news to those people. We're running 3

per cent ahead of applications of a year ago for unemployment insurance

in this province, and I have no idea, Mr. Speaker, how the federal

government plays jiggery-pokery with the figures of Statistics Canada of

the number of unemployed in British Columbia.

But there is too great a discrepancy between the 117,000 and the

73,000 they say are unemployed. There are not that many people on

maternity leave, Mr. Speaker, unless there has been a huge boom in

births in the last month. There are not that many people who have just

resigned and retired and getting their last year of unemployment

insurance.

The fact is that the discrepancy that exists between those figures

and the unemployment figures that we've been given in this province are

just too great, and they need an explanation by the federal government

and the provincial government.

Mr. Speaker, what has this government done in terms of the

development of an industrial development corporation, tying it in with

the pension plan here in British Columbia? Why don't we take the

initiative and start a provincial pension plan tied in with an

industrial development corporation, allowing people to build up a

secondary pension right here in the Province of British Columbia and

allow people to retire much earlier than they are presently doing? I

suggest to you that requiring people to work until 65 years of age

while we are turning out young high school graduates and university

graduates to have them go on welfare rolls or on the unemployment

rolls, while we ask people to continue to pay taxes and work to the age

of 65, is sheer folly.

Let's begin retiring people at 55 with an adequate income and allow

them to have the access to the golden years that are due them.

Mr. Speaker, this government could lead. It could lead. Why don't we

allow all civil servants in British Columbia to retire at 55 with an

adequate pension tied in with the cost of living and open up many, many

jobs right here in this province to the young, educated people that we

presently have? It is the first time, Mr. Speaker, since the

depression, that we have teachers on welfare in this province. We have

university graduates on welfare in this province. We even have people

with their master's degree on welfare in this province. Some

commentary! Some commentary on this government and its dynamic

policies! This government hasn't developed any new moves that have any

imagination or promise or hope in the last five or six years.

They have tried. They have been sold the myth that bigness is best.

They have the idea that an outside multinational corporation can come

into this province and centralise its operation and make money.

The classic example, Mr. Speaker, is the Bulkley Valley Forest

Products at Houston, which I spoke of three years ago in this House,

two years ago in this House, last year and now this year. The Minister

of Lands and Forests and I had a heated exchange over how much control

the Bulkley Valley Forest Products had in their pulp harvesting area.

When I said to the Minister that they controlled 99 per cent of the

saw logs in that area, he said: "That's not true." We carried that

exchange out into the corridor, until next day in the House I brought

in a report from the Minister of Trade and Industrial Development and I

read that Bulkley Valley Forest Products, according to his own report,

said that they had control of 99 per cent of the saw logs in that area.

What has happened in that area, since Bulkley Valley Forest Products

came in and this government's commitment to bigness and sell-out? We

were told that under the policy of this government there would be no

selling of quotas. That we would protect the small logger and permit

the small logger a place in the economy in this province.

But what happened in the north, Mr. Speaker? Bulkley Valley Forest

Products came in and didn't buy quotas, because that was wrong. They

bought out companies, and one of the assets of the company was the quota

it had for the timber, and in that way they gathered together 99 per

cent of the control of the saw logs in that area.

They went into one small town after another in the north. They

bought out these small companies, and their first moves after gathering

the quota was to tear down the saw mills and, in some cases, Mr.

Speaker, burn them to the ground with the charred hulks still standing

there on Highway 16. They centralised the total forest operation into

the town of Houston, and they set up a new company town.

Those people who were in Houston had their democracy taken away from

them. The Minister of Municipal Affairs announced that he would appoint

three people to the new town council. The mayor only happened to be the

vice-president of the local company. They re-zoned the town and

[ Page 297 ]

on they went to another company town fiasco. Then, Mr. Speaker, the

announcement came that they would begin to hire people for work in the

mill.

Mr. Speaker, in 1969, there were 2,300 welfare cases in that area

before this new timber operation opened up. As of today, Mr. Speaker,

there are approximately 2,600 people on welfare in that area. Social

Credit centralised welfare in the north. Social Credit eliminated the

small logger in that area. Bulkley Valley Forest Products appears in

this book to be building a pulp mill, which is an incorrect statement.

Mr. Speaker, I won't say it's false. It's an incorrect statement — they

are not building the pulp mill as promised in that area.

Although it shows in this book that's going abroad to citizens in

this province that it's being built, it's simply not true, Mr. Speaker.

But perhaps the Premier didn't know it, perhaps, as my friend the Member

from Vancouver East described it, perhaps the courtiers were only trying

to please the king, and they put it in the budget without his

knowledge. There's no pulp mill being built there, and no jobs.

A dramatic increase in welfare, and what has happened to the

social-economic structure of that area? A pioneering area of this

province,

Mr. Speaker. I'll tell you what's happened. The 50- and 55-year-old

veteran of World War II, who came back after the war with interrupted

educational opportunities, bought small lots of land in that area. The

Member from Omineca knows this.

They were pioneers in that area. They came back with hopes and

aspirations after the war, and with their VLA grant they bought small

plots of land, and to supplement the small farming that they did, they

went to work in the numerous sawmills in that area.

They weren't highly sophisticated sawmills. But they all made money;

they all made money. They worked hard; they worked long hours; they

were independent; they were tough; they had pride; they had dignity;

they had self respect. They were the backbone of the kind of image that

we have of how this province was built.

And what happened when Bulkley Forest Products came in? Also in

those mills were the marginal workers. The native Indian population

that was indigenous to the area had no difficulty in finding part-time

or full-time jobs as they wished in the forests, or in the mills.

The native Indian population was involved in the logging and the

small saw mills in that area as well.

When those small saw mills were bought out, when Bulkley Valley

Forest Products cornered the saw logs in the area and had a monopoly,

that veteran no longer had a job, and that native Indian no longer had

a job. Because the multi-national corporation brought in its

university-trained personnel department that had never been outside of

New York or London, Mr. Speaker, and they sat down to do their

interviewing in Bond Street suits in Houston, B.C. Yes, in Houston.

Can you imagine the impression that a top, honest, hard-working

citizen of the north made to a highly sophisticated city-slicker

personnel officer? He was turned down on a job. The Member for South

Peace River (Mr. Marshall) smiles — he knows very well that that's what

goes on. The city-slicker personnel officer comes in and has no

understanding whatsoever of the social-economic structure of the area.

He's looking for young blood, someone he thinks can produce eight hours

work a day at a massive production job. So the indigenous veteran who

was in the area was cut out. The native Indian was cut out….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. BARRETT: Well, we know that the incoming company officials

made sure that their wives had jobs as well. That's the only way, Mr.

Speaker — two incomes — to live in that company housing project. It's

known in the local vernacular as "Hamburger Hill." After you pay the

rents in the company housing project you're down to hamburger if you're

lucky.

Young workers came up from the lower mainland and were paid wages

that were comparable to the coast but found rents, food costs, gasoline

prices and other necessities of life one-third higher than down here

on the lower mainland in many instances. They weren't going to stay.

Young married people 22, 23, 24, 25 years of age, they went to work in

the mill for a month or two months — quit, came back to town. When I

complained to the company that they had a fantastic turnover, fantastic

percentage of turnover in personnel, they wrote me a letter and said:

"You're being nasty again, Mr. Leader of the Opposition. Our turnover

is only 9 per cent a month."

I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that any company that's

experiencing a 10 per cent turnover per year is in a deep personnel

problem — 9 per cent a month, I think that's 108 per cent a year, a

complete turnover of staff plus.

Every year young men coming up, working eight weeks — enough to get

unemployment insurance — then drifting back down to Vancouver. The

local residents have long ago worn out their unemployment insurance

benefits. They've had to turn to welfare, and now the company has

announced — with all its technological know-how, all its bigness, all

its commitment that we've had from this government allowing these big

companies to do it "because they know how to do it best" — this company

now announces that it has lost $60 million. The small logger who didn't

have a highly sophisticated university education or a Bond Street suit

but had a love for the land, had a commitment to his local community — he was prepared to work long hours, because he had a share in what was

going on. He made money in the small mill, and he made money for this

government and his small mill because he paid wages and taxes. He's out

of business; the big corporation came in, and they've lost $60 million,

and they have destroyed forever, Mr. Speaker, a way of life in the

north that cannot be recaptured in that region.

This House has always had Members who have a background in logging — first-hand skills and knowledge. The former Member for North Vancouver,

Mr. Gibson, the Member from Terrace, he knows very well what that huge

corporation has done in that area. He knows very well that it has

destroyed the way of life and dignity and self-respect for a whole

generation of people living in that area. And then we have the Minister

of Lands, Forests and Water Resources coming in giving us "Bowater bath

water" when he announces the bigness of the development in that area.

MR. R.M. STRACHAN (Cowichan-Malahat): Lecture 86.

MR. BARRETT: "Lecture 86," says my friend from

Cowichan-Malahat. Gibberish, gobbledegook, up-and-down nonsense. And up

in Houston, Smithers, Burns Lake in that pioneering area of the north

can you get a job? No! But you can have a copy of Lecture 187.

Gibberish, nonsense. You can go down, and if you're lucky in the beer

parlour you might see one of the Bond Street boys walking by from his

desk job at the personnel office.

[ Page 298 ]

Oh yes, one thing Social Credit has done for them though, Mr.

Speaker — and they must be given full credit for it — they're not

empty-handed. They do have mementos of the past. They're given

something to hang up beside their picture of mother — it's a job

opportunity certificate.

Mr. Speaker, I used to hear the Member for Omineca (Hon. Mr.

Shelford) come to this House, plead for the small people of the north,

fight even for the beavers. Now the closest he comes to that is the

beaver hat on budget day. I remember, Mr. Speaker, and my good friend

the Member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) described them as the

"summer rebel down here for a winter pasture." And he was right, Mr.

Speaker, because economic policies of this government have destroyed a

way of life up there for those people of Omineca.

But they've missed one man, they've missed one man. He doesn't fight

about the 60-cents-a-gallon gas up in Omineca any more — he buys it

down here in Victoria. Where is the voice of the north? It's left in

the hands…and I'll give credit to him. The Member from Terrace (Mr.

Little) on occasion gets up and throws off his hearing aid, and throws

off his commitments to this group and busts loose once in a while. But

the only real friend of the north in this whole….

Interjection by

an Hon. Member.

MR. BARRETT: He does, he cuts loose. Rips it right out. He

does it especially well, Mr. Speaker, he does it especially well when

the Member from Saanich (Mr. Tisdalle) is speaking. We see it fly. He's

a little country boy — he knows what big city life is all about.

And you know, Mr. Speaker, he's muzzled. The only voice left

fighting for

the North in this House is the Member for Atlin (Mr. Calder), and I say:

"Thank God we've got him here."

The north, the north so forgotten — not even mentioned in the

budget. No hope for the north in this budget, Mr. Speaker, just

politics.

Then of course we have the new agriculture policy, but just in case

the Minister of Agriculture really wants to advertise agriculture,

they've decided he won't get the budget but it will go into the hands

of the famous non-politician, that non-partisan Member of the cabinet,

that man who makes the democratic decisions at all times. None other

than the Member from Victoria, the Minister of trade and industrial

affairs. (Hon. Mr. Skillings). That sterling character who beyond a

doubt has shown imagination and leadership that's necessary to spend a

$200,000 budget on agriculture.

The last time it was that large it was an election year, Mr.

Speaker. It is a unique crop, it is a unique crop that grows, spawning

an agricultural budget every three years. It's not even a perennial,

it's not a biennial, it's a triennial rise in the agriculture estimates.

Coincidence, Mr. Speaker, absolutely guaranteed to be coincidental with

the provincial election.

Good agriculture. I guess they only fertilise every three years

under Social Credit. You know, Mr. Speaker, $200,000 in the hands of

that Minister to run around and advertise for the development of

agriculture products in this province. That money belongs in the hands

of the Minister of Agriculture, and frankly I trust it under him far

more than under the Member from Victoria — $200,000 advertising. A lot

of it will be spent in the Okanagan, and you know what it will say in

the Okanagan? In small print it will say, "Buy B.C. Apples," in the

Okanagan and in big print: "Put in by the Government of British

Columbia to help the farmers sell their apples, by Waldo Skillings,

Minister of Trade and Industry. (p.s. Cyril Shelford has a hand in this

too.)" And that will allow the farmers to buy all their own apples and

solve their economic problems and bring along the prosperity they need.…

MR. SPEAKER: I don't want to interrupt the Honourable Leader,

but I think there is a tendency going in the House to refer to

Honourable Members by name.

MR. BARRETT: That's correct.

MR. SPEAKER: And I hope this practice will discontinue.

MR. BARRETT: You are quite correct, Mr. Speaker. I was just

referring to the projected ad. I don't think that the ad would.…

MR. SPEAKER: Members may not do indirectly what they cannot

do directly.

MR. BARRETT: That's correct. O.K. then, if the ad would

conform to the ruling of the Speaker — which I accept — it would say

"put in by the Minister of Trade and Industry" and leave a space blank

for his name. I would welcome such a ruling. They could slip names in

and out; why, some of them even run ads with the picture of the Premier.

"I have been commissioned," he said. Yes, yes, he has been commissioned.

AN HON. MEMBER: Know ye by all these presents.

MR. BARRETT: Right. What about the poor farmer — he can't buy

his own apples? He can't buy his own apples.

Interjection by an Hon.

Member.

MR. BARRETT: You know, Mr. Speaker, it's a strange phenomena

for us in this House to have two strikes governing airlines in one

session. One strike, and we thought we had the Hon. Minister here for a

week. Two strikes, and we got him here for another week. As soon as the

planes are flying again he'll be on his back-and-forth route carrying

the message as he so happily does. "He has been commissioned," and

there he is spending some time with us again today.

Mr. Speaker, to sell apples to the farmers is not the answer to

their problems. What this government should be doing is using this

$200,000 for a new marketing concept. There is nothing wrong with it,

except in the case of the fruit growers, Mr. Speaker, they have been

captured by the marketing end, by the large food chains. And because

there is not a multiplicity of outlets that the farmers have the direct

access to, their marketing board becomes captured by Safeway, the

Weston chain, and their prices are dictated by those chains.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this government would be well advised

to spend $200,000 and develop farmers' markets in the regional areas in

this province, allow the farmers to have competitive access to markets.

Allow them to bring truck loads of apples down to the City of Vancouver

and sell apples to the local residents without the middleman, Mr.

Speaker, without the middleman, and without the competition from those

chains that drives their local prices down, while Washington State

apples are being dumped right here in this province.

[ Page 299 ]

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. BARRETT: The marketing board can help. It has arranged

and has options. When we were in Washington State we spoke to one

Member, a legislator who shall go unnamed from Eastern Washington. He

said: "What's with you fellows?"

AN HON. MEMBER: Name him out.

MR. BARRETT: I'll tell you in the corridor, and you can write

him.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. BARRETT: What I'm going to say, Mr. Minister, is that he

wondered why Washington State apples were selling in the Okanagan

cheaper than our own Okanagan apples were. And I didn't have an answer

for him.

You go up there and tell them. I bought apples that were selling for

29 cents a pound in Princeton — Macintosh apples from Washington State.

I bought them at Princeton at 29 cents a pound. And went to the packing

house in Keremeos and found that they were getting 8 cents and 9 cents

a pound for those same apples.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. BARRETT: No, I'm not blaming the board, and I make it very

clear, I said there's nothing wrong with the marketing board. What I

suggest is that the government should take the leadership in providing

access to markets other than the chains. Because it's the international

chains that are forcing the small farmer in this province to gather low

prices for his food. Allow a regional market to be open in Prince

George, allow a market to be open in the City of Victoria so that the

senior citizens who live here can have direct access to fresh fruit

from the Okanagan at a reasonable price without Safeway, without Weston

taking their cream off in the middle.

These Members from the rural areas know; they can tell it much

better than I can. When I was in Penticton there was a meeting of 500

farmers. They were discussing the formation of a union. They had come

to the coast to picket ships bringing in Japanese apples, and they found

in talking to longshoreman a sense of brotherhood, a sense of

understanding, a sense of compassion in terms of the farmers' problem

and the workers' problem. And without the offices of the trade union

leadership the longshoremen on the job asked the farmers if they wanted

them to down tools, and if the farmers had said yes, we will down

tools, they would have. But after an hour of talking with the farmers

they decided to quit anyway, they didn't want to see the fellows who

they'd been in the Canadian armed services with, they wouldn't want to

see their relatives and their friends from the Okanagan having to

compete with Japanese apples while our own apples were selling at high

prices here, and they were getting low prices for their own growth.

Another industry….

MR. D.G. LITTLE (Skeena): Those were New Zealand apples.

MR. BARRETT: Sorry, it was the New Zealand apples.

They wanted open access to the Japanese markets and the New Zealand

markets. Right. You are quite right, it was. You know, Mr. Speaker, if

you are really concerned, you're familiar with the problems in the

north, and you know quite well that what I am talking about Houston is

absolutely right, those welfare rolls are up, centralisation of

industry was a mistake.

Now the pressure is on the Okanagan; it is designated as a depressed

area, it is so, it still is.

Mr. Speaker, the federal government has designated it as depressed

area. And what is the policy of this government in terms of developing

any help for the farmer? — $200,000 worth of advertising under that

great farmer who is an expert on fertiliser, the Member from Victoria

(Hon. Mr. Skillings). We know what kind of operation we'll have there.

You know, Mr. Speaker, we saw no effort whatsoever by the government

to develop a new concept in labour relations or tying it in with the

development of secondary industry. During my discussions with the

Toyota motor people last year I discussed with them the possibility of

direct worker participation in the ownership of an assembly plant, and

it was not a foreign idea to them, although it was to us, Mr. Speaker.

I suggest to you that in North America, if we continue in our old

style of having management and a trade union continue to play their

traditional roles spurred on by this government in the confrontation

through such legislation as

section 18 of Bill 33 — there will be no

government leadership to bring a new dimension of growth and

understanding here in this province.

Through an industrial development corporation we could permit people

to start owning directly in the industries they are working at. The

government would have its share, and private capital, through this type

of mixed economy financing. Every country that has moved in that

direction has had a decrease in the amount of labour strife over the

years.

Our system is based on greed, Mr. Speaker. The motivating word in

private enterprise is greed. It is the base word that stimulates

everyone in the kind of society that says "get out and grab what you

can." It is a grab, grab, grab system with a low cushion on the end for

those who don't survive.

When industry says that a mixed economy would bring in unfair

competition I ask you this, Mr. Speaker. In private enterprise, what is

unfair competition? Ruthless private enterprise begs for protection

from unfair competition when they espouse out of the other side of

their mouth that they want competition.

You know, Mr. Speaker, the opportunity of bringing the working

people of this province into partnership with this government and with

private capital, into a mixed economy sponsoring the development of

secondary industry, has been missed completely by this government, and it

deliberately, in my opinion, charges full force ahead, hoping for labour

strifes, hoping for conflicts, hoping to continue to divide the people

of this province so that they can come out as the political saviours of

the situations they have raised.

Mr. Speaker, 20 years of crisis by crisis by crisis government will

continue, and we'd had evidence of that continuation in this budget.

In terms of the north, Mr. Speaker, has there been any attempt to

cooperate with the Yukon? Every time the Premier talks about the Yukon,

he wants to annex it. Every time he has a vision in the north, it means

ownership in the Yukon.

You know, Mr. Speaker, every time he is in trouble down

[ Page 300 ]

here on the coast, he can always point to the north and say that we

can annex the Yukon. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that there is a great

opportunity for a meeting of minds between Alaskans, British Columbians

and Yukon residents. There should be a regional planning board

sponsored by this government, by representatives of the Yukon and by

Alaska. After my trip to Washington State, Mr. Speaker, I received a

wire from the Yukon, from the Yukon Northern Resource Conference.

They have asked me, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition, to

attend the Yukon Northern Resource Conference. They have asked me to be

their luncheon speaker on April 6, and the topic they have selected,

because of frustration over this government, the topic they have asked

me to speak on is "Yukon and British Columbian relationship."

The Attorney General will stamp his feet, and the Attorney General

will get teary-eyed, and the Attorney General will raise the flag of

British Columbia and again miss an opportunity to provide some

leadership for this regional area that we must understand we share in

common with people on the coast and in the interior.

The only time I saw the Attorney General get stimulated during the

budget speech was when the Premier mentioned succession duty and he

jumped up and saluted, Mr. Speaker. He knew what the Premier was

talking about.

You know, Mr. Speaker, before I leave the north I want to remind the

Premier of the kind of trip that will be made after this budget speech,

a trip that will be made annually through the north. Some of the

Members might have got a glimpse of the Cadillac that drives through.

Sitting in the back of the Cadillac is usually the Member for Victoria

with his own brand of help to the farmer, known as fertiliser.

He sits in the back of the Cadillac and they go on a meet-the-people

tour. Now, I want to tell you, one of the things that impresses the

people up north is the big city-slicker politician coming up in a big

black Cadillac to meet the people. That really goes over, and they

usually fill up the tank before they stop at a local gas station.

But anyway, Mr. Speaker, the last time they were up there, there was

this concern in the northern area, they brought the problems of Houston

to the Premier, and the Premier at that time stopped at every gas

station.

Well, that's alright, the taxpayers are paying, the taxpayers are

paying. The Cadillac full of politicians pulled into Smithers. What

happened during the last trip in Smithers after this talk about the

pulp mill that still isn't built? After the fiasco in Houston they

arrive in Smithers and a group that's concerned about pollution — and

the Premier mentioned leaders in the world in his budget speech with

the Litter Act — last time the Cadillac was up there the S.P.E.C. group

handed the Premier a copy of their concerns for local pollution

problems — the window was rolled down and the S.P.E.C. material was

thrown out the window.

The caption is, "Caught Red-handed." Caught red-handed.

AN HON. MEMBER: Littering.…

MR. BARRETT: Caught red-handed littering in the north, none

other than Premier W.A.C. Bennett. Our own Victoria-style litter bug up

there in the north where those small folks don't mind these little

things, caught red-handed, Mr. Speaker. Enough description to frighten

the Attorney General alone. Red-handed. Not even a delicate pink finger

threw it out. (Laughter). But a blazing right hand threw out this

litter in the north:

A small S.P.E.C. action group from Smithers braved the deluge of

rain last Wednesday to distribute literature to persons arriving at

Bulkley Valley Forest Industries sawmill opening ceremonies. Above, the

Premier's car stopped when flagged down. Moments later the fact sheet

was thrown out the window of the big black Cadillac. Apparently the

occupants did not like what they read.

What's that new law about littering? A fine example. But don't

worry, you will get a second chance up north, you'll see the big black

Cadillac come up, and perhaps you will be lucky on this trip — they will

have the travelling projectionist with him and if the windows are open

and they see a few shacks here or people lined up for their welfare

cheques or unemployed people loafing in town, all they have to do is

roll up the windows in the Cadillac, pull down the black blinds and

turn on the "Good Life" and everybody can have a good time when they're

riding.

The good life — it's alright if you're travelling in a big black

Cadillac in the north. What about the urban areas? What have you done

for the urban areas? Well, politics for votes doesn't include long-term

planning. The Premier learned that a long time ago. I quote here from

the Victoria Colonist , dated Saturday, February 5, 1972. The headline

says "Pollen: 'Socreds Not Worthy of the People'." Who is Mr. Pollen?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. BARRETT: I'll read the thing. I'd like to read it all to

you, because I'd like you to know what former Social Credit candidates

are saying — along with the absent Member from Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace)

who had enough, he couldn't stomach it any more.

Mr. Pollen is the mayor of this great city; he sat right here in the

corner, right over there in the corner along with the good Doctor Shrum;

and I quote,

Mr. Pollen said:

"I sat in that House today" (that was Friday) "and

listened to the government we have had for 20 years hand out

sugar-coated inanities with no relevance to urban problems. If you look

at the Members of the House, that standard of intelligence is not

worthy of the people of this province and not capable of meeting the

problems of today that will affect the future of our children."

That probably applies to all of us. No party has a monopoly on

genius. And like it or not, no party has a monopoly on idiots.

AN HON. MEMBER: But some are cornering the market.

MR. BARRETT: But Mr. Speaker, I go on to say that Mr. Pollen

was also critical of the provincial government's pledge to pay half the

operating deficit of any operating rapid-transit system run by a

municipality or regional district.

Who is Mr. Pollen? The Mayor of Victoria, an extremely successful

businessman, a former Social Credit candidate, and this is how he

described the offer by this government to municipalities.

"Suppose that I had a business that was losing $1

million a year and the government offered to pay me half of my loss;

this is the absurd hypothesis," he told the audience of more than 350."

Imagine buying the Victoria bus system and the equipment and getting

reimbursed for half the loss. What an inducement! He's a businessman.

[ Page 301 ]

The solution to urban problems, he said, "is to have good government, and

the way to get better government is to put intelligent people

into office. If people will support moderate political leaders backed

by skilled, intelligent civil service you could have what you want,"

stated Mr. Pollen.

Well, what else did he see in this House? He saw a back-bench that

had no idea what was in the budget, and their high point of titillation

came when the total figure of the budget was announced, and they were

scampering around to see who won the pool (Laughter).

That's their participation in the budget. They really believe that

the budget figures are kept secret from them so they can keep on

playing the pool. If they ever lost that, then they couldn't play

their little game. But of course, Mr. Speaker, we did get a moment of

pride. Two and a half days of Social Credit caucus meeting, and the

chairman of the meeting, the Member from Alberni (Mr. McDiarmid) got up

and announced "the highlight of one morning was that the Premier spent

almost half a day with us."

He was down in Palm Springs writing the budget, and what was the

cabinet doing? Well, well, well, I heard that story about tennis elbow,

Mr. Speaker. Tennis elbow — and the ones who suffered it most are those

in cabinet who seek to find a leader's mantle. There they were, on cue,

a little bit weaker this year than most. Some of the backbenchers with

a little less hope in their pounding because they've seen opportunity

slip away, because they've showed a degree of individualism, they've

showed a desire to participate, they don't like the idea of being

limited to getting in the pool to find out how much the budget is.

Some of them actually think, Mr. Speaker, that they've got a part to

play in this process. But we know what happens to the uppitys who do

that kind of thing. We know. Imagine wanting to sit down and discuss

the budget details with the Premier. They can't even afford to go down

to Palm Springs, let alone get in on the meeting, some of them, some of

them.…

Later on I'll read you an interview from the Palm Springs newspaper

about how the budget was drawn up — it's a delightful little piece.

AN HON. MEMBER: He'll tell them, but he won't tell us.

MR. BARRETT: I must have a friend down there in Palm Springs.

Last year they sent me that programme, you remember the programme with

the belly-dancer, Little Egypt, the belly-dancer? And on the second

page was the provincial government sponsoring a cocktail party.

AN HON. MEMBER: Was it topless?

MR. BARRETT: The same day as Little Egypt, the belly-dancer

was performing, the cocktail party was a bust. Or was it that Little

Egypt was a bust? I'm not sure, I don't want to define it too much,

because the Attorney General might get upset. (Laughter).

But, Mr. Speaker, that budget was drawn up without the participation

of the elected Members of this House.

Where is the public accounts committee? Did they participate in any

way? Where are the other committees of this House? We just had our

annual charade, Mr. Speaker. The committees are called together, the

chairman comes in says: "I open nominations for chairman," and the

nomination comes. "I nominate X" — who is a Social Credit M.L.A. — and

someone else says "Any further nominations? Nominations closed." X is

now the chairman; democracy has worked again. "I move that the

committee dissolve itself," and the committee dissolves itself, and

again and again the memory of Damon Runyan is robbed of an experience

unlike any other legislator in North America.

The memory of Damon Runyan. Oh, if some of the Press gallery only

had a sense of humour, the stories they could write in the committee

meetings, Mr. Speaker, would warm the cockles of the hearts of those

who avoided cynicism by developing a sense of humour. But for the rest,

Mr. Speaker, for the rest of the people of this province, it brings a

touch of cynicism and despair.

You know, Mr. Speaker, those Members don't have any concept of how

the House functions with government and opposition. Those Members don't

have any understanding of the responsibilities of those committees.

They don't understand, they have never been given the opportunity to

participate and share in the decisions of this government. It has been

a government dominated by one man who is on a theme of politics for

politics' sake and gave us the same kind of budget with gimmicks that

have been passed to us all along the line.

Mr. Speaker, in terms of the other offerings for the municipalities,

I challenge this government to state to the people of Vancouver that

its $41 million gift for the third crossing will be made available for

either a third crossing or urban rapid-transit but it will not be

granted unless there is a plebiscite by the people in the area.

Let the people of the area prove that you're democrats. That

government should do it, prove that they're democrats. The Minister of

Municipal Affairs comes into Vancouver and says: "We want a ward system

to democratise the City of Vancouver." I challenge this government to

put a proviso on its $41 million grant for the third crossing by

saying: "It can be used for either mass rapid-transit or the third

crossing, but you people of the local level decide through a plebiscite."

That's the challenge. Why not let the people decide? I have faith in

the ability of the people who are most concerned to make that bridge

crossing.

Mr. Speaker, I want this House to know quite clearly that I oppose

the expenditure of some $200 million on another crossing of the First

Narrows. It will only add to the problems of the urban area, and I

disagree with you and all my associates in a different party, but that's

my honest opinion. I think it's a mistake.

We can make gains because we've been so slow. I think it's a tragic

mistake to go ahead with that third crossin, and I urge people if there

was a plebiscite to vote against it. But let them vote equally with the

politicians on this issue because it is the very life of the lower

mainland at stake if they intend to rip the heart and guts out of

Vancouver like our sister city of Seattle. It happened to them. Then I

think it's a terrible, terrible mistake, Mr. Speaker.

It's a city that I love too much. I was born there and raised there,

and there's no way I want that very great city and the very great lower

mainland to be scarred with those ribbons of concrete and steel that

rip the heart out of any city and destroy it from being a kind of

cultural, civilised centre for people to come and enjoy and be the show

piece of any civilised area.

Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude by talking a little bit about

philosophy. I've only had political experience in this House, Mr.

Speaker. I can't share what the experiences are in other legislatures.

I really don't know if other places have a question period every day. I

really don't know if other jurisdictions have a Leader of the

Opposition as the public accounts chazirman.

[ Page 302 ]

I can tell by the records that other jurisdictions have a daily

printed Hansard so that everybody can see what is being said. I don't

have any of those personal experiences because my time has been limited

to 12 years in this House.

I don't know if other areas have direct radio broadcasts, so that

the people who are paying the bills can see what their money is being

spent on. I understand that some jurisdictions allow television to come

into the House.

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to suggest to you that it is rare that I turn

to the Bible for a quote, extremely rare, but I suppose I wait till the

moment strikes me in looking for an appropriate quote to describe this

particular budget, and I've stuck to the Proverbs, which are the Books of

David. The Books of David and I quote from

chapter 3, verses 13 and 14.

Happy is the man that findeth wisdom and the man that getteth

understanding. For the merchandise of it is better than the merchandise

of silver and the gain thereof than fine gold.

All the Premier spoke about in his budget debate was the emphasis on

money — money to be used for political purposes. Money that we have

seen being directed for very crude political direction while this House

plays a secondary role to that one person's control.

Mr. Speaker, I want to suggest this. I want to suggest that the

Premier of this province in the year 1972 when this province is at the

cross-roads economically, socially — asking for leadership from a

government — use the skills of a modern technology and have the Premier

and myself go on television for provincial-wide broadcast to the people

of this province.

Let him state his goals, his aspirations and his dreams and his

method. Let me state mine, and let the people of British Columbia see

through the medium of television what we may or may not have to offer.

Mr. Speaker, this government said it was a government of the little

people. Let us go to the little people through the medium of

television. Let them see the politician. Let them hear directly from

the Premier, let them hear directly from me on a joint television

programme in front of the people.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, this government says "you have

nothing to fear." This government says it has nothing to fear. Mr.

Speaker, I suggest to you that if this government has nothing to fear

let them go and tell the people on television what the options are.

They say they have nothing to fear, Mr. Speaker, or do they? We cannot

support this budget, Mr. Speaker, and we'll go into more detail why.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member from Dewdney on a point of

order.

MR. G. MUSSALLEM (Dewdney): My point of order is that the

Hon. Leader of the Opposition seriously misled the House. In his

speech he said — the public accounts committee and all the committees

in general are just moved, the chairman is elected automatically by the

weight of the members of the committee. We could tell this House that

in the public accounts committee, of which I am chairman and which I

convened, I was nominated for the chair and the Hon. Member for New

Westminster (Mr. Cocke) was nominated as well.

AN HON. MEMBER: He declined.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Speaker, if the vote had been taken there

would have been a dead tie. However, there was no vote taken. The Hon.

Member from New Westminster declined to have his name stand. I asked

him a second time did he wish to reconsider? He said: "No, I decline."

I merely infer from this, Mr. Speaker, that the Hon. Members of the

Opposition do not want to take the responsibility of a committee of

this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Just order, please! This House has no

knowledge of matters that transpire in committee. The Hon. the first

Member from Vancouver Centre. Point of order?

MR. H.P. CAPOZZI (Vancouver Centre): Point of order. I think

it only fairness that in that comment the original proposal was of his

name being put forward, and I realise it was in committee.

MR. SPEAKER: I have already ruled on that.

MR. CAPOZZI: It was a misunderstanding.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the first Member for Vancouver.…

MR. CAPOZZI: I would like to set the records straight.…

MR. SPEAKER: Order! The Hon. the first Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Well thank you, Mr.

Speaker. I must say that the Leader of the Opposition put forward a

pretty dreadful prospect to the people of British Columbia today. It

wasn't just an empty reply to the budget; it was the thought that he

might go on television with the Premier and subject the people of

British Columbia to a scene of those two dreadful old war horses

battling about the past — one with an outmoded government and the other

with an outmoded philosophy.

But what we're going to talk about today, we Liberals, is the

future. We're bringing down, as we have done before, a Liberal budget

for the Province of British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: How can you do it…? Without even enough

members for a cabinet?

MR. McGEER: Well, I'm going to talk a little about cabinets

today.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't have enough members.…

MR. McGEER: They can handle it very much better than the ones

who are handling individual portfolios over there. Because there is

some real ability on this side….

[ Page 303 ]

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. McGEER: It's time it was put to work for the people of

British Columbia. We'll be talking about new departments. We'll be

speculating on what to do with some of the cabinet Ministers. We'll be

talking about industrial development. And of course, I recognise that

there is a terrible problem over on that side.

I've been thinking about how we could breathe some life into

industrial development for British Columbia and what we might propose

for that Minister. Well, we defeated one of the important Ministers of

the Crown, and he was the only one who had any ability. He was defeated

in Vancouver–Point Grey and went to our largest company in the

province. They have since announced a policy of investing capital in

other parts of the world, and they've built a forest complex in

Southeast Asia. I think we should follow through on that and open up a

British Columbia House in Kuala Lumpur and send the Minister of

Industrial Development there.

AN HON. MEMBER: A one-way ticket.

MR. McGEER: I'm glad that the first Member from Vancouver

Centre agrees with that. I did enjoy his speech, but I'd like to give

him a little advice, Mr. Speaker, and that's to tell him that he didn't

get to the Premier.

You know, you can always tell, when the backbenchers start buttering

up the Premier, when they get to him. He starts to cry. The members of

the Press don't notice that. But the Hon. Member didn't make it with

the Premier, and of course you really get to the Premier when the

Attorney General starts to cry. (Laughter). But they were both

laughing, and when everybody on that side started the chorus "go…"

I was thinking of the Hon. Member.

Well, it's my pleasure today, Mr. Speaker, to continue my tradition

of bringing down a Liberal budget. This is my fourth budget. What I

offer today is a new century budget for British Columbia. It's a budget

of dynamism, it's a budget of growth, and it's a budget of justice. It

makes full use of the resources and potential of our growing province.

AN HON. MEMBER: And it's your last chance.

MR. McGEER: I'll be here when the Hon. Minister is back

selling insurance policies to the government.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, our budget calls for an expenditure

of $1,577 million. That's a budget $124 million larger than the one

brought down by the Social Credit Finance Minister on Friday. It's $177

million higher than the budget I brought down a year ago.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm not an expert on forecasting revenues.

AN HON. MEMBER: I'll say you aren't.

MR. McGEER: I've made mistakes in the past. But a year ago

when I brought down my budget of $1,400 million — $100 million greater

than the Social Credit Finance Minister — I said then that budget would

be balanced without any increase in taxes.

We were against those tax increases that imposed a hotel-room tax,

so that the British Columbian on vacation would pay more — that added

to the gasoline tax so it would cost the working man more to drive his

car, that imposed a tax on cigarettes so that his smokes would cost

more. That's what the government brought the little man last year. Yet

the Liberals brought down a budget $100 million higher without those

tax increases and with the prediction that it would be balanced.

AN HON. MEMBER: Move over to the Liberal government because

they have responsibility.

MR. McGEER: Now, Mr. Speaker, what do we find?

AN HON. MEMBER: You tell us first.

MR. McGEER: We find in interim revenues, if the Members will

look at them, that those forecasts were all true. Because when the

totals are added up this March 31 you will find that without that $38.5

million in tax increases the budget would not only have been fully

balanced but would have had a huge surplus as well.

What I tell the House, Mr. Speaker, is not just that my budget of

last year was balanced but that it provided for a $57 million surplus.

Yes, I have made errors in my estimates, but for this coming year,

Mr. Speaker, the Premier had made an error not of $15 million, as I did,

but an error of $150 million in calculating his revenue.

AN HON. MEMBER: Some Minister!

MR. McGEER: After all that experience as Minister of Finance

— 19 budgets he brought down — and he's still making those dumb errors.

$150 million out. I'm not expert, but my revenues were within $15

million of being accurate and because of that we were able to bring

down a budget $100 million higher.

Mr. Speaker, I say this to the Member from Skeena (Mr. Little).

After all these years the Premier isn't getting any better; he's

getting worse. Because his error in estimating revenues for the three

years previous to that was only $130 million a year on the average.

You know, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Members have laughed at my budgets

each year when they have been brought down. But look up our record of

debates, such as it is. Check the forecasts. See who was closer to

being correct. See whose budget was more accurate — the Liberal budget

or the Social Credit budget. Then read those budgets and see where the

dynamic programme lay. Was it with the Social Credit budgets? No. It

was with the Liberal budgets.

These people over here on our right — the Socialists of British

Columbia — they don't have budgets at all. They don't have a programme

at all. All they do is stand up and complain about the free-enterprise

economic system of British Columbia. All they do is ask for higher

taxes on the resource industry. No imagination at all, Mr. Speaker, in

how to use in creative ways the resources that we have, and the

earnings that our people are bringing in.

Well, Mr. Speaker, enough of the past because I want to talk about

the new Liberal budget, the dynamic programmes that we bring down today

for our future. It differs today in three vital ways from the Social

Credit budget of Friday.

The first of these, Mr. Speaker, is that it provides a new measure

of social equality for the elderly.

Secondly, it provides an accelerated programme of provincial development.

[ Page 304 ]

Thirdly, it provides new and creative approaches to community and

educational life.

Mr. Speaker, what we offer to the elderly and handicapped is not

just a series of budgetary provisions but a charter, setting forth new

principles at their rightful place in our society. We set as our

objective to replace fear of age with pride in age. We want all those

who are beyond their working years to know they will never have to beg

for handouts from their juniors who are in government. We offer

dividends, Mr. Speaker. We offer them with unreserved gratitude to the

people who have done the job of building British Columbia. Because our

elder citizens have built a wonderful society and a magnificent

province.

It's taken 100 years. Mr. Speaker, we've been dismissing right here

in this provincial government those who have made the greatest

contribution with crumbs from our groaning table of provincial

revenues. We've offered handouts when these people have deserved

rights. We've made years of anxiety of what should have been years of

satisfaction.

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal programme is designed to end all of that.

It's designed to provide an adequate monthly income and to protect the

savings of these people.

Specifically we offer the following as rights:

1. The freedom from all property taxes. The home-owner grant, Mr.

Speaker, never keeps up with rising taxes. The Member from North

Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Clark) came in and told a story to the House, and

I think the Members listened with interest because here's a man who

understands the plight of the elderly.

He was the one who explained that the home-owner grant was no good

to a woman in his constituency who only wanted to live out her years in

her own home. Yet, Mr. Speaker, with all that increase of $50 plus $15

for the people with the home-owner grant, that woman's taxes that he

brought to your attention only last week, would still go up $223.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. McGEER: You must get letters; I get them. I have one here

from Salmon Arm, Mr. Speaker. This person didn't bother to write the

Member from up there. He was too busy applauding the budget to listen

to what his constituents were saying. Here's what this person has to

say.

Our taxes on a home on five acres of land, 2½ miles out of Salmon

Arm last year, $718. It's true we received the home-owner's grant of

$170, but my income is $80 a month old age pension plus $20 a month

Canada Pension. We have to use our life savings for income.

What kind of a life are you giving them by loading on these property

taxes?

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not the whole story.

MR. McGEER: Let me go on to another. Because I think these

people tell their story very well.

AN HON. MEMBER: They're made of them.

MR. McGEER: I think the Members opposite should listen with

their hearts as well as their ears.

Our taxes went up $128 in two years, and we are just worried sick as

to what they will go up this year. We have worked so hard through the

years to pay for our home. Now we can't enjoy it for worry.

That's what the government budget did, Mr. Speaker. That's what the

Minister of Finance's budget does for these people. We say as a right

we will end all that. We can collect any overage of property taxes at

the time the property is sold.

The second right, Mr. Speaker — the right to a rental supplement of

$30 per month for all those whose monthly income falls below $200. This

supplement is to be made available regardless of savings or other

possessions. We want to face it on current income only. I'm sorry the

Member from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Capozzi) isn't here, Mr. Speaker,

because he spoke out for these elderly people who are renting. He even

said he was going to take commercials on the radio to tell people to

vote against the budget — as I presume he is going to do.

He understood very well what the problem was — no increase to

municipal governments this year. That means an increase for every

renter as property taxes inevitably go up. Now the Minister of

Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Campbell) who's yawning so vigorously over

there, he's going to have a little bit of trouble getting the same kind

of testimony next time he speaks. Because his pal who is head of the

U.B.C.M. didn't have very kind remarks about that budget. Did they, Mr.

Member?

A little different story than the one he read us last week. That man

is thinking a little of the elderly who are renting too.

The third right, Mr. Speaker, is the right to free drugs and medical

appliances. This includes hearing aids and batteries for hearing aids,

eye-glasses, false teeth, crutches, artificial limbs, wheel chairs, and

other essential aids. Now, Mr. Speaker, probably the cabinet has had

visitations from elderly people on fixed incomes, and I can tell you of

one we had where the man who visited us, an elderly man, had cancer.

He'd had a colostomy. All his increase was going on drugs and paying

for his colostomy bags. He didn't have anything for food left over. Is

that kind of thing necessary, Mr. Speaker? No, it isn't.

Not only should they have the right to all these drugs and medical

appliances but the right to medicare without premiums. I noticed that a

more progressive government in Alberta, a progressive Conservative

government, has introduced such a scheme into the Province of Alberta.

You know, if they can do it there, we can do it here.

The fourth right, Mr. Speaker, is the right to unrestricted passes

on public transportation. The buses run empty. The government has

agreed to pick up half the losses, and the senior citizens have earned

the right to ride in those empty seats.

The fifth: the right to chronic hospital care. Mr. Speaker, the most

certain thing in any person's life, all of us, is that sooner or later

a health disaster will occur. No one can predict its timing. No one can

forecast its nature. But the time comes for every one of us — when the

fight for health becomes the most important thing in life.

When we know there's a need and we fail to provide a facility, we

are denying a right. We are particularly denying a right to those who

have spent a lifetime building this province and paying their taxes as

well. Because, Mr. Speaker, what are these years of effort to

accomplish, if in the end the facility we need more than anything else

in life has been denied us despite our efforts? We Liberals say — chronic hospital care should be available to all who need it for a $1 a

day.

That's the Liberal policy for a decade, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 305 ]

It's Liberal policy today. And it's going to be Liberal policy for the

future. Not $3 a day, $5 a day or any extortionate amount — $1 a day as

a right.

Lastly, the right to an abatement of the provincial income tax for

those in need over 65. We've talked about the negative income tax in

the House. The Leader of the Opposition mentioned it only today. Well,

why don't we do it right here in British Columbia? This year the

provincial share of the income tax is 30.5 per cent. That's a pretty

fair abatement. We can introduce the negative income tax principle

right here in British Columbia — now.

AN HON. MEMBER: Show a little leadership.

MR. McGEER: You read those letters or heard the letters. Read

the ones you get in your mail. Yes, Mr. Speaker, think — think of what

we can do in British Columbia with the resources that are at our

command. That's why this Liberal budget that we bring down today has

increased spending in the Department of Health of $20 million and the

Department of Social Improvement of $10 million.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if we're going to provide these benefits more

generously in the future, we have to have a more aggressive programme

of provincial development. To do this, I propose a brand new ministry

of government. That ministry is the Department of Transport. The

mandate of the Minister is to set the transportation objectives of the

1970s.

That's not fast enough. We need 16 new ministers over there, right

now. Liberal ministers.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

AN HON. MEMBER: We can get five of you guys off, right off

the bat.

MR. McGEER: I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that our five

members can do the work of 16 and much more. Any day.

Interjections by

Hon. Members.

MR. McGEER: And when we look at the Hon. Attorney General, we

think it would be easy.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's making it easier every day.

MR. McGEER: Well, Mr. Speaker, what's this new Minister of

Transport going to do? He's going to have under his administration,

highways, ferries, railways, rapid transit, commercial transit,

commercial transport, the port authority and, Mr. Speaker, a new B.C.

aviation authority.

It's time to develop a new thrust in transportation. I can hear the

Ministers over there gasping — it's a little too imaginative for them.

You see, Mr. Speaker, the great thrust of Social Credit was way back in

the fifties. The Minister of Highways was the one who provided it. He's

the only one that's done any work over there.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right and always is.

MR. McGEER: There was a great bridge and highway building

programme. Do those fellows over there remember that? It was a long

time ago. But you see, the time has come for a new thrust, for a new

energy, because the job has barely been done.

Yes, the Minister got into trouble over land deals, and we criticised

him. We called for his removal from government, but you see that hasn't

happened. The ethics aren't any better than they were then. He's still

in the cabinet.

But, you see, we've got the worst of all worlds. We haven't cleaned

up the government at all. Now we've eliminated the one Minister who did

any work. I don't forgive him a bit for what he did, but I at least say

that if he's going to be there, make use of him. He was the only one

that did anything.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're confused.

MR. McGEER: Well, here's some of the tasks for the new

Minister of Transport, the Liberal Minister of Transport — that's not

the present Minister of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation, I can tell

you.

First, he must commission a new ferry to be built in our B.C.

shipyards. I would have hoped for a little applause from the Socialist

benches over there. Because, what this should be, Mr. Speaker, is a

companion to the Queen of Prince Rupert . We're going to call

it the "Queen of the Coast." Its objectives will be different from the Queen

of Prince Rupert . Because what I envisage is not an express ferry

but one that will stop at the Queen Charlotte Islands, at Kitimat, at

Bella Coola, at Bella Bella and at Ocean Falls. This new ferry will

take both freight and cars, and the objective will be to tie together

all of our coastal communities.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about the poor people of Port Hardy?

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. McGEER: Well, I would hope so. I think that the

government is extremely poor at negotiating with the federal government,

but I'm certain if there was a Liberal government here in Victoria

that we would be able to carry on more aggressive negotiations.

Wouldn't have anything to do with political strife, merely skill in

negotiation — and that's been lacking.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. McGEER: Whatever reason, we have no doubts about our

ability to get on with national government, even if it were a Socialist

government.

AN HON. MEMBER: We wouldn't communicate by Press release and

such.

MR. McGEER: Well, we don't particularly care who we have to

deal with in Ottawa. So long as we're the government in British

Columbia doing that dealing with Ottawa.

We talked about the one-hour ferry crossing to Iona Island, and this

again is part of a dynamic new thrust with the ferry system.

Now the next job of this Minister of Transport, since he's going to

get the ferries moving again, is to undertake major projects in the

railroad field, and I know this would appeal to the Minister of Labour — my friend will be back before long selling tickets in railroad stations

again.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. McGEER: The P.G.E. The B.C. Railway, I'm sorry.

[ Page 306 ]

Mr. Speaker, the B.C. Railway is going to be extended to the Yukon,

and we agree with that…

AN HON. MEMBER: Read your budget speech in Campbell River.

MR. McGEER: …because it's going to open up the north. But the

important thing, Mr. Speaker, is that we have a little bit of

cooperation in the negotiation with the federal government. Because if

it's to be extended into the Yukon, it won't be by speeches that the

Leader of the Opposition makes in Whitehorse, it'll be on the basis of

negotiation with the federal government.

If we want to introduce postage stamp rates along the C.N.R. right

of way — and that's important for pulp chips if pulp mills are to

flourish in the northern parts of British Columbia — that's a matter of

further negotiation.

If we're going to establish a ring railroad around the harbour of

Vancouver and eliminate switching charges, that's another negotiation.

If we're going to buy the Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railroad, and I think

this should become part of provincial railroad system, that will

require yet further negotiation. This provincial trackage, which would

link up with our ferry system, should at the same time be extended into

the rapid transit system for the City of Vancouver — connections should

be there, Roberts Bank and our new Iona Island crossing.

These are all possibilities for an expanded railway authority that

will begin to link our province together in a more effective way. Just

as highways and ferrys have done up to this time.

Of course, the new Minister of Transport will take over commercial

transport — that's an administrative anachronism, Mr. Speaker. We call

for the elimination of that department every year, and I repeat that

call this year.

Then, Mr. Speaker, we're going to revive the highway programme. That

was a pretty disappointing budget for highways this year. Construction

costs have gone up — it's just a dribble what we're doing any more.

Long ago we should have had that highway from Clinton down to Squamish

completed. We should have upgraded the southern provincial highway so

it's equivalent to the Trans-Canada — Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, another

slip, "B.C. 1."

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. McGEER: Yes, it should be four lanes, and I'll tell you

where it should be four lanes, Mr. Speaker. Right there between Hope

and Rosedale. That's the provincial bottleneck, and if the former

Minister of Highways had been in there it would have been built long

ago — and there should be a direct highway between Merritt and Hope,

and I think, Mr. Speaker, there should be something better than the

country lane which runs between Revelstoke and Castlegar.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. McGEER: This isn't taxes, Mr. Speaker. That's where the

Member from Saanich so misunderstands. All that money that was spent on

highways during the 1950s — it was expensive, running into the

hundreds of millions category each year — but that all came back with

dividends because as we moved an ever-increasing amount of goods on

those roads the efficiency that was achieved more than returned the

expenditure. And yet we quit just when we were getting started.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's forgotten their own past glory.

MR. McGEER: It's been so long ago. They've been asleep for so

many years.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's asleep on his magnetic pillow.

MR. McGEER: We include in that Ministry of Transport the port

authority as again negotiations are required for our new bulk transport

systems.

Now finally — and this is the most important step, Mr. Speaker — this is the B.C. Aviation Authority. It's not enough to have British

Columbia tied together by road and rail. Because more and more in the

future, fast and reliable transportation will be by air.

We cannot wait for the federal government to do the job. Already we

are severely handicapped in British Columbia by substandard airports,

and I'll take two examples. Many Members are familiar with these. One's

in Castlegar and the other's at Terrace. We buy the best aircraft in

the world, but they're unreliable in British Columbia because our

airports are substandard. Almost half the flights are scrubbed at

Castlegar and Terrace during the bad winter months because there aren't

adequate instrument approaches. Part of it is the location of the

airfield, part of it is the lack of adequate instruments. But

reliability by air is essential. And these airports must be brought up

to standard.

There's lots of other places, Mr. Speaker, where aircraft can't go

in at all, and I refer to centres like Revelstoke, or Golden, or Atlin,

or Stewart or McBride. Think what it would be like in British Columbia

if all these important geographical areas were equipped with modern

airports that would permit commercial jet aircraft to go in there.

Reliably and regularly. It would begin to tie British Columbia together

in a way that's never been known before.

Well, we've provided in our Liberal budget an additional $30 million

dollars in this first year to get on with the beginnings of this new

thrust in transportation.

I have a word or two about the cornerstone of our Liberal

development programme, and it's a beefed-up budget for the Department

of Industrial Development. We're giving away nothing, we're trying to…

AN HON. MEMBER: Give away the Minister!

MR. McGEER: …breathe a little life, just one small breath

out of that moribund Minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: We'll replace him.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, the creation of a science city in

British Columbia is not an option — it's essential. The warnings I've

sounded year after year in the Legislature regarding the need for

advanced, sophisticated industry in British Columbia have been ignored

by the Members. Yet only last month those same warnings were sounded by

the Senate Committee on Science Policy, and the essence of the message

is this. An industrial base which relies on harvesting of natural

resources will not carry this country or this province in the future.

The groundwork for new careers and innovative industries must be laid

soon, or our standard of living will slump behind the more advanced

countries. We're sleeping away the year, Mr. Speaker. That Minister of

[ Page 307 ]

Industrial Development is the "Rip van Winkle of British Columbia."

The second job for a Minister, if we can find one over there, is the

establishment of a programme of industrial incentives to get some of

the existing skills into the province.

The third is the establishment of an Economic Council for British

Columbia.

And the fourth is the setting up of beefed-up trade missions.

I know that the Minister is going to be out huckstering apples this

coming year. But we want something a little more aggressive and

effective from his department.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. McGEER: In opposition, yes; in government, no. There's one

industry that's going to experience rapid growth before the decade is

out. And I say this now — that's the agricultural industry. And there's

only been one person, Mr. Speaker, who's spoken out with any

imagination at all about agriculture in British Columbia, and that's our

dapper Member from West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams).

Because he's the one that understands agriculture in this province.

He's the one that understands agriculture, and we're at his

suggestion increasing our budget for agriculture $5 million this year,

to get on with the job of building up an agricultural trust.

It would be a tragedy to begin taking our farmland out of production

now, just when it's on the threshold of becoming extraordinarily

valuable. Because the agricultural land of California is not

inexhaustible — the population of the United States is growing. The

time when we will have to satisfy more of our own needs and indeed the

needs of other areas is rapidly approaching. And it's none too soon to

commence that trust.

Nor are we satisfied, Mr. Speaker, with the succession duty

proposals of the Minister of Finance. We state our policy now — that

there will be no succession duties on family farm property. The Social

Credit policy, Mr. Speaker, will only destroy economic farm units.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right. They've done it for years.

MR. McGEER: They've done it for years. But the important

thing is to keep those family farms as economic units generation after

generation. Keep them in production, and no one on that Social Credit

side can understand that — only the Member from West Vancouver–Howe

Sound. That shows how badly we need to switch sides in this House and

get on with aggressive policies.

Mr. Speaker, we've set aside funds again this year for the

Department of the Environment. But this year we again set aside funds

and say it should be combined with a provincial Department of

Fisheries. And there's a reason for this, Mr. Speaker, because

fisheries departments have been very successful in the Maritimes. And

with the world food shortage the value of our fish catch is going to

increase every year.

It's the fishing industry, Mr. Speaker, which is continually

threatened by the policies of the Social Credit government on dams and

water pollution. And why we want a provincial Department of Fisheries

is to provide a little balance to the ministries over there so that

there will be a little competition for their pro-pollution policies.

Energy developments conflict with the environment. No question of

that.

I repeat today what the Liberal policy on energy is. First of all

the gathering of technological information, secondly public hearings,

and then — and only then — legislative action.

Mr. Speaker, we heard the Minister of Recreation and Conservation

tell us about Moran dam when he spoke. He said he wanted all the facts

before any decisions were made. He admitted that the provincial

government had been spending money testing for the dam's site. He told

us we might need Moran for flood control. Mr. Speaker, that's a very

different story than what we heard a few years ago.

When the government wanted to build the Peace River dam, flooding

wasn't a problem on the Fraser. We could do it adequately with dykes,

and we must never, never touch the fish.

Well, now that the Government's casting about for new dams to build

the priorities suddenly seem to change. Suddenly we're starting to

worry about flooding in the Fraser Valley.

Well, Mr. Speaker, last fall there was a report released by the

federal fisheries service and the Department of the Environment. The

International Salmon Fisheries Commission report said that the Moran

dam wasn't necessary for flood control. The report said that dykes can

provide this protection, and they reminded us that the

federal-provincial governments had signed an agreement in 1969 for a

10-year programme to achieve just this.

Mr. Speaker, what we say is this. Let us convene a legislative

committee. Let us hear this testimony on flooding that we somehow

didn't hear about at all until the Minister gave his speech.

We agree that ultimately a political decision has to be reached. But

it's got to be a political decision that does not have at its base the

concealment of facts. We said we were against the Moran dam. We said to

us it appeared to be a gigantic environmental gamble. But, Mr. Speaker,

to the second Member from Vancouver Centre, if we have open testimony

and the facts say otherwise, we're prepared to listen.

But if it's going to be the same old seat-of-the-pants political

intuition that makes this decision, and if it's going to be done with

the deliberate suppression of facts, then we put it now to the

government as an open challenge — call an election based on the Moran

dam as your number one issue. We relish the opportunity to take you up

on that alone. Otherwise hold those hearings and let us hear the

testimony right here in the legislative chamber.

The other thing that we want to listen to is testimony on nuclear

energy. Now again the Minister of Recreation and Conservation said he

didn't want to tell us about nuclear energy — it would take an hour.

But he certainly catalogued all the difficulties of the prototype

American plans. But he didn't tell us the experiences of Ontario Hydro

because the experience with new Canadian nuclear reactors is nothing

short of spectacular.

It's like the Minister telling us that we can't have jet aircraft in

British Columbia because there were problems with the Comet well after

the DC8 and the 707 had been proved to be reliable, faster and more

modern.

There's one difference. That difference is in this case the world's

best nuclear reactors are Canadian. Ontario Hydro in their October 1971

Bulletin described the favourable experience they've had with their new Pickering plant.

[ Page 308 ]

They told how that plant not only supplies non-polluting energy

which will be enough, when it's completed two years from now, to

satisfy the electricity for 1,700,000 homes, but it makes cobalt for

cancer treatment machines that are sold around the world.

Some of their reactors make plutonium, which is used in other

nuclear reactors around the world, and indeed some of those Ontario

Hydro nuclear plants will become plutonium mines in a few years.

Now, Mr. Speaker, today I called Mr. Grey, who is head of the Atomic

Energy Commission of Canada, and invited him to come to British Columbia

to provide testimony regarding the advantages of nuclear power.

He agreed to come, and I think it's up to the government to set the

time and the place. We can extend the invitation, but it would be far

better if the government did so. I report only that the chairman of the

Atomic Energy Commission of Canada is pleased to come to British

Columbia to provide testimony to this House or anyone else as to what

nuclear power might have to offer to British Columbia, and specifically

to southern Vancouver Island.

Let's get the facts on the table. What both he and his

representative Mr. McKay, who is in Victoria today, told me is that

nuclear power can be put on southern Vancouver Island cheaper than any

other power source, including hydro sent over from the mainland.

But the Minister tells us that nuclear is unreliable. That we can't

go into that because we have so many other energy sources. Let's have

hearings. Let's get the facts on nuclear power. Let's get the facts on

flooding. Let's follow the Liberal policy of reaching sensible energy

decision in this province.

Well, I could tell you, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to see an engineer

like the Member from North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Brousson) in charge

of some of these decisions so that we can go about it in a sensible way.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. McGEER: He knows more about power than any of you. He's

an electrical engineer. The difficulty is that we've had

seat-of-the-pants political decisions instead of sound economic and

environmental decisions.

Mr. Speaker, the Member from North Vancouver–Capilano spoke in the

House only last week about another project in this province — the

Kootenay-Quesnel project. While he was speaking there was more

under-the-table dealing going on between the provincial government and

the City of Nelson. Because even as we were discussing that budget the

government sent up the deputy Minister of Water Resources, the deputy

Minister of Municipal Affairs and the Comptroller of Water Rights to

apply pressure on the City of Nelson.

AN HON. MEMBER: He didn't tell us that.

MR. McGEER: While the Member from North Vancouver–Capilano

was giving us the facts in this House on the project, the

representatives of the government were up placing pressure on the City

of Nelson. Mr. Speaker, with any reasonable government the City of

Nelson would be judged to have an overwhelming case.

First of all, it's got prior rights on the river. Secondly, it put

its application for a licence in first. Thirdly, it has a need for more

electricity. Fourthly, this is the zone the government doesn't like. It

owns property that B.C. Hydro must obtain before it can put in its

controversial canal.

Now, Mr. Speaker, B.C. Hydro and the government lack the legal

instruments to expropriate that land. Yet they still go up and put

pressure on the City of Nelson. Mind you, Mr. Speaker, the City of

Nelson's requests are reasonable enough. All they say is: "Give us

enough water to run our plant efficiently. If you can't give us the

water then give us the equivalent in power."

But what's the government implying? What it's implying is it could

change the ground rules. It could expropriate, it could change the

expropriation laws, it could shift around the water licences. What it

all amounts to Mr. Speaker, is a gun being held at the head of the City

of Nelson and the city being left to wonder when the government's going

to pull the trigger.

I admire the City of Nelson for hanging tough and demanding justice.

Because they are faced with awesome power. We Liberals say, once more,

grant the City of Nelson its request for water.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. McGEER: The B.C. Hydro's licence is for 30,000 cubic feet

per second. The City of Nelson only wants 740. Well if the project is

such that B.C. Hydro is going to need every last drop of water, if the

flow is going to be that short during much of the year then go ahead — take the water from the City of Nelson, drop it through your head which

is 240 feet instead of the City of Nelson's 70. But credit them with

that power. All you have to do is to give them a third, less than a

third of that extra 740 cubic feet per second. And you get to keep

two-thirds. What could be a fairer deal than that?

The Minister of Highways comes from Nelson. He didn't speak in the

throne debate. I challenge him to get up in this debate and defend the

City of Nelson he represents. Because the City of Nelson is being sold

down the Kootenay River, and he's got to be the one to defend them.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. McGEER: No, he doesn't like it, Mr. Speaker. We're going

to be listening very carefully to what he has to say because for once

he's going to have to defend his city and not his government.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right. That's right.

MR. McGEER: Well, Mr. Speaker, our Liberal budget provides $2

million more for the Department of the Attorney General, and if ever a

department needed a couple of million dollars and somebody to run it

it's the Attorney General's department.

The Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom), and the Member for

West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) have said the

department's an administrative mess. What a treat it would be in

British Columbia to have a lawyer who knew something about the law

running the Attorney General's department.

The Land Registry is in chaos. You have civil servants, good ones,

throwing in the sponge and quitting. Your companies and securities

supervision is nothing but a joke because of understaffing.

Crime rates in British Columbia are the highest in Canada. The

public isn't being adequately protected. I suppose they

[ Page 309 ]

are going to be saved from topless dancers and bottomless dancers

and they're going to be spared the ordeal of going to dirty movies. But

that's hardly a priority activity of an Attorney General.

I agree with that headline "The Attorney General's Helpless on

Sniff." We need a legal aid system. We need an ombudsman. We need a

fund for the victims of violent crimes. But most of all, Mr. Speaker,

we need a Liberal Attorney General.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. McGEER: I'd like to say no one in British Columbia, Mr.

Speaker, has ever understood patronage like Social Credit. No one ever.

No one has ever drawn the kind of campaign funds Social Credit has

drawn. No one has put the squeeze on industry, including the liquor

companies, like Social Credit has done. Patronage. They make every

other government that's ever sat in British Columbia look like children

in short pants. That's the one thing they do understand. — That's the

one thing they do well. Run a government — no. Patronage — yes.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: Where did you get the half million…?

MR. McGEER: No one has been more cynical about the liquor

industry than the Premier of this province. Such a pious teetotaller,

raking in the huge profits each year. Taking in the campaign funds

every election. Putting aside $25 million of a fund supposingly for

education….

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. McGEER: How much do we spend after all that desk pounding

for $25 million? You saw it in the budget — $253,000.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. McGEER: The one thing they do turns out to be a gimmick

for the provincial Crown corporations. Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. McGEER: Well, Mr. Speaker, there are other provisions in

our budget — $40 million more for education, we'll be discussing that;

$900,000 more in travel industry. Nothing for Ministers without

Portfolio.…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. McGEER: No Ministers without Portfolio. As a matter of

fact, Mr. Speaker, we're moving the Minister of Social Rehabilitation

up to Transport. It's a dreadful stop-gap measure, and the highways

minister from Nelson we'd better put him as head of the Civil Service

Commission or the Public Utilities Commission or something because the

City of Nelson isn't going to support him any longer.

But that leaves one portfolio, and I'd put the Lady Minister without

Portfolio for Little Mountain (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) into that. I think

it would be a very nice thing for the Province of British Columbia to

have a Lady Minister of Social Rehabilitation because we need a little

more heart there, less talk about the dead-beats, more help in

providing day-care centres for the single

parent families. So I'd give her a job, and I think she'd do it well.

But heaven knows it's a big enough job, Mr. Speaker, because the

Minister of Social Rehabilitation has that tremendous task of picking

up all of the fumbling errors of all the other Ministers.

You know the Provincial Alliance of Businessmen found a lot of jobs.

It just couldn't find them fast enough, because the bungling of the

Minister of Municipal Affairs not getting winter works money, the

bungling of the Minister of Finance not getting development programmes

going, the bungling of the Minister of Labour not getting

labour-management disagreements settled, all these things throw people

out of work. What a tremendous load that's put on the poor Minister of

Social Rehabilitation. But anyway that's my proposal for taking care of

the Lady Minister.

Now, there's one more final item in our budget.…

AN HON. MEMBER: She doesn't want the job. I don't think she

wants the job.

MR. McGEER: I think that's right. It's a real challenge

compensating for all those other Ministers. I agree.

Mr. Speaker, there's another very small provision in our budget.

It's only $100,000 but I mention it because it's so essential. It's for

legislative committees.

The giant forces of labour and management are girding themselves for

another confrontation this year. I warned in my budget speech of two

years ago that the provincial government was providing poor leadership

and setting a poor example. I said that the economy might well turn

down if steps were not taken to correct the situation. It was a

disastrous year for strikes, 2,900,000 man-days lost. It was a self

inflicted wound. The worst in our history — even if the settlements

were reached two years ago. Mr. Speaker, I must remind the Minister of

Labour it fell to me to bring the parties together in the second worst

of those strikes.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. McGEER: How much was that strike costing the people of

British Columbia? How many millions of dollars did that settlement save?

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. McGEER: Ninety per cent of all the labour negotiations in

this province are under the aegis of the provincial government.

AN HON. MEMBER: I thought you were Premier of B.C.

MR. McGEER:

We're talking about the provincial strikes and the difficulties that

have been caused to this economy by the constant, unremitting warfare

between management represented by Social Credit and the labour unions

represented by the N.D.P. It's this continual spilling of the cold war

of politics into the labour-management scene that's caused us so much

distress in the Province of British Columbia. When we get a new

government in this province that is not attached to big management or

to big unions that's when we'll begin to have some real progress.

[ Page 310 ]

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. McGEER: Even as those settlements of two years ago were

reached a time bomb was set in our economy, and it's ticking away today.

I warn now, as I did two years ago, that nothing has been done to bring

about harmony in the matter of settling wage demands, and if precautions

are not taken now, another year of labour-management conflict could

force the economy into another unnecessary slump, and that would mean

that revenue predictions that I've made of over $1,600 million for the

coming year could well fall short.

The labour committee of the Legislature should be meeting to

consider this problem now. If necessary, it should continue beyond the

prorogation of this House. It should, and we have asked it before, hold

hearings all around the province. Recommendations for a better way of

solving labour-management disputes must be sought and must be found.

Now, Mr. Speaker, once more we've presented a dynamic Liberal budget,

no phoney funds. Aggressive in its outlook for the province and

compassionate in its treatment of the citizens. Mr. Speaker, it

demonstrates more clearly than any other the running down of the Social

Credit machine, and we are looking at unbridled arrogance this afternoon.

There has never been a political machine in the history of our

province that begins to compare with Social Credit, and we grant you

that. What we say is we do not need a political machine in charge of

British Columbia, we need a government, a Liberal government.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order!

Hon. Mr. Campbell moves adjournment of the debate. Motion approved.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Premier): I wish to advise the House

that in answer to our first letter that we sent to our people at the

Winter Games in Japan, we received a letter, just received, dated

February 4, Japan.

Since there are only four of us from British Columbia on the

Canadian Winter Olympic Team in Sapporo, your telegram was greatly

appreciated. We'd like to thank you, the Legislature and the citizens

of British Columbia. It is good to know that the people of British

Columbia are thinking of us.

And it is signed by the four names on the team.

I move we proceed to public bills and orders. Second reading of Bill

No. 1, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE EVIDENCE ACT

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 1,

An Act to Amend

the Evidence Act . The Honourable the Attorney General.

HON. L.R. PETERSON (Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, this bill

contains a few technical amendments to the Evidence Act . There is

presently a provision in the Evidence Act that provides that a

photographic print tendered by a government, the Bank of Canada, or the

registrar of a land registry office may be tendered in evidence at any

time without the usual six-year limitation period applying, and we

propose in this amendment to extend that provision to other municipal

governments and school district governments as well as the regional

hospital districts.

There's another provision relating to the taking of affidavits by

commissioners, which is primarily clarification and to ensure that

matters can be dealt with when false declarations are taken. The other

amendment is really striking out some words which are not necessary to

the statute. I move that the bill be now read a second time.

Motion approved: Second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 1 ordered to be placed on orders of the day for committal

at the next sitting after today.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE CONDITIONAL SALES ACT, 1961

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 4,

An Act to Amend

the Conditional Sales Act, 1961 . The Honourable the Attorney General.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is

to make some amendments to the Conditional Sales Act , and some of the

amendments contained and proposed to the Conditional Sales Act are

common to the next two bills that will be considered. There is a

provision at the moment in the Conditional Sales Act and in the other

statutes the Bills of Sale Act and the Assignment of Book Accounts Act

as well, which allows an extension of time for registration.

This existing provision preserves the rights of third parties who

otherwise might be adversely affected by such registration, who have in

the meantime acquired title to all or some of the chattels being dealt

with in the conditional sales agreement.

There is a recent decision of the supreme court of this province

which held that a trustee for the benefit of creditors is not presently

protected by this provision. I don't have the actual citation — I can

get it for the Honourable Members — in other words, this is strictly

interpreted to purchasers of goods and those who have had acquired

title other than by purchase do not have this protection and the

purpose of this amendment is to extend this protection in this case to

the rights of the liquidator, an assignee, a receiver or trustee for

the benefit of creditors and as well to his share from the execution of

a court process.

The amendment would afford protection to a person who might have

taken title from such a liquidator, assignee, receiver or trustee. I

think it's only proper they should have the same protection as a

purchaser of goods in question, and that is the major purpose of this

amendment, which is common to the other bills as well.

The second principle contained in the bill, Mr. Speaker, would

provide for the making of regulations prescribing a form of statement

of particulars to be filed as part of or in addition to the conditional

sale.

At the present time you can have some very lengthy documents — it

becomes a very time-consuming thing for someone to go through the

document in question and pick out the material details and so there is

provision for prescribing a form of statement of particulars which can

be included at the time of registration.

[ Page 311 ]

Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.

Motion approved: second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 4 ordered to be placed on orders of the day for committal

at the next sitting after today.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE BILLS OF SALE ACT, 1961

MR. SPEAKER: The second reading of Bill No. 5,

An Act to Amend

The Bills of Sale Act, 1961 . The Honourable the Attorney General.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, this bill contains the same

principle as the one that has just been voted on. It applies equally to

bills of sale as it does to conditional sales. The only additional

feature in Bill No. 5 is an amendment which would remove the

requirements of an affidavit of bona fides. As the legal members in the

chamber will know, this is an affidavit that's sworn by the grantee

under the bill of sale. It's annexed to the bill of sale setting forth

essentially that the bill of sale is not made for the purpose of

defrauding creditors and that the bill of sale was executed and given

in good faith.

It's been found that requiring such an affidavit has done little in

the way of protecting creditors, and the problem arises because where

there are minor defects in affidavits of bona fides, where they have

not been filled out properly or completely, it has resulted in the bill

of sale itself being invalidated by the supreme court.

Therefore, it's felt that the provision is not of sufficient value

to maintain it in existence. Often times the grantee resides perhaps in

a different city than the grantor, and it means that the bill of sale

has to be signed by the grantee as this affidavit is completed and

sworn before a notary public, and we feel there are other remedies under

the law that can apply equally without the necessity of this procedure

continuing.

The other provisions, I believe, Mr. Speaker, are the same in

principle as those which obtain in Bill No. 4 which has just received

second reading. I therefore move that Bill No. 5 be now read a second

time.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the second Member for Vancouver

Point Grey.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, with

leave of the government side I move the adjournment of this particular

debate. I am very concerned about this affidavit of bona fides deletion

that you're talking about. I'd prefer to adjourn it. I so move.

Motion approved.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

ASSIGNMENT OF BOOK ACCOUNTS ACT, 1961

MR. SPEAKER: The second reading of Bill No. 6,

An Act to

Amend the Assignment of Book Accounts Act, 1961 . The Honourable the

Attorney General.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, the amendments proposed for

this bill are similar to those proposed in the bill which has received

second reading, on the Conditional Sales Act , and I move that it be now

read a second time.

Motion approved: second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 6 ordered to be placed on orders of the day for committal

at the next sitting after today.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE SUPREME COURT ACT

MR. SPEAKER: Second

reading of Bill No. 7,

An Act to Amend the Supreme Court Act . The

Honourable the Attorney General.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, in September of last year the

federal government amended the Judges' Act of Canada, and this amendment

authorises a judge who has been appointed under that Act and who

retires to continue to act as a supernumerary judge.

Only those with 10 years of service and of the age of 70 years or

more are eligible for such appointments. In addition, the appointee

must give up his regular judicial duties. This bill that is before us

now would make a similar amendment to the Supreme Court Act of this

province, and it's necessary not only the federal government legislate

on this matter but also the provincial government, so the purpose of

this amendment is to give full effect to the amendment of the federal

government.

Circumstances sometimes occur where there may be too few judges for

the task at hand, and this amendment and the implementation of this

provision would to some extent alleviate those situations by making

available the experience and ability of those judges who elect to

become supernumerary.

Every such election will, of course, also create a vacancy in the

supreme court which would have to be filled so that you would have the

supernumerary being called upon when necessary and also the new

appointee who replaces the supernumerary on full time.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Well, I won't comment on that, although I

did across the floor a few moments ago. Of course any of the expenses

in connection with this, the salary of the supernumerary as well as the

new appointees, are paid by the federal government, not by the

provincial administration.

The remaining two provisions are technical in nature, Mr. Speaker,

and can be probably best dealt with, if there are any questions of

them, in the committee stage of the bill. I move that Bill No. 7 be now

read for the second time.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the first Member for Vancouver

East.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, there is an

important principle in this bill which will enable judges at the age of

70 to become supernumerary judges. I want to be clear in my interest,

and I don't want anybody to be in any doubt that I am putting forward a

case for my brother the judge in any remarks I make.

Neither would I want the House to think I am jealous in any way that

I don't ever expect to be elevated myself, Mr. Speaker, but some day I

think I may be able to get on the list and get rejected. (Laughter).

That's more than I've been able to do with the Q.C., because some fellow

in the newspapers stood up and turned it down on my behalf, although it

had never been offe