1976 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 31st 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, APRIL 12, 1976

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

839 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Economic Policy Analysis Institute of British Columbia Repeal Act (Bill 14) .

Hon. Mr. Phillips

Introduction and first reading — 839

Oral questions

Admission of secrecy oath to David Brown. Mr. King — 839

Swimming programme for disabled. Mr. Gibson — 839

Senior planner for Islands Trust. Hon. Mr. Curtis answers — 840

Insurance cost of R.C. Palmer school fire. Mr. Wallace — 840

Income assurance programme for potato growers. Hon. Mr. Phillips answers — 841

Appointment of John Arnott as cabinet press secretary. Mr. Lockstead — 841

Keep Women Alive programme. Mr. Cocke — 841

Ladysmith Harbour authority. Hon. Mr. Nielsen answers — 842

Thompson River report. Hon. Mr. Nielsen answers — 842

Vancouver East by-election. Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 842

Camera equipment used by security officers. Hon. Mr. Gardom answers — 842

Point of order

Statements following question period. Mr. Wallace — 843

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 843

Mr. Speaker — 843

Mr. Wallace — 843

Routine proceedings

Budget debate (continued)

Hon. Mr. Curtis — 843

Mrs. Wallace — 847

Special Funds Revenue Recovery Act, 1976 (Bill 7) Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 854

Mr. Stupich — 854

Mr. Gibson — 855

Mr. Wallace — 856

Mr. Cocke — 857

Mr. Macdonald — 858

Mrs. Wallace — 859

Mr. Nicolson — 859

Mr. D'Arcy — 860

Mr. Skelly — 861

Mr. Barnes — 862

Mr. Shelford — 862

Mr. Lockstead — 863

Ms. Brown — 863

Mr. King — 863

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 864

Division on second reading — 865

Income Tax Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 9) Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 865

Mr. Stupich — 865

Mr. Gibson 867

Mr. Wallace — 867

Mr. D'Arcy — 868

Mr. Skelly — 868

Mr. Lockstead — 870

Mr. Nicolson — 870

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 871

Speaker's ruling

Clarification of earlier ruling on adjournment motions — 871

The House met at 2 p.m.

MR. G.H. KERSTER (Coquitlam): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery

today I'm very honoured to have the grade 11 Social Studies class

from Centennial High School and two of their instructors from the great

constituency of Coquitlam. I wish the House to make them welcome,

please.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): I would like the House to

join me in welcoming a group of students from BCIT. These students,

with their instructor, Barry McMaster, are taking a course in broadcast

journalism.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery

today I note that we're being accorded the watch of the B.C. Medical

Association. Mr. Speaker, I'd like us to welcome Dr. William Ibbot and

other members of the executive board of the B.C. Medical Association.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today I'd like to introduce Mrs. Betty Aitchison, a friend from Kimberley.

MR. F.A. CALDER (Attin): Mr. Speaker, we have in the gallery

Mr. Edward Asp of Dease Lake, which is located in the constituency of

Atlin. Mr. Asp is one of the top leaders of the Tahltan nation. He's

the president of the newly formed association in that area and also one

of our leading businessmen. He is one of the contractors for the B.C.

Railway Co. I'd like the members to join me in welcoming Mr. Asp.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, I'd

like the House to join me in welcoming Mr. Dave Bruce, who is a member

of the executive of the Automobile Retailers Association and a member

of the board of X-Kalay.

Introduction of bills

ECONOMIC POLICY ANALYSIS INSTITUTE

OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REPEAL ACT

Hon. Mr. Phillips presents a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill

intituled Economic Policy Analysis Institute of British Columbia Repeal Act.

Bill 14 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

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

after today.

Oral questions

ADMINISTRATION OF SECRECY

OATH TO DAVID BROWN

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, a

question to the Provincial Secretary. Does the Provincial Secretary

intend to answer questions put to her in oral question period?

Specifically will she answer a question as to whether or not Mr. David

Brown has taken the oath of secrecy and allegiance?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The answer to that question, Mr. Speaker, is no.

MR. KING: On a supplementary, I wonder if the Provincial

Secretary would explain why other order-in-council appointments such as

Mr. John Wood and Mrs. Joyce Thomas, who were appointed by

order-in-council on the same day as Mr. Brown, were required to take

the oath and why Mr. Brown has been exempted?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, it should be explained to

the hon. Leader of the Opposition that Mr. Brown is a temporary

employee and the other two mentioned are not. As such, he is doing a

communications study on behalf of the government and in that capacity

did not have to take the oath of secrecy.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to

ask the Premier whether, in the light of what has been said, he wants

to change the statement he made to this House to the effect that no

unauthorized person saw the budget prior to its release.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): I'm not going to change that statement to the House.

SWIMMING PROGRAMME FOR DISABLED

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Human

Resources. In view of the strong praise by the Minister of Health (Hon.

Mr. McClelland) this week for the swimming programme for the disabled,

formerly funded by the Minister's department through the Red Cross and

now terminated, I wonder if the Minister would undertake to favourably

reconsider that programme.

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): Mr. Speaker, that's a matter of policy, and as policy will be decided accordingly.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.

AN HON. MEMBER: You can't have a

[ Page 840 ]

supplementary on that.

MR. GIBSON: Of course you can.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, the minister has indicated in his

answer that it's a matter of policy, and as such is under

consideration. Now can you explain to me why or how you ask a

supplementary question on that particular matter when it's taken as a

matter of policy?

MR. GIBSON: Yes, sir, I can, because I hope to learn a little

bit more about the matter of consideration. I hoped to ask if he had

had any representations from his colleague, who obviously favours the

programme a great deal.

MR. SPEAKER: It's an improper question to ask a cabinet minister to comment on remarks made by another member of the cabinet, Hon. Member.

MR. GIBSON: I was just asking if he's received any representations, Mr. Speaker — which is in order.

Interjections.

SENIOR PLANNER FOR ISLANDS TRUST

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Mr.

Speaker, on Thursday last the hon. second member for Victoria (Mr.

Barber) asked if I was aware if the senior planner for the Islands

Trust had recently seen her contract terminated.

Later in the same question period the member rephrased his inquiry

to determine if the now-vacant position of senior planner has been

advertised. It may be interesting, Mr. Speaker, to note that the

question preceded my receipt of the official information from the

Islands Trust by approximately one and one-half hours.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. CURTIS: Later that afternoon I received a letter

from the Islands Trust general trustees. It's in the form of a

certified true copy of the minutes of the meeting held by the general

trustees on Wednesday, April 7. The minute is to the effect that the

general trust requests the Minister of Municipal Affairs to rescind

order-in-council 2443 appointing the acting manager planner of the

Islands Trust, effective May 1, 1976.

The general trustees in a second letter — dated the same day but a

second letter — requested me to approve the appointment of a

replacement planner on a temporary basis in the near future, and I have

that matter under review at this time, Mr. Speaker. The actual method

of selection of a replacement is yet to be determined but would, I

suspect, involve or be carried out in the main by the Islands Trust

general trustees.

INSURANCE COST OF

R.C. PALMER SCHOOL FIRE

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the

Minister of Education a question with regard to the fire at R.C. Palmer

Junior High School on April 10, where damage in excess of $2 million

was caused: will the total cost be paid by ICBC and, if so, what is the

figure that the minister anticipates the damage will amount to?

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, to the

hon. member, the matter is under investigation now and I cannot give a

figure at the present time as to the total loss. It was one of these,

again, unfortunate incidents of school arson which is such a tragic

problem for British Columbians.

Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, we had obtained re-insurance as of March I

for losses over $1 million. There is still a premium reserve at ICBC of

some $4.7 million which will cover this particular loss, but naturally

in view of the depletion of this reserve it's going to be necessary for

us to reconstitute that fund. We had hoped it would last until the end

of the year, but with this one huge loss that becomes questionable. I

would appreciate from hon. members or from the general public

suggestions as to how we might curb arson in the schools in British

Columbia.

MR. WALLACE: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

I'm a little puzzled by the minister's answer. In one part of his

statement he said that this particular fire caused damage in excess of

$1 million. Is the minister implying that the first million will not be

paid by ICBC?

HON. MR. McGEER: The question, Mr. Member, I'd better repeat

if the member misunderstood. There is a premium reserve of $4.7 million

at ICBC to cover loss under a million. Over a million we have

re-insurance which is placed through the firm of Guy Carpenter, and, as

I say, we were fortunate in getting re-insurance this year because the

experience in arson in our schools has been so bad that there was some

question as to whether we could get re-insurance at all.

MR. WALLACE: Could I have a final supplementary, Mr. Speaker?

I'll be very brief. The minister asked for suggestions, and in light

of the fact that the building was made of wood without a proper

sprinkler system, has the minister made any decision about recommending

to school boards that future

[ Page 841 ]

construction use fire-resistant material and a sprinkler system?

HON. MR. McGEER: Absolutely, Mr. Speaker. This school was 17

years old and we have certainly abandoned the practice of building

schools that are not fireproof.

As far as existing schools are concerned, however, the cost of

installing sprinklers in some cases is greater than the value of the

school itself. It's a problem.

INCOME ASSURANCE

PROGRAMME FOR POTATO GROWERS

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Agriculture): On April 7 I

was asked a question by the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs.

Wallace) on the status of negotiations with potato growers on a farm

income assurance programme.

Answer: a proposal for potato income assurance was received

from the B.C. Federation of Agriculture on January 25 of this year. The

proposal was reviewed in detail by departmental staff in the field —

the potato field. A review has been received from the field staff, and

meetings by senior departmental staff were held late last week to

consider this report. A meeting will be scheduled in the near future

with the B.C. Federation of Agriculture to open negotiations on this

matter.

At the same time I was asked a supplementary question with regard to

the raspberry income assurance. A request for raspberry income

assurance was received from the B.C. Federation of Agriculture on March

20, 1975.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The department has been prepared to meet

with the B.C. Federation of Agriculture to discuss development of a

raspberry programme, although funds are not contained in the 1976-77

budget for this purpose. The industry was advised to make formal

application for federal government assistance under the Agriculture

Stabilization Act, 1975, respecting the 1975 crop. We understand such

an application is going ahead.

APPOINTMENT OF JOHN ARNETT

AS CABINET PRESS SECRETARY

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): Mr. Speaker, I should say I object to the minister taking so much time to answer those questions when they could be tabled.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MR. LOCKSTEAD: My question to the Deputy Premier is simply:

was the appointment of Mr. John Arnett as press secretary to cabinet

done by order-in-council?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Could I just add, in the reply to the

member's statement on answers being tabled, that I could say the same

for questions — they can also be tabled in the House and answered on

the order paper.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the question,

Mr. Arnett's appointment was done through the Public Service Commission

to the Department of Education, and he has been transferred from that

department to the Premier's office — by order-in-council.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Supplemental, Mr. Speaker: in other words, Mr.

Arnett is still a public servant, and he is not on leave from the

public service.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Arnett's appointment to

the Premier's office was established by order-in-council, following his

transfer from the Department of Education.

KEEP WOMEN ALIVE PROGRAMME

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to

the same minister, the hon. Provincial Secretary. About two and a half

weeks ago we asked whether or not the Provincial Secretary was

reviewing the Keep Women Alive programme — Dr. Henry Richards. Since

then I've noted in the House that they are distributing a three-page

circular on the whole cancer investigation they are carrying on, and

that is pretty well looked down upon by most of the authorities in the

area. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask whether or not the Provincial

Secretary will give us an answer to that question today.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the member

for New Westminster wishes to have his point of view aired while the

medical association is in the gallery, but I am sorry that at this time

I am not able to give him that statement.

I promised to this House that I would report when my staff had a

report on the Keep Women Alive project. And that grant was not given to

Dr. Richards; it was given to the women's bureau of Keep Women Alive.

When I have that report, Mr. Speaker, through you to the hon. member

for New Westminster, I will certainly give it at the closest

opportunity of the opening of this House thereafter.

[ Page 842 ]

MR. COCKE: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: is it not true, Mr. Speaker....

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I'm asking a supplementary — and

don't give me the order stuff! The supplementary: is it not true that

the money has already been spent in pushing the circular?

LADYSMITH HARBOUR AUTHORITY

HON. J.A. NIELSEN (Minister of Environment): To a question

asked by the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) regarding the

Ladysmith Harbour, the question asked: have any steps been taken toward

the appointment of a harbour authority for Ladysmith Harbour? The

answer to that is no, The draft report was circulated among the users

and local interested groups for their comments, and the final report is

now being drafted.

The supplementary question on the same subject from the member for

Cowichan-Malahat — the question: has there been a move afoot to

consolidate leases within the harbour? No formal requests to

consolidate leases has been received; no new applications have been

processed.

THOMPSON RIVER REPORT

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, a very quick answer to a

question from the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) regarding the

Thompson River Report....

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is he?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: He's not here today, but it's a short

answer to his question, a supplementary question. He asked if any

environmental groups concerned in the matter of the Thompson River

report were shown a draft of the report, as was the city of Kamloops

and Weyerhauser.

The answer to that question is no. The only persons who were

involved in those early discussions were the two principal dischargers,

the city of Kamloops and Weyerhauser.

He asked who authorized the meeting in January between Weyerhauser

and the city of Kamloops. The decision to hold that meeting, as I

mentioned to the member at the time — I didn't believe it was necessary

to have authorization — the decision to hold the meeting was made by

the regional director of the Environmental Protection Service,

Environment Canada, and the director of the pollution control branch of

the Department of Environment.

VANCOUVER EAST BY-ELECTION

MR. MACDONALD: I'd like to ask the Provincial Secretary if

she is leaving the decision as to the issue of a writ for the Vancouver

East by-election to the Deputy Provincial Secretary who is charged with

that duty under the Constitution Act.

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): It's out of order.

MR. MACDONALD: No, it isn't.

MR. SPEAKER: You're asking a minister to reply on a question of law.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, the question is whether she or the Deputy Provincial Secretary is making that decision.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Under the statute it is in the hands of

the Deputy Provincial Secretary. But I think the hon. member would like

to know that we are awaiting the enumeration which is not yet

completed. When it is, that information will be forthcoming.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Why did Williams resign? Where is he?

CAMERA EQUIPMENT USED

BY SECURITY OFFICERS

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): With leave of the House,

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to respond to a question that was raised to me a

few days back by the hon. member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace), concerning

the utilization of camera equipment by security officers.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I think, as all members know, it is the duty

and responsibility of law enforcement officers in this country to

protect the public and to protect property. I think every member in

this House will commend our police and security officers for the very

difficult and demanding job they are performing, particularly in these

days of very high crime.

It is their responsibility, Mr. Speaker, to act within the confines

of the law and to prevent criminal acts, or the possibility of criminal

acts; and an ounce of prevention, as the saying goes, is a very good

thing and it should be practised when necessary.

I'd like to say to the hon. member that there is nothing either

unusual or new for the protection of the public for the police to take

pictures in as

[ Page 843 ]

unobtrusive a manner as possible when they have received

intelligence to the effect that there could be problems, because such

films would enable any subsequent inquiry to have a good record of that

which happened, and certainly to be an aid in determining the facts and

as to whether criminal charges should be laid against any violators.

The picture-taking in question is not done in such a way as to

intimidate the public, or in any way to hinder peaceful demonstrations,

and the police are advised to use caution at all times. It really boils

down just to the question of the exercise of good judgment.

Now according to police information received, there was concern

expressed by the organizers of one demonstration that problems could

arise. I'm informed that the organizers in question were extremely

cooperative with the police, and difficulties did not present

themselves. The films were never developed and they were subsequently

destroyed. After the occasion, the procedure was reviewed at a police

board meeting and it was confirmed by the police board meeting and it

was confirmed by the police board as being completely proper.

In short, therefore, what we're most concerned about, Mr. Speaker,

is the protection of people. In situations where it is felt there could

be possibilities of difficulties the procedures in question may be

carried out if they are deemed to be warranted.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I don't wish

to impose on the privileges in the House but could we have

clarification, first of all, about statements by leave following

question period, and whether or not we are all agreed that the

questioner is entitled to respond to the minister's statement?

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Your question was to the Speaker, Mr.

Member, but the reason I thought I'd introduce this after question

period was merely to afford more time to the opposition for question

period.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, hon. members. I think the question

is one I should take into consideration, because if a reply is made by

an hon. minister outside of the question period, by leave, then we're

faced with the situation of reply statements, if that's allowable. If

it's not allowable, then I presume the only recourse would be for the

hon. member to pursue the matter further in the next question period

where the opportunity avails itself.

It is a matter that I'd like to discuss with the Clerks of the House

because I can see, with the type of questions asked and quite often the

answers being rather long, the ministers, out of courtesy to the House,

ask leave to file an answer, which is proper and it doesn't

take time from the question period. How much beyond that we should

proceed I would like to discuss with the Clerks of the House before I

give you an answer, hon. member.

MR. WALLACE: On a point of privilege then, Mr. Speaker could

I just say that while I appreciate the Attorney-General's intention,

and a very well-motivated one, to save time in the question period, the

whole essence of the value of question period, surely, is the immediacy

of question and answer. The immediacy of question period, and the value

of immediacy which makes it worthwhile is something I hope you will

take into consideration.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Hon. Member.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Point of order, Mr.

Speaker: wasn't that question posed as a question of privilege rather

than a question in the question period? I thought it was raised as a

point of privilege.

MR. SPEAKER: Not if I can recall correctly, Hon. Member. I

believe it was posed in the question period to the Attorney-General,

but I'll check that out.

Orders of the day

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Mr.

Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this budget debate and to speak

in support of the recovery budget presented by the Minister of Finance

(Hon. Mr. Wolfe) just a few days ago, and also, more correctly, I

suppose, in support of the motion that Mr. Speaker do now leave the

chair.

As other government members have indicated, Mr. Speaker, it is a

good budget under the circumstances in which we find ourselves today.

It is a document designed to put the province back on track again and

permit us to prepare the way for later introduction of those programmes

and policies which we enunciated in the campaign last November-December

— programmes and policies which we know are desired and are required by

the people of this province; programmes and policies which are vital if

British Columbia is to prosper, in every sense of that word.

What is most personally satisfying, Mr. Speaker, is that in spite of

general restraint and many other pressures, the Minister of Finance was

able to accommodate a significant number of the proposals which I

advanced to him on behalf of the departments of Municipal Affairs and

Housing. I know that he and my cabinet colleagues had hoped to

[ Page 844 ]

do even more for these two departments, but we are off to a good start.

Perhaps in these few minutes I could touch on several points which

may be of interest and which will assist all members in the House in

assessing some of the policies for the departments of Municipal Affairs

and Housing which we expect to flow out of this budget.

First, Mr. Speaker, the Department of Municipal Affairs has just

concluded production of an interim revenue-sharing formula for local

government in British Columbia during the fiscal year 1976-77. The

details of the formula were given a few days ago to Mayor Muni Evers of

New Westminster in his capacity as president of the Union of B.C.

Municipalities. I am pleased to learn today that the UBCM has referred

to the proposal as "a reasonable assistance programme." It is also

encouraging to learn that the formula is recognized by the president of

the UBCM and, I assume, by his executive as again "a step in the right

direction" — action which should have been taken a few years ago, Mr.

Speaker.

I would ask the permission of the House to make a few comments on

the formula for 1976. I emphasize, of course, Mr. Speaker, that it is

subject to the approval to departmental estimates and passage of

necessary accompanying legislation. The reason for announcing the

formula within the last few days was to provide municipalities — local

government of all classes — at the earliest possible time with

information which is vital as they prepare their budgets for the

current operating year. We certainly didn't want to repeat last year's

regrettable experience where sometime in the last part of April the

general format was spelled out but the details of the Natural Gas

Revenue Sharing Act were not finalized and formally transmitted to the

various local governments in British Columbia until much later in the

spring. In fact it was in the last few days of June — I am subject to

correction, but in the last half of June at any rate.

It was essential, therefore, that this information be sent out now

so that municipalities begin to have some idea of where they stand for

their 1976 operating year.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, in 1975 a total of $20 million was

provided for municipalities and regional districts under the provisions

of the Natural Gas Revenue Sharing Act. It provided for distribution of

those funds on the following basis: first, a basic support grant to

each municipality; secondly, a grant based on the relative operating

costs of each municipality; third, a water assistance programme;

fourth, a grant to each municipality based on the annual increase in

new housing units in that municipality; fifth, special community

disparity grants to be made to municipalities; finally, grants to

regional districts to assist in the capital costs of waste disposal

sites.

The allocation of funds and actual expenditures in 1975 are

important, I think, for the record and are as follows. First, the basic

support grant — the allocation was $3,450,000 and the actual

disbursement $3,500,000; operating costs — the allocation was

$8,240,000 and the actual amount was precisely that; under water

assistance the allocation was $1,310,000 and the actual amount

$1,295,621; the new housing units component — the allocation was $3

million

and actual $2,865,300; disparity grants — the allocation was $3 million

and actual $3,165,470; and the final component, regional district

solid waste disposal — the allocation was $ I million and the actual

amount $933,504.

So it came out very close, and we worked on this in the last few

weeks of the now-closed fiscal year, 1975-76, to see that the final

allocations which were in order were transmitted. Of the full

allocation of $20 million, the amount disbursed — the actual money

transferred — was $19,999,895. You don't get much closer than that.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's a good programme!

HON. MR. CURTIS: Yes, it's a good programme, Mr. Member, and we're improving on it. That's the next part of my statement. We're improving on it.

As part of vote 151 of the new estimates, last year's $20 million,

Mr. Speaker, has been increased to $30 million for local government in

British Columbia. This is why I referred a few minutes ago to the fact

that I appreciate what the Minister of Finance was able to do, and I

know that he wanted to do even more with respect to local government.

It's proposed that the funds provided in 1976 will be distributed to

municipalities and regional districts on a formula which differs

somewhat to that in effect in 1975. Part of the consideration here was

that the Union of B.C. Municipalities in convention voiced very strong

objection to the community disparity fund, which provided, as I

indicated a moment ago, for the $3 million to be allocated to a number

of municipalities, basically at the discretion of the then Minister of

Municipal Affairs (Mr. Lorimer) .

We're eliminating this portion of the allocation, and we're going to

provide for distribution on the following basis for 1976: two

non-allocated portions of the formula involve $3 million for water

assistance programmes, as before, and $1,487,000 for housing-start

grants. The $3 million for the water-assistance programme will meet the

costs of providing a grant to municipalities and regional districts of

75 per cent of the amount of debt-servicing costs that exceed a 3 mill

levy in the municipality or, alternately, a specified area of a

regional district. This is a continuation, therefore, of

[ Page 845 ]

the programme from the previous year, and it's identical to the

formula of funding provided under the Sewerage Facilities Assistance

Act.

The housing starts grant will allow for payment to municipalities of

$100 for each new housing unit which did not qualify or will not

qualify for a grant under the programme to be instituted by the

Department of Housing, that particular programme providing a $ 500

grant to housing units qualifying for assistance under AHOP, the

assisted home-ownership programme. The $100 grant we feel, Mr.

Speaker, will provide funds to smaller municipalities or in areas where

density is not a major problem.

Those are then two non-allocated amounts. They will be drawn on as

municipalities and regional districts make their requests and carry out

the work.

In addition, the following have been allocated to both

municipalities and regional districts: a basic grant for

municipalities, $4.2 million; a basic grant for regional districts,

$813,000; and the operating per capita grant portion of this $30

million only, $20.5 million. The $4.2 million represents a basic grant

to all municipalities of $30,000 — that's an increase from last year's

$25,000. While it is recognized both by this department, Municipal

Affairs, and the UBCM, that this is not too significant in large urban

centres, it does provide funds in sufficient quantity for smaller

municipalities, and allows these smaller municipalities to provide

services or facilities which their understandably very limited tax base

would otherwise prohibit.

We've spoken in this debate and earlier of mill rates which are

perhaps producing $600 a year or $700 a year, the equivalent of 1 mill,

and we recognize that problem.

A restriction will be placed on this grant, and I think all members

of the House will find it reasonable, that no amount in excess of 50

per cent of the previous year's general tax levy may be taken into

revenue. The balance will have to be placed in a statutory reserve fund

for capital purposes, which would require ministerial or departmental

approval for expenditure. This is a continuation of a factor in the

1975 grant structure. The $813,000 will provide a basic grant to all

regional districts of $30,000, identical to that for municipalities.

Mr. Speaker, there's a restriction on the grant in that no regional

district will receive in excess of 50 per cent of the requisition on

member municipalities and electoral areas for the previous year.

Otherwise, we might indeed find that in the case of a very small and

relatively inactive regional district, there would be no need for a

requisition on member municipalities and regional districts and we

would, in effect, be funding the regional district totally. I don't

think that is what is intended in this kind of revenue-sharing.

The remaining $20.5 million will be allocated on the basis of a

combination of per capita and expenditure formula and I would caution

the House, through you, Mr. Speaker, that this is not what we have come

to know over the years as the per capita grant, but this is the per

capita portion of the $30 million revenue-sharing which I am speaking

of. The expenditure grant portion is going to be based on the

percentage each municipality's general expenditure is of the total

expenditure of all municipalities and this percentage applied to the

funds available.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to return briefly to the disparity grant

factor which was part of the 1975 revenue-sharing programme and to

indicate again, as I am sure the opposition will observe later on, that

the deletion of this item will, without doubt, cause some critical

comment in some small communities in British Columbia, communities

which received the money last year. But I think members should realize

that it was an administrative nightmare. While $3 million was allocated

under disparity grant, requests totalling $40 million were received.

The UBCM was invited by the former Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr.

Lorimer) to assist in assessing all these requests. The UBCM wrestled

for weeks attempting to achieve equitable distribution. The senior

staff of the Department of Municipal Affairs also made a valiant

attempt to achieve some type of equity, and finally, the matter was

left — I have the feeling with hands thrown up in the air — to the

discretion of the former minister. This confusion and the delay in

finally settling how much money went where, combined with a widespread

belief that the disparity grant is very difficult to resolve on a

completely fair basis — community by community by community — led the

Union of B.C. Municipalities, at its September, 1975, conference, to

urge that the practice be discontinued. Mr. Speaker, we now concur with

that request.

I want to emphasize, Mr. Speaker, that the interim revenue-sharing

programme, which I am outlining today, is short-term. Work will

commence within the next few weeks to prepare the way for a more

permanent sharing of growth revenues between provincial and local

governments, and in this preparation, which is going to take a good

number of months, Mr. Member, we want to prepare the way for a more

permanent sharing of growth revenues. We are going to....

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Yes, that will also be looked at, I am quite

sure. We are going to involve municipalities, regional districts, the

Union of B.C. Municipalities as well as elected and staff

representatives of municipalities and regional districts and any other

groups or organizations which have a point to make; and, indeed, a

number have done so thus far in my ministry. Our target for

revenue-sharing is 1977 and I hope all the details will

[ Page 846 ]

be worked out, still recognizing that it's a major task. All details

will be worked out in time for implementation by the early part of next

year — that is, the provincial government's fiscal year of 1977-1978.

But, Mr. Speaker, no municipality, no regional district in this

province should misunderstand our intentions in this regard. We do not

intend to enter into a blank-cheque type of relationship. We do not

intend, no matter how healthy the economy may become, to simply serve

as a money tree for local government. We expect the revenue-sharing

concept, and the work which will go into formulating it this year, to

be approached on a mature and forthright and very frank basis by both

partners. I look upon it as a partnership to ensure that funds are

received and dispersed in the most efficient and productive manner

possible.

Increased autonomy at the local level must be accompanied by an

increased sense of priority at the council, the municipal, regional

district and staff levels. So we intend to urge carefully prepared and

realistic five-year to ten-year capital expenditure forecasting, not to

the point, Mr. Speaker, of mindless inflexibility or simply filling in

a form and mailing it to the department, saying, "Well, we've complied

with that particular requirement, " but carefully laid out capital

forecasting with an understanding of the...

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: ...general direction in which a municipality's spending will be directed within the following few years.

The determining of this sense of priority in capital expenditures is

not always easy because there are special expenditures, special

interest groups within each community who attempt to influence — and

it's fair game — a municipal council to follow a particular course of

action. That's fair enough, as I say. However, if a municipal council

is torn between a choice of, say, an indoor recreational facility and a

storm drainage or a sanitary sewer programme, then that choice should

be given the most careful and objective review. I know, having been

through it, Mr. Speaker, that there's far more glamour and community

pride in a brand new recreational complex than in essential underground

improvements.

Again, park development may be highly desirable and there may be

strong public support for it, but the same municipality or regional

district may have a more urgent need for improved roads, for better and

safer intersections, for more sidewalks, for bicycle paths, Mr. Member,

perhaps, or for the elimination of dangerous drainage ditches. Each

municipality is going to be urged to step back and say: "Is this a

matter of pressure? Do we have a very vocal portion of our community

asking for A, when in fact what the community as a whole needs is B?"

That's not going to be easy, but that's what we expect of local

government.

We intend to take a similar attitude toward an individual municipality's

acceptance of growth. In the two metropolitan areas especially, the Department

of Municipal Affairs and the Department of Housing will expect all communities

to very clearly understand this fundamental fact: there can be no opting out

of assuming a reasonably proportionate share of population increase pressures.

I think that the federal initiatives now in place and those to be added by the

province through the Department of Housing will overcome much of the previously

understandable resistance to new development, but again — and fair warning to

local government — we shall look to each municipality to assist in casing the

present housing shortage and to ensure that there is the best possible accommodation

mix.

At the same time — in fact, today would be as good a day as any, Mr.

Speaker — I urge municipal councils to exercise even greater control

over their spending. Now this is not to suggest that there has been no

local concern — no serious concern — over increasing costs at the

municipal or regional district level. I again clearly understand,

having lived through a few, the agonizing decisions which take place at

about this time each year, when a municipal council and senior staff

sit day after day, or night after night, or both, in an attempt to hold

the mill rate to an acceptable level. It's a tough job for local

government, but each municipal council and each regional district in

the province should be reminded once more of the opportunity each has

in its own community to clearly demonstrate an anti-inflation attitude

throughout the municipal structure.

I hope and I expect that we shall see, as an example only, virtually

no council member salary increases in this calendar year. While the

total municipal budget is affected to a very minute extent by council

salaries, it is a high-profile item. We see the headlines: "Council

Gives Itself a Raise." That so often sets the pattern for other salary

and wage increase requests. Very few mayors, aldermen and regional

district electoral area directors in British Columbia are overpaid. In

terms of the total hours they devote to the often thankless task of

serving a community, it's quite probably a below minimum wage situation

but this is not the year for them to attempt correction of a

long-standing problem.

Mr. Speaker, the relationship between local governments and senior

governments, provincial and federal, is undergoing dramatic change.

Municipal government has long outgrown its traditional caretaker image.

It has experienced a dramatic — in some cases, traumatic — expansion of

the degree of complexity and sophistication of its function and its

[ Page 847 ]

needs and the expectations and demands made of it by citizens. It is

calling out for the other levels of government to acknowledge this

change and to provide the necessary guidance, assistance and support

essential if it is to discharge its duties and responsibilities. Mr.

Speaker, this government will respond to that call from local

government.

This government also believes that we must end the atmosphere of

mistrust between province and local government, and we're going to do

that. We're going to create an environment which is conducive to

cooperation. We accept the fact that the only way local government can

be effective in providing its citizens with the good government they

demand and are entitled to is if we at the provincial level are willing

to work in harmony and with a clear understanding of the myriad

problems that are troubling municipalities now.

The challenge facing the urban centre is universal. In Canada, Mr.

Speaker, we are rapidly approaching the position where 80 per cent of

our population is concentrated in large urban areas. In British

Columbia the tremendous growth rates, especially in metropolitan

Vancouver and metropolitan Victoria, provide us with a situation where

approximately 65 per cent of the population is concentrated in less

than 1 per cent of the province's land area.

Recognizing these and other problems, Mr. Speaker, we have just

completed formation of a joint committee with the UBCM, the purpose of

which will be to examine the many difficulties related to the

establishment of more housing in this province and to make

recommendations to the Minister of Housing and to cabinet. I want to

acknowledge again, in this instance, the enthusiastic cooperation of

the Union of B.C. Municipalities.

This committee will actually function at two levels: the advisory

committee will consist of elected representatives from this Legislature

and the UBCM; the working committee will comprise staff members from

the departments of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the UBCM. The

group will be given authority to contact a variety of agencies and

organizations, including other departments of the provincial

government, school boards, the Urban Development Institute, HUDAC, the

municipal

section of the B.C. Bar Association and virtually any other

organization or group which can assist.

The list of areas to be examined is very lengthy, I won't read all

of it, Mr. Speaker. It obviously includes: cost of land; difficulties

of servicing land; neighbourhood resistance to change; complexity of

zoning and inspection procedures; duplication of inspection at the

provincial, regional or municipal level; alternate forms of housing,

including mobile and modular homes. I would indicate to the second

member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) that we've already started an

interdepartmental study of the mobile-home problem. We identified the

problem — very easy.

I think that the committee has a valuable service to render to all

British Columbians, Mr. Speaker, and I look forward to its successful

completion within several months of a major and critical task.

Mr. Speaker, I feel very fortunate in having two provincial

portfolios which are closely linked together. Since December 22, 1975,

we have attempted to involve both departments from the outset in a

variety of meetings and contacts and discussions both

interdepartmentally and with municipal councils, regional district

representatives, delegations of all kinds and individuals. I don't

think this happened too often previously.

In so many cases the problem under discussion, you will know, Mr.

Speaker, really involves both departments — Municipal Affairs and

Housing. I have found the staff of both departments to be extremely

receptive to this joint approach so that one understands what the other

is doing and one can contribute to the discussion undertaken by the

other. In fact, there are many instances where a comment or a

suggestion offered by one senior staff member is particularly helpful

to the other. I think that in this way, with this joint approach, we

should be able to significantly reduce duplication of effort and

provide an even clearer understanding of a question under review.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Shouldn't a backbencher have one of those portfolios?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I mentioned earlier revenue

sharing. But most of us in this House recognize that this is just one

part of the total relationship between two types of government — local

and provincial. We're going to move away from the adversary approach.

We're going to achieve a degree of mutual trust and understanding; in

fact, I think we could call it problem sharing and solution sharing.

We're always going to be keenly aware of the fact that the municipal or

regional district taxpayer is also a provincial taxpayer. The people of

British Columbia expect and deserve our best effort, no matter where or

how or at what level we serve them.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): Mr. Speaker, first I

would like to congratulate the speaker who has just finished on his

very thoughtful and constructive remarks. I am sure that he will

forgive me if I say that it was a welcome change from the last time he

spoke in this House. Of course, I don't agree with everything that he

has said but I am very pleased to have that very constructive and

thoughtful approach presented in this House. It was a very welcome

change, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 848 ]

As I rise to participate in this budget debate I am faced again with

the dilemma about which budget I am supposed to be speaking about. I

have the first edition; I frankly haven't seen a copy of the second

edition which, I understand, is floating around. But, Mr. Speaker, I

would like to say that I am very pleased that there is a second

edition, because I was very much concerned about the type of dialogue

contained in the narrative of the first edition and the possible

distribution of that dialogue throughout the market areas of the world,

because I did have concern for the financial future of B.C., should

that kind of innuendo reach those other areas.

Mr. Speaker, while I am very pleased about the second edition, I am

very concerned about the method by which that second edition came into

being. I was under the impression that this House, this legislative

body, was the final authority in the decision-making process within

this province.

We sat in this House and we went through some very hot debate on

this very subject, Mr. Speaker. We debated whether or not the various

sections that were removed should be removed. There was a petition

presented to this House, and you, Mr. Speaker, ruled the petition out

of order. You ruled against it on the grounds that there was no slur

against....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! You are now out of order, Hon.

Member, to reflect upon a vote or a proceeding that has taken place and

been decided by this House at a previous session of this House.

MRS. WALLACE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I accept your ruling.

Well, I am concerned that the budget was changed outside of the

House, and I'm wondering how, or by what authority. The Minister of

Finance indicated on the floor of this House that he had read of the

change in the paper on April 2, I believe it was. He indicated that he

read in the news media over the weekend about the question asked about

the second edition.

So who, Mr. Speaker, made the decision? Was it the Premier? Or was

it some civil servant? Who made the decision and why? When we rose to

ask for this change we didn't receive much support from the other side

of the House. There have been various reasons put forward for the

possibility of this change, but I have a different reason that I would

like to present. I watched the cabinet very closely when the budget

speech was being read, and I suspect that some of the licorice allsorts

in that cabinet (those people with the different colour political

stripe) were really the only ones on the government side who were aware

of what was going on in that speech — of the breach of etiquette. I

noticed that when the Premier led the great round of thundering

applause that accompanied every critical comment against the former

government, and all the bench-pounders joined in, there were certain

members within that cabinet that refrained from joining in that

applause. I suggest that those members from former political parties

realized the implications that were contained in that budget, and my

suggestion is that it was pressure from within the cabinet that caused

the change.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to move on to the field of agriculture, as

contained in the budget. The Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr.

Phillips), speaking recently in the House, said that agriculture was a

most important industry in B.C. — as goes agriculture, so goes the

economy. I agree very much with the minister.

I would point out that there are some 12,000 farmers in British

Columbia, and that doesn't include the related industries — the people

that are working actually in the field of agriculture in related

industries. There are 9,000 actual farmers within B.C. who are making

sales in excess of $2.500 a year. The gross agriculture sale last year

was nearly $400 million. I submit this is a fairly substantial part of

our economy. Not only that, but adequate production of food is a basic

requirement of our very existence.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, this government has seen fit to leave

the administration of this department to a part-time minister who has,

to my knowledge, seemed rather reluctant in the past to actually meet

with the farmers of this province, and who has seen fit to move on very

few of the income-assurance schemes — one of which he has indicated to

me today is under active negotiations, while I'm not quite sure whether

the other one is or it isn't, from his answer.

I submit, Mr. Speaker, that a part-time minister is not adequate for

the agriculture industry in B.C. During the past three years there's

been a complete turnaround of the position of the farmer in B.C.'s

economic community, and a start on the road back toward making farming

a viable and an attractive industry, as it should be. We must have a

minister who has the time, the interest and the understanding to assure

this trend continues, not a minister who has no time to meet with

vegetable growers when they are facing a nearly insurmountable problem

in the whole vegetable industry in the Fraser Valley, when that

industry is, in fact, in danger of disappearing. Instead, that minister

made a dramatic performance on the floor of this House and berated the

former government for not causing the federal government to impose

import tax.

Yet, Mr. Speaker, that minister has today expressed little or no

support for orderly marketing of farm produce at the federal level. I

suggest, Mr. Speaker, that without interprovincial production and

marketing agreements there is no possible way to control

interprovincial imports. Without those kinds of agreements there is no

way the federal government is going to introduce protective tariffs.

[ Page 849 ]

Mr. Speaker, apart from marketing, land cost and land availability

is the other most important item relating to farmers, I am worried for

the future of B.C. farmers when I see the administration of the Land

Commission relegated to the Department of the Environment and the whole

future of the agricultural land reserve buried in among parklands and

urban industrial use.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the preservation of farmland is a most

critical question relative to the continuing development of our

agricultural industry. I'm deeply concerned that this has been removed

from the jurisdiction of the minister responsible for agriculture.

I suggest, sir, that there will be a heavy pressure put on the

preservation of agricultural land. This is happening right now in the

Fraser Valley with some 600 acres of land, and that pressure will grow,

Mr. Speaker, if, say, the vegetable growers continue to find themselves

without income assurance, without protection from imports. Then, Mr.

Speaker, the pressure will be very great, and once gone, once covered

with blacktop, once covered with large industrial complexes, once gone

that land is unrecoverable, Mr. Speaker. I urge the immediate

appointment of a full-time Minister of Agriculture, genuinely

interested in the welfare of the industry and responsible for all

factors affecting the industry, including the agricultural land reserve.

Mr. Speaker, as a woman who, for many years, participated in the

work force of this province, I want to speak out on behalf of women.

Statistics have proven over and over again that women are not given the

same opportunities as men. They are put in dead-end jobs. They are not

given the same training opportunities. They do not receive equivalent

pay. I believe many of us don't recognize this situation, but we must

move to ensure that equality.

I have here a report from the Attorney-General's department and it points

out particularly, Mr. Speaker, the lack of training facilities made available

to women. It seems one woman and seven men attended executive development training

programmes in the Attorney-General's department; and, in government generally,

executive-development programmes, six females and 87 males in those training

programmes. I suggest that that speaks very poorly for the actual participation

of women on an equal level in our society.

We must move to ensure that that equality becomes a reality, not

just for women but for all groups within our society. Women are faced

with many special problems, not just those related to their place of

work, but there are problems in law, in education and in health.

Mr. Speaker, I'm a farm wife and, as such, I represent one of the

many groups of women who have been historically denied their rightful

place in our society. I submit that marriage is a partnership and the

wife should be recognized as a full partner. Her replacement value has

been estimate at $ 157,000; this was Dr. Martin Meissner of Vancouver,

sociology professor at the University of British Columbia, and he told

the supreme court in a judgment that he placed the value of a housewife

at $ 157,000.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's reasonable.

MRS. WALLACE: That's probably reasonable, I agree, Mr. Member.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this government gives a degree of lip service to

supporting the cause of women, but I fail to see any concrete evidence

of this support either in the budget itself, or in the manifestations

of the government during the past three months. True, we've had a

blanket statement on the floor of this House from the Premier

expressing general support of women's programmes, but yet the press

report at the time of the women's rally doesn't reflect that train of

thought. This was from The Vancouver Sun , March 23, and it says

he reportedly admitted that he had read only the highlights of the

Berger Royal Commission on Family Law. He was unaware of any day-care

needs in Kelowna, and the Premier met most requests from the group with

a warning that government had very little money and the pie was very

small.

The Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) is quoted as

having said: "Women make good cooks and housekeepers and should be

encouraged in that role."

That's not good enough, Mr. Speaker. The Premier also, on the floor

of the House during a rather heated debate on another subject, I think,

evidenced what perhaps his true feelings were. He was speaking on April

2, in the morning session, and he was talking about finances. He was

talking about young married couples who run up bills and find out that

they are contracting more debt than their income, and he said: "The

wives always stick a few bills in the drawer and don't pay them." I

suggest that that is a slur on the women of this province: "The wives

stick a few bills in the drawer and don't pay them."

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer Services): Are you serious?

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, I'm serious, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who said that?

MRS. WALLACE: The Premier of this province said that in this House, and I think that is a direct slur against the credibility of women.

AN HON. MEMBER: Have you ever left a bill in

[ Page 850 ]

the drawer?

MRS. WALLACE: Not and left it there, not to be paid. I

suggest, Mr. Deputy Speaker, through you, Mr. Speaker, that there is

far more spending done by the women of this province than any other one

single group. It's the women that do the accounting in the household

and pay the bills and arrange for the economic stability of the family

unit. I think a slur like this, that the wives put the bills in the

drawer, is just a little bit too much in this day and age, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MAIR: Do you get as much credit as Alex?

MRS. WALLACE: I believe, Mr. Speaker, that this government

wishes the women would go back into the kitchen. I doubt if they fully

recognize the validity of the recommendations in the brief presented to

the members of this House by the women who rallied here on March 22.

What were some of those recommendations, Mr. Speaker? The

re-establishment of the office of the provincial co-ordinator, Status

of Women.

Mr. Speaker, it was most regrettable to me that one of the first

acts of the only woman member of the cabinet, was she saw fit to

discontinue the Status of Women's office, the co-ordinator for the

Status of Women.

I see no provision in the budget to reinstate the committee. I

suggest to members of this House that until such a committee is

established with an interdepartmental responsibility within government,

with responsibility to act as a resource body for women's centres and

with responsibility for advising cabinet ministers for co-ordinating

government programmes related to women, there is little hope for women

to take their rightful place, make their rightful gains. This is one of

the first steps, Mr. Speaker.

There are inequalities in law, in education, and in the work arena,

and I submit, Mr. Speaker, that token support will do nothing to help

women move along the road towards equality and social justice.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like at this time to turn to a few items

that relate specifically to my own constituency of Cowichan-Malahat.

Within the boundaries of Cowichan-Malahat there are, I believe, one of

the highest per capita native Indian populations of any riding in the

province. Those people are concerned about the land claim issue, Mr.

Speaker. Naturally they are concerned, the Cowichans, for example,

where a good part of the city of Duncan is built on Indian land.

Kulleet Bay, Ivy Green Provincial Park exist on Indian land.

I'm concerned over the remarks of the minister responsible for

Indian affairs made in this House this morning, remarks where again he

brought up the old dodge of trying to throw the responsibility back on

the federal government.

The province of British Columbia is a party — a very full-bodied

party — to the Indian land claims here in B.C., the cutoff lands. I

suggest that making the federal government the scapegoat for this is

just part of the same old skin game.

I'm concerned about the government's attitude in cutting off the

royal commission that was created in 1975 to study cutoff lands. Did it

ever meet? Where will it go? What will it do in the future? This is the

question and, Mr. Speaker, I recognize, as do the native Indians, that

commissions do not make final decisions. It is ministers and cabinet

members who make those decisions, and I sincerely hope that the door is

still open and that this provincial government will keep that door open

to negotiations on these cutoff lands.

I am concerned to see that there's no provision in this year's

estimates for this settlement, none at all, Mr. Speaker. The native

Indians certainly have a right to have some moves taken on behalf of

the lands that have been alienated from their reserves, and that is a

provincial responsibility, Mr. Speaker.

The native Indians are concerned with more than land claims though,

Mr. Speaker, I've had some very interesting and productive meetings

with the Cowichan band council which represents some 1,700 native

persons. The Cowichans posed some very valid questions on other

subjects. They point out that the Cowichans have pumped into the local

economy something like $2 million in purchasing power during the past

year.

Assuming, Mr. Speaker, that half of those purchases were taxable,

that represents $50,000 in sales tax. Now with the 40 per cent increase

we are projecting another $20,000. Theirs is a very valid argument when

they claim they are not getting a fair return for their tax dollars.

I have here, Mr. Speaker, a letter from Marcel Jutras, the Assistant

Director General of Indian Affairs, and he says, in part: "Except for

two pilot projects, one in the Kootenays and one in the Vanderhoof

area, the province does not provide social services to Indians on

reserves. In the absence of these services on reserves, this department

had a necessity to set up similar but not as comprehensive a service."

He goes on to talk about child-care legislation and he says: "When an

Indian child is taken into care the province bills this department at a

per diem rate."

I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the native people are not getting a full

and just return for their contribution to the sales tax in this

province.

Now I'm not suggesting that the province does not contribute anything. They do contribute, but they

[ Page 851 ]

are not getting a fair return for their tax dollar.

Another area — and the former speaker, the Minister of Municipal

Affairs (Hon. Mr. Curtis) talked about this and I was very glad to hear

him talk about this. I was very glad to hear him talk about this — the

new approach and the open mind he appears to have — because in the area

of natural resource revenue-sharing there are 1,700 Cowichans living on

the reserve, with duly elected chief and band council, charged with

providing services for the residents of that reserve, yet they are not

able to participate in revenue-sharing.

Just by way of comparison, I'd like to point out the kind of aid

received by similar governments. In, for example, Cumberland, which has

a population of 1,713, they receive the total revenue from the

provincial government of nearly $121,000, or in excess of $70 per

capita. Another similar area, Armstrong, with 1,671 population,

received $105,724 total revenue or $63 per capita.

I do not suggest that we can reach this goal overnight, but I do not

see how anyone can argue against the justness of allowing the native

people to share in returns from our natural resources, Mr. Speaker.

Surely they were here long before we were. Their band councils were a

recognized governing body long before the white people came here, and I

think they have every right to participate in the revenue-sharing of a

natural product that is inherent in their province.

There's another group that wasn't mentioned by the Minister of

Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Curtis), another group which I believe has

equal rights to share, and that is the improvement district.

I'm sorry the Minister of Municipal Affairs isn't here, but I'll talk to him about this later.

This is another form of government, a duly recognized government,

that should be allowed to participate in the revenue-sharing from the

natural resources, because that is a duly elected body with

responsibilities very similar to municipal governments, and these forms

of government should be recognized.

Another item of grave concern to my constituency, is the Ladysmith

Harbour. The Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) was good enough

to today answer a couple of questions I had posed to him.

He referred to the study. It is an extensive and in-depth study of

the harbour and is, in my opinion, an excellent report. But in order to

fulfil the recommendations in that report, it requires the initiation

of a local harbour authority. When that authority is set up there must

be a complete spelling out of the specific duties and the specific

authority of all federal and provincial bodies involved. The

obligations of the private sector must be clearly defined and there

must be a firm timetable for both short- and long-term objectives. The

method of funding for the rehabilitation of the harbour must be clearly

set forth. There must be no room for sidestepping or shelving of

responsibility.

I would impress upon the minister — and I'm sorry he's not here —

the extreme importance and the extreme urgency of this whole question

of the Ladysmith Harbour. To have further delays would be disastrous.

It's been specified as a joint-use harbour, but the ecological balance

of that harbour is fast approaching the point of no return. I would

urge the minister to act as soon as possible on the preservation of

that harbour.

I would like to turn now to the question of education. You know,

during the election we heard a lot of comment about return to local

autonomy.

Oh, the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) is here.

I have in my hand a clipping from the local Nanaimo Daily Free Press

over the weekend. This is in conjunction with Dr. Upguard, who is the

head of Malaspina College there. Dr. Upguard is quoted as saying:

"In the discussion with the department it became apparent

by going through the budget

section by section, by approving specific figures

for each section, and by earmarking certain increases in the budget, it" — that is the Department of Education —

"was, in effect, taking away a good deal of the college

council autonomy."

I would ask the Minister of Education to consider Dr. Upguard's

remarks and to review the direction his policy is taking the local

autonomy in in the field of education.

Now I've looked a lot at the budget funding: though we say we're

getting a 9.4 per cent increase, in effect, it is a cutback, Mr.

Speaker. I always think that an example is worth 1,000 words, and I

have here the proposed budget for the Cowichan school district for the

coming year.

First, I would like to point out that the Cowichan district,

contrary to the norm, has an average growth rate of 4 per cent. The

south end of the school district is fast becoming the bedroom of

Victoria, and that south end growth rate is very, very rapid.

This budget simply holds the line; it makes no provisions for any

improvement or any increases other than to accommodate the growth rate.

Based on that, the budget comes up with an increase in the operating,

or shareable, costs of $2,142,486. Now 9.4 per cent of that increase,

which is what the government is allowing, is $873,392. That leaves an

increase in excess of $ 1.2 million to be picked up at the local level

— either picked up or else you are facing a curtailment in services.

The present mill rate is nearly 40 per cent and it's an economic impossibility to increase that mill rate

[ Page 852 ]

by as much as 7 or 8 per cent, so the alternative, then, is to cut

expenditures. I would ask: where do you cut, Mr. Speaker? What avenues

are there available in the budget? I would point out that two

successive referenda, back in the days when they used to finance

schools by referendum, were defeated in that district. The result is

that the building policy is very far behind schedule, so we're fighting

from under on the capital costs.

There is no way that you can reduce the capital cost. You can't

reduce interest, Mr. Speaker; that's a fixed charge. When you get into

conveyances, you've got increased costs in licensing and insurance. We

have increased costs in petroleum — fuels for those buses. The children

are on shift there because of the delayed construction, and as a result

of that we're already having children who are walking two and two and a

half miles and having days from 7 in the morning until 5 at night.

There is just no way you can cut the costs on conveyance.

Repairs and maintenance: the alternative there is to let the schools

deteriorate. Again, if you do that, the reduction is a reduction, in

people; you're laying off people. You're creating more unemployment.

Operating accounts: well, I would point out that the light and power

costs have increased; heating fuel costs have increased. We've seen

excessive increases in janitorial supplies, many of which are

petroleum-based, so again the only possible cut is in people — laying

off people, creating more unemployment, and resulting in dirty and

unkempt schools.

That gets us up to the only last category, which is instruction. Can

we cut on supplies, Mr. Speaker? I have a list here taken from the

school-ordering catalogue, just as a few examples in the cost of

equipment for instruction: duplicating paper in 1973 was $2.56 a

thousand, In 1975 it had increased to $4.89 a thousand. Scotch tape —

$4.11 a carton in 1973; in 1975, up to $7.10. I suggest you can't cut

costs in those kinds of supplies.

Science supplies: silver nitrate in 1974, $34; an equivalent amount

in 1975, $114. A molecular demonstrating tube $6.42 in 1974; in 1975,

three times that amount $18.41. A microscope in 1975 — $89; in 1976, up

to $145. A stopwatch — $27.95 in 1975; in 1976 — $44.

Mr. Speaker, there is no way you can cut costs in materials and

supplies, so you're right up to the teachers themselves. Within the

Cowichan school district there are presently 430 teachers. To absorb

the $1.2 billion that we're going to have to accommodate in that area

would require a reduction of 85 teachers from the 430.

But it's even worse than that. The school budget runs from January

to December; the school year runs from September to June; the

provincial fiscal year runs from April to March. As a result of this

administrative maze of conflicting dates, the 430 teachers are already

there and have to stay there until the end of June. So in reality, Mr.

Speaker, in order to conform to this kind of funding for the Cowichan

school district, it would mean that we would have to reduce the

teaching staff by twice 65, or lay off 170 out of 430 teachers come

next September.

Now you know what that will do to the class size. Also, those are

more people laid off, more people without work. It means that the

schools would return to shift. It means rundown school buildings, and

it means dirty washrooms and unkempt grounds. It means layoff of

teachers, janitors and maintenance personnel. It means less jobs, more

unemployment and a complete degradation of the school system, Mr.

Speaker.

I want to turn now to the field of health. I have always been a very

firm proponent of preventive medicine. I am very concerned at one of

the...well, I'm very concerned about several of the actions of the

Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) . But one of the things that

has come to my mind very recently are letters from public health

nurses, copies of letters that have been sent to the Minister of

Health, one after the other after the other. I would just read a small

part of one letter from the public health nurse in Duncan. She says in

part:

"I'm concerned over the present freeze on our staff positions and orders to cut back these positions by 15 per cent.

"I understood you, Mr. Minister, believed public

health was a service of vital importance to the health of the people of

this province, and the recent outbreak of diphtheria on Vancouver

Island as well as the possibility as a dangerous epidemic of swine

virus influenza next winter are just a few warnings of what we must

constantly be prepared for and protected from through our knowledge and

use of preventive medicine."

Mr. Speaker, I am shocked, really, at the fact that the public

health scheme is asked to cut back by 15 per cent, because I think that

is one of the most vital and essential things in our whole health

policy. I am shocked, too, to hear the minister reported on television

last night as telling people: "Don't go to the doctor unless you are

really sick." Mr. Speaker, preventive medicine is the most valuable and

most economic form of medicine there is in this province, this country

or in the world, and to have a minister saying that we should cut back

on preventive medicine in a province like British Columbia in this day

and age is nothing short of a disgrace.

I am concerned, too, that the Alcohol and Drug Commission has seen

fit to withdraw the only grant to the area of Duncan. It's been

discontinued in the face of the somewhat dubious honour that Duncan has

of being the highest per capita user of alcohol in

[ Page 853 ]

the province of British Columbia. That was the only grant withdrawn.

MR. COCKE: Higher than West Vancouver?

MRS. WALLACE: Well, that's what the press says.

I am concerned, too, that we stand to lose our only child

psychologist. The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) has

suggested that there is another psychologist there and that he can see

the children — in spite of the fact that the other psychologist already

has a three-week waiting list, and in spite of the fact that the other

psychologist is not trained in child psychology. I submit that the few

dollars that the minister plans to save is a short-sighted economy. If

problems are pinpointed at an early age, the child can receive early

treatment and grow and develop to take this normal place in society.

The dollars saved at this point are far overshadowed by the costs that

society will incur if that child does not receive adequate and early

treatment.

As a final point in connection with health, I would like to relate

the story of Aaron Jones. Aaron Jones, Mr. Speaker, is four and a half.

Two and a half years ago he was a lovely, tow-headed, bright,

intelligent youngster. But Aaron Jones had an accident, Mr. Speaker. He

fell in a friend's swimming pool, and when he was resuscitated he had

irreparable brain damage. This child has been in hospital for two and a

half years. He is blind. He is incompetent. He will be there for the

rest of his life.

The recent announcement by this government, Mr. Speaker, of the

increase in the costs of extended care to $7 per day has worked an

impossible hardship on Aaron's family. His mother has sent me a list

which indicates that their father is a teacher and their net income is

$869 plus $22 family allowance — they have another child — making a

total of $891 a month. She lists the expenses one by one. They total

$850, Mr. Speaker, and that includes $31 a month to pay the dollar a

day for Aaron. They have only one alternative, Mr. Speaker — that

mother and that father — and that is to make that child a ward of the

state,

Published recently in the local paper, The Crofton-Chemainus

Observer , was an open letter to our government. I am sorry the minister

is not in the House, I would like to have sent this over to him, but I

will see that he gets it. Janet Jones, the mother, says: "We never

entertained thoughts of unburdening ourselves of him or deserting him

to the state. Now we must. He won't know the difference, but we will;

he will no longer be our son." Mr. Speaker, it makes me very sad to

think that a government policy is doing that to a mother in my

constituency in this province.

Moving on to the handicapped and the Department of Human Resources —

and that minister isn't here either — I would like to talk about

Lawrence Johnson. Lawrence has been handicapped in a wheelchair since

he was two years old. He is now 19. He has been an honour student in

Ladysmith school. When the school was changed to Nanaimo he took

correspondence. His marks were high. He is now in Malaspina college and

he is getting good marks.

Larry had poliomyelitis when he was two years old. He is paralysed

in both legs. He wants to continue his education. He applied for a

handicapped pension and he was turned down and told that the reason was

that when he gets through college he can get a job. Larry is very

disturbed by this. He wants to go on. We are trying to help him, Mr.

Speaker, but I suggest that it's very thoughtless of this government to

create those kinds of conditions, those kinds of circumstances where

people are so emotionally overwrought, so heavily disturbed because of

the heavy-handed attitudes of this government — and they are

heavy-handed, Mr. Speaker.

I don't think the government realizes quite the effect these

punitive and retrograde policies are having on the handicapped

throughout this province. I had four calls in one day, Mr. Speaker —

four calls to my representative in Ladysmith in one day. They were all

from handicapped people. One woman phoned to say her husband was 90 per

cent disabled. They were on welfare; she had five children. "They are

taking the food out of our childrens' mouths, " she said. Another

woman, her husband handicapped, was in tears: "We're just making it

now. If they cut us down, we can't manage." Another woman was

completely disabled. Another's husband is 60 per cent disabled.

Four people, Mr. Speaker, called in one day. When asked to give

their names so I might look into the case and try to get them some

help, do you know what they said, Mr. Speaker? "I can't give you my

name. I'm frightened. I am afraid I will be punished even more." That's

what they said, Mr. Speaker — four in one day.

It's a vindictive government out to punish the electorate, I

suggest, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander

Zalm) has infringed on personal freedom to an unprecedented degree,

infringed on the personal rights....

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, may I interrupt you long enough to tell you that you are in your final two minutes?

MRS. WALLACE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker; I am nearly finished. I

suggest that the Minister of Human Resources more than any one member

of that cabinet has infringed on the personal rights, the personal

liberties and the personal freedoms of the people of this province. I

don't know what runs in the minister's veins, Mr. Speaker, but I'm....

[ Page 854 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, Hon. Member! You are suggesting an

impugning motive on a minister of the Crown, which I think is improper,

I would ask you to withdraw that imputation.

MRS. WALLACE: May I say, Mr. Speaker, that his programmes have infringed on the personal freedoms and liberties...?

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: Any imputation against any minister of the Crown

or other member of this House is unparliamentary. I would ask you to

withdraw any imputation of an unparliamentary nature against the hon.

minister.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, on a point of

order, it is customary in this House to criticize a member of the

government. That is merely what the member for Cowichan-Malahat was

doing. I just can't understand the kind of

interpretation that you're

placing on this.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, on your point of order, it is the

manner of debate sometimes that results in the Speaker asking for a

withdrawal while allowing the matter to go unchallenged. I listened

carefully to the words of the hon. member and there was an implication

there that I think is unparliamentary and incorrect. I just ask her to

withdraw it.

MRS. WALLACE: I will be very glad to withdraw, Mr. Speaker. I

have no intention of impugning the minister personally; I was relating

strictly to the policies.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member.

MRS. WALLACE: I was just wanting to speak about this question

of freedom. I have evidence that there is a great concern about

personal freedoms among the people within the constituency — certainly

among the ones that I have spoken with. I am gravely disturbed that a

government which campaigned on the premise of freedom, on a premise

which purported to bring greater freedom to this province, has created

that kind of an atmosphere.

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that we all have different senses of

values, but I would suggest that the basic difference in the sense of

values between the people on the government benches and here is that

the people on that side of the House have a sense of values which

relates specifically to the bottom line — the balanced budget, the cash

returns, the cash outgo.

I suggest that the people on this side of the House have a sense of

values that relates to the well-being of and social justice towards the

people of this province. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, being a member of this

side of the House, that if that is what democratic socialist government

stands for, and if that is what makes me one of the "socialist hordes,

" then I am proud to be on this side of the House.

Hon. Mr. Mair, on behalf of Hon. Mr. McGeer, moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Second reading of Bill 7.

SPECIAL FUNDS REVENUE

RECOVERY ACT, 1976

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, Bill 7,

as you have said, is the Special Funds Revenue Recovery Act, 1976, the

purpose of which is to recover to the consolidated revenue fund the

balances in the special-named special funds on April 1 of this year.

Mr. Speaker, hon. members will recall that in the budget speech I

advised that after review the government finds it is appropriate at

this time to recover to revenue the balances of some previously

allocated special-purpose funds. In this manner the budget can be

balanced without tax increases additional to those already announced.

I might say that almost $28 million will be recovered in the

following manner: first of all, an amount of $7.3 million from the

Provincial Major Disaster Fund; secondly, an amount of $5 million from

the Agricultural Aid to Developing Countries and World Disaster Areas

Fund; thirdly, $7.8 million from the Power and Telephone Line

Beautification Fund; fourthly, $2.8 million from the Green Belt

Protection Fund; and fifthly, an amount of $94,792 from the School Tax

Removal and Resource Grant Fund. Five million dollars from the Economic

Policy Analysis Institute Fund is to be included in a separate Act

which was introduced today by the hon. Minister of Economic Development

(Hon. Mr. Phillips) .

Mr. Speaker, I would like to emphasize that while the capital

amounts of these funds included in the bill are being recovered, their

purposes will be continued. You will be asked to approve funds for the

purposes within the estimates of the departments of Agriculture,

Environment, Education and Finance.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): Mr. Speaker, we do have some concern in spite of the minister's assurances that these programmes will be carried on in

[ Page 855 ]

estimates. It's so easy for the government to change its mind from

time to time as to just what is going to be in estimates. Even this

year, for example, when we look at estimates, we don't really see

amounts — at least in my examination so far — that are closely enough

identified with the programmes included in these funds that we remain

assured, for example, that there will be money in the estimates to

cover anything in the event that there is a major disaster, for

example. Certainly with the flooding conditions that are quite

unpredictable — we might go for several years without any trouble at

all, and then have a very bad year — there's nothing in the estimates

that can possibly be there to cover that kind of a circumstance, and

it's some assurance to know that there is a fund maintained for that

purpose.

Another example is the Power and Telephone Line Beautification Fund.

It's one thing to say that this year there will be something in the

estimates. Again I'm concerned, Mr. Speaker, that there would not seem

to be an amount identified in estimates that is clearly identified with

this kind of a programme. The telephone company, in some areas of the

province, has been doing some work along the lines of burying telephone

lines. We certainly think this is a very worthwhile project, and from

the point of view of the telephone company it is not money ill spent,

in that it is certainly going to be much easier to maintain service

when the lines are buried than when they are in the air and subject to

being damaged by failing trees or icing conditions or something like

that.

We feel that when this fund was there, there was some encouragement

for people to embark on projects that would provide for burying both

power and telephone lines. They say that there will be something in the

estimates to encourage this kind of a programme, but we don't know how

much, and we're not even sure how much is identified for that purpose

this year, let alone next year, When this fund was set up the Minister

of Finance at the time announced his intention of having this fund so

that there would be that kind of a continuing project to bury power and

telephone lines, and we feel that we're losing the thrust for that

programme by wiping out the fund.

The Green Belt Protection Fund. Mr. Speaker, when this programme was

first announced I think there was general support in the whole

community for the idea that there would be some greenbelts established

in areas of heavy concentration of population and along highways. While

there was some real concern, certainly on our side of the House, and

concern in the community generally about some of the acquisitions of

land through the Green Belt Protection Fund under the administration

previous to ours, and maybe about some of the acquisitions that were

put through by the NDP government, I don't think anybody was concerned

at all about the purpose of the programme and the fact that it was a

very worthwhile programme.

Rather than see this fund written off or disposed of, and saying

that there will be some amount...and I suppose in this case it would be

in the Department of Environment, but it is an amount that is not

identified at all as a specific. At least my examination of the

estimates so far would not see any figure in there that is clearly

identified as being for greenbelt protection or for establishing

greenbelts.

The School Tax Removal and Resource Grant Fund. Possibly if the

legislation were dealing only with that one, and knowing that the

previous administration got us so far along the road in that kind of a

programme it would be very difficult for any administration to back

away front it. It it were just that one, then we would have no concerns

about the legislation, but we are very distressed to see the thrust —

the psychological effect, if you like — the, effect on the whole

community of the idea of pursuing these programmes. We are concerned

that this is apparently not going to be endorsed by the government in

the way that it would be endorsed if these funds were added to, as

opposed to what is being proposed here, and that is to do away with the

funds,

Mr. Speaker, we are not prepared to support the legislation in the

way it is before us on the basis that there will be some amount

included in estimates this year, and may or may not be next year, to

continue these kinds of very worthwhile programmes.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I'll

be very brief in speaking on this bill, whose coming up now surprises

me a little bit in view of the fact that this House was seized of such

urgency by the government on Friday afternoon last on another bill, and

now we're bouncing around the bill book....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, hon. member, you're on Bill 7.

MR. GIBSON: Just a little comment in passing, Mr. Speaker.

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Economic Development): Keep your comments to yourself.

MR. GIBSON: That minister is trying to browbeat me, Mr. Speaker. Will you ask him to be quiet? (Laughter.)

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to find

a little money to put into the provincial budget for this year so that

it won't have to be raised by taxation in this unusual year, and that's

a laudable

[ Page 856 ]

purpose to start with.

The funds were phony, Mr. Speaker, in the first place. They were

just a way of siphoning a bit of money out of provincial revenue in

years of surplus and squirreling them away until a time of need came

along. They denied access to this Legislature in terms of a

year-by-year vote on the purposes for which the interest of these funds

were to be expended, and that was very, very wrong in principle.

Therefore in principle I support the abolition of funds of these kinds

because it returns control to the Legislature.

I would make only one exception to that, and that is in cases where

funds are, and should be, set up to provide a kind of an independence

to the kind of institution that they are supporting. An example to that

is the Institute for Economic Policy Analysis, but even there we

realize today that a special fund is of no protection whatsoever,

because a bill has just been introduced in this House to abolish that

particular fund — introduced today — so we can't talk any further on

that one for the moment.

The purposes of these funds are laudable. It is the technique that

has been improper, the technique of putting money away in special

little funds controlled only by the Minister of Finance and the cabinet

rather than by this Legislature. Therefore, I support the abolishing of

these funds, with the important codicil that the purposes continue to

be supported in the estimates, year by year.

[Deputy Speaker in the chair.]

I would speak especially of the Provincial Major Disaster Fund and

the Agricultural Aid to Developing Countries and World Disaster Areas

Fund, and I'm quite pleased at this time to give the government

congratulations for the money they've put in the estimates for this

year for world food aid.

In

summary, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that we have ample

protection in the estimates debate to insist each year that these

worthy purposes be continued, that we are removing a financial anomaly

in disbanding these funds; and therefore I support second reading of

this bill.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I oppose the removal of these

funds for the very simple reason that — and I see the point of view of

the Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) who has just spoken, that the technique

might have left something to be desired.... Nevertheless, the reason I

so strongly oppose in particular one of these, the Agricultural Aid to

Developing Countries and World Disaster Areas Fund, is that the funds

at least were there and the interest was being spent, particularly in

the agricultural aid fund,

whereas the minute you remove this fund it's

very unlikely, in my view, that there is any kind of guarantee as the

years go by that subsequent governments will remember or take

cognizance of this wish of the Legislature in previous years to ensure

funding for Third World countries.

In this particular year I notice under vote 4 that there is indeed

$350,000 in agricultural aid to developing countries, but there is no

question that this is a cutback. I would appreciate participation in

this debate from the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Phillips)

because I've been trying to find out in the course of the last week or

so about another $5 million which was made available last year in

addition to the $5 million which is in this fund. My staff were just in

the process of trying to define exactly how much money had been spent

and what the exact status of the other amount of money was.

Presumably it was a one-year grant but at least, whatever the status

of that amount of money, Mr. Speaker, it showed that the government at

that time was increasingly concerned about providing some greater

amount of aid to developing countries and Third World countries.

I know from a meeting as recently as last week in my own riding that

there are many people in this province who feel that British Columbia

is being niggardly as a wealthy province in the very limited help that

it is providing to Third World countries.

We have Habitat coming to Vancouver in June, The whole theme of

Habitat is to recognize the shrinking nature of our society and the

fact that we are living on a planet where the size is static but the

population grows, and the problems are becoming immense year by year.

For a province which has a provincial budget of $3.6 billion to be

recapturing a fund which provides $350,000 a year for foreign aid, I

think is being...I think niggardly is a charitable way to describe the

actions in removing this fund.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the answer we'll hear from the government is that

the interest will annually be placed in the Department of Agriculture's

estimates, but my argument is that we have no guarantee whatever that

that will happen year by year,

whereas the existence of this fund set

up by specific legislation did, at least, give some assurance that the

interest was there to be spent. There might be a criticism, as the

Liberal Leader (Mr. Gibson) pointed out, that it leaves the spending of

the money beyond the scope of this Legislature, and I recognize the

criticism in that. But I would rather that the money be there and be

spent at the discretion of a minister than not be there at all. I feel

that if.... This year we've got the money, yes. But it's, I think, a

retrograde step in terms of British Columbia's recognition of its

commitment to a wider community than B.C. and wider community than

Canada, but to the community of the Third World countries, and it is

that particular fund that I regret most of all seeing recaptured in

this bill.

The sum we are talking about is $28 million, and I

[ Page 857 ]

just want briefly to refer again to the fact that the budget as a

whole leaves reasonable speculation that revenue might be greater than

the government is calculating.

Certainly, if we are agreed or believe that the growth in the

economy might reach 4.5 per cent, then indeed the projected revenue

from personal income tax will be higher than the $815 million which the

Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) has projected, and for that reason

I think it's rather.... The government's being picayune in my view to

be taking these funds and particularly the $5 million fund for aid to

developing countries, when in fact there's reasonable arguments that

the revenues from other sources might be much better than have been

projected and $28 million is really a very small part of $3.6 billion.

Even if they took the other funds but this one, I think it would be

some manifestation of the government's commitment to realize that the

world doesn't begin and end in British Columbia.

It makes no sense for so many politicians to pay lip service to the

concept of the global village and the fact that pollution and

population explosion and the armaments race and all the other problems

may one day wipe out the human race.... It's no good to pay lip service

to these concepts and then when we come to our own budget in our own

corner of the world, we become extremely mean and miserable by taking

this $5 million fund out of action with the promise that, of course,

each year the equivalent in interest will go into the estimates of the

Minister of Agriculture. It doesn't reassure me enough that just

because that sum of money is in vote 4 this year, it will be there next

year or the year after, or at the time of the next government, because

regardless of the obvious confidence of our new administration,

governments do change.

It seems to me that while I would prefer to see most if not all of

these funds left to be handled in the way they have been handled, if

one had to at least zero in on the one that causes, in my view, the

greatest concern, it would have to be the agricultural aid to

developing countries.

There's an amazing passage somewhere in the budget — I just can't

pick it out right now — but it refers to.... . It's in the middle of

page 32. "The provincial major disaster fund was established at $25

million in 1969. An annual average of $2.5 million has been paid from

the fund". The budget goes on to say: "We have been fortunate the

disasters have been localized and relatively light in property loss."

For this province that sits not very far from natural earthquake

areas to the south of us, and where in fact we have had some small

tremors in recent years, it seems to me that that particular statement

in the budget is complacency of a high order. I don't for a moment mean

to imply that there's any great risk of a major disaster in British

Columbia, but just because since 1969 we haven't had something major is

not justification whatever to remove the fund from its existence,

because what it automatically means is that if we now have a disaster,

the funding will have to come out of operating dollars that are

available, in much the same way as we've already criticized this

government for taking operating dollars to provide capital expenditures

of other kinds. I feel, just to recap quickly, that these funds do

fulfil a valuable purpose which exceeds the disadvantage that their

management is beyond the scope of the House.

Secondly, the sum of money, $28 million, I believe, is an example of

the very strenuous and perhaps over-zealous effort by the Minister of

Finance to ensure that only black ink appears in the ledger.

Thirdly, there is a reasonable chance that this money is not needed in the next financial year.

Finally, and most important of all, is the example we are setting.

Removing the fund for agricultural aid to developing countries creates

the impression, rightly or wrongly, that are downplaying or reducing,

or giving less significance to our role as a wealthy province well able

to contribute a great deal — more than we've done in the past for some

of these Third World countries.

So, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that it's a little bit like the

other debate we had the other day about how urgent it is to impose

hardship to raise money which may not be needed. It certainly reflects

my personal view that while we all certainly would prefer black ink and

a balanced budget, I'm sure that if six months through the year the

government were to find that there's a lot more than $28 million beyond

projected revenue coming into the coffers, this debate would be

unnecessary. The funds could be preserved and there would be the clear

commitment by this government on behalf of the people of this province

that we recognize the need of developing countries and that we are more

than prepared, as a wealthy province, to pay our share and meet that

kind of responsibility. So I oppose the recapture of these funds.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, I'm surprised at Bill 7.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Yes, and I'll be particularly surprised at the

Finance minister. I'm not surprised at the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr.

Williams) or the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom); I'm not surprised

at a number of other members over there, but I'm particularly surprised

at the old Socred Minister of Finance — oh, how they guarded those

[ Page 858 ]

special funds. Oh, how they voted for them, year after year after

year. Under W.A.C. Bennett the most precious commodity we had was our

special funds protecting the future of sports, protecting the future of

agriculture in other nations, protecting others against disaster. We

would set up special funds for everything. As a matter of fact, one day

I expected a special fund to be set up for special funds.

Mr. Speaker, why the sudden change of heart?

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Oh yes, I'll bet you're kind of blushing, Mr. Member. You and I have been sitting here for a long time.

Mr. Speaker, why the sudden change of heart? I'm not going to

speculate on that. I won't speculate on why the sudden change of heart.

But I don't accept a balanced budget — $28 million that we're sort of

moving out. I say that's just utter nonsense.

I'll bet, if this evening you went for a walk with the Minister of

Finance, he would tell you that there's only $18 million in cash flow

there anyway. At best there's at least $10 million of it tied up in

long-term investments, so at best that's a bookkeeping entry. So, Mr.

Speaker, I suggest to you that it's just more flim-flam, just more

flim-flam that we're beginning to expect.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the only word that's in the book, as

far as I know, is the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Phillips) . I

find that....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance promises that

the purposes will be continued. That's all very well and good this year

— we look in our estimates books and we can agree or disagree with

respect to the purposes. But what is there that's guaranteeing a

minister putting forward his particular programme next year? What if

the minister happens to be in a bit of a bind and says to himself:

"Well, obviously if I'm going to get X, I can't put in Y in my

estimates this year." Therefore the particular programme we are talking

about could be the Green Belt Protection Fund, it could be the

Provincial Major Disaster Fund, or it could be the Power and Telephone

Line Beautification Fund. Incidentally, the Minister of Finance told us

some time ago that that fund hasn't really been called upon. I think

that's a shame because we should be getting on with programmes that are

positive, such as that.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest that estimates can freeze in the course of a

year. I've seen items in the estimates book in the beginning of the

year; you get to the end of the year and it's not spent. So I don't

really think that even provides the kind of guarantee we're talking

about either.

I suggest to you that this is just another means of providing some

back-up for some of the statements this government's been making in

their budget, some of the statements they've been making in other bills

before the House. I find it very, very hard, Mr. Speaker, to give it

much credibility, and I therefore cannot support this bill.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, shame!

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, just a word

on the bill. I heartily agree with what was said by the hon. member for

Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace), the leader of the Conservative Party, about our

role in the world as a rich and affluent province.

It seems to me that we see in this bill not a question of technical

accounting — whether it's in a capital fund with the interest going to

the programme, or whether it's in the estimates — we see a turning back

by this government from social objectives that are spelled out in bills

like the Green Belt Protection Fund.

You know, that's the kind of thing that's in their hearts, Mr.

Speaker. The present government of the province of British Columbia

does not like, to put it very mildly, the idea that private land around

the great cities should be brought into the public domain, even though

it's a matter of good accounting — that it's a very profitable social

investment for the taxpayer because that land is rapidly spiralling in

value. What we see is that the government has turned its back on the

idea of greenbelt protection.

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, you watch! Year by year you'll find the

true nature and the true colours of that horse opposite, and we know

what that is. You will wipe out even the major disaster fund. I want to

say that on December 11, 1975, this province suffered a major disaster

of no mean proportions — and the first thing you do is wipe out the

fund.

I did not get up to make a speech — I got carried away. I'd like to

say in all seriousness that this is not an accounting financial bill;

this is the turning back, to the grief of the people of this province,

away from the social objectives that are spelled out in those funds.

Make no mistake about it; they will be deprived in the years to come. I

think it's a tragedy to turn our backs, as I'm sure we're doing in this

bill, on things like greenbelt protection and bringing some of the

domain of British Columbia into the hands of the public.

[ Page 859 ]

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I oppose the bill, and

particularly on the basis of the first item in the bill, the major

disaster fund and agricultural aid to developing countries.

I can only reiterate the sentiments that have been stated by the

member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) and others. I feel that to put into

the political arena something as important as a contribution to people

in need, people in the Third World where we have no concept of the kind

of living conditions, the kind of disasters that are faced on a

day-to-day basis by those people.... I feel that it is just completely

wrong to put this back into the political arena.

That is what we're doing, Mr. Speaker, because when that amount of

money becomes a part of a minister's estimates, and when he is a

position of, say, preparing a pre-election estimate where he is

concerned about the needs of people within this province, needs which

are, granted, very great, but needs that, by comparison with people who

are starting to death, just can't really be considered as dire or as

extreme.... I think that when we get into this position and that

minister is having to prepare estimates and he's thinking of his own

political future — we're all political animals and that's what we would

be thinking of — that it is just not right to return that kind of a

fund into the political arena.

I have in my hands here, as a matter of fact, a letter from a

constituent in Cowichan-Malahat. Attached to it is a petition relative

to this very business about citizens around the world, the hungry

world, and the injustices of the distribution of the world's resources.

It is, in fact, taking exception to an

article that appeared in the

Colonist , but that is rather beside the point. The point I am making is

that people are concerned about the Third World and about an

establishment of some kind of a perpetual fund. I was concerned when we

made a donation to Guatemala at the time of the earthquake. I think it

was $25,000. It was a token contribution only, Mr. Speaker, from a

province with the wealth and resources that British Columbia has, that

we would find only $25,000 going from this province to Guatemala when,

I think, a province like Saskatchewan, with a much lesser economic

base, sent something like $150,000. I think, Mr. Speaker, we need that

fund and we need to use that fund to its fullest possible degree and

not put it back into the political arena. For that reason I am

extremely opposed to this bill.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Mr. Speaker, I, too, would

like to rise and oppose this bill. I think we are seeing here the

erosion of the principle that guarantees some security to British

Columbians. If the government is going to take the special funds which

were put aside some time ago, if they are going to turn their backs on

that principle, if they are going to turn their backs on the principle,

particularly, of the Green Belt Protection Fund, then I think we are

just seeing the thin edge of the wedge towards the erosion of all

special-purpose funds and toward a system of maybe politically

expedient decisions in terms of expenditures of funds, year by year —

particularly in election years, I suppose.

You know, through the Green Belt Protection Fund we were always able

to move quickly and visibly in many ways in which we were able to

enhance the environment of this province. In the Kootenay-Boundary area

we were able to purchase the lands east of Grand Forks, very important

as the winter grazing habitat of the white-tailed deer and, to some

extent, mule deer — mostly white-tailed deer — a very invaluable

resource. In the same manner, we were able to use the Green Belt

Protection Fund to buy grazing lands in the east Kootenays to replace

some of those grazing lands that have gone under to coal mining and

various other types of considerations.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Nonsense!

MR. NICOLSON: That member — that indifferent member for Columbia River — who perhaps hasn't tramped up in some of those hills as I have.

MR. CHABOT: Oh, oh! Nonsense!

MR. NICOLSON: ...and who hasn't seen the bighorn sheep any

further than from his car on the Trans-Canada Highway, he might, Mr.

Speaker, take this frivolously, but I don't take it frivolously. If

that member isn't going to speak up for his riding, then I will.

Interjections.

MR. NICOLSON: So we're looking at the.... We're looking today at the....

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that your babbling brook?

MR. NICOLSON: ...thin edge of the wedge into many of the

special funds, the Agricultural Aid to Developing Countries and World

Disaster Areas Fund, the....

Interjections.

MR. NICOLSON: What about the British Columbia Economic

Research Fund? Will that be next? What about drug, alcohol and

cigarette education, prevention and rehabilitation funds? What about

the Economic Policy Analysis Institute Fund and First Citizens' Fund?

Does the First Citizens' Fund go next?

[ Page 860 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please!

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, hon. members! The member for Nelson-Creston has the floor.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, we see.... I believe I count five

funds going under in this bill. Physical Fitness and Amateur Sports

Fund — what's to happen to physical fitness and amateur sports? The

Accelerated Park Development Fund, the Accelerated Reforestation Fund —

will it be next? Will we stop reforesting in terms of some political

expediency? What else is to happen? What about the Agricultural Credit

Fund, Mr. Speaker?

These, I think will be the concerns of people in British Columbia

when they see that probably one of the most widely-recognized and

valuable of the special purpose funds — the Green Belt Protection Fund

— will be going out of existence. I know the amount in that fund is low

at the present time, but it should be increased, Mr. Minister of

Finance.

I might also say I am glad to see that the minister has some aid in

here along with the advice I gave the other day. I think that's a good

decision the minister has made, make another good decision, Mr.

Minister. Reconsider this bill. Put more money into the Green Belt

Protection Fund because everything in the Green Belt Protection

Fund.... We can look at it and say that that fund is down — I don't

know what it's down to now, maybe $2 million or less....

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): just look at the figures. Why don't you read the public accounts?

MR. NICOLSON: It was, I believe, $25 million. But everything

that was purchased out of that fund is an asset. If you were to look in

terms of normal bookkeeping practices at the assets and liabilities

under that fund, and if you were to take the current appraised values

of the assets under that fund, I am sure we would find that it's well

in excess of $25 million. I am also sure that we would find that in

terms of the social, recreational and environmental value, we could not

even put a dollar figure on that expenditure and on that investment. It

is with this concern of a very dangerous step being taken by this

government.... Is the Crop Insurance Stabilization Fund to be another

victim? Farm Income Assurance Fund, Farm Products Industry Improvement

Fund, the Ferry Capital Expenditures Fund — what other funds are to be

rescinded?

I think it's a regressive step and, Mr. Speaker, I think the people

of British Columbia will be watching the actions of this government

very seriously. They'll be particularly interested to see what

substitute action is going to take place in lieu of — or, one might

say, in left of — in left of....

AN HON. MEMBER: In right of.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, we do say "Lieutenant-Governor, " hon.

member. We will be watching to see what steps are taken in lieu of

these funds. Will the government be responding when opportunities arise

to take steps which will enhance either the direct environmental

concern such as grazing, particularly winter range, for threatened

species, or perhaps just aesthetic concerns surrounding cities where

there is a tremendous need for greenbelt protection around urban areas?

People will be watching this and we will certainly be watching this. We

hope there is no further incursion into this area.

MR. C. D'ARCY (Rossland-Trail): I certainly don't want to

extend debate on this. I think most of the major cogent points have

been made. I just want to let the government know that I believe that

when you tear something down I think you should have something ready to

put in its place. I certainly concur with the remarks that have been

made here that one of the things we've got through these funds in the

past is a sense of security. Although you know it's not a great deal of

money, you can tell the province, the country and the world that, yes,

this Legislature and the government of the day does believe in power

and telephone line beautification. It does believe, on an ongoing basis

— not just this year but maybe next year, maybe the year after — in

agricultural aid to developing countries. Perhaps most importantly, Mr.

Speaker, it shows that this province and this government agree with

major provincial disaster protection, and I would suggest that that's a

tremendous feeling of security for each and every community in this

province.

Not very many years ago, about this time of year in 1968, we had a

major disaster in the city of Trail — a sudden disaster. The assistance

that the provincial government could give through this fund and other

areas was tremendously important to the city at that time. I would note

that just over the past weekend there have been three major slides in

the Castlegar area. Fortunately, these slides did not hit any homes or

businesses. They have, however, resulted in considerable expense to the

Inland Gas Co. and the B.C. Telephone Co., and lesser expenses to the

B.C. Department of Highways and the West Kootenay Power and Light Co. I

note that had one of them been a matter of yards to the southwest there

could have been a major power outage, possible affecting all of the

southern interior due to hitting a substation at the Brilliant Dam

belonging to the West Kootenay Power and Light Co.

[ Page 861 ]

For those reasons, Mr. Speaker, although I would like to support

this bill, because I must tell the House that I happen to agree, in

very general terms, with the idea of taking some of these funds back

into general revenue, I don't happen to agree with bill funding in the

way that we used to develop parks in this province. I don't happen to

agree with special bills before this House for capital development. I

think that all these things should be in the estimates of the

particular relevant department. However, the fact is that these things

are being taken away. They were a permanent security to the extent that

they went for the people of B.C.

They're being taken away and there's absolutely no ongoing

commitment that they will still exist. We're going to rely on the

government of the day's largesse in any particular year, in any

particular situation. Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, I don't think that's

good enough. For that reason, reluctantly, I have to oppose this bill

at this time.

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): Mr. Speaker, I must rise in

opposition to this bill, for many of the same reasons that my confreres

on this side of the House have opposed the bill as well. These special

funds have provided some ongoing protection to the people of the

province over the years since they were established, and I give credit

to the previous government and to the previous Social Credit government

in establishing some of those funds.

Just over the last year, Mr. Speaker, in my riding, there was

serious flooding along the Somass River in Port Alberni and in areas on

the west coast of Vancouver Island such as Tofino, and this Provincial

Major Disaster Fund assisted many people who would have suffered grave

personal loss had that fund not been available to assist those people.

I think rather than depleting the funds or recapturing the funds from

that special fund, we should be restoring money to that fund and

restoring money to many of these funds.

I'm also concerned, as was the member for Vancouver East (Mr.

Macdonald), about lands protected by the Green Belt Protection Fund. In

the past, Mr. Speaker, under the Social Credit government, the parks

branch had been starved for funds, and they were forced in many cases

to exchange lands or exchange timber rights or mineral rights in parks

for lands outside parks of higher recreational value. As a result of

that policy we lost something like two million acres of parkland under

the former Social Credit administration. We lost it to timber

exploitation, to mineral exploitation and hydro dam reservoirs. Our

government, Mr. Speaker, over the past three years attempted to restore

that land of tremendous recreational value back to the people of this

province. Some of these special funds — granted, special funds set up

by the Social Credit government, such as the park fund and the

greenbelt fund — were used to purchase additional lands to restore the

two million acres that were lost from our provincial parks under the 20

years of Social Credit administration.

So I'm very concerned about the loss of the greenbelt funds, Mr.

Speaker, particularly in my riding, A few years ago, in 1972, when the

NDP first took office, we attempted to acquire a small area on the west

coast of Vancouver Island, a place called Hot Springs Cove, which is

one of the few hot springs on Vancouver Island. The parks branch didn't

have the funds at that time, Mr. Speaker, under the previous Social

Credit estimates, to acquire land that would be very valuable for

recreation in the future. The greenbelt acquisition fund was

essentially the sorting of money to buy land that would