1974 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 30th

Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational

purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 1974

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 261 ]

Seating of new Member

Mr. G.F. Gibson (North Vancouver–Capilano)seated in the

House –– 261

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Disposal of Hydro's Jordan River

surplus assets.

Mr. McClelland –– 262

ICBC survey on motorists without insurance.

Mr. Curtis –– 262

Retention of Foster, Young, Ross, Anthony &

Associates.

Mr. D.A. Anderson –– 263

Culvert cleaning in Sooke by Department of Highways.

Mr. Wallace –– 263

Appointments of additional Autoplan agents.

Mr. Morrison –– 263

Budget debate (continued)

Mr. Steves –– 265

Mrs. Jordan –– 276

Mr. Gibson –– 283

Mr. Kelly –– 292

Petitions

Praying for the passage of

An Act to Amend the

Vancouver Charter. Mr. Cummings –– 297

Praying for the passage of

An Act to Amend the British

Columbia School Trustees' Association Incorporation Act. Ms. Brown –– 297

Motions

Motion 9.

Hon. Mr. Barrett –– 297

Mr. McClelland –– 297

Erratum –– 298

Appendix –– 299

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 1974

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, on October 22, 1973, Mr. David M.

Brousson, Member for the electoral district of North

Vancouver–Capilano, announced in the House his resignation of his seat

in the Legislature effective October 23, 1973.

Pursuant to

section 55 of the Constitution

Act , being

chapter 71 of the Revised

Statutes of British Columbia (1960), I did transmit to L.J.

Wallace, Esquire, Deputy Provincial Secretary, my warrant for the issue

of a new writ for the election of a Member to fill the vacancy in the

said electoral district of North Vancouver–Capilano.

DEPUTY CLERK:

Office of the Deputy

Provincial Secretary,

Parliament Buildings,

Victoria, British Columbia,

February 18, 1974.

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

Clerk of the Legislative Assembly.

Dear Sir:

RE: By-election, North

Vancouver–Capilano electoral

district, February 5, 1974.

I enclose herewith certified copy of the certificate

of Mr. K.L. Morton, Chief Electoral Officer, respecting the election of

Gordon Fulerton Gibson to represent the North Vancouver–Capilano

electoral district in the Legislative Assembly.

Yours very truly,

(Signed) L.J. Wallace,

Deputy Provincial Secretary.

Mr. L.J. Wallace,

Deputy Provincial Secretary,

Parliament Buildings.

Dear Sir:

RE: By-election, February 5, 1974,

North Vancouver–Capilano Electoral District.

The resignation effective October 23, 1973, of David

Maurice Brousson, the elected Member for the North Vancouver–Capilano

electoral district, caused a vacancy to occur in the Legislative

Assembly.

A writ calling for a by-election to fill that vacancy

was issued on January 3, 1974, polling day being February 5, 1974.

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

election of Gordon Fulerton Gibson as the Member to represent the North

Vancouver–Capilano electoral district in the Legislative Assembly.

Yours truly,

(Signed) K.L. Morton,

Chief Electoral Officer.

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

the letter of the Deputy Provincial Secretary and the certificate of

the Chief Electoral Officer of the result of the election of a Member

be entered upon the Journals

of the House.

Motion approved.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour

to present Mr. Gordon Fulerton Gibson who has been duly elected in the

electoral constituency of North Vancouver–Capilano, and now claims the

right to take his place in this Legislative Assembly.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member for North

Vancouver–Capilano please take his seat?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I have another pleasure

today, presenting to the assembly the wife of our new Member, Mrs.

Valerie Gibson, and the children — Michelle, Mark and Melissa.

Also with us today on the floor of the House are the parents of Mrs.

Gibson, Roger and Agnes Gauthier.

Mr. Speaker, if I may introduce two more people: In the gallery we

have an old Member of this Legislature — when I say "old" I mean a man

who has served with great distinction for many years in this

Legislature, but who is still a man very young at heart — the Hon.

Arthur Laing, Senator from British Columbia.

As the final pleasure, Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce to you

a Member of the federal parliament, the Member for Kenora–Rainy River,

Mr. John Reid.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I'd ask the House to

welcome two guests today — Mr. Bajpai, the High Commissioner of India

from Ottawa, and Mr. Khosla, the Trade Commissioner for India, based in

Vancouver.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to add my words of welcome to the Hon. Arthur

Laing. Although he does not share the same political philosophy as this

government, it

[ Page 262 ]

should be publicly acknowledged that he has been of

great assistance

to us on a number of occasions.

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

would like to present three guests to the Legislature this afternoon:

Dr. Hugh Keenleyside who chaired the commission of electrical inquiry

that travelled throughout the province in the fall of this year. I

would like at this time to thank Dr. Keenleyside and his associates for

the great job they have done for this province.

I would also like to introduce Mrs. Shannon O'Neill of Salmon Arm,

one of the commissioners, and Mr. Jack MacMillan.

I'm sorry that the other commissioner, Mr. Ken Bently, was not able

to be with us this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker, I now beg leave to table with you the report of Dr.

Keenleyside's commission of inquiry into electrical inspections of this

province.

Leave granted.

MS. K. SANFORD (Comox): Mr. Speaker, I also this afternoon

would like to ask the House to welcome some guests from the Comox

constituency: six residents from Quadra Island, Mr. and Mrs. Malyea,

Mr. and Mrs. Martin, and Mr. and Mrs. Krook.

MR. SPEAKER: I would also take the venture to ask the House

to welcome the students from Cariboo School in my constituency. And I

hope you will give them a good welcome because I'm not able to do that

from the chair.

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. Hall presents the 55th annual report of the Civil Service

Commission, January 1 to December 31, 1973.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, I only have

one guest in the gallery to welcome today, but I would ask the House to

welcome Mr. Ed Swanick, formerly of the major metropolis of Falkland,

and now of Vernon.

Oral questions.

DISPOSAL OF HYDRO'S

JORDAN RIVER SURPLUS ASSETS

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): I'd like to address my

question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs as a director of Hydro.

I'd like to ask the Minister if he can inform the House whether or not

it is the practice, when disposing of surplus assets of this Crown

corporation, B.C. Hydro, to go to public tender.

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Maybe you

could ask me what you're referring to.

MR. McCLELLAND: I'm referring to the policy of disposal of

surplus assets, Mr. Minister, with regard to British Columbia Hydro.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I don't think the question period

is for statements on general policy; it is for specific matters of

general information.

MR. McCLELLAND: I'll ask the same Minister as a director of

Hydro if he is aware that the old power plant and penstock at Hydro's

Jordan River installation has been sold without public tender, although

competent people in the salvage business have pleaded for months for

the opportunity to bid on these assets worth close to $1 million as

scrap. I understand they've now been disposed of without any tender.

Could I ask the Minister if he would comment on that, please?

HON. MR. LORIMER: I didn't know, but I'll take the other

question on notice.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, could I also ask if the Minister

would advise the House that, if the purchase was don without benefit of

tender, he will hold up the purchase until the opportunity for other

interested parties to tender is made available?

MR. SPEAKER: I think that follows the other question when

it's replied to in the House.

ICBC SURVEY

ON MOTORISTS WITHOUT INSURANCE

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): To the Minister of

Transport and Communications with regard to ICBC. Can the Minister

confirm that a form of survey is being conducted, either by

representatives of ICBC or commissioned on ICBC's behalf, to determine

approximately how many motorists have not yet taken out their insurance

for the forthcoming insurance year?

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications):

I have no knowledge of any survey being taken, but I'll check and find

out.

MR. CURTIS: Supplementary. Would the Minister then indicate

at the first opportunity, through you Mr. Speaker, if he determines

such a survey is underway?

MR. SPEAKER: I don't know that that is a proper question

under the rules.

[ Page 263 ]

MR. CURTIS: It's worth a try, Mr. Speaker.

RETENTION OF FOSTER, YOUNG,

ROSS, ANTHONY & ASSOCIATES

MR. D.A. ANDERSON:

To the Minister of Education. May I ask

whether the Department of Education has retained the services of

Foster, Young, Ross, Anthony & Associates Ltd. for an advertising

campaign related to the capital expansion programme of community

colleges?

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): No.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: May I ask the Minister whether this

contract of $60,000 was in any way related to the employment of Mrs.

Joan Johnson, formerly a member of the Burnaby School Board, by Foster,

Young, Ross, Anthony & Associates as their Victoria representative?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Yes, it was. Mrs. Johnson is, I believe, an

agent for them in Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: May I repeat my question, which apparently

was not understood? May I ask the Minister whether the contract itself

was in any way related to the employment of Mrs. Johnson by the firm of

Foster, Young, Ross, Anthony & Associates?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I have no information about whether there

is any relationship there, Mr. Member.

CULVERT CLEANING IN SOOKE

BY DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Could I ask the Minister of

Highways if it is a fact that officials of your department authorized

trucks and equipment to clean out a culvert on Sooke Road in the region

of Ronald Avenue on February 4?

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): That is notice, Mr.

Speaker.

APPOINTMENTS OF

ADDITIONAL AUTOPLAN AGENTS

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): I'd like to address my question

to the Minister of Transport and Communications. Would he like to

clarify for the House the government's current policy regarding new

appointments to ICBC agents? That is, the policy as of today.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Are you referring to anything in

particular?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Everything in particular.

MR. MORRISON: Where have you been for the last little while?

Yes, I am referring to something in particular.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The purpose of question period is

for specific information on matters of public concern not otherwise

available. If you have a specific question, ask it. If you're asking

for general statements of policy, you don't do it in question period.

Does the Hon. Member have a specific question?"

MR. MORRISON: I have a specific question then. I would like

him to tell the House now what the policy is concerning ICBC

appointments as of today. I understand there has been a change in the

policy and I'd like to know what the present policy is.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: There has been no change in the policy.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: May I ask the Minister of Health or the

Minister of Transport and Communications whether they or members of

their staff made representation to ICBC to accredit Mr. Don Sharpe as

an insurance agent for ICBC, despite the fact that Mr. Sharpe did not

fulfil the requirements of ICBC by way of carrying out automobile

insurance last year?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Oh, I see. You are now referring to a

column which I'm told appeared in one of the papers over the weekend.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I'm referring to the appointment of Mr.

Sharpe.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Okay, you're referring to this column.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: No, wait a second. I would not like to

have a general discussion of the column; I'm asking about the specific

case of Mr. Don Sharpe.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the question is understood.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, the question is understood. I don't

know where the individual who published that story which mentioned Mr.

Sharpe's name got his information but I would like to tell this House

the facts.

There has been no influence of any kind used in

[ Page 264 ]

the appointment of any Autoplan agent. I do not

know nor, to the

best of my knowledge, have I ever met or spoken to Mr. Don Sharpe in my

life.

It is true that he knows the Hon. Minister of Health. That is hardly

surprising because the Minister of Health had a prominent career in the

insurance world before entering the cabinet, and there must be few, if

any, knowledgeable insurance agents in this province who do not know my

colleague.

Here are the facts with regard to the appointment of insurance

agents. Approximately 45 private agents for one reason or another have

dropped out of Autoplan since obtaining designation last year, leaving

a total of 830 private-agency firms and their staffs supplemented by

Motor Vehicle Branch and government agents personnel. While this is a

relatively small attrition rate, nevertheless the Insurance Agents

Association of B.C. did express concern to the ICBC board of directors

about it. The board subsequently gave authority to Autoplan's

management, not to the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles, to appoint new

agents, but only if they were qualified to handle general or auto

insurance as licensed by D.T. Cantell, Superintendent of Insurance, on

the basis of his examinations.

I have checked today and have been informed by Autoplan management

that six agents have been appointed so far on the basis of this

instruction. I have the names here: one in Vancouver, another in

Vancouver, another one in Victoria, Mr. Sharpe in Kamloops, and another

one in Port Coquitlam. In addition, 13 other agents have been appointed

under provisions in the Act permitting those who were already in the

process of qualifying for their licences or have been listed as

unqualified by errors to have their situations rectified. I have this

list of names too if anyone wishes to have them read out.

The point of all this is that, despite that completely false column,

Mr. Hadfield had nothing to do with any of these appointments. His

consent was not required. How anyone could portray these appointments

as being the result of any pressure of any kind is beyond me. They were

Autoplan management appointments made in the course of ensuring that no

injustices to individual agents were permitted and to ensure that there

are sufficient agents in the total field force to serve the public.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: May I ask the Minister of Health whether

he or, to his knowledge, any member of his staff made any

representation to either ICBC or the Minister of Transport and

Communication's office to assist Mr. Sharpe in obtaining his ICBC

accreditation?

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): As a person who has

worked in the insurance business for 20 years, I naturally have a very

close touch with any number of agents in the business. When, on the

recommendation of the agents' association which said there would not be

enough of them to do the job, they came to us at the end of the year

indicating quite clearly that they just couldn't handle it, the ICBC at

that time made a decision to expand the number of agents who would

qualify.

Under those circumstances, Mr. Sharpe came to me as his MLA and

asked if I would recommend him.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Now we're getting somewhere.

HON. MR. COCKE: I recommended him to the management of ICBC

and I would recommend him again to the management of ICBC as one of the

best agents I've known in my 20 years' experience.

But I have never played lacrosse in my life. That crazy story in

Fotheringham's column; I don't know where he got all that information.

I would recommend you if I felt you qualified because I happen to have

some expertise in the area; but that's all. If my recommendation

doesn't carry a great deal of weight, after all, it's….

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate

the clear answer of the Minister of Health; I'm sure all Members of the

House do. He answered a direct question directly. I would now like to

redirect the question to the Minister of Transport and Communications.

Did he or any member of his staff have prior knowledge of the

representations made by the Minister of Health to ICBC? And please

don't read me a story about six other people.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: (Mike not on.) I have no prior knowledge

of Mr. Sharpe, I don't know Mr. Sharpe, I never met Mr. Sharpe. Mr.

Cocke didn't mention him to me. I want to assure you that there has

never been anything political about this thing at all.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Who said there was?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Because that's the whole bit of it. Every

agent who was in business on February 1 was re-appointed, no matter

what his political plans were. And that is the way it's going to stay.

AN HON. MEMBER: Mr. Speaker, a further supplementary on

this….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I would ask that other Hon.

Members have a right to question period

[ Page 265 ]

too.

I would ask the Hon. Member, do you have a supplemental on the same

subject?

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): My supplemental question

is to the Minister of Transport and Communications. One John Ward, who

I understand is a brother-in-law to the Premier, was he a licensed

agent to sell auto insurance prior to February 1, and prior to this

designation of agents by Autoplan?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I don't know. I can't answer that

question. I'll have to take that as notice. I don't know.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Since the Member wants to go to some form

or level of personal participation, let me assure you that my

brother-in-law, Mr. John Ward, has been selling insurance in this

province for over 20 years with an acknowledged agency. And I resent

the implication in any way that there is any connection with his 20

years in the insurance business and ICBC.

MR. SMITH: I rise on a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: What is your point of privilege?

MR. SMITH: The point of privilege is simply this: there was

no implication made. I asked a straightforward question of the Minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SMITH: He took it as notice. If you want to make the

statement, go ahead make the statement. I take your word as an Hon.

Member that he was in the insurance business prior to this date, and

that's all I asked.

HON. MR. BARRETT: On the same point of privilege. If the Hon.

Member meant nothing politically, why didn't he come to me in the

hallway and ask about my brother-in-law instead of rising on the floor

of this House? Pure cheap politics, the like of which I have never

before seen on the floor of this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. Order, please! I point out to Hon.

Members that each of them must take responsibility for the facts that

they convey to the House…

HON. MR. BARRETT: The cheapest kind of politics I've ever

seen.

MR. SPEAKER: …and any inferences are not a part of

question period.

MR. McCLELLAND: I guess this is a supplementary as it deals

with the same kind of subject. I would like to ask the Minister if he

is aware that two full pages for Autoplan were placed in the newspaper,

Juan de Fuca News Review ,

which I understand is published and owned by

the vice-president of public relations for ICBC. Does the Minister feel

there is any conflict of interest in that situation?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: As far as I know, we don't ask the

publishers of newspapers what their political affiliations are. They're

in The Vancouver Sun , they're

in the Province ; they might

even be in

your newspaper. I don't know. Are they?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Are they in your newspapers? Is that a

conflict of interest?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: How low are you trying to drag this House?

How low are you trying to drag this House? I want to tell you….

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I would advise Hon. Members that

it is quite permitted, under our rules, to ask questions on both sides

of the House. But when you are answering a question, there is time to

answer it; when you want to ask one, stand up and ask your question.

Orders of the day.

ON THE BUDGET

MR. H. STEVES (Richmond): Mr. Speaker, I would like to

welcome this opportunity to address the House in this budget debate.

The Premier (Hon. Mr. Barrett) has called this a resource dividend

budget, and I think it is just that. The budget redistributes much of

the wealth of this province to the people of this province — to the

loggers, to farmers, to the wage earners, as he mentions, particularly

in the areas of health and human resources. And I think it reflects

very much the humanistic philosophy of the Premier. I commend him on

that.

To some extent it is also a socialist budget, and our first.

Unfortunately, one question I have is that it is also a growth budget

and, environmentally

[ Page 266 ]

speaking, I am a bit concerned about some parts of

it which I will

discuss later in my talk with you today.

By and large, however, it is an exciting budget, though not without

its shortcomings.

The Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) is to be

congratulated. I think he is doing an admirable job. People are very

happy with Mincome. The stigma of being on welfare is gradually being

removed from the welfare department, although there are some complaints

still in Vancouver that welfare workers look down on the people who

come to them for welfare. Some of the workers, in keeping with previous

government policy, are taking a hard line on recipients. I think,

fortunately, that this is changing and there is a much better feeling

in the human resources area.

I am very much pleased, Mr. Speaker, that the 15 per cent welfare

costs to the municipalities has been cut now to 10 per cent. My riding

last year paid over $800,000 as their percentage, and we expect that

there will be a considerable decrease in the cost to the riding for

welfare.

I would like to suggest, however, to the Minister that Richmond and

other areas might, in the future, get the same benefits as Vancouver

and Victoria and, I think, Kamloops now receive in welfare, where the

province has stepped in and taken over the responsibility for

administering welfare in these areas. I note that these areas are

paying about 60 or 65 cents per capita to the province to have them

administer the welfare department. I think this would be a further

saving to my riding of about $30,000 or $40,000 a year, and also would

provide better provincial coordination of welfare services as well.

I would also like to congratulate the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr.

Cocke) particularly for the forthcoming B.C. Medical Centre and the

considerable increases to his budget this year. I expect that we will

see considerable additional benefits in health for 1974, and I have

very big expectations for his department.

I am very pleased, Mr. Speaker, with the Foulkes Report. I have long

been a "Foulkes"-singer myself and am looking forward to some of

the…that didn't go over very well (Laughter)…assets to health that

Dr. Foulkes has suggested.

I am a bit concerned about his recommendation for fluoridation, but

I doubt very much if that will become government policy as more and

more people are becoming aware that there may be some disadvantages to

fluoridation as well — the environmental costs are fairly high — and

that fluoridation can be carried out by fluoridating milk or carrying

out prevent-a-care in the schools.

I welcome his suggestions for reorganization of the Health

department, particularly the recognition of mental health as a problem

which should be covered in the overall health scheme and under hospital

insurance.

I am very, very pleased to note his recommendation calling for

community clinics, for health and human resource centres. I look

forward to the day when such may be established in my community. And it

doesn't bother me in the least if we take that one step further and

were to put doctors on salaries, even if they were high salaries at

that.

I would like to see decentralization of the hospital services

throughout the province — I note that in the Foulkes Report this is

recommended — so that in the future we may have uniform health care

throughout British Columbia. No matter where you live in the province

you will be able to get in and be treated equally — get the same kind

of health care whether it is in the urban areas or in the north country.

I would like also at this time particularly to congratulate the

Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson) for the housing programme he

brought in. He mentioned that there were 37,627 new housing starts in

B.C. In 1973, most of these single-family dwellings. In my area, of

those 37,000 housing starts, we had 1,828 of them — about 5 per cent of

the housing developed last year was built in Richmond. Most of it was

single-family housing, actually 1,400 single family homes were

started, 50 duplexes, and 334 condominium and apartment units.

As Richmond, Coquitlam, Surrey, the North Shore, Delta and so on,

are the major areas of expansion in the greater Vancouver area, if I am

to extrapolate from the budget the fact that we had about 5 per cent of

the housing last year, also that we have a major portion of the

available land for housing, I would expect probably that about 5 per

cent of this budget for housing might be expanded in my riding. This

could mean about $5 million or $6 million of housing development in my

riding.

The Minister also mentioned that the government has purchased 746

acres in 1973. I would like to note at this time that we have in my

riding about 2,000 or 3,000 acres of residentially-zoned land

available, but this does require a massive land assembly programme, and

I would hope that something like this might be started in the greater

Vancouver area, in these so-called bedroom communities that I have

mentioned, and particularly in Richmond where land is available.

Of this 2,000 or 3,000 acres, some of it is owned by bona fide

farmers who are long-time residents in the community. They have lived

there for many years and are still farming it. In fact a large portion

of it is VLA land from the vets who came back after the war. They have

a lot of 1.5-acre back lots to their property which could be assembled

by a government land-assembly programme.

In fact, I think that's the only way it will be assembled because

private developers have tried in the past and have not been able to

reach agreements, or

[ Page 267 ]

else they have found it is too difficult to

assemble the land and

haven't tried. So much of this vacant land is just back lots and scrub

brush which could be assembled for housing in co-operation with the

owners whose houses border on the roads surrounding the various

quarter-sections that make up the community.

Some of the 3,000 acres that I've mentioned are also owned by land

speculators who are holding on to key lots in order to drive up the

price of land. Surprisingly enough, there are quite a few acres in this

category, and that is one of the reasons, I think, that the government

brought in Bill 71, which called for reassessing of such lands that

are being held for speculative purposes. By reassessing it, it meant,

of course, that the taxes would go up and that the speculators would be

encouraged, through paying higher taxes, to dispose of their land —

either to expose it to other developers or to develop it themselves for

housing — and therefore to put more housing on the market.

We have a fair amount of key acreage in my riding that is being held

by land-development companies. For the information of the House, I

would like to read out some of the people that own lands that are in

the residentially owned areas — the major acreages that are owned by

land development companies. Quite often there are just one or two of

these acreages in each quarter-section, but that's enough to keep the

area from being developed because nobody else can get in to buy the

property without these key lots.

We have one area, for example, owned by Dayton Enterprises,

comprising 47 acres, which is being farmed by a farmer but not by the

owner of the property. This property would be paying agricultural

taxes, I would assume, and therefore would not be subject to Bill 71.

We have some land that is being farmed by bona fide farmers in the

residential zone: around 33 acres by the Laing family. I'm not sure if

they're any relation to our honoured guests here today or not. But this

one is one of the few…we have two or three farms in the area that

are bona fide farmers; this one is one of them.

Then we have groups like Star Developments with 31 acres; Western

Realty, 28 acres; Block Bros. contractors, 20 acres; a trucking firm,

18 acres; Laxford Development, 17 acres; a Mr. Fan in Vancouver, a

lawyer, 17 acres; Laurel Properties, 15 acres; Pemberton Realty, 15

acres; another person with Block Bros. contacts with 16 acres; Amana

Development, 11 acres; Broadmoor Holdings, 10 acres; Mono Holdings, 10

acres; a Mr. Chan in Vancouver, 9 acres; Blundel Holdings, 8 acres;

Larco Developments, 7 acres; Conway Richmond Estates, 7 acres; a

contractor 6 acres; and so on.

Now these are just examples of the type of land that is available

that is not being developed. Some of these acreages that I've mentioned

I've not been able to check out thoroughly to find out whether all of

them are not being developed. Some may have development programmes

underway. But, to date, they are not built upon.

So, Mr. Speaker, our government policy in dealing with land

assessments is to lend encouragement to get this land on the market to

free the areas that are being held up for housing development, and also

to encourage some kind of land-assembly programme in these areas.

I hope also that the government will get involved in these areas and

get into government land assembly as well.

One other thing that I think we should took at, however, in our

assessments is that some of these particular properties that have been

mentioned, although owned by development companies, are being farmed. I

think that in our assessment Act we should take a look at bringing in

some kind of amendment to ensure that properties that are being farmed

in a residential area are farmed by bona fide farmers who actually own

and occupy the property, or are farmers on adjacent property, rather

than land speculators who are renting the land out to a farmer in order

to receive agricultural tax benefits.

The tax benefits by farming land in a residential area are quite

substantial. If they were paying the residential taxes that would

accrue if they were taxed for residential land, it would probably be

about 1,000 times more than what they pay when they are paying farm

taxes. As long as they are able to find that out in our assessment

laws, then they're able to still hold the land and keep it for future

speculation.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome the Housing Minister's

announcement that he has $50 million in his budget for housing.

Particularly, I liked the part where he mentioned that there would be

about 2,500 rental housing units created in the coming year, hopefully.

Rental housing is very much needed in the greater Vancouver area

and, I think, throughout the province as well. We are facing a

rental-accommodation crisis. There are actually hundreds of people in

the greater Vancouver area awaiting each unit that is advertised in the

papers.

There are times when if you went down to the Sun or The Province

offices, when the paper is just coming out on the stands in the

morning, you'd find a couple of hundred people waiting for the first

copies of the paper to come off the press. They grab the papers and

rush off to the phone booths to phone for the houses that are listed

for accommodation.

Quite often they find that the places have already been rented out

or are under the control of groups such as Rentex and other types of

rental agencies which require you to pay $20 before you get the

[ Page 268 ]

listing. Then, of course, when you get the listing

you find that the

place you were looking for may have already been rented as well. So

there is very much of a rental-accommodation housing crisis and because

of this as well rents have skyrocketed anywhere from 20 to 30 to 50,

even up to 80 per cent.

I think that because of this we're going to have to look very

carefully at rent justifications. I would like to commend the

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald), in bringing down legislation to

the Landlord and Tenant Act this session, that he might consider some

kind of rent-justification programme with the maximum rent increases

perhaps geared to the cost of living such as has been suggested, I

believe, by North Vancouver Council, who suggested that the rent

increases should be paid at about 10 per cent.

I would also like to suggest that some form of collective bargaining

might also be anticipated.

Secondly — and I think in a major way — we must have a government

housing corporation, as has been hinted at by the Minister of Housing,

to construct housing in British Columbia in a major way. I think that

if we can start a surplus of housing, we might be able to bring the

rent and the housing costs down to reasonable levels. Hopefully, we can

keep the costs from going up. Hopefully, we can bring them down 10, 15

or 20 per cent less than they are today.

While doing this, Mr. Speaker, I would also like to urge the

Minister to be sure, in any developments the government does get in,

that we develop a good housing mix, taking care to watch for social and

environmental amenities in the construction of any subdivisions in

which we might be involved — to be sure that there is adequate park

development; day-care centres provided; community schools constructed

with recreation centres, educational facilities, facilities for old-age

pensioners and so on; and to assure that many different levels of

income are represented in each housing development.

Too often in the past we have seen low-income housing where everyone

on a fixed income or low income is put into one residential area and

where middle-class and upper-middle-class people build their

single-family homes in another residential area. This is not too good

either socially or environmentally for the social and human

environment. I think that we should try to develop a housing mix where

people of all walks of life mix together and live together and work and

play together.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, as well, when we do set up a land-assembly

programme, as well as making land available — such as the VLA land and

the land that is being held by speculators — there is another added

benefit I would like to touch on: when the government assembles the

land and develops it there can be a considerable saving in cost to the

community, to the people that the government represents.

As an example, I would like to give a property that has just been

transferred, I believe, from Dunhill Developments to Imperial Ventures

in my riding. There's a 50-acre farm in Richmond for sale for $3,000

per acre, or a total of $150,000.

When it was offered to the municipality we did an extensive study of

the use of the land. We needed 15 acres for an addition to a park

nearby and found that we could get the land for the park, provide all

the services to subdivide the land for housing lots, such as putting in

roads and sewers, underground wiring and so on, and that we could

actually sell the lots for less than the present market value, build a

fair amount of recreational facilities in the area and still make a

profit.

This was presented to the local council five years ago and was voted

down five to four because the council was concerned that they would be

getting into the area of free enterprise.

I would like to suggest that this government is not quite so

concerned about getting involved in areas that free enterprise is

delving into, and that we should consider this type of land-assembly

programme.

What happened to this land once it was sold to a private developer?

First it went to another businessman who sold it to Dunhill; Dunhill

got the land rezoned, and on the basis of rezoning the land went to

Imperial Ventures Ltd. I don't know how much Imperial Ventures paid for

the land, but I would assume it was probably in the neighbourhood of

around $25,000 per acre — that is what the same type of land is selling

for in my riding today for strictly single-family housing. This land is

also going to be used for apartments, as well, which is much more

valuable.

We see land that five years ago was worth $3,000 an acre now being

worth around $25,000 an acre and upwards, once it is rezoned. Without a

single house being built, without a single road or sewer being put in,

it is still the same chunk of farmland that was there five years ago.

If the government gets into a land-assembly programme I would

suggest that they will be able to eliminate the middle-man —

middle-men, in this case — and that they can directly benefit from

the profits of rezoning such lands by putting in the parks, putting in

the day-care centres, recreational centres, schools, and so on, as I

have suggested.

A little aside from this is that the municipality finally still had

to buy the 15 acres for their park. Interestingly enough, the price

asked for the 15 acres was $10,000 per acre, which was a reduced value,

for a total of $150,000, which was the total price it would have paid

for the 50 acres instead of 15 if they

[ Page 269 ]

had bought it in the first place.

This is the type of thing that the province can get into. I think

that Dunhill has some experience in doing this, as they were the ones

that assembled this particular piece of property. I do hope they will

keep out of the agricultural zones, however. ICBC did not do this in my

riding and got stung. Dunhill has tried to get land rezoned in

agricultural areas before. I would hope the Minister will instruct them

very strongly that they should assemble land in the residential zone on

behalf of the government and develop it accordingly.

Finally I would suggest that lands that are developed should be

developed and provided on a lease basis only. I would like to suggest

that this be on a very short-term lease basis — perhaps 25 years with a

review each 25 years. If the lease was picked up by the government 25

years later, the owner would receive equity for the buildings he had

put on the property, or he would be able to renegotiate the lease.

If we were to put the leases on a short-term basis I think that we

could put lots on the market for around $5,000 per lot in the greater

Vancouver area instead of $18,000 to $20,000 per lot which we are

seeing right now with the housing crisis.

The land for single-family housing costs between $15,000 and $20,000

per acre; servicing a lot costs around $5,000 per acre. If you get five

lots to the acre then you would have a cost of around $8,000 or $9,000

per lot. So if the lot was leased out at $5,000 and subsidized for

$4,000, it would save a prospective home builder about $10,000 or

$15,000 per lot. If it was not subsidized but provided at cost it would

still save him around $10,000 per lot. I think a lot of people would be

quite happy to lease land on this basis if it were done at a very

low-cost leasing arrangement.

This would have the effect of actually lowering the values of

surrounding lands if it were done on a large scale. I think that this

is a very desirable effect. It would help to resolve the housing crisis

because people would be able to buy land from private concerns for less

— the cost of the land would not go up. Even the government, I think,

would be able to buy land for less once they had started on a leasing

programme such as this, and thereby save in their over-all development

programme. Any money that was spent on subsidizing the programme would

be returned to cheaper prices for the land and speculative value of the

land. Basically this is speculative land that I'm talking about where

land has been bought for $2,000 or $3,000 an acre and is now being held

up for around $15,000, $20,000, $25,000 or $30,000 per acre.

One other comment on housing: I like the suggestion the Minister has

made on duplexing and developing basement suites or, you might say,

legalizing illegal suites. This could have a very good short-term

effect in the greater Vancouver area. I expect we would find a lot of

opposition from a lot of the high-class districts in the greater

Vancouver area, but I hope not.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Poor people, too.

MR. STEVES: The Hon. Member says that the poor people would

object too. But I would hope that they would accept some responsibility

for accepting higher-population density in their areas.

I would urge the Housing department, if they embark upon this plan,

to take care that any illegal suites or duplexing that are legalized

meet the necessary building regulations and that properties would be

adequately kept up, and also to ensure that absentee landlords are not

able to take over the properties and to allow them to run down.

I think it is basically a good idea to get more people into the

accommodation that is already available. I'd really like to ask the

Hon. Member who said that even poor people are concerned about the

density of housing — about doubling up in housing — if the question

really is a question of housing or whether it is a question of the

nuclear family.

If you really make an analysis of the housing we have today, you

will find that actually there is more housing per capita available

today than there ever has been in the past. What has happened is that

instead of having the old folks at home, the old folks are now in the

old folks' home. Instead of having two or three generations in a

family, families are broken up. We have people with small families in

very large homes taking up a lot of the available housing space.

I think that perhaps we have to look very seriously at the question

of whether it is a question of housing or whether it is a question of

lifestyle. I think that this must be re-examined in the future. It is a

subject of ongoing and further debate.

While on accommodation, Mr. Speaker, I would like briefly to discuss

the Law Reform Commission's report on the Landlord and Tenant Act. I

believe that some degree of tenants' rights are possible but relative

only to the availability of housing. I'm not surprised at the Law

Reform Commission's report. I can't say that I'm disappointed in it,

because I really didn't expect that much, but I'm very much concerned

about the basic philosophy under which the report is written.

On page 294, I believe, of the Law Reform Commission report they

state their basic philosophy that they are discouraging self-help if

other means can be found. The means that they suggest is in legalese

such as the "rentals-man," instead of having rent review boards, and

they discourage the idea of collective bargaining — both of which are

party policy

[ Page 270 ]

and policies that we ran on in the last election.

Basically I believe that this philosophy is disturbing; it's

disturbing to me, it's contrary to my philosophy and I believe to that

of our party.

There are many, many good points in the Law Reform Commission's

report. The clauses on just cause for eviction I think are excellent;

they've asked for written reasons for eviction — I think that is an

excellent additional clause.

They have said that additional charges for housing — such as costs

for parking, costs for hydro, et cetera — should be added in as rent

costs. In my riding we have had a considerable number of landlords who

have been trying to increase the rent by doubling up on the hydro bills

— raising the hydro bills from $4 or $5 a month to $10 or $15 a month

— charging more for parking, and so on. Under the Law Reform Commission

report they suggest that these should be regarded as rent increases. I

think that is good.

I'm still concerned with the philosophy of the report. I think that

perhaps we should look very carefully at whether we should go the

Manitoba route of having a rentals-man or not. I personally feel that

the self-help route is the best one — that we should have the rent

review boards and that we should have landlords and tenants both

represented on the boards. Where such boards are difficult to set up or

not justified, then I think perhaps we should have a compromise between

the two points of view and have a rentals-man of some sort representing

the province in these areas.

It might be that in the urban areas we would have rent-review

boards. In the rural areas where there is very little rental

accommodation and a rent-review board would not be necessary, then we

might have some kind of rentals department that would adjudicate any

rental disputes. But I would like to see, Mr. Speaker, self-help be

included in our dealings under the Landlord

and Tenant Act .

While on the topic of self-help, I have noted in the last while,

through our developments in the north country and the purchase of

Can-Cel, that we have not yet gone into the area of workers' control

and including workers in the management of the resource company. I

would hope this would be considered in the future.

I would also hope that the community will be involved more in major

decisions on growth in the north country and in the south as well. I

will be talking about that in a moment, as it deals with my own riding

and Tilbury Island.

I would hope that self-help might be encouraged in the schools as

well, through student and staff committees planning the school

programme, through staff committees adjudicating over the teaching

capabilities of their peers, and things like that. I think rather than

rules and regulations we should encourage self-help wherever possible.

I was a bit disappointed, Mr. Speaker, in the education budget. I

think the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) is trying very, very

hard. I would like to congratulate the Minister for the programmes that

I think she's about to bring in in the fall session. I have been

working with her on some of these programmes and I am really pleased

with the progress that is being made. I am a bit concerned about the

Treasury Board's decision on the budget. However, I was pleased with

the announcement of the Premier that the problems in each individual

school district would be looked at separately. Hopefully, we'll be able

to instil enough money into the budget between now and the fall — or

maybe between now and next spring because I am not that optimistic that

we can rewrite the schools Act in six months. But I am anticipating

that we might be able to get by for a year until we are able to bring

in a programme on education that will bring education out of the

doldrums it's been in for the last 20 years.

Unfortunately many teachers — and we saw an example of this on

Friday — are very, very frustrated that after 20 years of Social Credit

ineptness in education the NDP has not been able to clear up the

educational problems overnight in one-and-a-half years. I am a bit

disappointed that we have not been able to do so as well, but I think

this is very understandable.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Gone backwards.

MR. STEVES: The Hon. Member suggests that we have gone

backwards. Actually what happens is that when a programme is brought in

by one government, it is quite often a long time before the long-range

effects of such a programme are felt. And we are feeling right now the

long-range effect of 20 years of Social Credit. Hopefully, we'll be

able to resolve this in the next 1 years.

Mr. Speaker, many teachers are struggling in this province, and have

been for a long time, to improve the methods of teaching, to

development innovative programmes, to bring in progressive programmes

of teaching. And a number of the teachers in Surrey, I think, are

examples of this trend. In fact, you might say that Surrey is one of

the pacesetters in the province. So I can understand their frustration

and why they were here on Friday. I hope they will look forward to the

fall session and to next spring as much as I do for some major changes

in the Public Schools Act .

I would like to throw out a few ideas that I have on how the school

system may be rejuvenated and how our moneys in next year's budget

might be spent. I would hope that we could see further development of

community schools in the province. I hope we can see schools with more

opportunities for the teachers and the students to operate the

[ Page 271 ]

educational programmes and have a little more

control over their own

education, i.e. what they teach and what they learn, in the case of

students.

I hope, as I mentioned, to see teacher evaluation by peers, and a

lot more local community input into the schools' programme. I would

like to see this tied in very, very closely with communications. And

perhaps sometime in the future — I don't expect it next year, or maybe

even for a few years — but sometime in the future — tied in with the

community cable communications network whereby ongoing education can be

had throughout the community, not just at the school but through the

media through the aide of cablevision — so it can be piped right into

the homes for children of all ages whether they're 8 or 80.

I would hope to see in the schools more dependency on teacher aides.

I would like to see parents working side by side with their own

children in the classrooms. I tossed this out not only to the Minister

but also to the teachers throughout British Columbia, because many of

them have misgivings about bringing parents or outside people into the

classrooms. I would like to say that I've tried it. I haven't had much

success in convincing too many parents they should try it, because

quite often they feel very nervous about going into a classroom with

their own children — afraid they're going to show some of their own

ignorance. But those who have tried it found it very rewarding and

actually have learned along with the children. And the children have

actually learned from the experience of the adults. So, I think it's a

good system. I think this is one way of drastically reducing the class

sizes in our schools. We presently have the highest class size of

elementary schools in Canada. I think rather than going the route of

having many, many more professional teachers, we should actually have

teacher aides on a large scale. Although I think there is a need to

reduce the class size per professional teacher as well.

I would look, Mr. Speaker, in the future for education to see a time

when we will have fewer bureaucrats running the educational system,

when it is more of a co-operative undertaking between the local

schools and the provincial Department of Education. Where, instead of

having school principals we might have administrators operating a

community school, and that staff committees of teachers and students

might be chaired by a staff chairperson on a rotating basis so everyone

gets a chance to carry on the activities of operating the educational

programme.

I would like to see us carrying on a dialogue in the coming year on

some of these ideas. I would like the Minister to consider them, and I

would like the general public, the teachers and the students to

consider them.

Basically what I am suggesting is as much decentralization of the

educational system as possible, and in the future not quite so much

centralization through budget control as we have seen in the past 20

years.

I would like at this time to also congratulate the Minister of

Finance (Hon Mr. Barrett). I am particularly pleased with his deft

financial manoeuvres in purchasing Westcoast Transmission shares owned

by El Paso, by using their own money from revenues we have received by

upping the price of natural gas to the United States.

However, I am a little disappointed that the budget for the mineral

and petroleum development in the province, in the mines budget, is only

around $581,000. I would like to see instead that it be around $20

million. That instead of half-a-million dollars….

MR. FRASER: You won't have to wait long.

MR. STEVES: Well, I hope you're right. The Hon. Member says

we won't have to wait long; I hope he's correct … Instead it would be

around $20 million and that B.C. would get directly into the

exploration for natural gas and oil.

In the deals to increase the profits that we sell our gas for in the

United States, we've also increased the profits to the natural gas

companies at the wellhead. I would like to suggest as well that instead

of increasing the amount of profits they make, these companies at the

wellhead should be public utilities, and that the government itself

should get involved in oil and gas exploration.

We are faced with an energy crisis in this country; we produce about

half of the oil and gasoline requirements that we need. We do have an

excess of natural gas in British Columbia — in fact about three times

as much as we need. But I think the benefits from natural gas should be

ploughed into exploration on behalf of the province — or at least some

of them — to find more oil reserves so that we can be self sufficient

in oil development and oil production in this province.

I would like to see this province become energy sufficient. To do

this, as well as further exploration for oil, I think we need to

develop public transit on a mass basis, particularly in the

metropolitan areas, to cut down on oil and gasoline consumption. I

would also like to see us get involved in natural gas conversion to

liquid natural gas for fleets of vehicles such as vehicles for B.C.

Hydro, and so on — government vehicles, whatever they might be. We

could have municipal fleets, school board fleets, all kinds of fleets

converted to natural gas, and therefore take the pressures off of using

gasoline as a fuel.

Presently there are a number of private companies considering

converting their fleets to liquid natural

[ Page 272 ]

gas — specifically, I believe, Hudson's Bay

Company. And other

department stores such as Eaton's and Simpson Sears are considering it.

And I wondered why not the government, why not B.C. Hydro?

To build a gas liquification plant to carry this out would cost

around $250,000; I think it is not only an environmentally sound idea,

because using liquid natural gas produces few pollutants but also

natural gas is much more abundant. And once those natural gas reserves

in the ground run out, which it is predicted they will do in about 25

to 30 years, we can still produce natural gas by solar means, such as

growing algae on sewage, or conversion methods on salt water, and so on.

Natural-gas use also prolongs engine life by up to 100 per cent. I

think we could find considerable savings in our future budgets if our

vehicles were powered by natural gas. In fact, it is my understanding

that it is not because of pollution that the companies in Vancouver are

considering converting to natural gas; it is actually the saving on

engine wear and replacement of vehicles that they're concerned about.

Therefore, they're considering conversion to natural gas because it

will save them money in the long run.

Mr. Speaker, B.C. Hydro has been authorized to spend $500 million to

increase its borrowing power for construction projects and transmission

lines. I hope that some of this will go to develop energy alternatives

such as geothermal power sites, which are abundant in B.C., and into

investigating energy alternatives such as the natural gas and sewage

that I've mentioned, wind power, wave power, and so on.

Also, I'd like to see us get involved in further studies such as the

nuclear power symposium we had last fall and develop a major public

programme to investigate energy alternatives, bringing in the experts —

the inventors with their inventions — from around the world to advise

us on how we may best find the alternatives to nuclear power and to

more dams.

Mr. Speaker, I feel we have to get away from more damn dams and,

even worse, their nuclear power alternative. I would like to see us

embark on further experimental programmes. We've already got one going

in using Hat Creek coal for sewage treatment; I would like to see us go

into a further experimental programme using Hat Creek coal for power

generation after we've cleaned up the sewage. We might even be able to

recover some of the minerals and wastes that are collected in the

sewage by using Hat Creek coal, then recover it and burn the coal for

fuel. So we solve the sewage treatment problem.

The Minister of

Housing, when he was speaking, made a comment that I would like to

quote at this particular time. He said that rapid economic development

can have serious social and environmental costs, and that a shortage of

housing is one of these costs. Well, Mr. Speaker, I think the social

costs of rapid economic development are well looked after in this

budget. I think the housing costs which are part of the social costs

are very well looked after. I am very, very pleased with this budget in

regard to human resources into social costs and housing costs.

However, the area that I mentioned at the beginning that I was a bit

disappointed in is the area of environmental concern. I had hoped, Mr.

Speaker, that this might be the budget in which we would go into

recycling in a big way, and that we might be setting up a Crown

recycling corporation that would be looking after the recycling of our

renewable and non-renewable resources. I took forward to the day, and I

hope it is in the near future, when this will be included in the budget.

I also had hoped that there would be a considerable budget allotment

for some sort of separate environmental department – whether it's an

independent environmental department or whether it's included with

Agriculture, Conservation or even the Health department.

I also had hoped to see some reorganization of the Pollution Control

Board by now into a role of combatting rather than regulating

pollution. It took the sewage treatment committee, which the Hon.

Member for Delta (Mr. Liden) and I were on, a year to get an answer

from the Pollution Control Board — which recently was handed down last

week — adhering to the instructions we had given them a year ago that

we should have secondary sewage treatment from Annacis Island. What has

happened, however, is that the extension of the deadline for sewage

treatment has had to go on for another year, until 1977, due to the

fact that the Greater Vancouver Regional District has been dragging its

heels.

Also it means that for two years from the time the primary

construction plant is built until the time we have secondary there will

be basically just primary treatment in the Fraser River. Now, our

committee will be watching very closely during the next year when the

plant is gradually phased in and during those two years before we have

secondary treatment to see if there is any chance of any deleterious

effect on the salmon runs. The salmon go up to spawn every four years

and two years, if there were deleterious effects, it could wipe out two

salmon runs. I'm very disturbed with that aspect of the Pollution

Control Board's judgment and will be watching that very, very carefully

along with my fellow MLA from Delta.

Mr. Speaker, the second stage of sewage treatment I would like to

see as well. I think the MLA for Delta will concur with me from our

studies when we met with the experts last fall and last winter that we

should be looking as well in the future to secondary treatment next at

the Lulu Island plant, which is also the south arm of the Fraser, and

at the Iona Island plant thirdly, which is the north arm of the Fraser,

[ Page 273 ]

both of which are in my riding.

MR. C. LIDEN (Delta): Tertiary treatment.

MR. STEVES: The Hon. Member for Delta suggests we should look

at tertiary treatment, and I think he is absolutely correct. This is

why I think we should be going further with the development of the Hat

Creek coal reserves and experimentation in those areas.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, I feel that the growth that is indicated

in this budget does not show a corresponding balancing in the budget

for environmental concerns. We're witnessing a fantastic provincial

growth, and in my own opinion not enough is being done to

counterbalance this in environmental department, whether it is a

composite department or not, as I suggested earlier, it is needed to

keep a check on this growth of industrial development in the north and

in the south. I think that such a department must be separate from the

Ministry of Lands, Forests and Water Resources and from the Department

of Industrial Development.

In my opinion, the environmental secretariat has already lost some

of its credibility due to its close ties with the Lands, Forests and

Water Resources Department. I think that is unfortunate.

The NDP policy has long been a policy for a full department of the

environment, a full department of fisheries and a migratory salmon

authority, with particular emphasis on the Fraser River.

Now, it may be that we can't have all three. But I think that our

party policy is clear on the emphasis. These three can be combined, and

in fact can possibly be combined with other departments. It is

something I would like to see us take a very serious look at…(mike

not on).

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sorry, Hon. Member. Would you try the

microphone beside you? We're having trouble with the wiring at the

moment, and we do want to record the debate.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I'm afraid that the rest of your speech is

going to have to be somehow taken as read so far as the printing of it

is concerned. Unfortunately our Hansard

system is based upon the

recording system and if something goes wrong with the apparatus…I

don't know what emergency equipment the staff have but we will see what

they can do.

Each Member is supposed to speak in his place, but I think the

Members of the House would agree that if there is a live microphone

anyone would be prepared to allow the Hon. Member to speak from another

microphone. Perhaps there is one on the other side. Would somebody find

a live microphone? Yes, there is one over there.

Would the Members agree that the Member be allowed to speak from the

other place?

Leave granted.

MR. STEVES: Well, Mr. Speaker, I didn't expect that I would

have to cross the floor to join the government benches. It must be a

Social Credit plot.

I must say the view looks much different from this side of the House

— it's sort of got me a little bit off guard here.

I was commenting on growth in the north and I'd like to say that I

really can't be critical of those in the north country. Unfortunately,

Mr. Speaker, the story of development in the north is one of escalation.

The provincial government recently bought out Canadian Cellulose,

and I think that was a good move on the part of the government, In

fact, I applaud it wholeheartedly. However, to make it pay we have had

to do other things as well. We have worked on getting better rail

connections, better development of B.C. Rail throughout the north. It

also requires more chips for more sawmills and so on.

All of this, again, is laudatory, but somewhere along the line we

have to analyse just what is happening when we start one chain of

events, because more rail lines bring more pressures to open up the

north and more pressures for mines, such as the development of some of

the major copper reserves in the north country. More mines bring on

pressures for mine smelters such as in areas that we might find in

Kitimat. Smelters require more power; power requires more dams.

So we find exponential growth escalation in the north country. I'm

not saying that this is wrong; I'm not saying that this is right.

Personally I am very pleased that the government has been involved in

developing the north. However, I think we should recognize that there

may be a price to pay for this development in environmental and social

dislocations, and there has to be an ongoing and serious dialogue with

the people of the north in determining what scale the development of

the north will be.

The same, Mr. Speaker, also applies to people in the south, and in

this regard I would like to comment on what is happening in my own

riding. Basically the matter in question is in north Delta, while my

riding is Richmond, but the effects of development in Delta will bring

about major and long-lasting problems in my riding. In particular, I am

referring to the development of Tilbury Island as an industrial site.

The Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce (Hon. Mr.

Lauk) has recently been involved in purchasing 726 acres of land on

Tilbury Island. This land is prime farmland, although in this

particular regard I am not so much concerned with

[ Page 274 ]

the fact that it is farmland that is being

purchased. What I am

concerned with is the escalation — the actual exponential growth — that

could take place in the surrounding communities such as I have outlined

could take place in the north. It is this escalation that I think we

have to start a dialogue on.

Obviously taking 726 acres of farmland out of farm production is not

too well in keeping with Bill 42, and I think it becomes very difficult

to defend when I was one of the ones who was very outspoken in bringing

in Bill 42 last year. But where it really comes in conflict with Bill

42 is not just this 726 acres on Tilbury Island, but how it affects the

farmland in my riding as well.

What it means, Mr. Speaker, is that if we develop this area, which

is good farmland, across the river in Richmond, then in my riding,

where we have probably about 1,000 acres of very poor peat-bog land

that was mined out years ago and is sitting vacant, some of it the city

garbage dump, it is quite logical that this land will be developed as

well. In fact, in my opinion, any harbour development should go on very

poor quality land.

It is also logical that the Tilbury Island development could expand

into the Burns Bog area; where that area has been mined out and

certainly where Vancouver has their present garbage dump it is quite

possible that sometime in the future that will be developed

industrially as well.

So what we have is escalation of industrial development in the

estuary of the Fraser. Now, some people in the opposition might think

that it's fine to hear a backbench MLA criticize the government on

this, but I would remind them that really all the government is doing

is following a long-standing Social Credit plan.

This was a plan, Mr. Speaker, in opposition to which I ran my

election campaign in Richmond a year-and-a-half ago. I exposed this

plan to the electorate, we debated it thoroughly, and I was elected

with 49 per cent of the vote. I think this speaks for the reasons that

I am levelling on this today, and the feeling as to how my constituents

take this particular proposal.

In Richmond today we have about 4,000 acres of agricultural land

which is in secondary reserve with the possibility of it going into

industry, as outlined by the GVRD. It is the same kind of land that is

being used on Tilbury Island for industrial development. If we are to

take 700 acres or so from agricultural secondary reserve in Delta, then

why not the 4,000 acres in Richmond? Here we have our first escalation.

Secondly, the hundreds and hundreds of acres in the bog areas that

were mined out in Richmond logically should be developed. It is no good

for farmland and it is available. So we end up with shipping on both

sides of the river, which is exactly what the Fraser River Harbour

Commission has been saying all along, and which is exactly what the

Social Credit government said in 1967 when they designed the plan in

the first place.

Further escalation comes about when we find that in order to get

from one side of the river at Tilbury Island to the bog area on my side

of the river it would require a bridge or a tunnel, and then, of

course, a freeway across Richmond's agricultural land to connect to a

new bridge, probably connecting with Boundary Road in Burnaby.

Again, this was in the Social Credit plan from 1967. I discussed

this some time ago with the chief planning engineer and found that it

was so, that these plans have been on the books all the time. In fact,

in 1967, at the time when the Social Credit government developed

Roberts Bank, Mr. Loffmark and Mr. Williston said that they expected

that the Fraser Valley would be one great industrial area all the way

from Point Roberts to Hope. I am very much concerned that we must take

precautions to be sure that the development of Tilbury Island is not

the first stage in that development.

Mr. Speaker, to have you understand my problem I would like to

outline what I am really faced with in my particular riding. We have,

in Richmond, an island riding completely surrounded with water, and

completely surrounded with sewage, as I have mentioned. There are three

sewer plants going in; all three are primary except for Annacis, which

will be secondary by 1977, as we have decreed.

We have on the north arm of the river the North Fraser Harbour

Commission using it for small, industrial development and for log

booming. The river has been destroyed by pollution from rotting log

debris, rotting bark. As the tide goes up and down the log booms are

rubbed together, the bark falls and the water is polluted from the

poisons.

We even have the regional district offering us another garbage dump

for the Vancouver city on the Sturgeon Bank or Iona Island, whichever

we would like to give them.

We have the possibility of a ferry terminal development in Richmond

as well, which is another added growth to the community. If it is at

Iona Island it won't be that bad, but it would be pretty bad if it went

to the Steveston area and required another highway.

So I think you can understand my concern when I very, very seriously

question the development of the south channel of the Fraser for a

deep-sea port. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that we are basically

following the report of the Fraser River Harbour Commission, as

developed by Norm Pearson, who is now with the Lands, Forests and Water

Resources department. This report called for trifurcation of the

Fraser, which means the Fraser should be narrowed down, that they

should dike it in and narrow its

[ Page 275 ]

channel so that the water would become deeper and

self-flushing.

This would make it a hazard for the young fingerlings being shot out

directly into the ocean, and, of course, would be a detriment to the

fishing industry. Furthermore, the river would be lined with shipping

berths, each berth requiring about 40 acres of back-up land for

industrial development and warehousing.

Basically, the Fraser River Harbour Commission report and the Social

Credit government programme of the '60s is one of massive industrial

development of the Fraser, and a declaration that the Fraser should be

an industrial river.

I think that we can have growth, but I think that it can be a

steady-state type of growth whereby for every growth pressure we put on

an area we must bring in some kind of balance both for positive social

and environmental action.

I would like to suggest with regard to Tilbury Island that everyone

in B.C. does not necessarily need their own harbour. We don't need B.C.

harbours, we don't need federal harbours, we don't need a Fraser River

Harbours Commission harbour, we don't need a North Fraser harbour, a

Nanaimo harbour, a Squamish harbour, and so on. I think we do need some

kind of a coastal zoning authority, such as they have in the State of

Delaware, where these harbours can be combined and we don't spread them

all over the province. I think we do need an environmental department

of some sort to assure that these developments don't become a fait

accompli and that you don't see on TV one night that all of a sudden

you are getting a harbour development next door.

I would like to suggest that the Tilbury Island proposal be scaled

down drastically. Secondly, we should take measures to prevent

expansion onto marginal lands so that we don't see the harbour

development expanding back onto the Burns Bog and to the Vancouver

dump. Thirdly, I think we should, if possible, move the proposal from

prime farmland to marginal land such as the bog areas in my own riding

— which have been burned out and mined out — as an alternative.

I would like also to ask the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) to

take a very close took at this proposal. I find the Minister of

Highways a very enlightened Minister.

I'm very concerned. He made a statement the other day — it's had

favourable editorial comment in The

Province this morning — that he's

concerned about development along highways. I would like to suggest

that if we were to get more bridges and more highways through my

community, it would be just one more highway cutting up the

agricultural land, going right across the middle of Richmond, which

would increase the pressures to rezone that land for industrial

development and for housing development.

After all, if we do bring in this massive industrial development

along the banks of the Fraser, where are the people going to live that

need housing as well? If you cut up the farmland with more highways,

you can't blame them for wanting to get their lands rezoned.

I would like to suggest to the Minister, if the Tilbury Island

proposal does go ahead, that he consider some way of getting a public

transit system to Delta and, of course, to tie in with Richmond, rather

than more bridges and more highways which will cut up the farmland.

MR. FRASER: They're going to hang them in the sky with a sky

hook.

MR. STEVES: I would like also, while I'm on highways, to

comment on the Minister's enlightened programme to restrict development

along the highways. I think it's an exemplary programme that should

assure that we no longer export urban sprawl wherever the highways are

built. The press is not often in agreement with us. In fact, we've had

a lot of headlines lately that are biased and misleading, but I think

the editorial in The Province

this morning called "Stemming the Urban

Lava Flow" is a good one and The

Province should be commended for

siding in with our position that we should have some type of highway

zoning to prevent development and urban sprawl along the highways.

I hope that if we do bring in such legislation, or if the Minister

does bring in such legislation — which I hope he will — The Province

will be just as strong as they were in that editorial in defending the

legislation when it is attacked by Social Credit and some of the

developers throughout the province, who like to see free and unbridled

development wherever they get the opportunity to build it.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude my discussion of the budget

with some comments as to how the budget affects my own riding.

Things in my riding aren't all as bad as it perhaps might sound

because of my concerns with the Tilbury Island development. For

example, the federal government is embarking upon a programme right now

that I'm very pleased with. I hope to hear an announcement imminently

on the development of a fisherman's wharf and boat harbour in my

community. This is something that I've been involved in personally for

about five years. I'm head of the committee which five years ago met

with the federal fisheries department requesting a government wharf —

or actually a government fish boat harbour — in the Steveston Harbour.

I'm not entirely happy with the solution they're offering to us, as

they will probably be cutting one of our islands — Steveston Island —

in half in order to build a harbour. Each benefit you get…even good

things have their price. What is happening is that they

[ Page 276 ]

want to use half of this particular island — which

is a rather

beautiful island in the middle of the river — for a sand-hauling

operation, and that seems to be the price they're asking us to pay in

order to get our fish boat harbour.

However, I hope that we might be able to find some kind of a

compromise on this and that the fishermen will be able to get their

harbour, which is long overdue.

In my area the only government docking facility is very small and is

always overloaded. The fishermen are forced to tie up with the private

canneries, and as they tie up with the canneries, then they have to

sell their fish to them. They are forced to sell their fish to these

companies for lack of space to tie up in an independent fish boat

harbour.

So I am happy that I co-authored the original submission on this —

actually my wife wrote most of it — and I'm happy that I co-authored it

and met with the federal authorities and this will be coming to

fruition in the near future.

I'm also happy with the treatments that the Minister of Recreation

and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford) is giving to my riding and to the

riding, I believe, of the Hon. Members for Vancouver South for

development of recreational facilities along the north arm of the

Fraser.

In particular, we have about five sandbars along the north arm of

the Fraser in my riding which are excellent fishing bars for Dolly

Varden trout — the only variety of edible fish that can survive the

pollution. The Minister of Recreation and Conservation has been looking

at these very carefully and I'm hopeful that he will be able to adopt

some kind of programme in the future to protect these fishing bars. I

understand from the Member for Vancouver South (Mrs. Webster) that she

has been requesting that they also include road ends on the Vancouver

side.

I hope too that the Lands, Forests and Water Resources and the

Recreation and Conservation departments will gradually eliminate log

booming in the north arm of the Fraser by restricting future log leases

and bringing in legislation, as recommended by the committee on

forestry and fisheries, to require dry-land log storage throughout the

province.

Mr. Speaker, directly to the budget and the assistance it gives to

my riding: the assistance to the Richmond people — the $2 per capita

municipal increase — will bring in about $100,000-plus to my citizens.

The one-third welfare reduction will bring in about $200,000-plus. The

cost last year was $800,000, so it will be at least $200,000 that we'll

gain from that. The $30 renters' and $40 homeowners' grants will bring

in about $800,000 to $1 million to my constituents.

The dike tax removal, which I'm very, very pleased with, will reduce

our tax load by between $1.6 million and $2 million over the next four

years — or roughly $500,000 to $600,000 a year. So the total saving in

my riding, through the budget, this year will be between $1.5 and $2

million to my constituents.

Add to this the community and recreation funds. Last year we

received one-third-of-a-million dollars, and I hope this year we might

receive similar funds, towards building an indoor pool, which we've

been trying to get for years; it would be our first indoor pool. It's

going to cost $800,000 or $900,000 and hopefully we'll be able to get

money from the community recreation fund — again something we've been

waiting for for a long time.

Basically, Mr. Speaker, what this budget means to the homeowner as

far as human development is concerned, humanist type of budget that it

is, is about $ 100 per home in my riding in reduced taxes. More likely,

however, this will not come back to them in the form of reduced taxes

from the municipality but will probably allow for a reallocation of

funds so the municipality can buy much-needed parkland, build

much-needed recreation facilities, can build the indoor pool I've

mentioned, carry on their sewer programme and, hopefully, secondary

sewage treatment as well.

If you add in the indirect increases, the indirect assistance such

as in housing — and I mentioned before Richmond is a key area for

housing — such as in health, human resources, the Mincome programme,

the reduction of sales tax on books, which I think is an excellent

thing that is long overdue — because basically educational books have

been taxed — and on second-hand clothing, this will bring other added

benefits to my riding of $4 million or $5 million.

All in all, Mr. Speaker, I think it's a good budget as it concerns

the people of the province. I think it's very much of a humanist

budget. I'm a bit worried that we might be setting some irreversible

trends toward exponential growth, but I think that we can look at this

in the future. I would like to support this budget.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): I wasn't quite sure I was

going to make it today. But I would suggest to the government that I,

along with some of them, listened with great interest to the former

speaker, the Member for Richmond (Mr. Steves). All I would say is that

if you're going to sort out his policies, don't bother; you aren't

going to have the time.

I would also mention to that Member that, while I do listen with

interest, I suggest that he should do considerably more research in

what he is recommending. His policy on agriculture, as he mentioned

earlier, is very detrimental to many farmers who wish, in fact, to farm

on leased land, and some of the farmers in his area that he included

want to continue in that practice.

[ Page 277 ]

Also in his proposal for recycling, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest

that his actions in the North Okanagan and the government grant from

this government is instrumental in putting out of business — or nearly

putting out of business, it's in its death throes now — a small

independent family corporation. So I would suggest that he do a little

more research before he advocates these programmes.

I would, on behalf of the official opposition, like to welcome the

new Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) and to

congratulate him on his landslide victory and to wish him success and

happiness in his political career — although it may not be very long.

MR. CHABOT: Enjoy it while you're here.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased to take my

place in this budget debate representing the people of the North

Okanagan. I would like to start by assuring the rest of the people in

British Columbia, in the province, that the people of the North

Okanagan do not wish to secede from this beautiful province. They do

not wish to leave their homes and their lands and their lives and their

families. But they do wish to secede from this government.

They wish to secede because of this government's pogo-stick Premier

and its pogo-stick policies. They jump from here to there to

everywhere, and every time their pogo stick lands it's in the pockets

of the taxpayers of this province.

They wish, Mr. Speaker, to secede from the ridicules of the Premier

and the constant battering that they and the rest of the people in

British Columbia are receiving from super-centralized controls, poorly

drafted and confusing legislation, financial mismanagement and

unprecedented waste. They wish to secede from the increasing arrogance

and the deaf ears of the Premier and his political tinkering with

legislation and with the stock market.

For the first time, Mr. Speaker, they have asked me to suggest to

you that the people in British Columbia are frightened of their

government and concerned for the first time in many, many years about

the security of their jobs and the security of their small investments.

They are deeply concerned about their loss of freedoms through the

headlong rush of this government to invade and increasingly control

every aspect of their personal lives.

As I said, Mr. Speaker, they don't want to leave this province and

they don't want to leave their homes and their families. They ask why

should they because of these Johnny-come-lately policies this

government is introducing.

We in the opposition and the people I have the honour to represent,

in examining this government's budget, feel it should be exercising

fiscal responsibility. This is not in the budget. The government itself

should be setting a leading example in this province for controlling

inflation and assisting people in how to handle inflation, which it is

not. In fact, this government is not only ignoring inflation, it is

fanning the flames of inflation.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on!

MRS. JORDAN: It is a Nero-fiddling-while-Rome-burns attitude.

Mr. Speaker, it is sad to say, but for the first time the civil

service of British Columbia, who should in themselves be able to

accomplish the objectives of their work and their training without

political interference, are now for the first time feeling pressures of

political interference in their everyday jobs. That, Mr. Speaker, is a

first for British Columbia and it is not a proud first. The rumour

market in the civil service is strong and it says: "Toe the NDP line or

be eased out or shuffled sideways."

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that you yourself are aware of the growing

concern and unrest growing in this province. I would only cite for your

edification the front page of The

Province last Friday. This is what it

said:

"City's housing hike tops all." That's in Vancouver. "Teachers to

march on capital." "Strachan backs off charge against insurance

companies." "Victoria steps in on schools." The only bright spot in

that paper, Mr. Speaker, was a suggestion that one of the Ministers of

this cabinet was getting stuffed.

Mr. Speaker, it isn't isolated….

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Name names!

MRS. JORDAN: I hope he enjoyed his visit. It really isn't a

laughing matter, Mr. Speaker, and it isn't an isolated day when we see

headlines in British Columbia like this, proving beyond a shadow of a

doubt the concern and unrest this government has generated.

The day before, February 14, Valentine's Day, we saw a headline:

"$100 million in projects stalled by government." Mr. Speaker, those

projects….

HON. P.F. YOUNG (Minister of Consumer Services): Stop reading

the big and start reading the small.

MRS. JORDAN: It's a shutdown, Madam Minister, of projects

reaching every hamlet in this province, from Cranbrook to Fort St.

John, from Vernon, my own constituency, to Chilliwack. I would suggest,

Mr. Speaker, to that Minister, she should have been around to hear the

workers' hearts quiver on that

[ Page 278 ]

Valentine's Day.

Mr. Speaker, the next day, on Saturday, what do the headlines of

this paper say? The Vancouver Sun ,

a different one; and a sad day for

British Columbia. "Private forest firms 'second to government.'" Mr.

Speaker, this is a policy that has been practised by this government

for a year but it's the first time that any Member of this government

has brought it out publicly. I would like to read exactly what this

government has in mind for private companies in British Columbia:

"If private enterprise wants to continue in the forest

industry in B.C. it must be prepared to take second place to the

government….

"Skelly, chairman of the Select Standing Committee on

Forestry and Fisheries, said 'the provincial government is

determined…'"

— what he didn't say and what we know is that it is

determined at

all costs —

"'…to see public enterprise succeed in the forest

products field in B.C.'

"This means, he said, the government will use the most

sophisticated technology available and will hire the best available

staff whether they come from Canada or abroad."

Or are NDP supporters.

"'I also believe that the government is under no

obligation to provide our resources on an equality of access basis to

public and private industry.

"'Publicly-owned firms should have access on a

priority basis. If rail cars are to be required by Can-Cel, the

province…'"

— and the taxpayers —

"'…should provide them. If chips or timber are

required by Kootenay Forest Products, then the government should

allocate them.

"'If new technology or marketing information becomes

available through the efforts of government-sponsored research, that

technology and that information should be made available exclusively to

publicly-owned industries.'"

And so on, Mr. Speaker.

That open statement and the practice of this government for a year,

Mr. Speaker, means that private industry, while expected to pay taxes

in this province to create employment and to be competitive in this

province, is not going to have the opportunity. The NDP government will

subsidize with the taxpayers' dollars and place in a preferred position

their own corporations, not on a businesslike basis, Mr. Speaker, but

on an ideological basis. The Minister of Finance has to prove he is

right no matter what the cost to the long-term economy of British

Columbia and no matter what the cost to individual companies and jobs.

What that headline implies, Mr. Speaker, is that this NDP policy

will squeeze to death independent forest operations, whether it's large

or where, in fact, it does go from truck loggers to small shake mills,

fallers and plywood plants. That will include those in the north

Okanagan.

Then, I predict, when this has happened, the government will blame

them for poor management and failing to meet their commitments. They

will blame them for mismanagement. The ultimate result of this all over

the province, this "squeeze them" policy, will be bigger and bigger

subsidized government. It will mean the loss of thousands of jobs, the

loss of hundreds of independent small businesses and small business

operations. These thousands of workers and these large numbers of

business people will have no choice but to move away, go on welfare or

become civil servants.

Who is he going to jump on next, Mr. Speaker? That's the concern of

the people in this province.

I'd like to speak for a moment or two on the matter of consumer

affairs as it relates to this budget. If the responsibilities of the

Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Ms. Young) include, in fact,

helping to educate the consumer and to protect the consumer of British

Columbia from the pitfalls of the marketplace, improper business

practices and big business, then surely the consumer and we can expect

the Minister of Consumer Services to protect the consumer from big

government and big government's improper business practices.

ICBC, or Autoplan, surely must be one of the most classic examples

of big government involved in questionable business practices. I would

ask, through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister: was the NDP and, in

turn, this government, guilty of misleading advertising when it

inferred in its election campaign that the B.C. government has $25 auto

insurance? Why can't you? Where is the Minister's voice in this

consumer concern?

What about the overcharging? Whether it's deceptive and misleading,

we would like to know where the Minister of Consumer Services' voice is

in this matter and what is her opinion? How is she protecting the

consumer in British Columbia from this type of misleading advertising?

What about the overcharging of premiums to lay people by ICBC with no

guarantee of refunds and no interest on the overdue repayments?

Not once have we heard this Minister raise her voice and insist that

the blatant ICBC gouging of the public be compensated for by, in these

two instances, accurate refunds and an effort on the part of ICBC to

find out who has overpaid and by the payment of interest on this money.

There could be, and it appears evident there are, several million

dollars in the hands of ICBC from the overpayment of premiums.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, not once in the whole fiasco of ICBC

overcharging, irregularity of rates, political

[ Page 279 ]

gerrymandering or monopoly of controls have we

heard the Minister of

Consumer Services (Hon. Ms. Young) in the Province of British Columbia

speak out on behalf of the public of British Columbia.

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): Not one word. Not one!

MRS. JORDAN: The effect created by Bill 71, which the

Minister incidentally voted for, produced not one word from this

Minister on behalf of the consumer about the 100 to 300 to 400 per cent

tax increases on farm leases in British Columbia and on small

businesses that were inflicted by her government. It is a tax which is

to be passed directly on to the consumer in British Columbia on

essential commodities such as food, housing, clothing — areas which are

vital to all the people but hitting harder those who can least afford

to pay — families, fixed income people, the older, single women who

have raised children or are raising children on very low wages.

You know, Mr. Speaker, people scoffed when the Premier announced

that he would remove the 5 per cent tax on used clothing, but I suggest

that this is going to be far more significant and that if this

government stays in office very long, the line-ups at ICBC will be

nothing compared to the line-ups at the used-clothing markets of

British Columbia.

We would like to know why the Minister's voice…. I'm sorry to see

the Minister is leaving the House. I would think she would be quite

interested in knowing what the public is concerned about, especially as

her vote is coming up. We would like to know why, when the Minister was

flailing the private sector for double-ticketing in the grocery stores

and in other sectors — and it is a matter that we agree with — she said

nothing when the government enterprises were double-ticketing.

The NDP Member for Kamloops (Mr. G.H. Anderson) said on Friday that

Kamloops was the home of the ripoff artist. It's interesting, Mr.

Speaker, that Kamloops is a major centre for British Columbia

government offices. He also said people need to know what business to

avoid. The major business to avoid in British Columbia at this time is

the B.C. government. No private business, no private industry would

ever be allowed to jockey the public the way this pogo-stick Premier

and his cabinet have.

Mr. Speaker, this government has indicated that we will go into more

and more businesses in the private sector in British Columbia, and we

suggest to the Minister of Consumer Services that she is going to have

to become concerned about the prices and the products and the practices

of these businesses. They are already in the alfalfa-cubing business,

and she should be concerning herself about the actual cost of

production of alfalfa cubes, bus fares, chickens — and there well might

be a very good story in the chicken business with this government — and

the price of milk.

With the Member for Alberni's (Mr. Skelly'

s) statement last week

that there will be special positions for government businesses in

British Columbia, surely the Minister will have to interest herself in

the consumer price of lumber and other domestic forestry products, and

the business practices of these mills and government outlets.

The government will soon be in the housing field. Surely she has a

responsibility to investigate the business practices of the B.C.

government Housing Corporation, the terms of their leases, and perhaps

the commissions that are paid to government real estate agents.

Mr. Speaker, the people of British Columbia don't want to see the

efforts and abilities of the Minister's department stop at government

doors. In fact, they insist that government doors be opened to this

Minister so that she can carry out her responsibilities to the consumer

as designed. I would say to her — who has just entered — Madam, in this

budget, through you, Mr. Speaker, you want $80,184 alone for your

office. Incidentally, this Ministerial expense is more than the

Minister of Recreation and Conservation's (Hon. Mr. Radford'

s) office,

more than the Minister of Agriculture's (Hon. Mr. Stupich'

s) office,

more than the Attorney-General's (Hon. Mr. Macdonald'

s) office, the

Labour department. Mines and Petroleum Resources department, Municipal

Affairs, Provincial Secretary or Public Works. Surely for this type of

Ministerial expense the public has the right to expect that any actions

of yourself and your department will pass through the doors of

government, as well as in the private sector.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to move now for a few minutes to the area

of Recreation and Conservation and it is the first time I've had an

opportunity to speak eyeball to eyeball with the Minister (Hon. Mr.

Radford). I would like to say that I, personally, find him a very

delightful person and that I believe that he is proving to be one of

the better Ministers of this government — although that is not

necessarily a high recommendation for Ministerial ability — and to wish

him well in his work.

However, I was surprised to see him take political swipes at the

former administration — we had expected better of him. Also when he is

fully aware, and I know he is, that he has inherited one of the finest

parks departments and one of the more outstanding park systems in the

world, and while he glowed under new park acquisitions, and glowered

over the previous redistribution of park boundaries, he did forget to

mention that under his administration, the NDP administration, there

had been also a number of park redistributions, and there were, in

fact, deletions from the parks jurisdiction. I

[ Page 280 ]

understand this; the practical facts of life must

apply.

But what I do concern myself with is that the Minister has allowed

special park-use permits to leave his jurisdiction and they are now in

the jurisdictions of the special lands service. Mr. Speaker, these

special parks permits frequently apply over operations which have a

massive effect, in fact a major effect, on the adjoining parks. I

suggest to the Minister that this is wrong. This is no way to be

handling your administration. Special use permits and special permits

for activities basically connected with parks should be under the parks

jurisdiction.

He also didn't explain, Mr. Speaker, that a major portion of the new

park acreage was on line by the former administration, nor that some of

his new parks will likely have to have redistribution of boundaries

following public hearings.

Nor did he explain why, in one-and-a-half years, his government has

not declared any new ecological reserves when, in fact, there are 19

more on tap from the former administration.

Another principle of Recreation and Conservation that is causing

serious concern is regarding the new licences and angling fees. While

raising the fees particularly to non-residents is, I'm sure, quite

justified and acceptable, one must seriously question the government's

attitude of charging little children under 16 $5 to go fishing unless

as it says in the regulations, they are "accompanied by a person who is

in possession of an appropriate, valid angler's licence." You know,

with the coffers of this province swelling, this amounts to another tax

on the people of B.C. and it is a tax on the kids. There are thousands

of youngsters in this province who enjoy fishing in every hamlet and

waterhole that they can find.

HON. J. RADFORD (Minister of Recreation and Conservation):

There is no charge under 16.

MRS. JORDAN: Then you had better reword your regulations, Mr.

Minister, because as the regulations read now unless these children are

accompanied by an adult carrying a licence they can't go fishing on

their own. A five-year-old has to spend $5 to wet a line. This

government is not only digging into the pockets of the poor, the

pensioners and the workers, it is socking it to the kids. Surely with

all the money virtually streaming into the coffers of this province,

kids under 16 should be able to fish free.

Mr. Speaker, when one examines the budget and compares it with the

Minister's words it is also disappointing to see that he, like the rest

of the NDP, tends to forget facts. He talks in glowing terms of the

great infusion of money in his recreation and conservation programme. I

would remind him that what he didn't say was that the previous

administration put aside $20 million for accelerated park development,

and $25 million for greenbelt acquisition, making a total of $45

million set aside for park acquisition and accelerated park development.

The previous administration had spent $8 million out of the $25

million and the NDP have spent zero, zilch, nothing, out of that fund

since then, according to their figures.

Up until March, Mr. Speaker, only $11 million has been spent from

the Accelerated Park Development Fund and these $11 million represent

moneys almost entirely committed by the former administration. So in

1972-1973, $11 million had been spent in accelerated park development,

with another $8 million from the Green Belt Protection Fund Act. This

budget, Mr. Speaker, with its $5 million for parks development projects

is $6 million short of funds already allocated for this purpose. So the

Minister's glowing report and budget just don't gibe. In fact, his

budget doesn't allow for an accelerated park development programme. It

could almost be described as a budget considering the de-acceleration

of the park development programme.

A matter of serious concern regarding this Minister is what the real

role of the Minister is in recreation and conservation and in the

overall budgeting policies and decisions of this government. Certainly,

as I mentioned, he has tried to be a good Minister; but the budget,

which is the real gauge of the direction in which the government is

going, would suggest that the government has him only for a high degree

of administration and public relations.

When we combine the points in the budget with the role, or lack of

role, that the Minister has been allowed to play in the decision-making

in relation to land use in this province, we find that he's been cut

off at the pass, Mr. Speaker — cut off at the pass. The fact is that

the real power in this government for any form of land use, including

recreation and wildlife, ties not with the Minister of Recreation and

Conservation, where it should, but with the Minister of Lands, Forests

and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams).

Mr. Speaker, it was the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources who said at Prince George that the government would, in fact,

cut down its park development. While the Minister of Recreation and

Conservation said in his speech, "We are involved in the major resource

decisions of this province" — and we really hope he is and wish he was

— the facts are that there was no weight from his voice. In fact, his

voice wasn't even heard from when the wildlife management reserve was

lifted at Roberts Bank. It wasn't his voice that had the reserve put on

again, as he knows; it was the Member for North Okanagan with the help

of the media and the people in the area.

Another example in the Interior of the province, Mr. Speaker,

relates to my own constituency, the

[ Page 281 ]

North Okanagan, in regard to Cosens Bay. It's

approximately 2,000

acres of one of the provincial Parks Branch's top priority park

acquisitions. It's top priority because of its unique tundra and

extensive natural life aspects in both flora and wildlife. Another plus

for this is that it's one of the few unique dry-belt examples in the

province, and it also borders on a magnificent lake.

It was designed to be, and it must be, totally a senior-government

purchase and responsibility. But the point here, Mr. Speaker, is that

it's not the Minister of Recreation and Conservation that we are

dealing with; it is the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources.

In fact, it's really no longer a discussion between the people and

the Minister. It has been months and months of nothing behind the

closed doors of that Minister's office — as to what he is doing and

what in fact is the future of the park itself. We in the North Okanagan

are deeply concerned about this closed-shop attitude towards the

acquisition of this land, particularly in light of the fact that the

Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources has said that the people

in the area will have to pay a large part of the capital acquisition

costs, a point that is not realistic and a point that I dispute and

stand firmly on.

The people of the North Okanagan should not, and as far as I'm

concerned will not, have to pay for what is in fact a provincial and

senior-level government acquisition. But again, Mr. Speaker, we would

like to be dealing with the Minister of Recreation and Conservation.

I must ask again, as another example, citing the northern part of

the province, when it was the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources who announced the development plans for the north in terms of

sawmills and other industrial programmes, there was not a word from the

Minister of Recreation and Conservation, and no word from him ensuring

that the wildlife studies that have been requested will be carried out.

Those are three examples around the province, Mr. Speaker, which

support public concern and our concern that a fine Minister has been

cut off at the pass, and that in fact he's not being allowed to do his

job, and that it is the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources

that is the tsar of the lands, and he puts recreation and conservation

secondary. Mr. Speaker, the people of this province and this opposition

want a Minister with weight — with weight — in the decision-making of

multi-land use, and recreational decisions in this province.

MR. FRASER: If Bob says "jump" you say: "How high?"

MRS. JORDAN: I had intended to speak a little on community

recreation, Mr. Speaker, as another example where the Minister isn't

giving the facts, but we have a new speaker in the House today. I don't

want to be too long — as long as the Member for Richmond (Mr. Steves).

But I would like to bring to the government's attention, in relating to

the budget, a matter of interest to the North Okanagan. I would refer

to ICBC and its permanent home.

I realize the other Members of this House were not cognizant of the

fact that was made on Friday, but I felt sure at the time that the

Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) had either proofread my speech or he'd

been given a leak from the sources that I've been investigating.

There's no question, if ICBC can ever emerge from its maze of

difficulties, that it is logical and reasonable and in fact desirable

to place the home base of this corporation in the North Okanagan. An

analysis of ICBC in terms of location reveals that it need not

necessarily be centered in the metropolitan area.

Its major dependency on the Vancouver area is the computer, and my

understanding is that the computer cable that is already into the

Okanagan could be expanded with an extension to the Vernon area. Or. In

fact, the laying of a new computer cable would be feasible and far less

costly to undertake than what the accelerated costs would be in the

overall picture if ICBC were to remain in Vancouver.

HON. MR. LEA (Minister of Highways): You want it in Vernon.

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, Mr. Minister, and I'll tell you why, and

you'd better listen. There's really no reason why this company should

be linked to the major business centre in British Columbia in

Vancouver. It's an independent corporation, and certainly there's no

need to discuss business with other auto insurance company head

offices, because there are not any other auto insurance head offices in

British Columbia.

Transportation to and from Vancouver and Vernon is rapid and

frequent and would accommodate the necessity of any major business

conferences with ease. A move like this would not be a first in British

Columbia, and it certainly would not be a first in the world. I would

suggest, as an example, that in the late 1950s IBM was encouraged by

government to move into Rochester, Minnesota.

Rochester at that time had a population of 25,000 people, mostly

medical and therefore very transient, and it had a service area of

4,000. The community itself was a one-industry town and, as I

mentioned, mostly medical, and its location was 80 miles of nothing

between Rochester and Minneapolis and St. Paul. If anyone knows the

area, they'll know that Minneapolis and St. Paul are 2,000 miles from

[ Page 282 ]

anywhere.

This was a highly successful programme which diversified the life of

these people and gave them a much more stable economy. This is a unique

opportunity in the north Okanagan for a variety programme such as this,

where the community and the area itself can offer a variety in

lifestyles from agricultural and recreational pursuits to cultural

activities and living accommodation. It's a clean industry, Mr.

Speaker, and it would provide many job opportunities for young people

in the valley who wish to remain in the valley, and its programming

would dovetail well with the northern campuses of the Okanagan Regional

College.

I would take exception to what the Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis)

said in advertising cheap land in the Okanagan to say that, as far as

this Member's concerned, if anybody buys land in the Okanagan,

particularly the north Okanagan, they're going to pay a fair price for

it and our people are going to benefit from it. But there's no need to

consider land because, as the Minister knows, ICBC already owns land in

Vernon. They paid $140,000 for it and they're doing nothing with it.

I would suggest that that would make an excellent home for ICBC. But

I am pleased to have the Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) join with me

and I'm sure we can unite together and truly encourage…

Interjections.

MRS. JORDAN: …the government — not to put in a chicken

factory in the Vernon area; you can have that in Shuswap — but to

really, seriously home ICBC on the land it owns in a community where it

is highly suitable.

Mr. Speaker, there is one other matter in the North Okanagan I would

like to bring up, which is in keeping with the policies of this

government, and that is the matter of an agricultural college for the

province. While there is a growing agricultural training centre in the

Peace River, it of necessity reflects a specialized type of approach to

agriculture.

There is a vital need in British Columbia at this time for a basic

educational centre for overall agricultural training in the broadest,

practical sense. The North Okanagan is a very obvious centre because it

is in itself the centre of some of the most vast, intensive production

areas in the province. It is the centre of the most diversified

production of nearly any province in Canada.

Our production ranges from vegetables to grapes to soft fruits to

hard fruits, dairy, cattle and, again, highly intensive

multi-production operations. There is an increasing incidence of

younger people in their 20s and 30s going into agriculture in our area.

I suggest this not to de-emphasize the university degree programme but

that this type of programme can fill a gap which is very obviously

here. It can offer practical training whether in terms of management of

packing houses or production facilities — and we lack these managers in

British Columbia — whether it's in terms of highly specialized

agricultural management in itself or horticulture. There is a unique

opportunity in this area because of its location and central point to

undertake this.

This centre is 80 miles to the furthest reaches of some of the most

successful cattle ranches and it is all within 80 miles to the most

successful soft fruit ranches. Vernon itself has facilities now which

could be utilized to start this type of a college programme. Perhaps

even more importantly we have in our schools and on the staff of the

regional college, now at this time, highly interested and qualified

people in agricultural management, horticulture and development. There

are also people who are qualified in multi-land use, and recreation and

wildlife conservation, which should incorporate and be incorporated in

any agricultural training programme.

Mr. Speaker, this government has taken over the regional colleges

and the vocational schools, and it has the power and the authority now

to undertake this programme in this area. If it did undertake this, it

would be in keeping with what the government professes to be a very

strong agricultural policy.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while there are many other concerns of

the people that I have the honour to represent, I will bring them up

under estimates. But I would say that the people of North Okanagan,

along with personal constituency concerns, share the provincial view

that this budget does not reflect reality in terms of the economics of

the day. It does, when you examine it, pocket windfall profits from

inflation, and it takes away from those who need it most.

On examination it toys, in itself, with consumers, limited-income

people and the recreational aspects of life, just to mention a few.

While the government talks about dividends to people, in reality what

dividends there are they take away again through hidden taxes and

government-fanned inflation.

Certainly, Mr. Speaker, no budget this size could be all bad. There

are many areas that we will be prepared to support. But one must admit

that where the budget does move in needed directions it frequently

spoils that effect and the effect of those allotments through its

adherence to dogma and through what is very questionable fiscal

management.

What concerns me and what concerns even any homemaker in British

Columbia is that the budget does not account for vast sums of money

that will come in through underestimated revenues. This, plus the NDP

track record for emotional and political decisions and wastage and the

use of special warrants, is a rather serious concern in the public mind.

The policy statements, Mr. Speaker, made in the

[ Page 283 ]

last few days alone by this government, only serve

to heighten the

confusion and the suspicion that surrounds this government and this

budget. While, as I said, Mr. Speaker, there are certain aspects of

this government that are worthy of support, and that we will support,

it would be impossible for any seriously responsible legislator to vote

for the real meaning of this government as it is reflected in this

budget as a whole.

It's a jumpy budget; the actions of the Premier and Minister of

Finance point it out so clearly. British Columbia's greatest need at

this time is not a pogo-stick Premier, but a leader of a party in power

which is, to say the least, alert and responsible.

At this time more than ever, Mr. Speaker, British Columbia needs a

leader who is sensitive to the economic complexities of this province,

a leader who can budget in line with real people needs and concerns and

revenues and a leader who not only understands the meaning of fair play

between people…

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): We have that now.

MRS. JORDAN: …government and business — fair play, Mr.

Attorney-General — a leader who understands fair play between

government, the individual and business.

Interjections.

MRS. JORDAN: Not only a leader who understands it but a

leader who is strong enough and capable enough to practise it.

Interjections.

MRS. JORDAN: That's what the people of this province want,

Mr. Speaker, in policy statements and in this budget. It is then, Mr.

Speaker, when this fair play is returned to British Columbia — and it's

only then — that the people who are the backbone of this province and

the backbone of our life in both economic and cultural terms…. Only

then will they not wish to secede from this land and from their homes

and from this government.

It is when we have responsible leadership that there will be no

longer the political fear and investment uncertainty in our province.

Mr. Speaker, we don't find that in the government and I suggest, for

all the analysis of the budget, that is what is needed and is lacking.

HON. MR. RADFORD: A question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. The

former speaker, the Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan), made a

statement regarding angling licences which was totally untrue.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I point out to the Hon. Member

that the only correction you can make is not in rebuttal to another

Member's speech, but where you are misquoted on some point. If you were

misquoted, that is a different matter.

HON. MR. RADFORD: Well, I think, yes, I was misquoted, Mr.

Speaker, on the point that she raised about the residents of B.C. that

are under 16 years of age being charged $1 for a fishing licence.

Interjections.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order, order!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Will the Hon. Member bear in mind

that what I've just said is that if you were misquoted in some

statement in a speech in the House which was just made, then you are

entitled immediately afterwards to correct that misstatement or explain

it to the House. But that doesn't fall into the category of her

statement, and therefore you would be out of order to proceed.

MRS. JORDAN: Point of privilege, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Oh, please!

MRS. JORDAN: Just for clarification, because you suggested

that he was concerned about a statement that I made….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I'm not interested in continuing

the debate on the question because there's no point of privilege in

this matter, unless it bears upon a statement that's been made by the

Hon. Minister in the House, and there's no such statement.

I wish to recognize the Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Capilano.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I

thank you for recognizing me at this stage because I was in a bit of a

quandary. The little unofficial list of the speakers that came around

said that a Mr. J.G. Gibson was to address the House at this point this

afternoon which, of course I guess, would be that former distinguished

MLA — my father. His voice could have been heard here if he'd known it

was his turn.

MR. SPEAK