1979 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 32nd 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)

TUESDAY, JUNE 12, 1979

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

69 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

British Columbia Resources Investment Corporation Amendment Act, 1979 (Bill 12).

Hon. Mr. Bennett.

Introduction and first reading –– 69

Oral questions.

Appointments to human rights board of inquiry. Mr. King –– 69

Sale of Panco facilities. Mr. Stupich –– 70

Extra run for E&N Railway. Ms. Sanford –– 70

Availability of Crown land to realtors. Mr. Lea –– 70

Parimutuel incentive grant. Mrs. Wallace –– 71

Distribution of B.C. Government News. Mr. Macdonald –– 71

Study of Ministry of the Provincial Secretary. Mr. Hanson –– 71

Cowichan estuary. Hon. Mr. Mair replies –– 71

Budget debate.

Mr. Hyndman –– 71

Mr. Gabelmann –– 75

Mr. Smith –– 80

Mr. Nicolson –– 82

Mr. Strachan –– 85

Mr. Macdonald –– 86

Mr. Brummet –– 87

Mr. King –– 88

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 91

Division on the motion –– 92

TUESDAY, JUNE 12, 1979

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, in the

gallery opposite you this afternoon we have a distinguished young

British Columbian. He emerged as the undisputed all-round winner at the

British Columbia Winter Games in Kamloops.

On behalf of his

MLA, the hon. member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head (Mr. Smith), and on behalf

of the Ministry of the Provincial Secretary and Government Services, I

would like to introduce Anthony Barker, accompanied by his parents, Mr.

and Mrs. Byron Barker.

Anthony, sir, is 17 years of age. He

lives on Foul Bay Road and he attends Lambrick Park School. In the 1979

Winter Games in Kamloops he earned seven medals — six gold and one

silver — in gymnastics competition, and we are very pleased to have him

here today, representative of the hundreds of young people who

participate in British Columbia's two games, summer and winter, each

year.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I would ask the House to join

me in welcoming two well-known British Columbia sportsmen who are

attending the House today. They are Mr. Ted Friesen, president of the

Vancouver Gun Club, and Mr. Doug Oliver, general manager.

HON. MR. MAIR: I am advised that in the gallery today is a distinguished former editor of the Kamloops Sentinel, Mr. George Smith, and I would ask the House to make him welcome.

MR. SEGARTY:

Mr. Speaker, seated in the Speaker's gallery this afternoon is a

constituent of Kootenay, Mr. Hank Mayberry. Hank is past president and

zone commander of the Royal Canadian Legion, Branch 44, in Cranbrook.

Hank is also a member of the board of directors of the Dr. F.W. Green

Memorial Home in the constituency of Kootenay.

Also seated

in the gallery this afternoon is Mr. Mayberry's son Kenneth. Ken is

retired from the staff of the Commander-in-Chief of the Western

Atlantic Canadian Armed Forces. I would like the House to join with me

in welcoming Mr. Mayberry and his son this afternoon.

MR. SMITH:

I'd ask the House to welcome with me today a group of my constituents

from Oak Bay–Gordon Head including my wife, Barbara, and my

father-in-law, Wallace Courtney.

Introduction of Bills

BRITISH COLUMBIA RESOURCES

INVESTMENT CORPORATION

AMENDMENT ACT, 1979

Hon. Mr. Bennett presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled British Columbia Resources Investment Corporation Amendment

Act, 1979.

Bill

12 introduced, read a first time, and ordered to be placed on orders of

the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct a misprint in the budget speech statement of last Friday.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

This explanation becomes necessary because certain members are not able

to follow what is said in the House as opposed to what is distributed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. WOLFE:

Mr. Speaker, I'm referring to the statements which explained the

anticipated sales of B.C. Resources Investment Corporation shares

through June 6. On page 4 of the budget statement, it states: "As of

June 6, sales were about 37 million." It fails to show that it's 37

million dollars. It was misprinted. It should have shown $37 million, I

believe that the Hansard

report of what I've said records that fact. I want to make it very

clear to all members that the intention of this statement was to read:

"As of June 6, sales were about $37 million."

Oral Questions

APPOINTMENTS TO HUMAN

RIGHTS BOARD OF INQUIRY

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I have

a question for the Minister of Labour. I understand that a board of

inquiry was struck under the Human Rights Code to investigate alleged

discriminatory pay practices in the fishing industry, and that the

panel was composed of a chairman, Jack Bourne, QC, Claire Alcott, who

is a management representative on the Labour Relations Board, and C.

Lynn Smith. I want to ask the minister what criteria he uses in making

appointments to a board of inquiry. In this case it appears that there

are two management representatives sitting on an inquiry into

discriminatory pay practices.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr.

Speaker, may I say at the outset that the member is not fully or well

advised on the matter which is being considered by the board of

inquiry. It is not simply a matter of discriminatory pay practices, but

a matter of the way in which jobs are alleged to have been assigned in

this particular company's operation.

With respect to the

appointment of that board of inquiry, because there was a

management-union problem — incidentally, a question was raised as to

whether or not the union had appropriately represented its member in

the policing of the collective agreement — it was determined that there

would be one person on the board identifiable from management and one

identifiable from labour.

The chairman, Mr. Bourne, was

chosen because he is a lawyer of long experience in arbitration matters

who has in the course of his practice made it abundantly clear that he

is completely impartial in the discharge of that responsibility. I

might say that I received telegrams critical of Mr. Bourne and that

appointment, because he had served on a previous arbitration board in

the fishing industry in 1963. I don't

[ Page 70 ]

consider

that criticism to in any way inhibit the manner in which Mr. Bourne

would discharge his responsibility as chairman of this board.

MR. KING:

On a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, I have two things to say.

First of all, I didn't make any query regarding the nature of the

dispute — that's rather irrelevant — but if the minister chooses to

score a major point on that issue, fine. Nor did I cast any aspersions

upon any member of the board; I simply asked the minister what criteria

he used in making such appointments.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to

repeat that question, along with the supplementary. Why does he feel

it's appropriate to launch into a defence of Mr. Bourne, when it is my

understanding that Mr. Bourne has adjourned the committee to determine

whether or not it is appropriate for that inquiry board to hear the

complaint? It seems to me that the minister is prejudging the decision

that the inquiry board has now ceased considering.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The purpose of question period is to ask questions, not to enter into debate or to make public statements.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

I thought, Mr. Speaker, that even the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke

would have been able to understand the nature of the answer to his

question. If he wishes it to be abundantly clear, in the appointment of

all boards of inquiry, whether they be single members or multiple

members, we choose people who have particular knowledge of the

circumstances that will be dealt with by the board of inquiry and who,

by their actions, have shown themselves to be impartial in such

deliberative matters.

MR. KING: A final

supplementary. Notwithstanding the sarcasm of the minister, I would ask

if he feels that he is appropriate to assess the impartiality of

employers and their representatives in this province.

MR. SPEAKER: That question suggests its own answer, sometimes called rhetorical. Does the minister wish to answer?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

I just wanted to make it abundantly clear to you, Mr. Speaker, that I

was not being sarcastic in my response to the member. If he is

sensitive about the inadequacy of his questions, then he must take

whatever he wishes from that.

SALE OF PANCO FACILITIES

MR. STUPICH:

Yesterday near the end of question period I started a line of

questioning to the Minister of Agriculture. He indicated or said that

there were four people or organizations that had made offers for the

Panco processing plant and hatchery. I'm wondering if he would identify

those four individuals or organizations for the House.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Cargill was one. I may have it here, Mr. Speaker, if I can just take a

moment. Lilleydale Cooperative was the second, Intercontinental Packers

was the third, and Pacific Poultry Producers' Cooperative was the

fourth.

MR. STUPICH: I wonder if the minister would go one step further and tell us what were the offers by these four organizations.

EXTRA RUN FOR E&N RAILWAY

MS. SANFORD:

My question is addressed to the Premier. A second 85-seat Buddcar has

been brought to Vancouver Island to replace the 68-seat Buddcar now in

service on the E&N Railway. The Comox–Powell River member of

Parliament, Ray Skelly, and I have sent a joint telegram to VIA Rail

requesting that the 68-seat car be left on Vancouver Island in order to

initiate a morning service on a trial, round-trip basis from Courtenay

to Victoria. In view of the Premier's interest in E&N, I wonder if

the Premier, on behalf of the people of Vancouver Island, would make

the same request to VIA Rail.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The

Premier is always eager to add weight to the representations made by

MLAs and MPs, and if it takes my voice to make it happen, I will be

pleased to do so.

AVAILABILITY OF

CROWN LAND TO REALTORS

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, a

question to the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing. In April the

minister said that the government did not intend to make Crown land

available to real estate agents. We now find out by an admission of the

minister that Crown land is being made available to real estate agents.

Yesterday in question period the minister said that the government has

no policy to make Crown land available to the private sector or to real

estate agents. If there's no policy to make land available to real

estate agents, how did Atlin Rentals of Prince Rupert manage to get

Crown land?

HON. MR. CHABOT: The member knows full

well that he's abusing the rules of this House by repeating questions

that have been taken as notice to which answers will be brought back as

quickly as possible.

MR. LEA: I'd like to ask the

minister if there is a policy dating back to March 6 — where of a total

of 1,101 pieces of land classified as residential, recreational and

small holdings, 480 of that number are slated to go to the private

sector for resale.

MR. SPEAKER: It's a rather detailed question, hon. members. Perhaps it ought to be put on the order paper.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Did he say 480 or 481?

MR. SPEAKER:

Hon. members, it seems to me this is indicative of the validity of an

evaluation of this question. It should be put on the order paper.

A separate question?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Could I respond to that first? That's a false statement.

MR. LEA: Because of the confusion, I didn't get the minister's answer. Did he say that it was a false statement?

[ Page 71 ]

HON. MR. CHABOT: You're incorrect.

MR. LEA:

If I were to say that I have in my possession a government document

which says just that, would the minister still say it is an incorrect

statement?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, this procedure is rather argumentative and not permitted in question period. Is there another question?

MR. LEA:

In April of this year, when the minister made a statement that there

would be no Crown land going to real estate agents, was he aware that

in his ministry there was already a policy laid down on paper? Did he

not know what was going on in his ministry at that time, or did he know

that this policy was in effect in his ministry?

HON. MR. CHABOT: There is no such policy.

MR. LEA: Is the minister ready to stake his seat that there is no policy to that effect within the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. It's a rhetorical question.

PARIMUTUEL INCENTIVE GRANT

MRS. WALLACE:

My question is to the Attorney-General, and it is about the parimutuel

betting tax. Will the Attorney-General tell the House whether or not

the incentive grant representing 0.5 percent of that tax — which would

amount to something like $600,000 I believe — has been paid out to

qualified horse-breeders.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'll have to take that as notice today, Madam Member.

DISTRIBUTION OF

B.C. GOVERNMENT NEWS

MR. MACDONALD:

I have a question for the Provincial Secretary. Prior to six o'clock on

Tuesday, April 3, in a period of two or three days prior thereto, were

employees of the public service of the province of British Columbia

dispatched to the city of Vancouver to assist in the bundling or

distribution of a publication known as the B.C. Government News ?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Speaker, I have no personal knowledge of that. I will take the

question as notice and respond to the honourable member at the earliest

possible time.

MR. MACDONALD: I have another question

for the Provincial Secretary. In bringing the information back to the

House, would the Provincial Secretary indicate, if this did happen, how

many there were, what work they did, whether they worked overtime,

whether they were billeted at the public expense in Vancouver and just

what work they were doing?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr.

Speaker, I took the question as notice. I assume that what I bring back

will assist the member in his question. If he wishes to ask others. he

may do so at that time.

STUDY OF MINISTRY OF

THE PROVINCIAL SECRETARY

MR. HANSON: I would like to

ask a question of the Provincial Secretary. On December 30 you

initiated a study to be done by John Bowles into the operations and

procedures of the B.C. Building Corporation. Has that report been

completed?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, the

honourable member is somewhat misinformed. The report which was

commissioned to be undertaken by Mr. Bowles dealt with the entire

ministry as it was restructured. There is the common misunderstanding

at large that it was a study exclusively with respect to the British

Columbia Buildings Corporation, and that is not the case.

MR. HANSON: I have a supplementary question.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I cannot accept the question; the bell signifies the end of question period.

COWICHAN ESTUARY

HON. MR. MAIR:

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in question period the hon. member for

Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) asked me a question to this effect:

whether or not my ministry had engaged the services of a consultant to

look at the needs of industry within the Cowichan River estuary.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Shall leave be granted for a reply?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. MAIR:

The answer is that I have not. However, the Environment and Land Use

Committee secretariat has retained the services of a consultant to

assess the economic impacts of any possible solutions to this vexing

problem upon various people affected, and to look at the feasibility of

recommendations relative to log storage options for this estuary.

While

the member did not ask the question, Mr. Speaker, I would advise that

the name of the consultant is C.H. Anderson and Associates Limited,

forestry engineering consultants.

Orders of the Day

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

MR. HYNDMAN:

Mr. Speaker, this being a maiden speech, and having regard to a

somewhat abbreviated throne speech, I hope I might have some of your

indulgence and some latitude this afternoon in several of my comments

touching, perhaps, on matters not directly related to the budget, but

of interest at this time.

Obviously, in commencing, I want

to join with those who have extended to you congratulations on your

re-election to this parliament. It is certainly an honour, Mr.

[ Page 72 ]

Speaker,

for the people of Chilliwack. I think it is common knowledge that many

of the commentators are expecting great things from this parliament,

and that your peers should have elected you to your present position

speaks highly of you, sir.

To the Deputy Speaker (Mr.

Rogers), a gentleman whom I have come to know somewhat more closely in

recent months, I also want to extend my congratulations. Over 38 days

of campaigning and in the time you have in a dual-seat riding to share

thoughts with a fellow candidate, I have come to have some feeling for

his regard for this chamber, and his particular concern for new members

in particular. On behalf, I think, of all the new members, I want to

add congratulations. His effort to assist us has been much appreciated.

I could, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a word of congratulation also

to the mover and seconder of the throne speech. I say that because the

member for Prince George North (Mr. Heinrich) had some very important

remarks to make about the collective bargaining process and labour

relations. It may not be fully known, and should perhaps be emphasized,

that he comes from and represents, as a member of the government

benches, a riding with a very heavily unionized population — I believe

the count is in the order of 12 sawmills, 5 pulp mills, a number of

petrochemical refineries. And I think it terribly important that a

government member from such a riding has said the things he said on

that topic, and I congratulate him for that.

Mr. Speaker,

looking down the order paper today, and given that the government was

not to be represented in North Island, I want to say to the member for

North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) that, having regard to his background in

labour relations, I particularly look forward to his comments this

afternoon and what I am sure will be a contribution to this House. He

and the member for Prince George North will, I expect, exhibit to us

differing views as to the path to be taken in labour relations.

Now

the member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet) seconded the throne

speech. It is of unusual interest, I think, that in he and the new

member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) we have, if you will, members fresh

from the classroom — I believe both are principals, professional

educators. His remarks on education were of particular interest to me,

and on behalf of all of us I would say to both that, as education is

debated, we look forward to their comments as well.

Now to

the Premier — and I am delighted that he is still in the chamber, Mr.

Speaker — I extend an obvious word of congratulation. I don't think it

has been observed in this chamber, but I think it is in all the

textbooks that it is the second election that's always the toughest,

and I congratulate him for that victory. The second member for Surrey

(Mr. Hall) made the observation the other afternoon that just a few

thousand votes here and there and members might be in the aisles

opposite. I suppose, to be fair on that theme, one should also observe

that, if those same few thousand votes had been cast yet a bit

differently, the Premier might be sitting with 40-plus seats. But, more

important, I think it is very, very interesting to stop and note that

in the 1970s three Premiers have gone into the field facing three

parties aligned against them — very tough odds. Only our Premier has

been returned, and that's a signal accomplishment. I think one could

probably also say that our Premier is the only Premier in our history

to, in fact, go into the field with four parties arrayed against him

and emerge victorious, and for that I congratulate him.

Mr.

Speaker, I am here today because Mr. Gerry Strongman, the former second

member for Vancouver South, for very practical and understandable

reasons, could not stand for re-election. I think there is no doubt

that had he chosen and been able to, he would be here among you today.

I want to pay a short tribute to Gerry Strongman by re-echoing

something he said in his maiden speech. I think it typifies and

represents a very chief concern of Mr. Strongman. He was talking about

labour relations and the health of the economy of this province, and he

had this to say, speaking in March 1976: "Government must view the

prevention of strikes as a top priority. Mr. Speaker, we are talking

about survival. Both management and labour must be educated to the

consequences and, I repeat, both management and labour must be educated

to the consequences of irresponsible action."

You know, if

you do a little bit of research into Vancouver South, which has

produced some very fine MLAs over the years, you will find that theme

echoed. Members will recall that Mrs. Daisy Webster, a very fine lady,

sat for Vancouver South from 1972 to 1975. She said something very

topical also, and that was this: "Today the strike is slowly becoming

outmoded." I'd include the word "lockout" in any reference to strike,

but I think it's very, very interesting that as the 1970s have

progressed, members on both sides have expressed this kind of concern.

Because

Vancouver South is very much a working-class area with many, many

people and voters belonging to trade unions, I would like to take a

moment and make my view of that issue absolutely clear. First may I

reaffirm to members my view that a healthy British Columbia and a

healthy economy require a healthy trade union movement and a healthy

collective bargaining system — there is no doubt about that — and I

associate myself with the words of the member from Prince George North

(Mr. Heinrich).

But I think both management and labour

should be reminded, Mr. Speaker, that the original collective

bargaining system of some years ago is perhaps a little outmoded. It

seems to me that society used to say: "If management and labour want to

settle a dispute under our collective bargaining system, we're going to

erect in effect a boxing ring and give you each a set of boxing gloves.

Go in there and have at each other. When you're ready to cry 'uncle' or

make a settlement, make it and that's how you can settle your

differences."

But along the way both management and labour

developed techniques to make that boxing ring not so bad a place to be

— for the union the strike fund and for management the stockpile — and

all of a sudden there were ways of that boxing fight not being so

difficult. The battle was prolonged and it was the public interest

which began to suffer. My simple observation is that management and

labour should be entitled to go at it hammer and tong, if they wish,

but if on either side or jointly their dispute or their inability to

settle becomes so severe that the public interest is being jeopardized,

then I think it's time, if necessary, for this chamber to act.

Having

said that about Vancouver South and the working people there, can I

just say a few words about Vancouver South itself? It's been slightly

redrawn, and we have some new members with us. I'd like very briefly to

sketch a current picture of Vancouver South. There are

[ Page 73 ]

about

30,000 households, substantially single family, but some reasonable

rental accommodation, and about 85,000 eligible voters provincially.

The boundary is, on the north, 41st Avenue; on the south, the Fraser

River; to the east Boundary Road is the division with Burnaby; and to

the west East Boulevard, which is close to Kerrisdale.

But

perhaps if I sketch the provincial boundaries that surround us you'll

understand somewhat better the very cosmopolitan nature of Vancouver

South. On the east we are flanked by Burnaby-Willingdon; to the

northeast by Vancouver East; on the north by Vancouver–Little Mountain;

and on the west by Vancouver–Point Grey. We have a very, very

cosmopolitan set of boundaries. I'm happy to observe, Mr. Speaker, that

support for the government in the election ranged very broadly across

the riding.

We have all kinds of housing. Below Southeast

Marine Drive we have some very interesting industry. For a city, for an

urban riding, we perhaps are more industrialized than any in the

province. We have substantial sawmills, meat packing facilities, light

manufacturing and printing, to name but a few.

We have, of

course, a very substantial ethnic mix in Vancouver South: a significant

East Indian population, a significant German population, a significant

Jewish population, a significant Chinese population, all of which makes

representation interesting and a challenge.

As part of the

city of Vancouver, Mr. Speaker, in reviewing the budget, it's only

proper to acknowledge and congratulate the Minister of Finance for the

initiatives in municipal revenue-sharing which Mayor Volrich has so

favourably commented upon, and the commitments towards a convention

centre and a new sports stadium complex. Speaking as a city of

Vancouver member — through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Finance

— I say a very large "thank you" for those commitments.

The

budget, Mr. Speaker, was a great topic of debate in the provincial

election in Vancouver South. I think, substantially because of the

content, the vote for the government was increased in Vancouver South.

In all parts of the riding the people of Vancouver South were familiar

and responded favourably to these programs.

As I went about

knocking on doors in Vancouver South with the first member (Mr.

Rogers), it recalled to me some of the things that happened. I suspect

that because the Deputy Speaker so often must be in a place of

impartiality, not many of the members have had the opportunity to fully

get to know the first member for Vancouver South. In just a few moments

this afternoon, I would like to sketch for the members a brief outline

of a little bit of what it's like to campaign with the first member for

Vancouver South. Those of you not from dual-seat ridings will not fully

appreciate this, but you'll understand that in a dual-seat riding

basically you're working in tandem.

Mr. Speaker, if someday

something untoward should happen to me and any of you should find

yourself about to do battle, together with the first member for

Vancouver South, my advice is first of all to take along a good pair of

knuckles, not for the alleys but for the doors, combined with about six

pairs of shoes and an appetite for Chinese food that is probably

matched only by what I understand to be that of the first member for

Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett).

In addition, it helps if you

are somewhat handy around the house. Now you probably may know that the

first member is a somewhat accomplished electrician and a mechanic. You

also will realize that in the spring — and we had a spring election —

citizens are frequently in various states of home repair at all hours

of the day, as one comes canvassing. I haven't counted the number of

homes in Vancouver South that have now benefited from the expert advice

of the first member as to the installation of thermopane windows,

better ways to paint, the installation of studs and joists, and porch

repair, but I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that Vancouver South has

been spruced up to a degree that's just remarkable.

The

first member, who's a very fine colleague with whom to work, I should

tell you, gave me a little memento at the very beginning of the

campaign. It was a small mineral object, and he advised me if I would

tuck it carefully away in my pocket and always carry it, it would bring

good luck. This I did. I got rather curious as to what this mineral

object, this good-luck piece, might be. But he advised me that I could

not inquire into it until after the election was over. This I wanted to

do because the election turned out well and, obviously, this memento,

this small piece of mineral, did have some great talent and message. I

sent it out to the mineral laboratory and I simply want to report that

contrary to popular rumour, the object was not a piece of kryptonite.

Now

my good friend, the first member, at the conclusion of the campaign had

been a very fine guiding light and veteran upon whom I could lean for

support as a new boy. He did not ever criticize me or, in fact, make

any kind of suggestion that would make me feel new. So I should tell

you, Mr. Speaker, that when the campaign was over I sat him down and

said to him: "Now surely, through all the things you've seen, you must

have a suggestion or two. I'd be very obliged if you'd just tell me

what you might suggest about better campaigning." He thought a long

time and took a lot of prodding and he finally said: "Well, since

you've asked, and it's really not because of the postage, you really

shouldn't have to write quite so many letters." I'll try to remember

that injunction in the days ahead.

Now moving to the budget,

Mr. Speaker, on the way, may I make a comment about the environment?

One very significant thing has happened since the House last met, and I

think it's worthy of great mention.

The British Columbia

Wildlife Federation does a very important job for outdoors people in

this province. As members may know, the BCWF faced something of a

financial crisis earlier this year. They were broke and out of money

largely because of two public campaigns, one in respect of the McGregor

diversion and one in respect of the Revelstoke Dam. They issued a plea

for public support.

I want to congratulate the Minister of

Environment (Hon. Mr. Mair), who, notwithstanding the very independent

position taken by the BCWF over the years toward several governments,

saw fit to provide some much-needed assistance to keep that

organization going. Somebody said to me when that was announced: "Gosh,

you fellows are pretty dumb. BCWF takes a pretty independent stance

against all governments. They certainly ran a campaign with respect to

the McGregor diversion and the Revelstoke. And now I see the Minister

of Environment has given them a bit of a hand to keep them in business.

That's pretty dumb politics."

[ Page 74 ]

Well,

Mr. Speaker, whether or not it's dumb politics, I think it's pretty

good government. As an outdoorsman I want to thank the Minister of

Environment for that contribution.

I want to thank him also

for his excellent work on the Skagit. Again, after the House last had a

chance to meet, he announced further strong progress in settling the

Skagit problem. I think he deserves commendation and the encouragement

of this House to continue to settle the Skagit controversy so that

those who hike and enjoy the out-of-doors in the Skagit Valley may

continue to do so.

Moving to the financial aspects of the

budget, can I first say a word about debt reduction? It is axiomatic

that governments have no money of their own. If you are the federal

government, you can raise your funds three ways: you can borrow it, you

can tax it, or you can print it. If you're the provincial government

you can tax it or you can borrow it. There's probably nothing worse in

government than non-essential borrowing. It's the chicken's way out.

When you're thinking about a marginal project and you don't want to

raise taxes, the chicken's way out is to borrow the money. It's easy.

It's silent. It's insidious. Nobody really complains. Somebody else has

to pay it back. How easy it is.

How good it is that this

government is prepared to take the lead in reducing some of British

Columbia's debt — $26 million to be reduced this year. Winston

Churchill is not often remembered for economic matters, but of debt

reduction he said:

"There are two ways a

gigantic debt may be spread over new decades and future generations.

There is the right and healthy way and there is the wrong and morbid

way. And the wrong way is to fail to make the utmost provision for

amortization which prudence allows, to aggravate the burden of the debt

by fresh borrowing, and to live from hand to mouth and year to year. "

want to congratulate the government for the leadership it has shown in

tackling British Columbia's debt during a time when most governments

are going in the reverse direction. The yearly interest savings will be

substantial. When the debt is eliminated, the available dollars for

people services will be increased. Most important, it's the kind of

leadership from government that people and households should have and

want to see.

The budget reflects a theme and a point of view

the people in Vancouver South are happy to endorse. It's a budget which

puts British Columbia first and British Columbians first. In terms of

putting British Columbia first, let me look briefly at the results of

the work of the government in the federal-provincial arena and the

effect as seen in the budget.

This government is tied to no

federal political party for very good reason and for very good purpose.

This government represents a purely provincial political party, which

means that the interests of British Columbia come first, and we are not

obliged to consider the partisan or policy concerns of any federal

party. When the Premier or his ministers go to federal-provincial

conferences, they may strike a genuinely independent position with no

debts, no obligations and no restrictions because of the government in

power in Ottawa, the opposition waiting to come to power in Ottawa, or

any third party wanting to make greater strides. The results of that

kind of decision and that kind of approach are evident in the budget

document.

The heading "Contributions from Canadian

Government" on the revenue side projects $947 million — almost a

billion dollars of earned and bargained federal money for British

Columbia. That's almost double the 1974-75 figure of $478 million. It's

about half a billion dollars more for the people of B.C. as a result of

an independent approach to Ottawa, a non-partisan approach to

Ottawa-provincial relations. This is the result of some hard

bargaining, and the happy result of a government which very wisely has

chosen to put British Columbia first, be a purely provincial party, and

not, for example, worry about the results of the May 22 federal

election.

As I listened to the member for Coquitlam-Moody

(Mr. Leggatt) yesterday, he referred periodically to points of view of

the federal New Democratic Party. One has the impression that those

members might be something of a branch office for the federal NDP. We'll

have to wait and see, but there seems to be a chance that those members

might be becoming something of a branch office for the federal NDP.

How

great it is to support a government that stands for head offices, chief

offices in British Columbia. The head office, the chief office, the

only office, the only place of business of this government and the

party it represents is right here in British Columbia. That's called

putting British Columbia first. If you want to talk dollars and cents

it's about half a billion dollars this year that we're going to earn

from Ottawa.

Mr. Speaker, I said "putting British Columbia

and British Columbians first." Let me say a word about British

Columbians as individuals. The great problem today with our society is

that we're dominated increasingly by the countervailing power of the

big three — big labour, big business and big government. They dominate;

they are well able to take care of themselves. And what about the

individual? I'll tell you. Institutions are getting bigger; the

individual is getting smaller. Whether you are an employee dealing with

your company, a worker dealing with your union, a student dealing with

your school, a patient dealing with your hospital, the problem is the

same. The individual shrinks, and the institution gets larger. So what,

then, becomes the job of government?

The job of government

becomes on behalf of the individual to do two things — stand up to

those three big forces of big business, big labour and big government

and, having done that, at the same time to better equip the individual

to deal with those large forces. Let's look, as reflected in the budget

and the recent actions of the government, at just what the government's

done in this regard.

First, in terms of dealing with big

business and big labour and big government, what's the government done

about the fact of big business? Well, the MacMillan Bloedel–Canadian

Pacific Investments Ltd.–Ian Sinclair controversy tells us a couple of

things. It tells us the province is not for sale; but more important,

it tells us who is running this province. It's the Premier and the

cabinet, and that's very important. But more important, if you look

through the budget document line by line, you will see nothing for big

business, which is as it should be, because big business can well take

care of itself. The thing to look for, the contrast, is the aid to

small business, and it's there.

[ Page 75 ]

The Corporation Capital Tax Act exempts 3,000 more businesses from those rolls.

draw your particular attention to the quote of the minister in

announcing that further exemption. He said: "...leaving only the larger

corporations to pay the tax." And that's as it should be; leave the

larger corporations to pay tax of that order, and exempt small business.

addition for small business there are the low-interest loan program,

the expansion of the British Columbia Development Corporation, the new

small business venture capital corporation and the special dividend tax

credit. So you deal with big business by standing up to it, by

providing nothing special for it in this budget, and by providing

special assistance to small business, all of which is there.

terms of big labour the facts speak for themselves. In terms of big

government, the record is excellent. The government has put constraints

on big government and equipped the individual to deal better with big

government. The constraints are the 5 percent ceiling on provincial

spending, a balanced budget without the kind of deficit that can go

crashing into the marketplace and do violence particularly to small

business, establishment of the auditor general and the Ministry of

Deregulation, and the announcement of a new expropriation Act. They are

all steps taken to constrain and put a lid on big government.

I'm

pleased the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) is still with us,

because when the expropriation Act is brought forward, I will be

grateful — and I'm sure he will — if he will make sure that a small but

iniquitous piece of legislation called the Mines Right-of-way Act is

abolished from the statute books of British Columbia forever. This

tiny, tiny piece of legislation, rarely used and largely unknown, and

that has sat there for years, on its face can mean, under one

interpretation, that a property right of a British Columbia citizen can

be taken from him without notice and without hearing. I'm sure if

members were aware of it, they would also want it to be exhumed and

expunged and sent away. Mr. Attorney-General, I thank you for listening

to those remarks. I look forward to the early demise of that particular

piece of legislation as part of the assault on big government.

That's

only part of the job, putting the lid on big government. The other

part

is equipping the individual to do something about big government; and,

once again this government has moved in that direction. Some legal

armament, first of all, and the ombudsman and the forthcoming

provincial bill of rights are going to give individuals in British

Columbia new chances to stand up and, if necessary, take the offensive

against big government and make their own way in this powerful society

of big labour, big business and big government. But it's on the

economic side that this government has really done something for the

individual in the area of economic freedom. Because the only economic

freedom working people have left today is that part of the paycheque

that's left after all those deductions; after the taxes and the

check-offs and everything else. What's left to spend that's really

there is the true measure of economic freedom, and it's been shrinking

for 50 years. It's time government started to expand that back, and

this government should be congratulated for doing that. Sales tax is

down; income tax is down; homeowner grants and renter's grants are up.

The effect is going to be to increase disposable income, that piece of

economic freedom. Also we have a policy that I'd like to call a

"second-income" policy, and I hope the government is just beginning

what's going to be a very exciting second-income policy for our people.

There's got to be something better than work and wages after 40 or 50

years working in British Columbia.

This budget contains

three items which for our people can be the beginning of a little

savings and investment nest-egg. If it's nurtured and brought along, if

trough sound management the government can bring forward year after

year more of these kinds of measures, it should be realistic for

working British Columbians over time to establish a second source of

income.

The BCRIC program is going to get British Columbians

started in an investment program, particularly those who prior to this

time have not been able to get involved. But there are two other items

in the budget to encourage British Columbians to invest and to make

sound investments. They are the special dividend tax credit and the tax

deduction for the small business venture capital corporation. Taken

with the BCRIC program they are going to mean that for the working

British Columbian who wants to start to save and invest in British

Columbia as a means of building a second income, a second income can be

a reality. If the government, as I hope it will year by year, brings

forward similar measures in 4, 8 or 12 years, I think there's a very

realistic chance that working British Columbians can have something

else economically besides work and wages. I particularly congratulate

the Minister of Finance for his work in this direction, and encourage

him to carry on in that regard.

Mr. Speaker, in summarizing

may I simply say that the budget reflects a government that has put

British Columbia and British Columbians first — British Columbia first

in terms of a non-partisan, provincial approach to federal-provincial

relations within a reasonable framework of cooperation with the federal

government, but unfettered by any links to other parties. This is a

government which has been able to go to these conferences and produce

remarkable revenue returns for the people of British Columbia. British

Columbia first and British Columbians first. British Columbians are

better enabled through this budget to deal with the large,

countervailing power of big business, of big labour and big government.

The individual is better equipped to deal with big government. The

budget offers expanded economic freedom for our people, greater

take-home pay and the first step towards a second-income policy. Mr.

Speaker, in concluding, I'm more than happy and enthusiastic to join

with those who've supported the Minister of Finance.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

MR. GABELMANN: In some ways it feels a bit like a maiden speech today for me.

MRS. JORDAN: You don't look like a maiden.

MR. GABELMANN: I never realized that the hon. member for North Okanagan had ever noticed.

I've

often wondered about the use of the term "maiden speech." I expect in

this day and age we could come up with a word that would be more

appropriate than the term "maiden speech." I would urge you, Mr.

Speaker, to spend some time in the next year or two researching that

particular subject.

[ Page 76 ]

I'd

like to join with all the other members in congratulating the various

people who have assumed a variety of responsibilities in this

Legislature. The first group of people I would like to thank and

congratulate are the 8,800 people who voted for me. I would like to

thank also those 1,200 to 1,500 people throughout the new riding of

North Island who worked so hard to make sure that North Island was kept

in the NDP fold. As you know, Mr. Speaker, North Island is a new

constituency. It's not really North Island unless you want to include

all the ridings from Comox, Alberni, Nanaimo, greater Victoria and

Cowichan-Malahat as South Island, because all those ridings together

are the same size as North Island. We have the responsibility of

looking after half of Vancouver Island. Geographically it's a big

riding, and it's a difficult riding for an MLA to service. It will be

very difficult for me to fill the shoes of the person who previously

represented that riding, the current member for Comox (Ms. Sanford).

She did a job that, in my experience, has not been matched by very many

members of this Legislature over the years. She served larger Comox

riding admirably, and a great many people in the new North Island

riding are sad that the current member for Comox is not still their

MLA. She did a very good job, and people there are very happy with her.

Before

getting into a few remarks concerning issues that have been raised

during the election campaign, issues concerning the directions we're

taking in this province, issues relating to the raising and spending of

money in British Columbia, I want first to make a few comments about

the Legislature and the role of an MLA. Most members who were here in

1972-75 will remember that I had made a number of speeches about the

inadequate resources available to MLAs to properly serve their

constituencies. At that time I represented a very small, urban

constituency, a constituency that was — in relative terms, at least —

quite easy to service.

I now have the other experience of

representing a very wide, very large, very diverse constituency — one

that in physical terms is much more difficult to service. Based on the

two experiences, I would like to say that I think it would be

legitimate and very much in the public interest for services to members

of this Legislature to be greatly expanded. I would like to be more

specific. I think it's absolutely antediluvian to expect MLAs to

operate without a secretary. Visitors in the public gallery may be

surprised to hear this, but MLAs do not have secretaries. During the

session two MLAs are given one secretary for the duration of the

session. What we have is half a secretary for those days in which the

House is sitting in Victoria. In addition some money is provided to pay

some part-time assistance in your constituency. It does not pay for

adequate assistance for an MLA. It certainly does not pay for a

full-time position. I believe that we should take the lead of other

legislatures and parliaments across this country and adequately provide

for MLAs in their job of servicing their constituency and their

constituents. It's also required because, if you spend all of your time

travelling in your constituency, all of your time dealing with

constituency casework, as I find I have to do, you get very little time

for reading, very little time for research and very little time for

thinking. And I think one of the responsibilities of an MLA is to think

society, about where we are going as a society and as a community, and

to be able to add something intelligent to the level of debate in the

province about what kind of a society it is we wish to live in. But if

we are spending all our time as MLAs scrambling to try to keep up with

the phone calls and mail that come in, then we don't get an opportunity

to do that kind of work. I would like to be able to be free to do more

than just be a social worker or a case worker or, as often happens, a

priest to those many people who need counselling and advice and support

in my constituency. I think we have a greater responsibility, and that

is also thinking about and talking about and discussing the kind of

society we live in and the kinds of changes we would like to make in

both legislation and in government practice.

So I make that

appeal. I will leave it at that for this time; but I can assure you,

Mr. Speaker, that I will be up on my feet many times in days to come

and weeks to come, and I hope not in months to come, urging that we in

fact do increase the support level for members of this Legislature, not

for our purpose, not for our needs, but for the needs of those people

we are elected to represent.

I would like to turn to another

matter that relates to the Legislature and elates to the way in which

we do business and the way in which we involve the public in doing our

business. Here we are, on June 12 debating a budget, not even yet

debating estimates, really a quarter of which have already been spent.

I believe, and I've always believed, that if you are going to adopt a

budget that takes place on April 1, you should be finished the debate

by April 1. I'm always prepared to vote for interim supply. When we

were in government, we had interim supply. Interim supply is a feature

of our system; but I think it should be something that happens very,

very rarely. If, in fact, we are properly discharging our

responsibility to comment upon and to vote upon the ways in which we

raise money and the ways in which we spend money, then we should have

that discussion and that vote prior to the spending and raising of

the money. It's a simple point and I would urge very strongly that in

future we set a

schedule in this Legislature that enables us to

complete these debates prior to April 1 each year.

I would

like to suggest one more feature relating to budget and estimates. I

think what we should do is move up the deadlines within which budget

estimates are prepared. In fact, the government should be prepared to

table in this House in the first two weeks of December — table in a

brief session; it would only be a day or so — the budget and estimates

for the following year, three and a half months prior to their coming

into force. Then we as MLAs should take the time between the first of

January and the first of February — roughly the month of January — to

go with that budget and those estimates and travel around our

constituency talking to people about the Legislature's proposals for

taking their money and spending their money, so that the public of this

province is involved in the discussions and the debates about their

money and how it is spent.

I believe that we could do that

in this province. MLAs who are conscientious in their job would, in

fact, take those budget estimates, put them into some kind of

manageable form on mimeographed paper and get them out to public

meetings in each community in each constituency. Then we would be able

to come back for the spring session of the House, called early in

February, knowing what the public feels about the budget, knowing that

the public has been involved in the discussions about the budget,

knowing

[ Page 77 ]

therefore

that they would feel happier with the results of our debates and

decisions because it had some involvement and knowing what we're

talking about in greater detail when we stand up and debate the

estimates in this House. We would then be talking not only about our

own specific viewpoint or what we perceived the public viewpoint to be,

but we'd also be talking specifically about the public viewpoint as it

had been raised in community meetings during the month of January.

would like the government to think about that procedure. Other

jurisdictions have used it — I think Saskatchewan is one. It's a

procedure that I think would make a lot of sense. I think it would

involve people in government in a greater way than they are now. Quite

simply, Mr. Speaker, it's a good idea.

I want to talk today

about a few of the issues that were raised during the election campaign

in North Island. Members will appreciate that I had a bit of a lengthy

election campaign. My election campaign started in October and finished

on May 10, because I had no sooner been through the NDP nomination

contest — and I'd got to Big White for a day's skiing — than an

election was called.

So I've been in a continuous election

throughout the constituency of North Island since October. During that

period of time, I've had a very good opportunity to hear of the

concerns of people in that part of the world. There are a great many

concerns. I intend during estimates to be more specific and to talk in

detailed terms about some of the problems that exist, but here in this

general debate I wanted to touch on just a few of the issues.

The

major issue for North Island residents is the cost of living: the cost

of fuel, the cost of heating oil, the cost of food, particularly, and

the cost of transportation. All are extraordinarily high, unbelievably

high in that part of the world. One of the problems with fuel, for

example, for your motor vehicle in that part of the world is that there

isn't enough competition. It might sound strange to members across the

aisle coming from me, but if we had a little bit of free enterprise in

the service station industry in North Island we would have probably

much cheaper gasoline costs.

The only way we're ever going

to get competition in this society, where most people in private

enterprise don't want any competition, and they seek government

intervention in a variety of ways to prevent there being any

competition, and they use a variety of other techniques to prevent

there being any competition.... It may be that one day we'll have to,

particularly in some of these essential services like food and

transportation, provide some competition through some cooperative

mechanisms that are assisted by the government or in some areas

directed by the government itself. If the free enterprisers are unhappy

with that kind of competition, then that probably states very clearly

their view of free enterprise.

I find it particularly ironic

that if you live in Port McNeill or Alert Bay you pay the same price

for a case of beer that you do if you live on East Broadway in

Vancouver by the distribution centre. Is there no cost to truck that

beer up to Port Hardy or Alert Bay or Port McNeill? Obviously there is.

It's

also true with postage stamps. It's a little more expensive to send a

letter from Holberg to Ottawa than it is from Vancouver to Ottawa, yet

the people in Holberg pay 17 cents and the people in Vancouver pay 17

cents. We do have fixed rates, or what is commonly called the postage

stamp rate principle, but we only have them in areas that are under

government control: booze, postage stamps, and a few others. It's only

in areas where there is government control.

I think that

food and transportation and heat and fuel are items and services that

are at least as important as a case of beer. If we as a society through

our governments can subsidize or equalize the cost of a case of beer

around this province, why can't we do that for fuel or food or

transportation? It costs a lot of money to live in northern and remote

parts of this province. Those of us who have been lower mainland

residents or perhaps lower Island residents for many years tend to

forget and tend not to know just how expensive it is to live in those

parts of the world. It's a major concern. I intend to deal much more

with it during estimates, both in this session and in future ones.

Health

care in general is an issue of prime interest and concern in the

constituency of North Island. I want to be very careful about this

because there is an issue at the present time in the Alert Bay area

that is a very difficult situation, one on which the Minister of Health

(Hon. Mr. McClelland) will be interested to know that I do not intend

to comment specifically at this point. I don't believe that I as an MLA

would serve any useful point by making direct or even indirect

references to the current situation at Alert Bay.

Everyone

knows there is a problem. Everyone knows there is a crisis. Everyone

knows there needs to be major corrective action. Everyone knows it

needs to be done very soon. I'm absolutely confident that the Minister

of Health knows that and that he will be doing everything he can do to

make sure that that situation is rectified as quickly as possible. It's

really only a symptom. It's really only the tip of the iceberg of the

problems that exist with health care in that part of Vancouver Island.

I assume that that's true in other parts of rural and remote British

Columbia.

If you're in need of mental health assistance or

mental health counselling in the North Island, you're out of luck. The

best thing you can do is get on a plane and go to Hawaii. That's the

only way you'll solve your problems. There are very few resources for

mental health, either voluntary or government.

Physical

health services, just in terms of doctors and hospitals and those kinds

of services in that area, are very, very inadequate, to put it mildly.

For many people — not for everyone, but for many people — wanting,

desiring and needing good medical attention, their answer is to get on

the PWA plane and come down to Vancouver. Many people in North Island

in fact receive their health care needs elsewhere, and that's very

expensive. It's a very expensive proposition.

I want to just read into Hansard ,

Mr. Speaker, one very brief paragraph out of long letter from the

village of Zeballos — it's on the west coast of the Island. Here are

just a few sentences that I think touch on the problem that exists in a

variety of communities. The letter from the council goes as follows:

"In

a remote community such as Zeballos, the necessity of having adequate

medical care is vital. Attempting to provide such care with no

available facilities has been frustrating and disheartening for

visiting doctors who frequently must request that their Zeballos

patients fly to Tahsis at the patient's

[ Page 78 ]

expense for diagnosis and treatment of even relatively minor

problems."

And

then they go on. I could read the entire letter to show in graphic

detail the absolute intolerable situation. When the visiting doctor

comes to town there isn't even a proper office for the doctor and the

patient to sit down in, and that's not unique to Zeballos.

want to talk about social services in that part of the world, and when

I do that in this context today, Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about

social services to women in particular. In many of those communities

jobs are available for men. I can't give you the specific proportions,

but most of the workers in those communities are men; most of the women

are not able to secure employment as they might be able to in a

built-up industrial area like Vancouver or Victoria.

They

suffer from isolation; they suffer from the whole community working on

a shift basis in many of those communities, not having a regular life.

There are virtually no facilities for women in those communities. There

are virtually no child-care facilities; there are no crisis lines; and

there is no ability for women to seek a variety of resources. I'm not

even talking yet about transition houses. North Island transition

houses are years away because we haven't even met the basic social

needs.

The isolation, the problem of shift work and the

problem with lack of contact with resource people in social services

lead to a lot of very difficult situations and to a lot of problems,

including drinking. If someone were to ask me, "What's the major

problem in North Island?" I'd say booze. And one of the reasons booze

is a major problem is because of the isolation, the lack of services

and the lack of resources.

When I was an MLA for North

Vancouver–Seymour, I used to think that all the social problems were in

the city and that all the rest of the province would send their social

problems down to Vancouver, and one group of them would end up on Skid

Road and the rest of them would end up in cheap housing in the other

parts of the city. But the impression I have now, having served in each

kind of riding, is that we have far greater social service needs in the

remote constituencies, in the remote parts of this province — far

greater social service problems and far fewer resources.

acknowledge that it's expensive, but I'm not sure it isn't cheaper in

the long run to put some money up front to provide social services in

those communities so that people can do more than resort to liquor.

couple of people in the riding, when I said this in a meeting — I think

it was in Holberg.... I made that exact point, and a couple of my

supporters in fact came to me and said: "Go on, don't talk about that.

You'll leave an impression that we're all boozers up here. You shouldn't

talk about those kinds of issues." I thought about that and made a

decision that I should talk about those kinds of issues because I think

people in our society resort to whatever is at hand to ease their

frustrations and their difficulties. I just want to make the point now,

Mr. Speaker — and I will make it in more detail in subsequent debates —

that right now we are experiencing in those parts of British Columbia

some very, very serious social problems. In most cases, in my view,

they are problems that centre around the home and the housewife, who

has no community resources and no community support.

wanted to talk also about environment. There are a number of issues

here that I won't go into in too much detail this afternoon. I want to

specifically, though, in one case raise an issue that has been raised

by the Nimpkish Indian band, who mostly live in Alert Bay but who have

traditionally viewed the Nimpkish Valley, the Nimpkish Lake and the

Nimpkish River as their home area.

Relating to Hydro and

herbicide permits: that's an issue that I never thought very much

about. There were very few applications for herbicide permits in North

Vancouver, so I never really thought very much about that in past

years. But I have lately, and in doing so, I realize that some of the

points made by the Nimpkish band council in a letter to me dated one or

two weeks ago are quite valid. I would like to raise those concerns now

in general, and later on in specific.

We've a curious

situation with Hydro requests for spraying, whether it's herbicides or

whatever, in that they get the permit and then somewhere, probably in

the Gazette, is a notice saying they've got the permit and anyone who

wants to appeal can appeal within 30 days. Most of us never ever hear

about the permit being given. In this particular case where a permit

was granted the deadline had elapsed and a week had gone by before the

Nimpkish Indian band realized that Hydro was going to spray herbicides

on areas that fed directly into their river, a river on which they're

using several hundred thousand dollars from Ottawa, trying to enhance

the salmon species in that river and lake. At the same time, we have

the provincial government, through B.C. Hydro, proposing to spray

herbicides which could wipe out many of the efforts and many of the

dollars that the federal government is providing. They didn't know

about the permit application.

This specific case has been

solved, and I'm not raising it as a specific, except to say that the

procedures are wrong. If Hydro, or Rayonier, or any group in this

province, wants to spray herbicides on land or anywhere else, then they

should not be given a permit until all affected groups have had a

chance to discuss in public the ramifications of such a spraying

program. If all the problems are solved, and all the needs are met,

then and only then should a permit be granted. I'm saying to you that I

think the process is backwards.

Might I add just one more

thing? I don't think the burden of proof that there's going to be any

damage should rest with the people who are going to be affected. I

think Hydro, in this case, should be required to prove that they won't

do any damage, not the other way around. But that's just a couple of

thoughts for the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Mair), and during

his estimates I will be talking more about that.

There are a

number of other environmental concerns in general. One I want to raise

specifically is a proposal by a consortium to launch a coal mine just

outside Campbell River. I want to serve notice again — perhaps his

staff will be looking at Hansard , and the Minister of

Environment will know that I've raised the question in the House — that

I will be raising with him very directly, by letter and by visit, the

whole question of coal mine development on salmon-spawning rivers. I

hope the minister is not proceeding very quickly with coal mine

proposals in and around Campbell River that, in my view, will destroy

one of the major salmon hatcheries in that area, in my view. That's an

issue we'll hear a lot more about in this Legislature if that proposal

goes any further.

[ Page 79 ]

I want to propose that the government establish a Ministry of Fisheries.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. GABELMANN:

For too long we have had in this province a major industry, a major

part of our life, the fishing industry, unrepresented by a minister

with ministerial responsibilities. That has led, in my view, to

decisions by governments that tend to favour forests over fisheries. I

always want to pluralize fish, and it never quite comes out. The

Nimpkish River, for example, has been destroyed by forest company

activity over the decades. One of the reasons for that is the forest

companies have had an advocate in cabinet. Fish and fishermen, whose

responsibility is solely that of protecting and enhancing the fishery

in this province, have not had an advocate in cabinet. That is a major

need when the cabinet structure is amended, as I'm sure it will be from

time to time.

My good friend the Minister of Highways (Hon.

Mr. Fraser) is here, and he and I have always had a good time whenever

we get together, and I enjoy talking to him about his ministerial

problems. I've always found that in dealing with the Minister of

Highways he tells me exactly what he thinks, and that's such a rare

virtue around here that I find it particularly appealing. I just want

to tell him: I hope you get that road paved pretty soon.

The

member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) — I should remember, I've been here

before — has been fighting for years, as have the residents of North

Island, for a paved road. The minister's colleague, the Premier,

promised us in November that we'd have a road. I think the paving is

still going on and I hope sometime soon that we'll have that done.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Nevertheless,

it is going to happen and it will be paved this summer. And everyone

around this province, and probably around this continent, will now have

an opportunity to drive to Port Hardy and Port McNeill and all those

places that everyone has heard of but no one knows where they are — so

much so that the Vancouver Express, in their first story out of Alert

Bay about the inquest, reported that their reporter was reporting from

the Northwest Territories, and the story was datelined Alert Bay. I

think the road is going to have a bit of an impact in changing that

view of communities in the north end of the Island. And those

communities up there are going to face some very real problems as they

realize the impact of tourism and all us southerners — and that

includes Campbell Riverites as far as they're concerned — going up

there. So the road, while it is wanted, needed and good, is going to

bring in a lot of problems that we are going to have to deal with.

But

I want to raise what, for me, is the major roads issue — and you'll hear a

lot more from me later on in estimates about the minor roads issues —

on Vancouver Island: bypassing Campbell River and Courtenay. It must be

done. The member for Comox will probably be speaking on this as well.

have a road that is narrow, dark and treacherous. It is used by large

trucks and logging trucks that are travelling in and around Campbell

River and Courtenay, but are also going up to the north end of the

Island; and that will increase as we move now from water transport to

truck transport in terms of servicing the north half of Vancouver

Island. That road is something out of the 1930s. I consider myself a

good driver and I like driving, Mr. Speaker, but I am scared to drive

on that highway at night in the rain. It is really quite scary. I have

driven on just about every highway in this province and I would say

that that is the very worst highway. And you should see it in the

summer when the tourists come: it's absolutely impossible. People who

go to work in the pulp mills and who live along that road sometimes

wait 10 and 15 minutes just to get onto the road so that they can get

driving down the road to get to work.

It must be a major

priority in the minister's plans for next year's work and next year's

spending that a bypass of the Campbell River–Courtenay area be

constructed. I realize the problems and I'm aware that it is not

simple, but I think there must be a decision made to do something very

quickly.

As a result of the highway development in that

area, there are going to be a lot of other new problems. I just want to

raise one of those at this point, and that's the whole question of

recreation facilities. There are only several campsites in the North

Island, and most of those are logging company campsites; Rayonier and

Crown Zellerbach and CFP and some of the other big logging companies

have campsites, the government doesn't. We must develop those before

that area is absolutely inundated by tourists.

My final

point is on an entirely different subject; it relates to the Workers'

Compensation Board. And I'm going to sit down and shut up after I've

made these comments. Since 1970 I have worked either directly or

indirectly with compensation matters — when I was employed by the B.C.

Federation of Labour, when I worked as an MLA, and again now as an MLA.

When

I worked, between 1970 and 1972, for the Federation of Labour, one of

my jobs was counselling and advising compensation claims, and there

were an immense number of compensation claims. Everybody was being

dealt with badly by the board, which resulted in frustration levels,

which resulted in people who were even not eligible to have their

claims accepted continuing to persist that they should have their

claims accepted because they were treated so badly by the board. Well,

during the '72 to '75 period that changed, and I think MLAs would

confirm, Mr. Speaker, that their number of requests for assistance from

people seeking a claim with the Workers' Compensation Board diminished

during the '72 to '75 period. I know it sure did for me as an MLA;

there were very few in '74 and '75. I went back to work at the

Federation of Labour in '76 after I was defeated, and gradually the

number of cases increased. I find now that, as an MLA for North Island,

I have more compensation cases than any other category of case. I

haven't computed it, but I wouldn't be surprised if I have more

compensation cases than every other kind of case put together. It is

absolutely astounding the number of people who are claiming, rightly or

wrongly — I'm not making that judgment — that they are being maltreated

by the Workers' Compensation Board. That is an area that needs to be

looked at very carefully and very closely, and some remedies must be

undertaken very soon.

I think that's it, Mr. Speaker. I was

intending to take 20 minutes, and I think I've taken nearly 40. But I

wanted to make one final comment, having listened to most of the maiden

— pardon the word — speech from the second

[ Page 80 ]

member

for Vancouver South (Mr. Hyndman). The second member for Vancouver

South and I have a bit of a history. We both were active in politics on

the north side of Burrard Inlet, and I know he's been dying to make a

Progressive Conservative speech to this House, and I finally heard it

today. That was a good, honest, Tory speech. I didn't like it

particularly, I didn't agree with a lot of it, but it was a good Tory

speech. I was watching some of the Liberals over there to see how they

responded, keeping in mind the apparently bitter arguments they had

during the last couple of months, these Tories and Liberals. And how

they manage to get together in here....

MR. SPEAKER: Three minutes.

MR. GABELMANN: I wasn't going to take that long on the member for Vancouver South. Anyway, I thought it was a very good Tory speech.

The

investment angle in his closing remarks intrigued me. I wish that most

of my constituents had an extra $100 or an extra $50 to play the stock

market if they so chose, or to make investments as the member for

Vancouver South would like. I dealt this morning on the phone with a

family who had a total income, as attested by the Ministry of Human

Resources, of $633 a month. The father needs dentures. MHR agreed to

pay part of it and insisted that he pay the first $100. That family

doesn't have any money for these investment schemes, and there are many

more like it. Before we start in this House talking about second

incomes and disposable income for the rich, let's make sure the poor

have enough to buy dentures and buy food and get the basic essentials.

MR. SMITH:

Mr. Speaker, I too would like to congratulate you on your elevation to

your position. I know that you will perform your functions as Speaker

as I have observed in the last four days, always with patient good

humour. I would congratulate also your colleague, the first member for

Vancouver South (Mr. Rogers), who has been of great assistance to me

and given me wise counsel when he sometimes sits at my right.

would like to acknowledge all those new members who join this body with

me for the first time. I think there are a dozen of us. There are two,

the members for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) and Skeena (Mr. Howard),

who come to us from another august place but are new boys as well. I

will say, Mr. Speaker, that, as a new boy and part of the class of '79,

I think that I speak for the others when I say that we are not here to

refight old elections from 1966 onward, that we are here to try and

deal with the present problems. I think that all of us, on both sides

of the House, come here for the first time in a spirit of goodwill and

with high hopes for the future.

Now the feeling in coming to this House for the first time is certainly one

of awe. It is an impressive place, the place that is the legacy of the first

elected assembly west of the Great Lakes, a chamber of great events from the

past and also a place where great figures from the past stood and took

part

in the debates — people such as Sir Richard McBride; John Oliver; Duff Pattullo;

who was a resident of Oak Bay for many years, W.A.C. Bennett, also a resident

of Oak Bay; and characters who adorned this House also, such as the former member

for Fernie, Tom Uphill, and the one-time member for Nanaimo, Mr. Jimmy Hawthornthwaite.

So we come to the House with great traditions, not only of Premiers but also

of members.

Now

I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that, as a new boy, last week I had great

difficulty first of all in finding my office; secondly in keeping my

chair from collapsing; thirdly in managing to walk down those carefully

polished corridors, when I thought I had a reasonable amount of

athletic prowess and found that I was slipping every 10 or 15 minutes.

I would hope that the staff that polished those floors could perhaps be

a little less assiduous, because I still find that I slip when I walk

on them.

The campaign that we recently went through in my

constituency, I'm happy to report, was a clean and fair one. I

acknowledge both my worthy opponents: Mrs. Overgaard and the former

member and occupant of this seat, Mr. Vic Stephens. They were both

fair-minded and we had a good personal relationship during the

campaign. And it was a hard-fought campaign. I was fortunate to have a

workforce of some 800 people and a membership in my party of some 2,700.

is traditional for new members to extol the virtues of their ridings. I

am going to be mercifully short in that regard because the bounties and

virtues of my constituency are well known to all of you who visit the

capital region and the capital city. The riding of Oak Bay–Gordon Head

was altered slightly by redistribution so that the boundaries have now

been pushed west to Shelbourne, and the riding stretches from Mount

Douglas Park in the north to the sedate burghers of south Oak Bay and

Beach Drive.

We have a number of things in common in this

diverse suburban constituency: we all live reasonably close to the sea

and have reasonably close ties with the sea; we either boat or fish or

walk on the beach or swim; we also have a number of parks and good

recreation facilities; we are very strong in our pride of our homes and

our gardens, and also strong in local autonomy. The riding has been

well represented over the past years. Such people as Archie Gibbs, Alan

McFarlane and Dr. Scott Wallace represented this seat well, to name

only three.

I realize that we are here to deal with the

budget. As a new boy here, I can say that the budget strikes me as an

honest and responsible effort by the government to try and balance

fiscal integrity with a social conscience. It is an attempt to join

together major tax reductions with greater benefits to people.

I'm

particularly pleased with the government's decision to allocate surplus

funds to hospitals and to provide write-offs and incentives for

contractors and builders who provide buildings that are adapted to the

handicapped.

I am also particularly pleased to see that a

commitment was made to denticare to relieve the burdens that

particularly young families face in looking after the costs of

dentistry for their children, and also the burdens that many seniors

have when they face the problems of replacing their teeth.

I'm

also extremely pleased to see that there were major tax reductions in

the budget. While the social services were improved, there were major

reductions in the income tax and sales tax. And particularly from my

own background in municipal government, I was delighted to see the

increase in the homeowner grant, and the further reduction thereby of

the tax burden which is supported by property owners, particularly

seniors.

The provision of funds for a convention centre in Victoria is also most important to those of us who live in the

[ Page 81 ]

capital region. The government is to be commended.

was proud to run on this budget in the recent election. I can assure

you that from the size of the majority in my constituency, the budget

and the government's policies and the Premier personally were very

popular in Oak Bay–Gordon Head.

A few of the issues that I

hope to encourage and projects that I hope to speak on during my time

here I would outline very briefly. They have a relation to the budget;

namely they involve the spending of money.

First of all, on

the subject of ferries, as one of the members for Vancouver Island I

can assure you that residents of Vancouver Island, particularly

residents of South Vancouver Island, regard the ferry system as an

extension of their highways. They do not begrudge the payment by the

provincial government for roads and bridges in other parts of this

province to serve the northern and eastern areas of the province, but

they regard the ferries as an extension of the highway system. They

expect to have good service and they expect it at reasonable cost, not

excessive cost.

As I did during the election campaign, I

will be proposing that the government consider introducing a special

commuter fare rate for persons who regularly use the ferries between

Swartz Bay and Tsawwassen. This could be done by the purchase in

advance of books of tickets at a reduced rate and would favour those

people who have to go to the mainland or come from the mainland to the

Island, some of them as often as every weekend.

We have a

number of commuters. We also have small businessmen who are forced to

go back and forth regularly at considerable cost. The major use of the

ferries, though, is by people who unite with families and friends on

one side or the other. Many of them do this regularly, and feel

isolated if they cannot find cheap and readily available ferry service

from Vancouver Island to the mainland. I will be urging some move in

that regard. It would not be an entirely dramatic gesture either,

because there have been special commuter rates on some of the smaller

ferries that serve the communities in the northern Gulf Islands, where

the residents of those islands are able to buy commuter tickets in

advance. I know that because I regularly use the ferries from Denman

Island, Hornby Island and some of those islands.

The second

thing that I will be urging the government to do is to provide tax

moneys to the municipality’s for the university lands. The government

is to be commended for introducing the first comprehensive program in

Canada of revenue sharing. That is a program whereby the province is

transferring growing resource funds to the municipalities that need it

so badly.

The government also has recognized the fairness of

paying taxes on provincial lands and buildings and now pays taxes on

those lands and buildings to the municipalities of Victoria, the city

of Vancouver and other places where there are provincial buildings. But

that legislation doesn't yet cover lands and buildings that are not

owned by the province — by the Crown in the right of the province — but

are owned by some provincially supported non-profit body such as the

University of Victoria or the University of British Columbia or Simon

Fraser.

The municipalities, Mr. Speaker, as you're aware,

are required to provide services to the university buildings. They have

to provide the firemen and the policemen and the water supply, and it

is only be fair that those taxes be paid. The equity of this proposal,

I think, is already acknowledged in government policy and I'm very

hopeful that within the next year these payments of taxes for services

to university buildings will be extended.

Now the third

measure that I hope to do something about during my time in here, Mr.

Speaker, is home improvement tax incentives. Quite apart from the

mortgage interest deduction program that will be introduced by the new

federal administration, presumably later this year, it's been my belief

for a long time that there is something quite unfair about the

situation of a homeowner who decides that he is going to add on a porch

or re-roof his house or do some major improvement or repair. The first

thing that happens to him is that a few months later the tax assessor

comes around and says: "Gee, you've done a really nice job there. I'm

going to make a note of that." And then next year he's reassessed and

his taxes go up by a couple of hundred dollars.

It seems to

me that what we're doing is directly punishing someone for having the

initiative and pride in spending the effort and the money to fix up

their home. It should be the other way around; we should be encouraging

home improvement. There should be a direct incentive to persons to

improve their property or their home once, say, every three years to

the extent of about $10,000 deducted from income tax. In addition to

that there should be a holiday from reassessment for a period of three

years, a moratorium on reassessment.

Now I realize this will

cost money and it doesn't grow on trees, but I think you would have a

lot of very, very helpful side effects, Mr. Speaker. I think that it

would not only increase pride in ownership — something that this

government stands for, which is one of the reasons why I support this

government and one of the reasons why my constituents support this

government — but it would also provide jobs for tradesmen, a climate of

improvement for home repairs and a great deal of beautification too.

It's something that I hope to speak on further at the appropriate time.

should also add, Mr. Speaker, that one of the reasons that I'm

particularly proud to be a member of the government benches in this

assembly and to support this government is because of the leadership

that they have given over the past three years in the field of

negotiations with Canada and on the subject of Canadian unity. I have

endeavoured to follow with other British Columbians the various

meetings of First Ministers and the long series of constitutional

meanderings that have taken place on TV and which we've read about in

the press.

I have always found from my observation of those

gatherings that our Premier and our delegation from British Columbia

have not only been well briefed, but that they have produced model

position papers and major position papers,

whereas many of the other

provincial governments have not cared to do so. The Premier and his

delegation have approached these conferences and talks not in a spirit

of parochialism or hostility to Canada, but have approached them in a

positive way and have tried to put forward proposals which are not just

aimed at safeguarding and strengthening the rights of British

Columbians, but which were designed to hold the country together.

That was not always so, Mr. Speaker. We had Premiers from this province in years gone by who have gone down to

[ Page 82 ]

Ottawa

and have done grandstanding. I think of Sir Richard McBride and

Pattullo, who walked out of the Dominion Provincial Conference during

the Second World War because he wouldn't have this province's share in

income tax rental programs. But I am very proud that our Premier, while

standing up for the rights of British Columbia and pressing for greater

decentralization of decision-making, has taken a positive stance to try

and keep the country together. All of us who are elected to this

assembly love our province but also, in these troubled times

particularly, we love our country and hope to keep it together.

have decided, Mr. Speaker, that the hallmark of a maiden speech should

be brevity, if not the soul of wit, and I will sit down.

MR. NICOLSON:

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to join the members who have

congratulated you upon being re-elected. It came as no great surprise,

and it was an honour well deserved. To the Deputy Speaker,

congratulations, and I'm sure that when we get into estimates he will

be the centre of the storm. I look forward to that very much.

I'm

not going to chastise the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) for

not being in the House this afternoon, because he has been in here most

of the afternoon. But it's just too bad he did step out because in

looking into some of the issues that concern me and many of the issues

which were brought forward very forcibly during the election period,

the matters touching on health seem to touch all of the different areas

of my riding.

The new riding of Nelson-Creston has eight

organized district municipalities, cities, towns or villages — that's

eight mayors. We've got four different school districts, but

fortunately just one regional district. I think we have about seven

different hospitals, and there are tremendous problems, things which I

will bring up during estimates.

I have heard some people get

up and compliment this government for imposing the 5 percent spending

limitation. I would just like to go through some areas and point out

some of the ramifications of such a lock-step policy. I would like some

of these new members to dig in to the estimate books for the last

couple of years and note the total increase in the advertising budget.

I detailed to this House last year a 60 percent increase in the

advertising budget. I hope now to bring forward some areas where some

very modest expenditures, which might look very high in terms of

percentage increases, could do a great deal more good for this province

than a 60 percent increase in the advertising budget which occurred

last year.

I have a letter which was sent to the director

of the long-term care program in Nelson, following one of several

incidents at the Willowhaven Private Hospital. Willowhaven is a fine

private hospital, and it has intermediate geriatric care under the new

long-term care program. But it also provides for 10 or 15 mental health

patients. This mixing of geriatric and mental health patients or

psychiatric patients has led to some concern in the community. It just

happens that this is within two or three city blocks of where I live.

The community is quite tolerant of the concept. There are some

objectives to be reached in terms of reducing the number of people in

Riverview and returning certain people to the community, although a

great number of these people never came from our community in the first

place.

If this is going to be done, then you can't do it on

a two-bit budget. We have some dangerous mental patients who walk up

and down our streets all day long. Some of them I welcome. And if they

want to come in....

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON:

Well, I know that the member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) doesn't

take such matters seriously. She never has been interested in real

health issues. I know you used to be a nurse.

We don't mind

that some of these people appear differently, that they are perhaps a

little bit different in their behaviour, and that they perhaps pace up

and down our street all day long. But when some of them start to

exhibit and give the warning signals of dangerous behaviour and there

is no mechanism for responding to this, then we are very much

concerned. This letter was written on September 12, 1978. I looked into

it, took it up with the local head of the Selkirk Mental Health Unit.

The Minister of Health was copied in on this, and I would hope that he

had acted upon it as well. I've also spoken about this in the

Legislature, the concept of just leaving these people and kind of

forgetting about them, of coming up with the statistic of having

reduced the population of Riverview by shunting these people all over

the province.

This is not a thing unique to Nelson-Creston,

but this is a story that's being told all over where people are being

taken out of Riverview, and they are being dumped and they are being

ignored. They are being put into a hospital with geriatric patients,

and the mind has to kind of boggle at how in the world these two kinds

of people could possibly mix.

What are some of the things

that have happened? Recently one patient threatened to burn Willowhaven

Hospital down, and he came pretty close to it. He did light a fire; he

did destroy one unit and it caused $15,000 damage. And, Mr. Speaker,

that is outside a fire protection area. That patient had been

threatening to do it; he went ahead and he did do it.

Another

fellow was threatening to cut up little children and stuff as many as

five into the same coffin. Fortunately this person didn't go ahead and

do this, but it was only after local residents objected and heard about

this, fortuitously, second-hand that this person was then transferred

to a more secure institution. A third fellow has just recently been

charged with indecent exposure, and members might or might not think of

that as a serious thing. I only throw that in so that it can be looked

upon in terms of the total context of what is coming out of a very

small group of mental health patients who are basically unsupervised.

Mr.

Speaker, this was what was brought up and these were the warnings that

were given by concerned citizens. On September 12, as I say, I took it

up through my office with the mental health unit. The minister was

copied in on this letter, and we were given assurances that these

things had been looked into and the matter had been rectified. I was

told later by some of the staff at the hospital that in their opinion

it was not rectified. I was very disturbed to hear only a couple of

weeks ago that since that time there has been a case of physical

assault, rape involving a young person. And again, this is all stemming

from a very small handful of people who should be properly supervised,

who are simply being dumped into the long-term care program, really,

and mixed in with them and are not being provided with the proper

supervision and proper support services.

[ Page 83 ]

How

much would it cost to prevent this type of thing and the possible

tragedy of Willowhaven being burned to the ground with all those

geriatric patients in it, and further acts of violence? Are those

people not worthy of at least one full-time staff person assigned to

them at a salary, perhaps, of $25,000?

If it is so noble to

hold to a magic figure of 5 percent at the risk of that type of

violence towards people, then, Mr. Speaker, I say that we can't afford

that kind of economy. I am sure that if the members who are sitting in

this House will go into their areas and find out how those mental

health patients are being cared for in their areas, they will realize

that it is also being done in a totally inadequate way. We can't afford

to save money there; we just can't afford it.

Another area

with which I've become concerned is the program for children suffering

from cerebral palsy. I note in the Vancouver Express of just yesterday

that the handicapped program has been hit by a $400,000 grant cut.

"Neurologically handicapped children in B.C. may be denied adequate

treatment if government funding is not increased," said Paul Grocott,

spokesman for the Cerebral Palsy Association of B.C. So this, again, is

a problem which touches a few people in every riding in this province.

The comment here is: "Most of our money goes to staff." Grocott said:

"I wouldn't be surprised if some Outreach program such as Nelson, which

is serviced from Trail, would be forced to close." Mr. Speaker, I was

kind of alarmed to see that remark, because what we would like to see

in Nelson is the extension and some increased funding so that a program

could be started in Nelson for the children who are there.

Presently

there are eight children getting service from this Outreach program in

Trail, but because of transportation difficulties there are at least

another eight identified children who are getting no service whatever,

children with cerebral palsy growing up without any of the benefits

that they are entitled to in this day and age. If they lived in

Vancouver, they would get it without question.

How much are

we talking about here? In fact, in British Columbia, because of the

increase in participation in this kind of a program — and the funding

has been increasing but not at a rate great enough to keep up with

participation — there has been a drop of funding per child from $870 to

$500. So the rate per child has actually been dropping while the

participation rate has been climbing. When one considers that an

approximate annual budget of $25,000 serves the entire West Kootenay,

then I think that a kind of mindless adherence to a 5 percent increase

in budget is absolutely primitive.

I have written to the

minister on this. I have supported the application of the Cerebral

Palsy Association of the West Kootenay. I feel that some increased

funding should be made available in order that they could actually

expand the program to cover Nelson. The amounts of money required

wouldn't be all that great in terms of the 60 percent increase and the

millions and millions of dollars voted last year in increased

advertising budgets that just happened to coincide with an election

year.

I did get a response from the Minister of Health. He

said: "Thank you for your letter of March 16 advising me of your

support of the appeal for increased funding made by the West Kootenay

Cerebral Palsy Association. I've noted your comments and concerns and

appreciate you making these known to me." I'm glad he appreciates it,

but when I read yesterday in the Vancouver Express that funding is cut

$400,000, I say that is the kind of economy we cannot afford.

The

minister wrote around to various hospitals and hospital boards, and he

asked them to comment on what effects might occur from the arbitrary 5

percent increase in hospital budgets. I wouldn't go through the entire

reply of the Arrow Lakes Hospital Board in Nakusp, one of the new

villages in my riding, but the chairman of this hospital board points

out that last year, in this small hospital, the new small hospitals

policy led to a reduction of four nurses in their staff. He says:

"When

the effects of that decision, plus a mandatory 5 percent increase,

would leave us in a hell of a state, I can only assume that these

tactics are solely for the purpose of putting us out of business."

He comments on nursing and he says:

"Medications

would not be given on time because of other priorities as a result of

the 5 percent limitation. Errors in preparation and drug administration

would undoubtedly occur and could prove serious and fatal. IV solutions

would run dry or be pulled apart by patients. Nursing observation of

patients would be totally inadequate. Vital signs would not be recorded

as required, or even not taken at all. There would only be a

perfunctory supervision of the nursery. This could result in the loss

of an infant under the right circumstances. The hospital's infection

control program would be virtually inoperative. Infections would

increase considerably due to cross-infection brought about by

non-observance of infection control procedures."

That was

page 1. Page 2 is all on nursing. Page 3 covers dietary, housekeeping

and laundry, and then business, office, and so on, for five pages,

outlining in very clear detail the serious problems that arise from a

locked-step approach — a blindly administered 5 percent increase in

hospital budgets.

I also have drawn to the minister's

attention the need for more extended-care beds. In travelling around,

and going from house to house, and from hospital to hospital, and

personal-care home to personal-care home during the course of an

election, it's always brought back very forcibly that we have a very

long way to go. In fact, the very opposite thing has been happening.

Even the emergency extended-care beds which have been made available in

some of the acute-care hospitals are being cut back. I'm assured by

people who run homemaker service in places like Nakusp and Creston and

Nelson that there are a tremendous number of people for whom they

simply cannot care adequately. They are people who should be receiving

some form of personal or intermediate or even extended care. And all

the while we're cutting back, and cutting back very seriously. So these

are a few of the health priorities which I feel reflect not only the

needs of the new, large, improved Nelson-Creston constituency, but

would probably be pretty fair comment from any rural member in this

Legislature, and would, indeed, even be reflected in the concerns of

many people in the urban ridings — particularly hospital cutbacks, as

have already, been mentioned in this House. Mr. Speaker, I would like

to talk about another thing, and I'm glad the Minister of Forests (Hon.

Mr. Waterland) is in the chamber. There has been a great deal of

concern —

[ Page 84 ]

and

I have been very concerned — that reorganization of the Forests

ministry has been taking place when, really, the Legislature has not

had an opportunity to convene at any length for almost a year. During

an election period bulletins were coming out, new steps were being

taken, Treasury Board approvals were being given and this

reorganization was taking place — and it is a reorganization that can

have a tremendous impact on many of the small communities of this

province. If Boeing were to completely shut down and pull out of

Seattle, it would be a national emergency. But if a little forest

ranger station shuts down in a community like New Denver, or Salmo, or

maybe Meadow Creek, or in Lardeau, it can have the same magnitude of

impact on that small community.

The village of Salmo saw

that this was a threat to them — maybe not the magnitude that I have

outlined, but it certainly will be a decision of great importance — and

they wrote a letter to the minister last December, saying:

"It

has come to our attention that the forestry office which is located

near the village of Salmo will be moving to the Castlegar area. With

mines closing and the sawmill reducing staff, Salmo is becoming a

depressed area. Instead of reducing wage-earners, we must do all

possible to increase the number of workers in the area, and the village

council petitions your department to reconsider the move."

also concurred with that and sent them a letter. The minister responded

to them, said that no decision would be taken until there was adequate

input and until small communities had been heard. Yet, during the

election campaign, little bulletins were coming out under the signature

of the deputy minister. One of them says:

"To all employees:

"Now,

after what may have seemed an endless period of studies and reports,

recommendations and meetings, a newly designed structure has been

received and has received the concurrence of the executive committee of

the minister. A structure has also been submitted to Treasury Board for

approval, which is expected momentarily. "

This was subsequently granted, I might add.

this type of thing is coming out, and yet they have never consulted

with those small communities. Mr. Speaker, if this government wants to

re-examine what it is doing and what went wrong in the last election....

Interjections.

MR. NICOLSON: Nothing went wrong! You lost a few seats, Mr. Member.

Mr.

Speaker, one of the things — and I see they are already becoming

arrogant again, arrogant with 31 seats! — that they would do well to

re-examine, in their bureaucratic neatness in tidying everything up, is

consideration for people. Do you remember what people are? They were

those things that you were going out to try and see just a couple of

weeks ago. You were trying to get their support you were trying to talk

to them and shake their hands. That's what people are. And how do you

forget that so quickly?

I would suggest to this government

that one of the things they should re-examine is that when they are

making bureaucratic decisions here in Victoria, the people in the

Interior can be very much affected by them and they should do more than

just write a letter to them patting them on the head and telling them

not to worry. Where is the consultation? Where are these decisions

decided? Is Mr. Apsey acting without authority? Does the minister know

what is going on in his department? Does he care? Because, Mr. Speaker,

the people are very much concerned about this type of thing and these

decisions being made. This is an issue in places like Creston. It's an

issue in places like Salmo and New Denver, and if you want to go

outside of the riding, it's an issue in places like Fauquier and Rock

Creek and other areas.

Mr. Speaker, I might also say that

another issue which has been touched upon is the future of the small

independent forest enterprise in this province and whether the Forest

Service is going to serve the Seven Sisters or whether it is going to

serve the true innovative and, many times, competitive and progressive

people who can provide jobs. What is the objective of the Forests

ministry? Is it to see that with our resource we provide jobs and a

good lifestyle, or is it simply to...? Do they even stop to consider

how many jobs are produced per cunit rather than how many dollars are

produced per cunit, and what the total economic impact of various types

of forest allocation could be?

Mr. Speaker, I have pictures

of thousands of acres of timber which was destroyed. This was brought

to the attention of the ministry quite some time ago. I understand that

Mr. Apsey just recently, about a week ago, visited the area to have a

look at this first-hand. Small independent operators were not given

time to go in there and harvest. They came down here to Victoria. They

pointed this out to the ministry, and having pointed it out they were

told that some private timber sales were going to be made available to

them.

Well, two timber sales were announced. Number one was

the sale of LNS 569. Mr. Speaker, this amounted to about one truck of

dead-and-down material that was cut four years ago — mixed species of

spruce and hemlock on an old trespass. It was pushed aside later by

Crestbrook and broken up during construction of a road, and then it was

advertised at current stumpage rates comparable to that for green

timber. In it there were about six cedars and three white pines of any

value and the rest was absolute garbage.

Another, also dead

and down, and again a very small amount of timber.... If that is what

the minister means when he talks about making small timber sales

available, then it is the absolute death of the small forest operation

here in British Columbia, and it will mean that there has been a total

sell-out.

I think that one of the things that was so

unfortunate about the last election and unfortunate about the New

Democratic Party not being re-elected was that with another three or

four years of Social Credit government — even with another year of

Social Credit government — we will have taken an almost irreversible

step in terms of timber allocation. If this is evidence of it, and if

the wastage of thousands of acres of good, merchantable timber which

could put people to work is an example of their priorities, if their

philosophy is just "leave it to the big companies and they will solve

all of our problems, our employment problems and everything else,"

then we are going to be in really grave trouble.

These are

some of the major concerns which have come up before and during the

election, and I would just like to assure the government that these are

concerns that will not

[ Page 85 ]

away and be swept under the table. If there is anything that

characterizes this government, it is that it is totally out of control

and still totally out of touch with people. We are building highways

that people don't want. We are not building highways that people do

want. We're making decisions involving communities. The Minister of

Forests is obviously not consulting with the Minister of Municipal

Affairs in terms of what is happening to the affected municipalities

and communities.

It is a government that is out of control.

There is no direction. There are government bureaucracies which have

been left hanging for over a year without any direction. To see such a

vacuous throne speech and such a vacuous budget, I think, gives us all

cause for concern.

One other omission from this budget which

I'm very concerned about is the omission of any funding for water

improvement districts similar to what was in the surplus appropriation

budget of last year. I think that the program operated very well. I

know that in my water improvement district the program operated

extremely well, but many people only became aware of the program too

late to undertake projects for last year. There is a very high

expectation that the program would have been offered again this year.

If it is not in place, again there are going to be a great number of

dissatisfied people.

The move of water improvement districts

into the Ministry of Municipal Affairs is going to prove absolutely

disastrous. In many cases two year of work has completely gone down the

drain. Again that is a story that will be repeated throughout this

province.

These are some of the areas which I feel are very

important to bring forward. Things such as 2,4-D in Kootenay Lake, the

Kootenay diversion, and other issues will await their time during

estimates. I'll be looking forward to that.

MR. STRACHAN:

It is with pleasure that I rise for the second time in this House to

speak to the outstanding budget that has been introduced by our

Minister of Finance and by our government. As I speak for the second

time, I am now in a position where I wish to address some of the

comments that have been made by the members of the opposition, comments

that did not speak to the budget but in fact meandered around

discussions of 1975 campaigns, tried to compare highway-taxed beer to

food, and spoke to the validity of

section 80 ballots.

Parenthetically,

I ask you to note that

section 80 ballots are indeed valid, and on May

23 of this year my scrutineers watched the Prince George South

returning officer open and count 600 of them. It is with delight that I

noted that they upheld my majority.

For the most part the

debate we've heard from the opposition has been insipid, sadly lacking

in flavour and substance. I think the one notable exception to some

degree — and I'm sorry he is not here right now — was contained in the

comments of the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi). Although

that member admitted to a diagnosed myopia, he still in fact

demonstrated far more perception, far more investigative qualities and

capabilities, than the rest of his colleagues in the opposition were

able to demonstrate. With this one notable exception, the opposition

has presented a unified and obtuse approach to debate with a certain

sameness of mediocrity, the sameness that causes me to ponder the

prophecy contained in the eighth verse, thirteenth

chapter of the

Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews. I think the opposition

silence on the real items contained in our budget should cause our

government to consider that in fact what we are hearing is tacit

approval of this most exemplary budget.

The member for

Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) spoke at great length against this budget on the

misguided grounds that the budget does not address the concerns of the

unemployed. Mr. Speaker, through you to the member for Nanaimo, I say

with the greatest respect and empathy that in all likelihood a visit to

the ophthalmologist is in order for the member for Nanaimo. For the

member's benefit I'd like to draw his attention to the items contained

in the budget that deal directly and in a most positive manner with

unemployment.

I would submit $10 million for construction of

a Vancouver trade and convention centre; $2.5 million for the proposed

Victoria convention centre; $25 million for the sports centre in the

lower mainland — again construction; $5 million for a low-interest

program to help medium- and small-sized businesses in the metropolitan

areas; $5 million for industrial research; $25.3 million for an

accelerated highway construction program.

At this point I

would like to applaud the hon. Member for the Cariboo (Hon. Mr.

Fraser). As the member for Prince George South — I'm sure I speak for

my colleague in Prince George North and for most of us in the central

interior and northern parts of the province — I applaud the hon. member

for the Cariboo for the outstanding work he has done for highway

development in our respective constituencies. Work, construction and

rebuilding were sadly lacking in the 1972-75 administration. I'll carry

on enumerating the list for the benefit of the member for Nanaimo (Mr.

Stupich): $14 million for reconstruction of the Fort Nelson extension

of the British Columbia Railway; $10 million for a reforestation

program — again of tremendous benefit to Prince George South and to the

many constituencies that have directly related industries; $5 million

for new recreation facilities in British Columbia. The total of just

the items I have enumerated is well over $100 million and provides for

more than 8,000 jobs in 1979 and more in the future. The member for

Nanaimo spoke at great length against this budget, but I have to say to

him these programs are building programs: they employ people; they are

labour intensive; they have a multiplier effect in the community; they

create jobs.

On a further note to our government's concern

for the unemployed, I would like to speak about tax reduction,

exemptions and how they have a direct bearing on reducing unemployment.

We addressed some of these benefits in earlier sessions; however, they

seem to be hitting the upper part of the wall across from where we sit.

On any occasion when more discretionary funds are put into the private

sector and into the hands of the consumer, the general economy

benefits. Although this concept might appear unclear to the opposition,

as indeed many basic concepts do, I submit that the economic reality of

placing trust in the private sector and placing trust in the consumer

has a direct, positive and measurable effect on the social and economic

well-being of our community. The opposition manifesto does not allow

for the people of the state to control their own destiny, and I really

have to react in the strongest terms to the opposition as they speak

against this budget. In speaking against this budget the opposition is

speaking

[ Page 86 ]

against

the business sector. They are speaking against the consumer, the

manner, the unemployed, the youth, the students, the sick, the needy,

the economic sector large and small. They are speaking against the

people of British Columbia. I realize that the opposition manifesto has

to presuppose that the people, the citizens of the state, are mindless.

They maintain that only big government should own business and

industry. They maintain we cannot allow any surplus to be given back to

the people, and that is why they maintain that the resources of this

province cannot be shared by the people of this province.

doubt the opposition, and in particular the member for Coquitlam-Moody

(Mr. Leggatt), has the right to cloud debate and attribute to

difference in opinion that which should be correctly attributed to

political motives. I'm sure the member for Coquitlam-Moody, in speaking

off the budget, was not addressing our government but maybe a smaller

body of members. However, these motives aside, the opposition, when

they speak against our budget, are in reality using a desperate little

political mechanism to discredit and stifle the growth of our economy.

Only when there is abundant poverty can the opposition exist, and from

a political point of view they cannot allow the economy to flourish.

But

our economy will flourish. To the member for North Island (Mr.

Gabelmann), we do have a dental plan. I really sincerely think, Mr.

Speaker, maybe an ophthalmologist plan or an extension of it might be

in order after the dental plan.

We have here before us now a

most outstanding budget, a budget which speaks to all elements of our

society and to all the people of British Columbia. I urge this House to

unanimously endorse this budget. I urge the opposition to recognize

that the budget speaks well for our government and for all the people

of British Columbia.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

MR. MACDONALD:

Mr. Speaker, may I congratulate you and the Speaker of the House (Hon.

Mr. Schroeder) on your election, and all of the new members who have

joined this assembly, and take my hands out of my pockets and just rise

in this debate for a very few minutes. I'm not going to mention any

leadership problems among the government ranks...

HON. MR. CHABOT: How about the opposition?

MR. MACDONALD: ...or

an October leadership convention, because, when my friend for...now in

the Coquitlam area — and I'll have to get the riding straight —

mentioned that the other day, there were loud bursts of laughter from

the government benches. And do you know who led the laughter? The hon.

minister for Kamloops (Hon. Mr. Mair). "Ho, ho, ho!" he said. Imagine

that, that there could possibly be any leadership problems in terms of

a Premier who took his party into the election with the Gallup poll

ratings way up there, and with every town he visited those Gallups

dropped point by point. But they laughed it off, Mr. Speaker, and I'm

sure there's no trouble in the wigwam, if we can believe all that

laughter. It was a little bit like the humming chorus from Madame

Butterfly, and methinks some of them did laugh too hard.

While

the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) is in the

House, I want to be very kind with respect to anything he may have

said, but refresh the memory of this House with respect to the kind of

financial genius that he embodies. The hon. minister is a very good

speaker, you know. He's one of the speakers who, in every speech he

makes, allows the minds of his listeners to slip into neutral and just

idle along. You don't have to strain at anything that he is presenting

in his speeches.

He talks about oil and gas in the Peace

River country, and this is what the hon. minister said on October 23,

1973, when I had the honour to bring in a bill called the B.C.

Petroleum Corporation Act. Here is what this minister said:

don't see anything in this Act that says this money is going to come

back into general revenue. No way. What in essence will happen is that

for a large number of years — 10 to 20 years — the taxpayers of this

province will be building up a conglomerate company that will cost the

taxpayers of this province millions and millions and millions of

dollars out of general revenue, and that millions and millions of

dollars out of general revenue will pass into this company without one

word from this Legislature, because all those millions of dollars will go into this company by order-in-council."

"Will cost," the minister said. And for that financial genius of

prognosis and prescription what more fitting job could be offered to this hon.

member in the cabinet of the Social Credit coalition than Minister of Economic

Development? Who ever realized that he was speaking of a corporation that, to

give the exact figures, has brought $721 million into the public treasury from

its inception in 1974 up to the first quarter of 1979? Who would have ever thought

that there was a kind of financial wizardry lurking in that hon. member, who

could predict of that experiment that it would cost the people of this province

hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars? The hon. member's talents

are kind of hidden from view when he makes that kind of a prediction, and his

economic prognosis has the same relationship to the truth that darkness has

to light, or hell has to heaven. He hides his economic genius, Mr. Speaker.

"Full many a gem of purest ray serene the dark