1975 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

FRIDAY, MARCH 7, 1975

Morning Sitting

[ Page

463 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings Budget debate (continued)

Hon. Mr. Lea — 463

Mrs. Jordan — 470

Mr. Barnes — 477

Mr. G.H. Anderson — 480

Mr. Dent — 485

FRIDAY, MARCH 7, 1975

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): Mr. Speaker, I ask the House

to join me in welcoming 35 students accompanied by their

teacher, Mrs. Williams, from Brooks Junior Secondary School in

Powell River.

Orders of the day.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

You took a question of privilege raised by me on notice, and I

wonder whether you could indicate to the House when you will

report back to us on this particular matter.

MR. SPEAKER: I understood that the Hon. Minister of Housing

(Hon. Mr. Nicolson) was going to provide some more information

to us. I was waiting yesterday. I presume that when he gets to

the House I shall be able to find that out. I pointed out to

you on the occasion that you raised the matter that he was not

in the House. He came the next day and he indicated he would

try to provide papers that would deal with the issues that you

have raised. Now I don't know if that is complete, and he is

not in the House at the moment.

I will certainly take it under advisement, and I hope to

have my opinion on the matter on Monday.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I note from the

Minister's statement yesterday that he said: "I might take the

opportunity at this time, in order to enable you to consider

the question of privilege the other day, to ask leave to file a

document." The document in no way really relates to the

question of privilege, and I can understand your desire to have

him elaborate further on that matter.

MR. SPEAKER: I want both sides to tell me their position on

the matter so that at least both sides have been

considered.

ON THE BUDGET

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Mr. Speaker, I'm going

to surprise the opposition this morning and stand and support

this budget. I know they didn't expect that.

I don't believe it is good enough to stand up as a Member of government or

as a Member of the government back bench and say, "I support the budget," without

putting forward some reason of why you support that budget. That is what I intend

to do this morning.

I know that when I sit down, the opposition Members will be

calling for the question and voting with us to pass this budget

and give the people of British Columbia a break so that they

can enjoy some of the social services that this great province

can afford to give them.

Mr. Speaker, it's been two and a half years since this

government's been in office and it's been two and a half years

of controversy and criticism, not only from opposition Members,

but also from some members of the press.

Interjections.

HON. MR. LEA: And I think it's understandable that this kind

of criticism should come towards the government.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): All justified.

HON. MR. LEA: It's a government that is bringing change to

this province, Mr. Speaker, because you get no criticism at all

if you do nothing.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Short change.

HON. MR. LEA: You can take two courses of action as

government: you can begin to bring much-needed change to the

province, or you can do nothing.

I can remember when I worked for the federal Department of

Public Works, an old civil servant who was going to retire in

about two months called me in and said: "Listen, Graham, if you

want to get along in the civil service, do nothing — you'll get

promoted. If you do something you're going to make a mistake

and if you don't want to make a mistake, do nothing."

This government has made mistakes, Mr. Speaker, because we

have brought great changes to this province, and you're bound

to make mistakes when you bring a lot of change. We have made

them; there's no doubt about it.

Some of the areas where we did not make mistakes were in

bringing in bills like the Land Commission Act to save farmland

in this province. But did we get criticized? Yes, and it's

understandable because it was change — change for the better,

but people are not always willing to accept change, even when

it's for the better, We brought in Pharmacare. There was criticism about

Pharmacare, and there was criticism about Mincome. They were

changes for the better, but it's understandable that there was

criticism.

MR. PHILLIPS: You'll knock the press right out

[ Page 464 ]

of the gallery.

HON. MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, when you bring about change you

risk getting criticism from certain segments of our society, no

matter what change. I was reading not too long ago where a

Liberal Member for Nanaimo brought a bill into this House in

1918 to try and get the eight-hour work day. And the criticism — the business community came over to these buildings and

lobbied and said: "If you bring in the eight-hour day, you will

break the province." Two years later or three years later it

was passed, and guess what? We're still here and we're doing

well. The same kind of criticism came from across the floor

when we put the minimum wage up. They said: "You'll break the

small businessman." They're still here and they're doing

well.

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): The opposition

isn't.

HON. MR. LEA: When we were running for election in 1972, we

said we were going to bring a new deal to the people of British

Columbia, and the people of British Columbia on election day

said: "We have been getting, in our opinion, a bad deal from

the former government." You know, new governments are not

elected, everyone in this House knows that; old governments are

thrown out. That's the way it is. The official opposition can't

get it through their heads that we didn't get elected — they

got thrown out. They got thrown out for the policies that they

had for 20 years.

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if they're going to learn. Or are they

going to be like the dinosaur that wouldn't adapt to new things

and new environments, and become extinct? I believe that they

are incapable of adapting to 1975-1976, and at the next

election they are going to be extinct.

It seems that the opposition — at least the official

opposition — has a new tactic this year. That's good,

great.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: They have tactics.

HON. MR. LEA: Yes, they have tactics this year — that's a

change. But you know they're taking one Minister at a time and

trying to do him in, and this session so far they seem to have

centred on — the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson). Oh, I

think you could have picked any Minister — you just want to

oppose. They said: "What has the Minister of Housing done?"

Well I can tell you from personal experience in my own riding

what his department and what that Minister has done. It's a

pretty impressive list of the projects that are on line in my

riding in the City of Prince Rupert and the Village of Port

Edward.

I'd just like to relate one story to the House, because not all municipalities

are against the Minister of Housing. As a matter of fact most of them are for

what he's doing, wherever he's gone in with that department to do work.

Just before going over the very impressive list of the

projects that are on line in Prince Rupert, let me relate to

you one instance where there were 63 lots. It was city land,

and it had been purchased by the Department of Housing to

subdivide for housing. The city was quite concerned. It was a

new idea to lease, so the city got in touch with me and asked

for a meeting with the Minister of Housing and his staff and

they put forward a proposal. They said: "Look, it's new, maybe

people will not accept it and we're a little leery of it. Why

not go half and half — half fee simple title and half lease?"

The Minister of Housing agreed and it was done.

The lowest bid was $12,000 a serviced lot in the City of

Prince Rupert. I then received a phone call from the city

administrator asking whether I would see the Minister of

Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson) and see whether all of those lots

couldn't go to leasehold. He is a pretty bright guy; he said

that the working person cannot afford $12,000.

I would like to read part of a letter to the Minister of

Housing from the city administrator.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): You did give them a choice.

That's an improvement.

HON. MR. LEA: We gave them a choice, and they came back.

He said:

"I have examined your circulars LM 100 and L 100, and if I

may be permitted a personal observation, I feel that the total

lease plan and leasehold mortgage plan will prove to be very

effective in assisting residents of British Columbia to

establish their own homes. The cooperation of the Department

of Housing in this whole matter is appreciated by the Prince

Rupert city council."

I might add that it is a city council that is very

interested in taking an active role in trying to help this

government to provide housing. And I appreciate it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. LEA: Even though I do have the odd misunderstanding

with the mayor of Prince Rupert, he has been behind the

Department of Housing all the way, and I appreciate that.

What is happening in Prince Rupert in terms of the Housing

department? The first phase of an eventual 120-unit mobile home

park is now under development and will be ready by late spring.

Sixty units by late spring at a cost of $80,000 is being

paid

[ Page 465 ]

for by the Department of Housing.

At the request of the city, work is proceeding on the

development of the 63 residential lots that I talked about — I

explained that story.

The province is participating with the federal government,

which is a new thing for this province, in the construction of

approximately 140 rental units under the federal/provincial

cost-sharing agreement. There will be 140 rental units, and 25

per cent of these units will be available to lower income

families on a rent-to-income basis. The cost will be

approximately $4.5 million.

The province is participating in a federal/ provincial land

assembly programme which will provide up to 60 acres of

serviced land at a cost in excess of $3 million. This will be

capable of sustaining the following type of developments: 192

single-family dwellings, 60 semi-detached units, 58 row

houses, 30 zero-lot lying units and 4 apartment units for a

potential population of approximately 1,300 people. Right now

there is a shortage of housing in Prince Rupert because of the

new activity that is going on in Prince Rupert in economic

terms. There are 425 units needed. It's felt, after projecting

the growth rate, the economic growth rate and population growth

rate, that 148 for the next few years are going to be needed

after these 425 units are in place to take care of that

projected growth rate. These units are on line, and hopefully

all of them will be in at least by the spring of 1977 and most

in by this year.

That's going to take care of from four to five years of

projected growth rate in the City of Prince Rupert in terms of

housing done through the Minister of Housing and his

department. That's a pretty impressive record. When you look at

the record over the past 13 years in Prince Rupert in terms of

what private industry did for housing there, it isn't very

staggering. The only housing that's really been developed,

except for one or two apartment units by private industry, was

the housing development by Columbia Cellulose around 1965 and

When we start examining the facts, we find that what is

being said across the way is not really true and it's not

really fair. There is an impressive list in my community. Other

MLAs can get up and talk about impressive lists in their

communities, including opposition MLAs.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Not in mine.

HON. MR. LEA: Well, in your community I am sure they would

not want low-cost housing. There is also another proposal by

Dunhill totalling about $3 million. The whole total for this

work that is going to be done within the next two years in

Prince Rupert is $14.1 million — a pretty impressive figure for

a community of 17,000 people.

One of the areas of criticism of this government because we

have brought around change is that of Autoplan.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): The $25 car insurance.

HON. MR. LEA: Car insurance at $25, the Member from Langley

says. He's always throwing that around. If I remember

correctly, the opposition Members were criticizing the

provincial government for the break they gave themselves at

that time that they wouldn't give the people of British

Columbia. The truth of the matter is that in the paper of May

22, 1972, during the election campaign, the headline: "B.C.

Drivers Would Save 20 Per Cent" — quoting Barrett.

AN HON. MEMBER: Twenty per cent.

HON. MR. LEA: Twenty per cent.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not $25.

HON. MR. LEA: That's right, and they have saved 20 per cent

more. There's what the Premier said when he was campaigning as

Leader of the Opposition. They'd like to ignore that, Mr.

Speaker, but there it is in black and white. I'm reading from

the paper what the Premier said when he was Leader of the

Opposition.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Read the rest.

HON. MR. LEA: It was not in my ad.

MR. CHABOT: Now you are supporting him. Make up your mind

where you stand.

HON. MR. LEA: I stand behind what the Premier said, and he's

delivered it through this Minister.

Now where is the criticism coming from on Autoplan?

Basically from the benches of the opposition. What do other

people in this country feel about Autoplan? What do the people

who are receiving the benefits feel? They like it.

The opposition has now said: "We wouldn't take it away."

They said they wouldn't take it away.

Now this Autoplan is being examined by people throughout

Canada, because governments in this country know that the

writing is on the wall. People all over this country, no matter

what label the government, are going to demand their own

Autoplan. When the Liberals got in in Saskatchewan, they didn't

take it away. And if we are put out of office, they will not

take it away, you will not take it away, and the Conservatives

will not take it away.

[ Page 466 ]

Oh, they might let the private industry get in for a little

bit of the cream, and they'll keep the bad ones. They may do

that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, let private industry cream. They've

been doing it for years.

HON. MR. LEA: Not too long ago a Quebec cabinet Minister was

out here looking at Autoplan — Hon. William Tetley, Quebec

Minister of Financial Institutions, Companies and

cooperatives. Do you know what he had to say, Mr. Speaker? The

Liberal government down there knows that sooner or later

they're going to have to give their people the same great deal

that this government is giving the people of British

Columbia.

What did he say? He was referring to B.C.'s very good and

efficient claims centres, and the way they quickly fix damage

and reach settlements, and the system of issuing auto insurance

through one agency at the same time as licence plates are

issued; and it's all good. He said: "It would appear that they

(B.C.) are returning a bigger portion of the premium dollar to

the insured than in the provinces where private insurance

companies operate." That's a Quebec Liberal cabinet Minister,

who I wish would come out and talk to the Liberal Members out

here. He's from your party, a cabinet Minister, and that is

what he said.

MR. CHABOT: Did he have a bow tie on?

HON. MR. LEA: It doesn't matter, Mr. Member, whether he

wears a bow tie; it's what he thinks with above the bow tie.

You have a necktie that isn't a bow tie, and I think about

that. (Laughter.)

MR. CHABOT: Lester will get you. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. LEA: Well, it's going to remain to be seen.

MR. FRASER: Well, we'll know on May 26. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. LEA: I would like to congratulate the Minister in

charge of Autoplan, because for the first time in this province

northern residents are starting to get the break they deserve

in terms of taking the disparity, the inequity, out of the

cost.

In Prince George or in Prince Rupert or in Cariboo, Mr.

Member, whether you were a good driver or not under the old

scheme didn't matter. If you'd never had an accident, you paid

more for your insurance than a person in Victoria who could

possibly have had one or two, and that is not fair.

MR. CHABOT: Now you buy it by the gallon.

HON. MR. LEA: This government said that that is not fair,

and we've taken the first major step this year to make sure

that you pay because of your driving habits and not because of

where you live in this province. That is good, and I don't

think the opposition could afford to take it away and hand it

back to those private operators to bring inequity into the

prices of insurance again in this province.

I'll tell you one thing, Mr. Speaker: my constituents are

happy. Even though the mayor doesn't drive a car, I'm sure he's

happy.

Now I would like to deal a little bit with something that

affects me very personally because it has meant a great deal to

the workers in my riding. That is the old company of Columbia

Cellulose and the new company of Canadian Cellulose.

It wasn't too long ago that the Leader of the Opposition

(Mr. Bennett) was in Prince Rupert. He said: "You know, those

jobs weren't at stake." He said that those jobs weren't at

stake. He told the press that. "That government in Victoria,

they just wanted it." I guess he thought that Bob Williams

(Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources) was driving by

one day and said, "Gee, we haven't got one of those. Let's buy

it."

Now the fact of the matter is that if the Leader of the

Opposition had only taken the time to check and see what the

former Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources had said,

he wouldn't have made that terrible blunder in Prince Rupert,

because anyone who was interested and had knowledge of the

forest industry in this province knew that those two pulp mills

in Prince Rupert, and Eurocan in Kitimat, were in serious

trouble. I'm sure the Member for Boundary-Similkameen (Mr.

Richter) knows; he was in the cabinet at that time. They were

in terrible trouble.

Before we even came to office there was in the Vancouver

Province an

article by Bob McMurray, August 18, 1972:

"Col-Cel Not Out of the Woods Yet." What was happening,

according to this article? It says that Weyerhaeuser Canada is

negotiating to try and purchase Columbia Cellulose. It says the

present talks involve only the money-making interior operations

of Col-Cel and not its two pulp mills at Prince Rupert, which

are known to be losing heavily.

We knew. As a matter of fact, let me tell you how we knew. The present Minister

of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) already knew what

was going on, but what really brought it to his attention forcibly was not politicians,

not business people, but the workers represented through their union from that

pulp mill in Prince Rupert who got in touch with me the day after the election

and said: "Would you please talk to Mr. Barrett and tell him that we're going

down the tube? Our jobs are going." Quite frankly, I didn't understand that

it was as imminent a situation as it was.

[ Page

467 ]

So I arranged a meeting. I phoned the present Premier and

said: "The workers here are very upset. They feel their jobs

are going down the tube. Could we arrange a meeting?" He

arranged the meeting with the now Minister of Lands, Forests

and Water Resources.

But do you know how those workers really knew that they were

in trouble? A consultant by the name of Fox, who had been a

consultant to Mr. Williston, the former Minister, had contacted

the union right after the election and said: "I would like to

let you in on what is happening, what the former government

planned to do about it — nothing. You're in trouble." He was a

consultant to that former Minister, and he said: "They're

selling you out. They're going to let Weyerhaeuser have the

Castlegar operation. You'd better step in and step in

quickly."

What did this government do? It stepped in quickly and saved

all of those jobs in the northwestern part of this

province.

Another

article was headlined: "Can Rail Lines Bail Out The Mills?" before

the election. What about the cost of chips? This article, again in The Province ,

before the election, by Bob McMurray, said: "If those chip costs are not adjusted,

Eurocan, the two mills at Prince Rupert are going down the economic tube." One

of the first actions this government did was to negotiate a new freight rate

for those chips. Not only did we say it was a good deal, but the managers of

Eurocan said: "If this deal had not been negotiated, we would not have been

able to survive." They are not socialists. They knew that they were in trouble,

and unless this government stepped in and did what we did, they would be in

real trouble.

What was said during the debate, when we were debating the

bill on Can-Cel? The Liberal leader (Mr. D.A. Anderson) said:

"You didn't have to take it over." He said: "What you do is you

take public money, you build sawmills, which you eventually

turn over to private industry, you put money into rail lines

under the public purse, you build that whole infrastructure in

transportation to give those mills life, you spend great wads

of the public's money, and then they can make it. They can make

it then, Mr. Speaker. They can really make a lot of profit then

if you just spend all that public money to back them up.

AN HON. MEMBER: Good old free enterprise.

HON. MR. LEA: That seemed to us to be stupid. If we're going

to put the public money in, then let's let the public reap the

benefits.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. LEA: What do the cost sheets show now? They show a lot of profit-

about S50 million this year — coining to the people of British Columbia instead

of to Weyerhaeuser.

Thinking back, Weyerhaeuser said they didn't want that part

of the operation up there anyway, just the profitable part, so

I guess Weyerhaeuser wouldn't have needed it.

What about mines? "Craigmont Mines Earnings Down." Isn't

that too bad?

MR. GIBSON: What about Granduc?

HON. MR. LEA: When was that? This was on August 22,

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Who was government then?

HON. MR. LEA: I think it was Social Credit that was

government then.

The company president at that time, R.G. Duthie, said they

were faced with low copper prices and increased smelting costs

but he said they were in a fairly strong financial position

even though the earnings were down. Now when the earnings are

down they say: "We're through, and that government did it."

The mining industry, as the opposition has pointed out over

and over again, is a cyclical business — it thrives or doesn't

thrive on the world markets. The world market now isn't that

great so they're not doing that well.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEA: Gold is worth nothing. What's it used for?

AN HON. MEMBER: Your teeth.

HON. MR. LEA: Yes. Even the economy isn't based on it any

more.

MR. WALLACE: I wish I had some. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. LEA: You're a doctor, not a dentist.

(Laughter.)

MR. WALLACE: I'm not even a doctor any more, unfortunately —

one of these dumb politicians.

HON. MR. LEA: I'd like to deal for a little while with

Highways, my portfolio, and what we're doing that's

different.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEA: Careful, Bob.

You know, times change and the methods of

[ Page 468 ]

trying to run the Highways department have to change with

those times. It is becoming much, much more complex these days

to talk about new routings and even trying to straighten out

and improve the routings we already have. We are talking now

about an integral land-use transportation policy of involving

more thoroughly than ever before the local communities when we

talk about highways and transportation, of getting our staff

together with the city staff or the regional district to talk

about routings and how that will not only affect the

right-of-way itself but the social impact on that community,

the economic impact on that community and the environmental

impact on that community.

Interjection:.

HON. MR. LEA: I'll sing it for you, Mr. Member.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. LEA: Later! (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: Right now!

HON. MR. LEA: I was in Sacramento, California, not too long

ago, talking with the transportation department there. The time

now for a highway plan from conception to the time it can be

fully implemented is something like five years because of the

different groups that they have to deal with in order to

co-ordinate with local groups on the environmental studies. No

longer can you just say, "Well, it looks good. Go out and

survey it and away we go." You can't do it. The length of time

for planning, negotiations and communicating is really becoming

longer and longer and longer. I think it is only just.

We were going to show you one thing that we are doing, and

we will be doing more of it. There is a road just outside of

Nelson, British Columbia, called Sproule Creek Road. We were

going ahead the old way, without consultation. We did that, and

the people got up in arms and said: "Look. This is our

community; we would like to have some say." That is right; they

should have some say. So we went down there and held a public

hearing right in the community. Now, people from that

community, chosen by that community, are working with the

district highway engineers in planning the highway through

their community. It takes longer but I believe that is the

correct way to go. I believe that is the kind of programme the

people are demanding and should get now.

By the way, I would like to inform the House that, in order to do that, it

does take a bit more staff. But I think people are demanding it and it is our

job to supply the people's demands, not to lay out the rules on our own.

We haven't stopped building highways. We have changed the

emphasis. There is no doubt about that. We have taken the

budget and we are running it a little bit differently than in

previous years. We are putting more emphasis on the maintenance

of the roads we already have. In a comparison, in the 1971-72

fiscal year, 25 per cent of the budget went into maintenance.

This year it is going to be 42 per cent. That is something, by

the way, that is going on all over this country in every

jurisdiction. The emphasis is moving away from building all of

these new routings and concentrating on keeping the old

routings in good shape and looking to another form of

transport, such as the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr.

Lorimer) is doing in this province, not only in the City of

Vancouver and the lower mainland but throughout the whole of

the province. That is the way we have to go.

I must say at this time that I would like to commend the

Minister of Municipal Affairs and his staff for the

cooperation that my department is getting in order that we can

work together in negotiating and planning along with the

regional districts and municipalities involved. It is the only

way we can go, and we are going in that direction.

MR. WALLACE: What are you doing for the people in

Tahsis?

HON. MR. LEA: I met with the mayor yesterday, Mr. Member,

and discussed his problems. I will be visiting Tahsis as soon

as I can get up there.

MR. WALLACE: They need more than consultation though.

HON. MR. LEA: That is right, but that comes first. As a

doctor, you should know that. (Laughter.) Do you operate before

you diagnose? No.

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

We are also putting a lot of emphasis on safety, again

because we feel people are demanding it. We feel that they

should. We agree. For the first time, the Highways department

has a highway safety engineer whose total job is to look at the

safety aspects of highways.

One of the first major moves we have made is to lower the

speed limit. I would like to share with you a report from the

RCMP who have done checks without stopping people by just

checking them on the radar. They say that 85 per cent of the

people are law-abiding, as I think the House predicted, and are

driving at the new speed limit. About 10 per cent are in the

warning stage, according to the RCMP. The same old group who

broke the laws before blatantly

[ Page 469 ]

are breaking them now. When I put the new speed limits into

effect, I said that I thought those same people would break the

law.

MR. FRASER: Have you asked the Attorney-General?

HON. MR. LEA: Yes, I have spoken to the Attorney-General. We

are looking at ways now of taking that small percentage of

people who are blatantly breaking the laws and putting other

people's lives in danger as well as their own, and are trying

to come in with some more stringent measures of controlling

these people.

Another step this government has taken through the

Department of Education, in cooperation with my department and

the Transport and Communications department, is to look at the

school children and the kind of problems they are having as

pedestrians in this province, by making money available for

adult guards at the crossings, which I think is long overdue.

It's not that the children haven't done a good job; they have,

but in some cases and at some intersections they just don't

have the maturity to handle the kinds of situations they are

asked to handle. So making that money available is good.

We are also looking at more underpasses and overpasses.

Underpasses are a lot less expensive, but there are some social

problems in some areas around underpasses — having children

walking through underpasses where they are not within easy

sight of adults. They are less expensive but we are looking at

lighting, and are really using judgment in each specific case

as to whether we should go for an underpass or an overpass.

I have also spoken with school boards to try and impress

upon them that when they are looking for property on which to

put a new school, they should also look at the transportation

end of it, and that hasn't been done too much in the past. They

have to take a look at where they are going to put that school

and decide where all those children are going to be coming from

in order to get to the school — what intersections they are

going to have to cross, what kind of problems they envision.

Maybe it will cost a little more for another site to build a

school on, but in terms of safety for children it may be the

best way to go. I don't know of any school board.... I know

they would all spend a little extra money to ensure a greater

degree of safety for school children.

One of the areas which has been criticized also is what this

government is doing for municipalities. More than any

government ever before.

Now the opposition likes to point to the per capita grant as if it were the

end-all; but it isn't the be-all, Mr. Member. As a matter of fact, coming from

a smaller community, I look at that per capita grant as benefiting the larger

areas much more than it benefits the smaller areas in this province. I know

that the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) is looking at a different

method of getting dollars to people through municipalities and through regional

districts so there can be a more equitable sharing of that dollar that does

go out to communities from the provincial government.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Taxing the

property.

HON. MR. LEA: The one-third recreational grant involved

millions of dollars going out to the municipalities in this

province for recreational facilities — that they would have to

build anyway — that we are helping.

Now what are the transit programmes being worked on by the

Minister of Municipal Affairs? What's that going to cost? A lot

of money. Who is paying for it?

MR. McCLELLAND: How much?

HON. MR. LEA: The provincial government is picking up the

lion's share. If you were to figure out all of these programmes — the sewerage bill — figure out all of the programmes this

government is going into, add up the dollars and add it to the

per capita grant, it would be pretty impressive. The only thing

is that if you did it in the per capita grant formula, the kind

of communities — the small communities — in this province who

really need help wouldn't be getting it. We can do it through

the kind of legislation that that Minister has brought in.

The administration of justice through the Attorney-General's

(Hon. M r. Macdonald) department is further taking the cost

from the municipality and bringing it to the provincial

government.

AN HON. MEMBER: Peanuts!

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): I'd like some of those

peanuts.

HON. MR. LEA: Yesterday the Member for Langley (Mr.

McClelland) said — and it's been said a number of times in this

House — that the ideology of this government is giving us

hang-ups, that we are basing our decisions on the ideology we

have. Right, that's true. We're guilty. We're guilty, Mr.

Member, because that kind of philosophy has brought in

Pharmacare and Medicare to this country, Mincome to this

province, social services that people want. And what about the

ideology of that party? What did it bring the people of this

province? What has that kind of ideology brought to the people

of this world? It

[ Page 470 ]

brought us Viet Nam — that kind of ideology, the old Nixon

kind of ideology.

Interjections.

HON. MR. LEA: It brought us a policy of splitting this

province up into five different sections and giving the forest

industry away to the corporate giants; that's what that

ideology brought this province. Compare that to Pharmacare.

AN HON. MEMBER: Give-away gang!

HON. MR. LEA: They worked hand in hand with the corporate

giants to split the resources of this province up and give it

away. And do you know what? In 1972 the people said: "I think

we have had enough of them." And there they are.

AN HON. MEMBER: Enough's enough.

HON. MR. LEA: Now they say: "They didn't really vote us out;

they liked us all the time." Then why are you over there and us

over here? Except, of course, for the Member for Saanich and

the Island (Mr. Curtis)....

HON. P.F. YOUNG (Minister of Consumer Services): We don't

know where he is.

HON. MR. LEA: He may be over there, I don't know.

Now when you accuse us of being governed by our philosophy,

every time you say it I am proud of you, if you understand the

kind of programme we bring because of our philosophy. But take

a look at your own and what kind of things you have done to

this province, and what kind of things your philosophy has done

to the world.

MR. FRASER: The light's on.

HON. MR. LEA: I would really like to ask the people of this

province to forgive the Social Credit Party for what they have

done to this province. I'd like to ask them to because, really,

they don't know what they do. They really don't. Out of the

opposition parties here, they really believe what they say.

They really believe it, and that's a shame.

The Liberal Party, they know. They know that what they put

forward isn't good for the people, but they do it anyway. What

the Social Credit Party has done is really unforgivable, but

what the Liberal Party has done is inexcusable in this country

because they know and they continue to do it.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Sell out.

HON. MR. LEA: I think the people in this province, when it

comes to election time, are going to say: "Do we like the

programmes that this government has brought in because of their

philosophy?" Are the old age pensioners going to say: 'We don't

like it"? Are the people on Mincome going to say that? Are the

people over 65, who for the first time can go down without fear

of having to eat dog food because they don't have to pay for

their drugs, going to say: "We don't like the philosophy of

this government"? No, they're not.

When the people go down to buy their auto insurance, are

they going to say: "We don't like the philosophy of this

government"? No, they are not saying that, Mr. Member. If you

believe they are, you've been too long out in Saanich and not

long enough out there.

MR. WALLACE: You're just too modest, Graham.

HON. MR. LEA: I know I'm being a little modest today, but I

think it's about time that we talked about the kinds of

programmes that this government has brought in. What are they

going to say about the philosophy this government has brought

in to save farmland? They're going to say: "We like it."

Interjection:.

HON. MR. LEA: Well, I believe that on that great day when

the election is called by Grace McCarthy (laughter) — because

the opposition still thinks they're government — we're going to

go to the people and they're going to say: "We like your

philosophy and we like what you've done."

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

don't know whether that Minister has trouble with his

philosophy but it's quite evident after that speech that he has

an identity problem. One can hardly wonder that he wears a

beard because he made it clearly evident that he has some idea

that he's someone other than he is. That Big Brother government

and Big Brother Ministers know what is best for the people of

British Columbia, whether they want it or not or whether they

think it's right.

I'm glad there's a doctor in the House, although he's just

left and he's probably gone to treat the Minister of Highways.

After that speech, no doubt he has a sore arm from all the back

patting that he did. He studiously involved himself in

government step-ins but studiously neglected to talk about the

government step-ons and the record in this province of

government step-ons.

HON. HARTLEY: Whine, whine, whine.

MRS. JORDAN: NDP step-ons of little people in

[ Page 471 ]

this province is earth-shaking.

We had from that Minister of Highways, the vital link of

transportation in this province — and it is a problem — 35

minutes of defence and five minutes of philosophy on highways,

and not one word about what he is going to do for the highways

of this province or how he is going to help loggers, farmers

and people who have to drive miles to go to work by winding

their way through the pothole jungles that are developing in

this province because of that government's inactivity.

Mr. Minister, you can talk a lot about philosophy, but you

have one heck of a time feeding your family on it. It takes

money; it takes work; it takes incentive for those loggers and

those farmers and the working people of this province to be

able to have enough money to meet their commitments to their

families.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to speak just for a moment about the

Minister of Economic Development's (Hon. Mr. Lauk) statements

last night. I'm sorry he's not in the House to make them clear.

There is an

article in the newspaper this morning that doesn't

conform to what he said on the air last night when he announced

that he and this government are intending to bring in a

statistics Act.

If, as this Minister is reported to have said, it is for the

protection of citizens, we must ask if the government's track

record for the protection of citizens isn't to be questioned.

It's becoming legendary how this government is revealing vital

and confidential information about many areas of its

jurisdiction. We would be sure to caution this government that

if it intends to bring in such

an Act to protect the citizens,

it remembers who the citizens of British Columbia are. All

citizens, whether they are in business or whether they are in a

union or whether they are a member of a marketing board, have

the same rights, and should not be subjected to the

monopolistic and business-abusing patterns of ICBC under this

new Act.

The Minister said that it was important how statistics and

information are used, and we would agree. Our concern about the

Minister's suggestion is how this government would use that

information that it would seek to receive from private

individuals and small and large companies in this province. If

one takes as an example some of the information this government

is now trying to glean from people under pressure, we have

great reason to be concerned.

Just for example, the rentalsman, in an application for a

rental increase for homeowners or apartment owners or for

mobile-home parks, requires information which has no

relationship to the rent increase, on a form obviously designed

to garner as much information as possible for the government,

information that should be considered legitimate and

confidential in the interests of a person's personal

privacy.

In agriculture — another new adventure of this government is

in leasing land to farmers — the concern of the agricultural

people is that this form requires far beyond the normal

information needed to ascertain whether an individual is

responsible and capable of handling that agricultural unit to

the best of the land's productive capabilities. Again, that's

another form being put out by this government which the

producers say is a violation of their personal privacy and, in

fact, of the Human Rights Act.

We would be concerned with the statistics Act as outlined on

the air by the Minister last night, because this government has

a proven bias towards private business, whether it is small or

large. Just last night the Minister of Transport and

Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) slandered business with

innuendoes that they were not honest, innuendoes that they were

out, in fact, to destroy British Columbia, when in fact they

are tax-paying, responsible citizens and a Canadian company, a

legitimate business.

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: I stand corrected, Mr. Member, and appreciate

your comment. He did say it, in fact, and it should be an

embarrassment to this government, who say it is the people's

government. But this government slanders many people in this

province who are legitimate, honest, tax-paying citizens and in

business. We would be concerned about this bias.

We would be concerned by the fact that the Minister of

Finance has proven, and shown so obviously, that he has a

personal vendetta against certain segments of this society, and

it is not just the so-called big business rip-off artist that

he likes to slander. We think it would be important that this

sort of information should in fact protect the rights of the

citizens.

It also must be borne in mind that this government, by its

own statements, is committed more and more to its entry into

the private business sector. The Minister said last night that

the Act would cover all attitudes and forms of private

business, their expansion plans, their internal accounting,

their cost allocations — and we know what this government does

with cost allocations — every area beyond what is now available

in a legitimate sense.

I ask you, Mr. Speaker: if you were a small businessman in

this country, if you were a citizen, would you want to give

your personal information to that man? No way, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. COCKE: Have you ever had a picture like that taken,

Pat?

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, we would like to know, what is to

prevent this information from

[ Page 472 ]

filtering down to government enterprises? What is to prevent

this information being used by government in business in direct

competition to the little man down the street?

We have seen this happen in ICBC, where this government

showed no concern for small, independent agents — who literally

wiped out their operations, their life savings. An insurance

agent now who wants to retire has nothing to sell in the way of

his lifetime investment or the investment in his business

because he can't get a contract with this government, and this

government won't give him one unless he becomes a formal,

unionized man.

Mr. Speaker, we have seen it. The concern is that this

government has stated through the Minister of Transport and

Communications that they intend to go into the body repair

business. And what is to prevent this Minister of Economic

Development (Hon. Mr. Lauk) getting and giving this information

to the ICBC people and letting them use one man's body shop

information for the government to go into competition against

him just down the street, and with that man's own tax

dollars?

Mr. Speaker, the responsibility of government is to be a

third party to protect the rights of all the citizens. How can

it do that if it has a direct, committed involvement, is in

direct competition with those it is supposed to protect? It has

a direct vested interest.

This government has made it clear that it intends to go into

the motel and hotel business. It's already in the poultry

business, the hatchery business. Mr. Speaker, there is a

hatchery business in our area, owned by a lady who has worked

most diligently to build up her business, and it is a good

business. How is she going to know that this government isn't

going to use her business information in its own hatchery

business and work against her?

They are into the golf course business. There is the thought

that they will go into the wholesale food business. We would

like to be sure that this government puts itself in the same

position as the people voted for it — and that is as the

protector of the people's rights, not the abuser of the

people's rights, and not the violator of personal privacy.

One example where this government doesn't consider itself

subject to its own rules is ICBC, whose business practices have

come under serious question. I won't review them because of

time, but this government exempts ICBC — its own baby — from

the authority of the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Ms.

Young). It doesn't come under the Trade Practices Act. It

doesn't come under her jurisdiction, and the citizens of this

province find themselves captivated by a monopoly situation

that they are paying for and that is not subject to any of the

public scrutiny that any other business is.

In addressing myself to the budget, I would like to restate the words of the

leader of our party, which I believe are the best statements about this budget.

That is: "When your outgo exceeds your income, your upkeep becomes your downfall."

This budget clearly shows that the huge cost of the upkeep of this government

is going to be its downfall. One can only hope — and I certainly hope — that

this government does not take the people of British Columbia down with it.

The waste and extravagance of this budget has set a new

record, not only for British Columbia but for a government

anywhere in Canada, including fellow NDP governments across the

provinces. To pay for the $600 million in public service

salaries, the special consultants and the fancy offices, this

budget asks the people of British Columbia to take more out of

their pockets than ever before. In return, they will be getting

less than ever before — less for services to people, less for education...

HON. MR. COCKE: Nonsense!

MR. JORDAN: ... less in all those areas of government which

can be called the people services. There is more for salaries,

more for office rents, more for consultants, and more to keep

this government of big numbers in big business. It is a budget

which depends on the continued existence of excessive

inflation, which reminds me of the statement of the Montreal

economist, Diane Cohen, who said: "Having a little inflation is

like being just a little bit pregnant. We all know what happens

to little bits of pregnancy, and like that, inflation feeds on

itself and quickly passes the little mark."

Nowhere in this budget is there any indication that this

government and this Minister of Finance would have it any other

way. This budget has hopped the inflation train, Mr. Speaker;

it is on a runaway track heading down to ruination unless it is

brought to a halt and unless it is brought into a station of

responsibility.

The self-centred expenditures of this government for its

upkeep show that the bureaucracy is now feeding on itself at

the expense of every single taxpayer in this province. Perhaps

it is because the spending habits of this government have

become so excessive that it has no other choice but to marry

itself to continued double-digit inflation in order to achieve

a balanced budget. We have seen it this year. What of next

year?

There should be no confusion in the minds of British

Columbians about the distinction between a balanced budget and

a responsible budget. This budget is irresponsible and

balanced, thanks to the supposition contained that inflation

must go on.

Inflation makes misery unanimous. It creates universal

poverty, and I might add that that statement was made by Arthur

Meighan in Vancouver

[ Page 473 ]

in 1943, speaking of socialism. I wonder if he knew just how

prophetic his words would be, as British Columbians now realize

this government cares not and will not take the leadership to

dampen inflation which is robbing every citizen of this

province every day.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: You're as far out of date as your 1923

quote. You're 50 years out of date.

MRS. JORDAN: I think it's interesting to note that that

Minister heckles rather than back the Minister of Consumer

Services, and that this government is truly proud and

continually talks of the role of the Minister of Consumer

Services. But I wonder if that Minister, who is a proponent of

truth in advertising, was consulted on the Dunsky documents

which appeared in a British Columbia newspaper two days ago,

purporting to be a description of this government's budget.

I won't go into the details, Mr. Speaker, but if ever there

was a case of misleading advertising in the Province of British

Columbia, that full-page ad, paid for by the taxpayers of this

province, had to be it. Perhaps the only true implication is at

the bottom, "Our wealth is found in the skills of our people."

That's where the tax revenue and the revenues in this budget

are coming from largely — the people.

I look forward very much, because I am an admirer of hers,

to the time when the Minister of Consumer Services will explain

her position on that ad to the people of British Columbia and

the people of Vancouver–Little Mountain. If she needs any

assistance with her explanation I would refer her to an

article

which appeared in the Vancouver Province of Thursday's

date, March 6. It did a very good job of outlining this

government's policy in truth in advertising.

I wonder as well if the Minister of Consumer Services was

ever consulted for her opinion on the inflationary forces which

will be rekindled as the consequence of this budget.

The Minister has a very important role to play for

consumers. She must represent them and take action in the

marketplace, and it is sad that she has left it to the Minister

of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) to take action in the marketplace

by laying before British Columbians this highly inflationary

budget, which will do more to ensure continued rampant

inflation in this province than any other single action.

This Minister has been quick to attack the producers of this province through

their marketing boards, and they control about 0.5 per cent of the spending

of the consumers of this province. But there's no attack, no words of caution

to the Minister of Finance regarding this budget, and this government's action,

which can only be described a greedy, because this budget is the work of a greedy

government whose inflation tax, the cruelest tax of all, and

whose direct tax increases will dip hungrily into the pockets

of every citizen in this province every time they go to the

store.

Whether it's to buy baby things, whether it's to buy

cleaning utensils, whether it's to buy shoes or clothes, go to

a show, a hockey stick for their children, or build a house,

this government, in everything these consumers will do, will

have its hungry fingers reaching, reaching for the bottom of

the people's pockets, and growing fat on people's taxes.

Why isn't the Minister of Consumer Affairs aware that the

inflationary psychology runs through every department of

government, and that it is the watchword of every programme and

policy which this government produces? What is more clear

statement of this fact than the almost 40 per cent that this

government anticipates as an increase in its share of revenues

coming from personal income tax? I hope that the Minister of

Consumer Affairs will take a serious second look at the thrust

of this budget when it comes time to vote. I hope that she, of

all the cabinet Ministers, will be responsible and get to her

feet and make her concerns known, because I can't believe that

she, of all the people in this cabinet, has grown comfortable

in her new-found luxury.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to also, at this time, mention that

the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) in his last

presentation just 10 minutes ago called us the "giveaway

boys" who gave away the resources. He and the Minister of

Labour (Hon. Mr. King) say that they husband the resources.

Well, it appears to us in the budget that as husbands they're

turning out to be wife beaters of the resources. Why, when

Social Credit were called the giveaway boys and were supposed

to be giving away the resources of this province, were we in

fact enjoying a higher percentage of revenues from those

industries than this government is today? Under those

circumstances, our government brought in balanced budgets with

services to people, and this government, supposedly husbanding

the resources, has to garner its tax revenues largely from the

people's backs and, in fact, has to borrow to bring in a

balanced budget.

HON. MR. COCKE: Was your budget balanced? Not one budget was

ever balanced.

MRS. JORDAN: I'd like to refer for a moment to the producers

of this province and ask some questions regarding how they

feel.

What they want to know is whether this budget really

reflects the position of agriculture as a free and equitable

partner in society, a promise of this s government. Or does the

budget suggest that s agriculture is to be, as the Minister

said at the B.C. Federation of Agriculture convention in

November,

[ Page 474 ]

when he indicated that producers would be a social

experiment designed to make the producer of British Columbia

the greatest socialist of them all, supported by government on

government's terms, controlled by government on government's

terms?

Are the producers to be free? Are they to be free to adjust

and design reasonable policies for their marketing boards as

they, the producers, see fit? Are the marketing boards to be

capable of acting as a collective voice for the producers in

the best interest of the producers in British Columbia society

and agriculture? Is the super board to be, as the producers

believe, an avenue of legitimate appeal for both consumers and

producers alike? With an estimate of $100,000 I would suggest

the Minister is expecting a lot of appeals. Or are the boards

to be used as a vehicle in combination with income assurance

for manipulating the producers into a Position that the

government desires?

Mr. Speaker, the producers of this province have already

seen the type of action in the other arenas in which this

government is involved. Municipal financing in this budget, and

it's been discussed by other Members, shows a form of municipal

blackmail. We've seen it in education and in other areas.

Certainly the agricultural budget must go along with the other

budgets as being described as "iffy," particularly as to

income assurance, because the budget says "if this happens" and

"if that happens" income assurance will have adequate funds for

1975. But the producers want to know: "if not," what

then? They want to know if there's some evidence of blackmail

here.

The "ifs" in this budget in agriculture zero in on the crux

of the whole income assurance plan and what it is all about and

what the producers' concerns are. One of the most serious

concerns of the producers of British Columbia today is that the

income assurance plan is becoming cloudy. Is the plan to. be

income assurance which will reflect the realistic costs of

production to efficient producers? Is the income assurance plan

to have sufficient funds to provide the necessary returns to

the producer when the marketplace, for its various reasons,

fails to return the responsible producer a fair share on an

equitable basis.

Is there to be an equitable share for all sections of

society in British Columbia today in which agriculture has its

share and its position? Those were the principles of the

original agreement between the producers and the government.

They want to know if the income assurance programme is really

designed to be equitable to all participating commodity

groups.

What happens to those commodity groups which are currently not within the framework

of the income assurance plan? Many of these producers will have to come under

the plan to survive, not only because of rising cost squeezes but also because

of the fact that some of these cost squeezes can be attributed to the plan itself.

I cite for examples the onion producers and the broiler producers.

There is growing concern that the government didn't reveal

all in the beginning. There is concern that there is a

philosophical difference between the producer and the

government in income assurance. The producers believe and say

that income assurance has to be open-ended and responsive to

the marketing situation if it is to be assurance for shortfall

returns. The plan must be equitable in itself. The producers

say the programme must be sufficiently funded and equitable to

all commodity groups if it is to unite the agricultural

industry and if agriculture is to be able to stand on a fair

footing with other industries at this time.

What is shaking the producers at this moment is that the

government is now indicating that this is not the design of the

plan at all. The government is indicating that there is, in

fact, a limit on funds. If the plan is to treat producers alike

and equitably, then the producers must take a pot that the

government gives them and divide it among themselves. The

Minister indicates that this is a plausible plan. But the

producers suggest that there are very grave dangers here.

This change in attitude, first, is in violation of the

original agreement of the concept of the plan made between the

Minister and the industry. The overall pot will not be adequate

to meet the original commitment of the government and thereby

will not assure the producers a fair return, as originally

designed. They fear that by bringing this attitude in now in

the middle of the game, there is a grave danger of setting one

commodity group against another. Instead of uniting the

producers in this province, the government's attitude could

factionalize the producers and pit one commodity group against

another.

The producers fear that the income insurance programme will

have been the carrot designed to lure them into a trap of heavy

government control. I must say that the producers' suspicion is

reinforced by the government's attitude and its budgeting in

other sectors such as welfare and education in municipalities.

In these areas, the government attitude appears to downgrade

dignity and independence and to stress centralized state

control and dependency on government. This attitude serves to

reinforce the producers' concern and fears.

They would like to take into account the fact that the milk

producers, the first into the plan and possibly the carrot,

negotiated a separate agreement with the government with added

benefits not available to other commodity groups. The producers

want to know whatever happened to these benefits. Was this part

of the carrot plan to attract other commodity groups into the

programme and then have

[ Page 475 ]

the rules of the game changed?

The producers' concern is also reinforced by the fact that

the Minister, though failing to appear at various commodity

conventions this year such as the fruit growers' convention,

made his presence felt by innuendo through his staff. That

innuendo was that there could be budgetary problems and that

the pot system might have to apply.

Then, last week, near the conclusion of the negotiations

between the cattle producers' negotiating committee and the

government's negotiating team, when everyone thought there was

only one point of disagreement — that was whether the plan was

to be based on pounds or heads — the government suddenly

whipped the rug out from under both teams and cried: "Shortage

of funds!" While doing this, the government admitted that the

cattle producers will have to take less than other commodity

groups for 1973. Hardly the equitable treatment that this

government talked about.

One wonders how much this government is backing this

Minister. Are they backing the Minister of Consumer Services

(Hon. Ms. Young) who has been attacking producers or are they

attacking the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) who

has been trying to do something for the producers? They are

concerned because, when they discuss programmes with the

Minister of Agriculture and they ask him if they are

sustaining, he says: "Well, I hope they will be as long as I

am Minister." This leaves doubt in their minds as to really

where the Minister of Finance and this government stand.

In referring to this budget specifically, Mr. Speaker, there

are 11 commodity groups either in the plan, or negotiating to

come into the plan, and to the best of everyone's knowledge it

will take approximately $30 million to meet this commitment.

This is where the ifs come in, because the government says, in

its budget, that if a world inflation continues and higher

world prices for some commodities — such as milk, eggs and

fruit — continue, and if the federal government enters into

agreements with the province to cost-share in income assurance

through their bill — then a budgetary figure of not $30 million,

but $27 million for income assurance could be adequate.

These are the government ifs, and, Mr. Speaker, I would

suggest to you that they are very big ifs. But we must suggest

that reality may enter the picture and the situation, and more

ifs could come into play. If the downturn in the economy

continues as predicted, and commodity prices and consumer

buying slump, if the federal/provincial negotiations break down

or fad to mature this year, or if the cattle market proceeds as

predicted and doesn't make sufficient recovery to return at

least a reasonable amount to the producer, then there is going

to be a heavy draw on this plan.

Then there are the deficits that are existing in some of the plans now. Then

the Minister is going to be left with a deficit, and he'll have but two choices.

First, he can apply for a special warrant to get money for income assurance.

But where is this money to come from in this budget? There is only a buffer

of $500,000. There could well be a shortfall of several million dollars in income

assurance, and no buffer for this in the overall budget, unless salary contingencies

are a hidden buffer. The government has said that this is not so, and we accept

their word. Then the government must either take money from other budgets, such

as Health and Education, to meet these commitments to the producers, or it must

enter into deficit financing.

The second choice could be that the government will do

exactly what it has been dropping hints of doing and has done

with the cattle producers, and that is cut back, break the

principle of the original agreement, and to get off the hook

say to them: "All right, boys and girls, this is the pot. You

go and divide it among yourselves."

The last concern that was expressed in relation to income

assurance was that there is no provision for new groups coming

in, and it is quite common knowledge that there are others,

such as the broiler producers, who would like to enter the

programme this year.

Mr. Speaker, a commitment is a commitment is a commitment,

and this government, through its Minister of Agriculture, made

a commitment and agreed to principles of an income assurance

programme for the producers of this province together. The

producers have put their cards on the table, and I call on the

government to do the same. Put your cards on the table. Allay

the concerns of the producers.

I'm sure the Minister of Agriculture doesn't want any double

dealings from the bottom of the deck. This budget leaves the

government open to the concern that this is exactly what they

have in mind.

The Minister of Agriculture and the government must make it

quite clear that income assurance will be carried out as

originally agreed and that their commitment made will be their

commitment kept. They must assure the producers that this

budget is sufficient to cover the agreed commitment on an

agreed and equitable basis.

I would like to turn from agriculture for a moment and talk

about ICBC. We hear a lot of talk from this government, and we

see a lot of advertising about discrimination and their stand

against discrimination. It is ironic that in the area of

women's rights and human rights, while so vocal, the government

has faded to recognize these practices even within their own

government services and their own Crown Corporations — areas

that are directly under the control of this cabinet.

An excellent example to measure some of these

[ Page 476 ]

inequities is to look at the pay scale for upper echelon

jobs in this government, order-in-council jobs where the

government has taken free reign when it comes to qualifications

and salaries — some as high as $39,000 a year and more for

males.

Why is it, for example, that the Department of Consumer

Services and the Department of Education, both traditionally

areas of women's pursuits, have in their service executive

assistants who are women, and who earn $19,464 a year, while

departments such as Finance, and the do-nothing Department of

Highways, traditionally more masculine areas, have in their

employ three male executive assistants each earning $23,710

annually?

How can this government maintain that it seeks equal

opportunities for all when, within its own system, it is

practising discrimination? Why, for example, did the Education

department find it necessary to offer $24,000 a year to its new

research adviser, recently hired....?

AN HON. MEMBER: Soon to be fired.

MRS. JORDAN: Soon to be fired — it well may be...while

two female executive assistants, one in the Department of

Education and one in the Department of Consumer Services, get

$4,000 a year less. They've been working for the Department of

Education ever since the Minister was there. Is it because the

position was filled by a man, Mr. Speaker?

ICBC, the NDP major claim to fame, is really rampant with

discrimination, and we know many of the areas. But I would like

to suggest that there are two areas of discrimination that need

immediate attention and are a blot on this government's

long-winded discussions of its efforts to bring in equality. I

point out that a wage earner, whether it be a male or a female,

is covered if they have an accident to a maximum of $50 a week

for 104 weeks with the right to review after this time. That's

the same for a married woman and for a housewife, whether she's

a homemaker or whether she works out. This is regardless of

their outside income, Mr. Speaker.

But if a handicapped person or a pensioner or someone receiving any type of

pension under the Canada Assistance Act or for service to this country or from

Workers' Compensation has an accident, even though they pay the same premiums

as the others, their compensation payment is reduced by the amount of their

pension. Now, really, how discriminatory can a practice be? There's no appeal

from this because the Attorney-General won't listen — he has proved that — and

the Minister of Finance and the Premier won't let ICBC come under the auspices

of the Minister of Consumer Services. Disgraceful! The people who can least

afford to have an accident — senior citizens, handicapped, people on pensions

— are discriminated against by the ICBC in the payments that they receive.

There's also discrimination in the area of death benefits.

If the head of the house is killed then there is a benefit of

$5,000 to the surviving spouse. But if the spouse is killed,

then there is only a payment of $2,500 to the surviving spouse.

I would suggest that this is discriminatory in that it weights

in a family who is more valuable to the family. It's quite

common knowledge that the majority of the heads of the houses,

so-called, in society today are classed as males because of

income earning ability or because of the fact that a mother may

wish to stay home and undertake voluntary pursuits. This in

itself is discriminatory.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to suggest that this budget is

concrete proof that under the Williams-Barrett government the

people of British Columbia are paying more and more to get less

and less from the government. They're paying more and more for

bureaucracy, for salaries and for all the other frills and

ideologies that they are building up.

Nowhere in this budget is there any programme for housing to

meet the needs of our people. The Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr.

Nicolson), who was so staunchly defended by the Minister of

Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea), seems to have little time to worry

about his department, less time to talk about his department

and no time to build homes in this province. Now we see him

involved and spending his time with a new dance that they call

the "Casa Loma." We need 50,000 housing units in British

Columbia today for people, not change of ownership of existing

units, which is the main thrust of this government and with

which they pad their budget. New units for people.

Nowhere in this budget is there any statement which will

help local governments out of the financial jackpot that

they're in today. Blame it on Ottawa. Hang it on an "if," a big "if." Today I read an

article where there is a

suggestion that the oil prices in the world are going to

decrease, and yet the municipalities have to look at that "if"

for any form of security and assistance.

I would urge the government, in closing, Mr. Speaker — and I

know you'll give me the same privilege as you gave the Minister

of Highways — to trim the fat of self-indulgence out of this

inflationary budget: a 48 per cent increase in spending; most

of the revenues from the backs of people. Stop mining the

people's pockets and extracting excess profits from people just

to feed a socialist machine which is blind to its

responsibility and leadership and public accountability.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, the people of this province want

truth in government; they want responsible management to help

dampen inflation. They want housing at reasonable cost, job

opportunities and

[ Page 477 ]

individual, responsible freedom. Because the budget fails in

its commitments to the people, I regret to say I cannot support

it.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to

thank my colleagues for that resounding round of applause.

I now take my place for the first time this session with

great exuberance. I hope that everyone will give me their

undivided attention as I bring forth these words of wisdom.

First, I'd like to express my sorrow for the loss of our

former Clerk of the House, Mr. Ned DeBeck. I'd also like to

congratulate my successor, who is now in the hot seat as the

government Whip, Mr. Colin Gabelmann. I can see, Colin, that

you've got a lot of support out there. (Laughter.) All my

followers are now ready to go behind you.

This is a time for congratulations. In fact, the

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) should be congratulated,

too, on...

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. BARNES: Hear, hear! ...on his efforts last October 24,

when he took a very important step toward raising the public

conscience to some of the inequities throughout the world by

removing South African products from the provincial government

liquor shelves. Alex, I feel we've got to have more examples of

that kind of leadership where legislation isn't going to solve

all the problems. Part of the text of my comments today will

deal with those things that have to do with cooperation.

We're also doing a lot of things that we shouldn't have to

do, but it's a good sign. We have International Women's Year,

In all of my years as a social worker, I've had great

dissatisfaction for such events because I feel it points out

the faults of our society when we have to have special days and

special years for things that should be common occurrence.

MR. D.T. KELLY (Omineca): That's right.

MR. BARNES: When I frown upon things like brotherhood week,

and father and son day, and so forth, it's really because I

feel that we're just playing with things that we should get on

with resolving. I hope the time will come when we don't have

the need for International Women's Year.

One other point too, Mr. Speaker, in connection with some of the hypocritical

things that many of us have been guilty of in the past, was the remarks by the

former speaker, the Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan), who was most unfair

in talking about the faults of our government in not bringing down legislation

to protect women and other groups in the community. In fact, we brought down

the only legislation that exists in this province.

I recall, before being elected, having great difficulty in

getting any kind of legal justice for people who were

complaining about various forms of discrimination. This

ex-Minister of the past government stands before this House and

accuses this government of not providing the means whereby

justice can be achieved for the various people in the community

when she herself sat in the cabinet with the previous

government and none of these things were done. I would like to

ask just what they were doing that these things have now become

so important, when for 20 years no action was taken.

I think we've brought into force some very important

legislation that we will be building upon and experimenting

with. Hopefully, it too will just become part of the old, dusty

statutes and will no longer be necessary when we get on with

the real problem of living in this community.

This is one of the questions I want to pose today. I feel,

after listening to the debate and, before that, to the throne

debate, and from the comments people have made to me, that they

think everything can be done in the Legislature. We've had a

lot of accusations going back and forth about whose fault it is

for not having enough money allocated for this event or other

projects. But I would like to pose a question to all of the

sitting Members and for those people who are outside: just what

does the Legislature stand for? What is its goal? What are the

purposes we all come for?

I would like to feel that it is to do with making a better

place for the most important resource, those citizens out there — the people. We certainly shouldn't be here to build empires

for the sake of building them, or institutions or

establishments or organizations for the sake of putting them

up.

One of the most important ones, the schools, the educational

institutions, has been bantered about quite a bit in this

Legislature for one reason or the other, usually for political

reasons, unfortunately. It is one of the most vital and it is

the core of the whole system in which we live. I feel that it

needs to be defended and I think that it has to be defended. I

think it has to be done by all the people concerned, not by the

legislators.

I would like to suggest that elected officials on school

boards and those who have found themselves in the profession of

teaching and those of us who have propagated the subjects that

are being taught in the schools and the children and the

taxpayers who may support — and who are not perhaps parents —

all have a role to play in the operation of the institutions of

learning.

The problem is to keep the learning institutions in step

with the needs of the times and not to let them

[ Page 478 ]

become large gargantuan monstrosities that enslave us so

that we become subject to their uncontrollable dictates, as is

quite often what is happening throughout the province where we

have so much difficulty in trying to keep up with what are

quasi-requirements in the various schools in terms of more

money for more buildings, more instructors, more facilities, et

cetera. It just doesn't make sense to me that we can continue

to use old formulae for new and changing times and concepts. I

realize that any formula worth its salt, if it is to be

relevant, has to have a change component in it whereby it can

be applicable from time to time. There has to be a continuum of

change and new ideas and means and ways by which new ideas can

be injected into that system.

I have listened to a number of delegations, here at the

Legislature and also in the community, by sincere people. Some

are educators. Some are parents belonging to various

organizations who are concerned about the quality of education,

who are concerned about the various special needs of students

being met in the educational institutions. They are wondering

whether we are considering all of the variety of

characteristics that distinguish one school district from

another and one individual from another. We espouse ideas of

understanding in talking about the psychological differences,

the cultural differences, the ethnological differences, and so

forth — economic, socio-economic, differences within the mosaic

we call British Columbia and Canada. But when it comes to

dealing practically with the problem within our most important

institution, it never matters. Somewhere along the line we need

to rediscover, if we ever did know at all, how to really relate

to the needs of the community.

We complain about technological influence on people, about

the industrialized society in which we live and how it

influences our lives adversely. We know that this influence can

be a burden unless it is kept in check. Yet, at the same time,

our educational institutions quite often relate directly with

this system, which suggests to me that at that very basic,

fundamental level we are failing to alter the environment in

which we live by giving the variety of experiences and the kind

of input at the beginning level of learning that is needed to

make the change.

As a parent I suppose my views are different than what they would be as a politician.

Politically, the things that I really feel would not be all that popular among

the people who supposedly control the vote. I think that this is probably one

of the faults. We began to tread lightly because of fear of making changes in

established institutions in hierarchical structures where people have built

themselves their own empires and have begun to feel a sense of fear or threat

when change sticks its unexciting face through the door. They naturally want

to make sure that they are going to be secure before any change takes place.

This, I think, is a fundamental characteristic of human nature, at least in

North America — perhaps not in some other cultures.

But in our culture it seems fairly consistent that you can

expect reaction when you talk about change. So, as a

politician, you find yourself trying to slip in some

suggestions without getting anyone riled up and thinking

unkindly of you. But as a parent with four children, watching

them grow from birth to as old as 20 years of age now, and some

others as teenagers, I really think that it is about time that

we took a look at the realities of our system and that we

prepared ourselves for the change, no matter what the

consequences personally, because the future depends on it.

Some of the parents and concerned teachers who have talked

to me about special needs and special difficulties that

students are having are making a very valid observation. I

think that the government can go just so far without sincere

leadership and cooperation on the part of every interested

level in the community. School boards, principals, instructors

in the classroom, parents, and so forth, all have a role to

play. It can't be that nothing will move out there but

everything has to move here.

It can't just be input of dollars; it has to be input of

dollars where relevant. There has to be some distinction made

at the various levels as far as the differences are concerned.

There has to be flexibility. There has to be an opportunity to

evaluate and assess on the local levels. In fact, that

opportunity exists in many respects in the school districts. I

think the school districts are going to have to impose upon

themselves this responsibility in a realistic way and make the

changes where they should be made, and also redeploy staff when

necessary. It may even mean a principal or two going into the

classroom. I don't want to suggest that we don't need

principals, but I think that we have to take a look at what the

most important thing is. We have to take a look at the

realities of the dollar, where they come from, and how many we

can afford to keep putting in without getting results.

Also, we have to keep quality. Quality does not always

equate with small numbers on a student/teacher ratio. In other

words, a smaller number of students per teacher does not

necessarily mean that the quality goes up, although there are

other factors, obviously, that are improved by that method.

I think that it is not good enough for us to simply say that because we have

a mechanical formula of figures we have resolved the problem. We are going to

have to be flexible enough to not only allow school districts to make decisions

on the spot as related to their own particular problems, but we are going to

have to consider alternative environmental studies —

[ Page

479 ]

physical settings, changes as far as the whole concept of

how people learn and where they learn and what is learning and

what is important in learning, Surely the formal classroom

setting is not the only way for a person to receive an academic

education. Surely it is not the only way for a person to be

inspired and to contribute in the community in a constructive

way.

Mind you, I realize that we like to feel that in this

society we are going to receive some document, some form of

recognition for our efforts. We would like to be congratulated

for in in the "achievement of merit" or whatever you call it.

But these are superficial things that we have imposed upon

ourselves and our people because of a way of life. It doesn't

necessarily mean a thing, as we all must know by now.

I can tell you there a lot of people walking the streets

with a lot of these documents in their pockets. I know several

fellows who have come to me and said: "I have all of these

qualifications, but I've got too much, and I'm overqualified. I

can no longer get a job. If I had no education I would be able

to get a job." I can give you cases of people who tell me this

all the time. There is something wrong with the system where we

overeducate the people, or educate them in a way that is

irrelevant or totally me on sequential as far as the needs of

the community are concerned. In many cases — I say this even

with my own two or three pieces of paper — people achieve these

things because it gives them a certain amount of status in the

community, acceptance, or what you might call a ticket to work,

a meal ticket, a union card. It is a form of recognition, a

form of acceptance.

I think that we have to begin to make these changes. I don't

know if the educational profession is prepared to make these

kinds of changes. What would it do to the institutions if we

were to say we are no longer going to have formal teaching, we

are going to put everybody out in the streets and they are all

going to go to work, including the teachers? What would happen?

Well, I will tell you, I would probably not get re-elected if I

pushed that too far. But I may feel that it is worth it. If I

thought it could happen, I might be willing to go out and work

myself. (Laughter.)

I say this because I think these are the kinds of things

that we have dilly-dallied around with and just haven't been

prepared to seriously attack.

Let's face it, all of us must know what I am saying. It doesn't really matter

what- your profession is. It doesn't matter whether it's the medical profession

or legal profession or the physical sciences. We all like our empires and we

like to make sure that we are not going to be disturbed. We've put a lot of

years in getting where we are, and we don't really want the kind of change that

is going to upset our particular domain. I can understand that. In fact, I have

tried to break into a few domains in the past and I have had great difficulty.

(Laughter.)

I went all the way through my professional career as a

football player from the back door, in fact, and I realized

what politics were all about, because you don't have to have

skill or ability; it's who you know. Ask any guy who's been

cut. You say: "I was better than that guy but I didn't know the

right people, so I am on the bench and other guy's playing, and

he's nothing but a burn." Any ex-athlete can tell you that,

especially those who didn't make it. (Laughter.) But do they

not have a right to make it? I think so. We all have a right to

make it.

I don't think we should be accepting these percentages of

anywhere from 3 to 5 per cent unemployment as being normal. We

let it go up to 10 and 15 per cent and say: "Well, things are

getting a little out of hand." But how come it can't be zero?

Why do people have to be unemployed? Why do we have to have a

system where we accept as normal 5 per cent unemployment?

Now we have inherited the problem this government has, and I

don't suppose we are going to be able to change it in

isolation. It is a universal problem. It is one that affects us

all. I wonder if we really have to have it that way. Or is it

that if we change it it means that we have to change the

system? We are not prepared to do that. No way! We'll talk

forever, but change — no.

I think the message is made, though, that change is the

challenge and we are not prepared to do that. I know it. We are

prepared to do what we can but, as politicians, we can only

suggest. We aren't going to be able to change the system. You

have to change the system, the people out there. Politicians

have never been able to change a thing, especially people's

attitudes — you know, mores, the cultural habits and what not:

these aren't things you change through legislation. If you want

to have a war, sure, you can go ahead and declare it by making

some regulations that people don't want to abide by; you can do

that.

But I am talking about change that involves your sincere

desire to see things differently than the way they were, have

things differently. This is what it's all about, this

Legislature, when you listen to people talk about who is at

fault and what is going on. Well, we are playing games. Let's

go out and make the changes ourselves.

I haven't had anyone come and demand of me that I recommend

that they don't get their raise next year. Not one has come to

say: "Would you insist that I be not allowed to have a raise?"

— you know, that we hold the line on this and hold the line on

that. That's the kind of thing that I am talking about. There

is no point in labouring these points. We all know.

MR. McCLELLAND: Is this your resignation speech?

[ Page 480 ]

MR. BARNES: No, maybe it's a suggestion that you walk across

the floor. You guys know it when you are playing games, Mr.

Member. We all do that. That's how we got here; we know how to

play the games on the street. But some of us get here and

realize that we should be doing something besides playing

games.

Let me just close by asking a favour of two or three

Ministers. These are just minor things. I'll start off with the

Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke), who has worked very hard

in trying to raise people's awareness and concern for good

health and so forth, and ask him if he would not revitalize the

concept of cycling. I know that people are doing it. When I

came back from China I was impressed with the number of people

on bicycles. In fact, everybody seemed to be on bicycles.

I realize that that is another situation, but I think the

bicycle thing should be encouraged. I would like to ride my

bike, Mr. Minister, but I have a problem. I don't have any

place to change when I get here; I can't take a shower. Now if

you and the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley) were to

get together and agree on a few things, we may end up with a

shower here for the Members of the House who, I am sure, would

like to ride their bikes as well — including the Speaker and

all the other people. You can make it a public situation. Now

that's not asking too much but it's beginning at home in doing

something about what we want everybody else to do. I would like

to be on my bike all the time. Okay, now that's one renovation

to the building that I am sure wouldn't get too much adverse

criticism from the opposition as they probably would like to

participate, too; they're well-intentioned people.

The other Minister I had in mind was the Minister of

Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea). I have a problem. This is still

relating to myself, but I am sure there are others who can

benefit from this particular problem.

I like to ride my bike from home sometimes, not just while

I'm here. I live in Port Moody and I've had to go all the way

around Pattullo Bridge and come in through Surrey, Delta and

around that way. Now, how come I can't come under the Massey

Tunnel? If I could come that way, I could save myself about 10

miles. It's about a 70 mile ride here from Port Moody.

I know that you're not going to stop the traffic. When that

tunnel was put in, it was designed for cars and not for people.

The name Massey ties in, I think, with the Socreds. It's all

tied together; that's what they were thinking. But if you were

putting it up, I'm sure you would have a nice way there for

bicycles to go underneath that tunnel. There's nothing you can

do about that.

But you may be able to do something that will facilitate

those of us who would like to get through that tunnel on our

bicycles by maybe putting up a little shuttle system every hour, five minutes on the hour.

We could all get on this truck, go through the tunnel and then

get out. It would be a nice public gesture and I'm sure a lot

of people would be pleased with that. If you couldn't do that,

then stop the traffic. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: Yes.

Because of the long-windedness of the previous speakers, I

know that I have two more following me. They should have at

least half-an-hour to express themselves.

Most of you by now know how I feel. I would like to see us

continue to take the leadership in areas that are practical, as

we have done, and not to be dissuaded or discouraged by the

games the opposition is playing. They like to do that and it

gets pretty boring over there. We won't let them make any

decisions and they've got to raise the roof. (Laughter.) I know

a little about that myself, being in the in-the-between.

(Laughter.)

With that, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to take my seat and

congratulate....

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): You've still got it, eh?

MR. BARNES: I think I still have it. I'd like to

congratulate the government on bringing down a budget that is

incredibly beautiful. I'm sure it will go down in history as

being one of the most outstanding budgets this province has

known.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): Before I make a few comments

on this budget, I too would like to join the rest of the

Members in the tributes that have been paid to Ned DeBeck, the

Clerk Consultant for so long in this House. I think, as

newcomers coming here, we will always remember his gentle

humour, his particularly bright blue eyes and piercing look

when you were getting slightly out of line, and the advice and

time that was always there, particularly for new people coming

into the Legislature who needed it most. I think we're all

poorer for having lost him but certainly richer for having

known him.

It's certainly a pleasure to stand and speak in support of

this budget that is before the House now. If we were in the old

times in Europe, the storytellers would talk about it and the

singers would sing about it for years, when they didn't have

the type of media we have now. I sometimes wish that we were

back in those times.

The opposition has criticized us for two things in

particular: (1) because we're contributing to the fires of

inflation with our reckless spending, and (2)

[ Page 481 ]

because we're not doing any investment in the province to

stimulate employment. It seems that there is a bit of a problem

there in bringing these two situations together in their mind.

But they have a term that they call a split personality, and I

somehow think that this is what they're invoking — one opinion

on one side, one on the other, and they can make it compatible

in their own mind.

Wasting money. Taxing the taxpayer too high. We should

reduce taxes. I wonder if the opposition have ever taken the

time to look at reports that have been filed in this House or

statements made by Ministers of income from some of the fields

traditionally reserved for private enterprise that this

government has ventured into.

It seems, according to the opposition — and the official

opposition particularly — that the only time government should

ever go into a venture of any kind that supplies employment or

maintains a community is when it loses money. This has been

their record in the past and federally, and they believe it

should be carried on in this province. It should be typically

reserved and government should only go into ventures that lose

money.

The record has been stated many times on northern Can-Cel. I

worked in the Celanese Corp. In 1952 for one winter when it was

losing money, and it lost money continually until the

government purchased it from their private-enterprise owners.

The record is unexcelled for the terms of purchase and the

return that it has brought to the Treasury of this province and

the people of this province to be returned to them in services

that they require. It's my understanding that there was $50

million brought to this government by Can-Cel alone.

When I worked for them up north, they still hadn't added the

sulphite plants; they weren't using any waste whatsoever to

make celanese pulp. We were putting 60-foot Sitka spruce trees

through the chipper. If they were too big to go through the

chipper, they were butchered up small enough to go in. There

wasn't any lumber, any plywood or anything made from one of the

finest kinds of timber that is grown in this province, and this

was one of the free-enterprise corporations to which the whole

future of this province should be entrusted.

The record, of course, bears out that it isn't necessary to

have a private owner to make money, and that it can be done by

the provincial government.

Employment was being created some months ago, is still being created, and will

be created on an accelerating basis in the Burns Lake area, where there probably

would not be a sawmill had it not been for the policies of the Minister of Lands,

Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) and this government. There

is just no way that any politician will be able to go to the Burns Lake area

and say this should all be turned over to private enterprise. It is now on a

compassionate basis that allows the people of the area to take

part in it. There

is a spinoff from this type of development that is creating and will create

further employment in the side industries and supply industries for this development.

We are told that we are spending too much money. We are also

told by the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr.

Strachan) that the three ferries are ordered from the B.C.

shipyards — one in each of the major shipyards on this coast.

Maybe we should cut that out and save a little money. We'd be

left with a poor ferry service, but we'll get along somehow.

The people in the shipyards — a lot will be laid off and lose

their jobs and contribute to the unemployment, but we would be

fighting inflation. This seems to be the traditional way of

free enterprise government and business to fight inflation.

One thing stands out in the difference in the ordering of

these ferries by the government and their being ordered by

private enterprise. How many of the shipping companies in

Canada — owned by Canadians, or partly by foreigners or totally

by foreigners — place their orders in Canada for ships? They

never do. They're built in Japan, or they're built in Sweden,

or they're built in East or West Germany, wherever they can get

the best price. They're not worried about Canadian employees

whatsoever at any time, only about how much money can be taken

out of the Canadian economy for their particular bank

account.

Maybe we shouldn't bother spending the money on the Peace

River dam or the new dam that is proposed near Trail — dams

that have had complete and total environmental studies and will

have more to make sure that the area is protected and that the

area is cleared so that we won't be faced with the logjams and

the dead game that tries to swim the lake at their traditional

crossing points, such as we have in the lakes behind the dams

built in the past.

Perhaps we shouldn't build them. Then the time will come, 10

years from now, when there won't be enough energy to supply the

increase in manufacturing industry, so they won't start up and

the unemployment will increase. But if we build them, maybe we

are contributing to inflation. Now I can't reconcile the two in

my mind — that we must close down these projects, not operate

them to fight inflation and yet do absolutely nothing towards

employment.

We've been criticized both in the throne speech and the

budget debate for almost everything you can think of. Most of

it, of course, is nit-picking. I haven't heard any very serious

criticism or constructive alternative suggestions.

It has been said by the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr.

Macdonald) and others that this is a government with a heart, a

government with a thought and a feeling for people. I would

just like to read a letter to

[ Page 482 ]

the editor from people, not from any of the large owners or

the large corporate heads. It is to the Similkameen Spotlight ,

Wednesday, February 26, 1975, and this is a person who is

attacking this particular newspaper for a statement that was in

an editorial. He says:

"Dear Editor:

"Recently your Christmas message in the December 18

Spotlight came to my attention, and part of the editorial

stated: 'This government has lost the confidence of the

investor and the consensus is that the people in Victoria,

running our government, cannot be trusted.'"

Obviously he has been listening to the opposition, because

that is one of the most destructive statements that anyone

corresponding with the public, or in the public eye, can make —

one of the greatest leads toward the lack of confidence in the

province by the people here, and absolutely untrue. He goes on

to say:

"Mr. Editor, may I tell you that in 1967 I invested $1,800

in 100 shares in Columbia Cellulose. When this company decided

to go bankrupt I felt that I should be in the same position as

those people who had invested in Commonwealth Trust. The

government of that day, Social Credit, stood by and allowed the

shareholders to lose their investments. I thought the same

thing would happen to the investors in Columbia Cellulose.

"Imagine, then, how I felt when the present government

stepped in and said in effect to Columbia Cellulose: 'You can

sell your company to us and we will protect the jobs of the

workers and the savings of the small investers.' This is what

they did. Further, they doubled my holdings..."

He only had $1,800 in, but they doubled his holdings.

"...so that I now have 200 shares in Can-Cel and the

prospects of increasing dividends as years go by."

He goes on further to say, and I think it's important....

This is one of the small people, the little people that the

opposition always talks about, the people they were going to

let go down the drain at Ocean Falls, the people they were

going to let go down the drain at Prince Rupert and Watson

Island and anywhere else, the same as they did with

Commonwealth Trust. It goes on to say:

"We know, of course, that $1,800 means little to the wealthy

investor, but to the small person such as I, dividends on such an investment

represent a welcome addition to the annual income. The NDP government claim

to be a people's government. Such cases as this instance prove to me that this

is no idle claim. You will understand then that I cannot agree with your remarks

in the editorial in question. Further, it's my considered opinion that many

of the citizens of B.C. have, like me, confidence in the people who are presently

running our government."

We have the man's name and address here, from Mission, B.C.,

who wrote that letter. That is only an example of some of the

small people who have confidence in this government, in spite

of the wrecking job being attempted by the opposition.

You know, we have heard the Health department criticized,

Mr. Speaker. The club is really being laid on to the Minister

of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) by the Member for Oak Bay (Mr.

Wallace), particularly on intermediate care, but on all types

of hospital care. The Member for Oak Bay seems to think that in

a matter of 30 months you can wave the magic wand and hospitals

just spring out of the ground, Well, I've mentioned before how

the hospital board in Kamloops tried to get an addition to

Royal Inland for four years from the previous government and

never managed it. I also mentioned how the people of the small

community of Clearwater only got one by having a tape recorder

at the election meeting there when the previous Minister of

Health was in the area and promised them a hospital — then

later denied it. I doubt if they'd have a hospital yet if that

tape hadn't been played back to the government of the day.

But last fall a new four-story intermediate-care hospital

was opened in Kamloops. It has accepted almost 200 patients at

the present time and will be accepting more in the very near

future. It is within a half-block of the Royal Inland Hospital,

so attention can be received quickly for someone who gets

seriously ill there. And to complement the addition to the

Royal Inland that is now completed and this intermediate-care

hospital, construction will begin this spring on a 100-bed

extended-care hospital for which the sod was turned by the

Minister of Health late last fall, when it was too late to

begin construction. The designs had to be done but we fully

expect that construction will begin this spring.

Now maybe we shouldn't build that hospital either, because

that will contribute to inflation. You're going to put money

into the system and you can't do that, apparently, without

contributing to the fires of inflation.

I'd like to talk about another

section of the budget that

will effect the whole province in some way — but in a very

strong way is affecting the Kamloops constituency. That's the

Department of the Provincial Secretary, a department that's

often ignored, a department that was ignored in the past very

badly. But the budget says that he is now to have $21 million

more. I'd just like to talk about one way that the increases in

this budget last year helped my area, will continue to help my

area on the expansion of the

[ Page 483 ]

Thompson-Nicola Regional District Library System, and will

be a model — in fact, it is a model already — for every regional

district in the province who are without decent library

services, and need it and want it.

The provincial library commission and the regional district

got together and passed a plebiscite to see whether the people

of the district wanted library service or not because they only

had one small bookmobile travelling around an area 300 miles by

100 miles. The people voted over 80 per cent to have this

system installed. They set up a local library board and each

community set up a small library board, and they entered into

negotiations with the Provincial Library Development

Commission.

After a year and a half of consultation, suggestions and

different proposals, we now have one of the finest library

systems in the province in the Thompson-Nicola Regional

District. It's a model for the rest of the province, and other

areas of the province are looking at it. Some as far away as

Squamish have asked to be included in ours. There's a main book

centre in Kamloops. I should also mention, Mr. Speaker, that

this is not only going to be books. There will be videotapes,

there will be records and there will be art work along with the

book system.

'Me grants this year in the Provincial Secretary's

department for district libraries is $2,570,000. That's quite a

step up from the previous administration, who were not the

least bit interested in libraries unless they happened to be a

part of one large building as a monument that they considered

to themselves.

There is a large central depot in Kamloops that is staffed

with people, contributing to employment. The sharing of the

costs is done by 1.5 mills from the people in the district and

the balance by the provincial government, So far has been

approximately a 50-50 sharing.

We have now at least 10 branch libraries funneling off from

this main central one. We have one in Blue River, in

Clearwater, in Barriere, North Kamloops, Valleyview, Logan

Lake, Ashcroft and a few others that I haven't listed here.

The little bookmobile is still in use but there is also a

new one, a tractor trailer. The trailer must be 30 feet long,

converted into a travelling library, that goes into communities

such as Walhachin, which only has 32 families, on a scheduled

basis once a week. Anyone in the district can pick up a book at

any of the libraries, turn it in at any of the libraries where

they happen to be, or turn it into the bookmobile, or get it

from the bookmobile and turn it in at the library.

There has never been a system like it in the Thompson-Nicola Regional District,

in the small towns that I have mentioned up Highway 5. Without this government

they would still be without it, and they know it. They know they would not have

it without this provincial government.

I want to take this opportunity, certainly, to commend the

provincial library commission and also the Thompson-Nicola

Regional District library board and the local library boards

who participated so well for a year and a half that has

resulted in this model programme.

Perhaps one of the things we should cut back on would be the

extension of the B.C. Railway. That isn't finished yet to Dease

Lake and, certainly, if we ended construction and laid the

construction workers off, we could save money. Then we wouldn't

be contributing to inflation. But what would the people up in

that area say? They're looking to that rail for transportation

because transportation means development. They want not so much

the passenger service as that freight service in there so that

the area which has been ignored for so long and has had so

little development will be able to develop, and develop in a

planned and proper way under our new department of northern

affairs.

Once a railroad or transportation goes into an area such as

that, it is bound to attract industry; it is bound to attract

investment; it is bound to create employment. But they're

saying we should save money to fight inflation, so maybe we

shouldn't extend the railroad. Let the north and that area stay

asleep for another 10 years. I don't think anyone in this House

would suggest such a thing. Nevertheless the negative

nit-picking will continue: "You're spending too much money.

You're wasting too much money"

With the fabrication yards in Squamish in a very short while

now we will not be relying on the east to supply us with box

cars and supplying the orders as they see fit and putting ours

off, possibly, to supply someone else. We'll be able to build

our own cars and, once we've built our own fleet of cars on

this railroad up to what is needed, then we will be able to put

it into production to sell to other railroads and other uses.

That, once again, will be returning money to the province, as

Can-Cel has done, and create employment for the people of

British Columbia.

These fabrication yards at Squamish are not only the yards

and buildings themselves. There are going to have to be

serviced lots out there. Homes and roads and schools are going

to have to be built for the employees of this shop. This is

going to contribute to the tax base of Squamish; it is going to

enlarge their population; it is going to create employment for

all the building trades that work on the construction of those

homes.

I would like to touch also on the homeowner grants. The

renters' grants are up; the senior citizens' grants are up;

the homeowner grants are up. I wonder just what the opposition

thinks that the average person and the senior citizens do with

this increase in

[ Page 484 ]

grants. Do they think they put it in the bank and save it? I

can tell you right now that these grants have to be increased

to fight inflation. Every dollar that is put into the hands of

these citizens is going to be put back into circulation in the

economy. They're not going to sit on it. That's going to be

spent for goods and services in their own neighbourhood, from

the small garages to the small grocery stores and the

supermarkets. They're going to spend it for clothing and shoes.

All of it is going to have a spin-out effect that will create

employment and keep the province on a much more steady

basis.

Coming from an area like Kamloops, so dependent on forestry,

I was pleased to see that there was a $40 million increase in

the budget for Lands, Forests and Water Resources. In the past

we have not had enough reforestation done. There has never been

enough replanting to take care of the areas that have been cut.

This is going to provide employment and it is going to provide

new forests for the future for our children and the industry,

It's going to provide employment in the nurseries. They'll have

to be enlarged and there will have to be more employees there

to keep up with the greater reforestation of the logged-off

areas.

Interjection.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: "How many?" Let's pin it down. Once again

we are back to the nit-picking. How many? Is it going to be

1,000 or 800? Therefore, we can zero in on the difference.

I think the public should be aware of this and this House

should be aware that a lot of the money that is in this budget

to be spent has come from the investment of the government in

the traditional areas kept for private enterprise: Can-Cel,

Plateau Mills and the petroleum corporation have all returned

money to the Treasury of this province to be used to keep the

province buoyant.

On top of the $40 million, of course, for forestry, there

was an extra $15 million separate from that to create

employment in this department in much-needed work. I'm sure

that when the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources

(Hon. R.A. Williams) speaks he will have more information on

how that extra money will be used and the employment it will

create, on top of the greater reforestation, road building, and

nursery work.

We have heard a lot of criticism about education in spite of

the fact that the Minister circulated to all members of this

House the number of schools built, the number of gymnasiums

built, the number of libraries built last year, which was at an

all-time record high. Yet we are not doing the right things in

education.

Cariboo College sat there in Kamloops with the academic and

vocational wings sharing one building. They had a cafeteria. That was all. They have had approval

now for a library and a gym. Last week I was talking to one of

the deans from the college who was down to see the Department

of Education for the next project when the contract had just

been let for the library and gym. They want a science building

and one other building. They certainly have every hope of

getting it.

One of the greatest benefits, I think, to the educational

system in this province when this government came to power was

the ability of school boards to now acquire sites for future

building. Now they can plan on the past five years' increase in

population. They can have a very good idea of how much it will

increase in the next five years and be able to acquire sites at

a reasonable price, rather than waiting for the higher costs

later on.

I have a document here with regard to School District 26 in

the North Thompson in my riding. They are a small community

scattered all along Highway 5 there for a length of 100 miles.

In this approved budget for School District 26 is $47,600 for

site acquisition, $511,000 for buildings and additions, and

$53,700, I believe, for equipment. Then there is fire loss,

risk reductions, renovations — coming to a total of $732,300,

approved for sharing on a 50-50 basis with those small

communities by the provincial government.

I think, once again, the complaints about the Education

department are nit-picking simply following a few of the

headlines that have come out in the press.

I wish to touch on two other items, Mr. Speaker, before I

sit down and yield to the Member for Skeena (Mr. Dent). This

government gets criticized so often in the press that you begin

to wonder that maybe some of it is true. But fortunately a

well-known writer in Victoria came out in praise of this

government on December 19, 1974. That is Mr. Jack Scott writing

in the Victoria Times . I think most of us have read

Jack's writings over the years. For many, many years he was

writing for The Vancouver Sun . He said:

"It interested me recently when the most influential of the

open-line commentators had an interview with the Premier on a

circuit of B.C. commercial radio stations. This man never

resists the chance to shaft the NDP government in his

day-to-day broadcasts, as do all the highly paid men who work

for the vested interests of the millionaire owners.

"There is hardly a morning when he doesn't speak of the

arrogance or the patronage of the government, with the willing

help of a regular stable of phoners-in. But on this morning, to

introduce Barrett, he elected to recite the accomplishments of

the government in the last two and a half years. It was an

impressive —

[ Page 485 ]

indeed, a shining — record of achievement that dwarfs into

insignificance the everyday barbs of the best-informed

critics."

"It is worthwhile exercise to go back over the legislation that has been enacted by this government

since they took office. Barrett himself has said more has been

done for the ordinary citizen of British Columbia in these past

two and a half years than was done in 22 years of Social Credit

dominance, It is a statement that cannot be faulted."

I do like finding these things by press people who

apparently can get by the barbs and the small criticisms that

come from the opposition in the House simply because there is

nothing left on them in this budget that they can really get

hold of.

One of the most important items in the budget for the

interior ridings, mine included, is the increase to the budget

of the Department of Recreation and Conservation. I know the

Minister will probably be talking about the whole department. I

would just like to zero in on what has happened in two and a

half years to the fish and wildlife branch. As most of you

know, Kamloops is one of the centres for fishing and recreation

in the province.

Let's look at the budgets first. In 1971, there was a budget

for the fish and wildlife branch of $2.7 million; in 1974, $7.1

million; and this year there was almost a $3 million increase.

The fish and wildlife has finally got to their goal of a $10

million budget.

One thing that this is going to mean, and is meaning now, is

that you're not going to have people going around jack-lighting

deer and catching over their limit in trout, emptying out lakes

that the taxpayer spends money stocking, when you have enough

conservation officers.

It also means that instead of simply putting on a

conservation officer, as has been done in the past, they'll be

able to get a bit of decent equipment with a budget like this.

They already have received a few four-wheel-d rive vehicles and

I'm sure they'll be getting more. No longer, as under the

previous government, will they be issued with a pair of

second-hand snowshoes and have to borrow a car from the

forestry department.

In 1972, there were 58 conservation officers in the field.

Last year in 1974 there were 135. I don't think 13 5 is enough

yet for the size of the province and for the game and fish and

the number of tourists we have, It will probably have to be

increased. But 58 conservation officers in 1972 to cover a

province of this size was a disgrace. Everyone in the fish and

game clubs knew it, the hiking clubs, the riding clubs and the

naturalists all knew it wasn't enough.

Putting these extra conservation officers on, adding to the swelling bureaucracy

of the civil service, had the result of a 43 per cent increase in convictions

last year for violators, almost double the number of convictions.

The department has acquired 6,000 acres of land in the

Kootenays and other areas for interior game management, and

this includes waterfowl areas. There have been 2,000 elk fed in

the East Kootenays on an experimental basis. This is quite a

difference than in the past when their feeding ground was

flooded by the previous government, and the feeding ground of

thousands of deer was flooded.

I won't go into the recreational facilities fund Act, but in

British Columbia over 30 fish and gam