1973 Legislative Session: 2nd 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, FEBRUARY 23, 1973

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

685 ]

CONTENTS

Privilege Mr. Williams. Release of information on bills to the Press — 685

Ruling by Mr. Speaker — 686

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 686

Routine proceedings

The Abandoned Refrigerator Act (Bill No. 95). Mr.

Wallace.

Introduction and first reading — 687

An Act to Amend the Trust Companies Act (Bill No. 96). Mr.

Gardom.

Introduction and first reading — 687

An Act to Provide Access to Public Buildings (Bill No. 97). Mr. Gardom.

Introduction

and first reading — 687

An Act to Amend the Capital Improvement District Act (Bill

No. 98) Mr. Curtis.

Introduction and first reading — 687

Budget debate (continued)

Mr. Schroeder — 687

Mr. Fraser — 688

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 690

Mr. Lea — 691

Mrs. Jordan — 692

Hon. Mr. King — 695

Mr. Chabot — 696

Mr. Lewis — 698

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 700

Mr. Morrison — 701

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 701

Mr. Brousson — 705

Mr. Williams — 709

Mr. Chabot — 712

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 713

Mr. Wallace — 716

Mr. McGeer — 718

Mr. Gabelmann — 719

Mrs. Jordan — 723

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 735

Point of order Mr. Smith. Quotations from "blue transcript" of Hansard — 737

Mr. Speaker's ruling — 738

House in Committee of supply — 742

Statement Mr. Curtis. Incident in a junior secondary school — 742

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1973

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point

Grey.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, I'd

like the House to give a very hearty welcome to a most

distinguished group of students from the University of British

Columbia. They're part of the UBC Liberal Club.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Little

Mountain.

MS. P.F. YOUNG (Vancouver–Little Mountain): Mr. Speaker we have visiting

with us today in the gallery the law class from John Oliver Secondary School

in the riding of Vancouver–Little Mountain. I was very fortunate in meeting

most of these young people last fall and found them very intelligent, very perceptive

and very interested in the legislative process of this province. They are accompanied

by their teachers Ms. Erickson and Mrs. Graham. I would ask the House to welcome

them please,

MR. SPEAKER: If I may, I'd like to welcome as well, some of the finest

and most intelligent students in the lower mainland from Burnaby South high

school who are here with their teacher to see you on your best behaviour.

The Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker,

in respect of the matter of privilege upon which I rose in this

House yesterday I wish to place before you the following state

and facts.

MR. SPEAKER: Proceed.

MR. WILLIAMS: At approximately 1:55 in the afternoon on

February 22, 1973, I was informed by Marjorie Nichols, whom I

know to be a member of the Press gallery, that some members of

the Press gallery had received advance information pertaining

to a bill or bills which the Hon. Minister of Agriculture (Hon.

Mr. Stupich) was expected to present to this House later that

afternoon.

In particular, Miss Nichols advised me that Mr. Malcolm Turnbull was then preparing

a story concerning the anticipated legislation and that a representative of

CBC and CTV, in neither case identified by name, had pre-taped a news release

pertaining to the same proposed legislation.

In the light of this information I rose at the committee

stage pertaining to the introduction of Bill Nos. 36 and 42, as

they now are, and inquired of the Minister of Agriculture

whether he intended to make any statement to the House

pertaining to the purpose of the proposed legislation. I

informed the committee that it had been suggested that a

pre-release of information had already taken place.

At that time, the Hon. Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr.

Stupich), having been recognized by the Chairman of the

Committee, advised that there was some release, namely, when he

had spoken in the debate on the budget motion.

Subsequently, in an interjection not recorded in

Hansard , the Minister indicated that since he spoke in

the debate on the budget motion and up to and including

February 22, 1973 he had been asked questions concerning the

bills which were then before the Committee.

In the light of the facts contained in the foregoing

statement I claim a breach of privilege and I respectfully

request your consideration of this matter and your advice

concerning the acceptability of a motion were the matter to be

placed before a committee on privileges.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you. There is no debate on a question of

this kind. It is for the Speaker to examine into the complaint

and to determine, first, if it is timely — that is taken up

when first it occurs, and it was in this case — and secondly,

whether it constitutes what might be a prima facie case of

breach of privilege which should then, if that were found by

the Speaker to be so, lead to a motion to deal with the matter

to determine the facts that exist in the particular case

alleged or complained of.

I am indebted to the Hon. Member for having given me an

advance statement of the complaint, for which I thank him, and

I've examined it in the light of the authorities.

There are two cases only that I can find that deal with

this, One is a case that is referred to in May's

Parliamentary Practice in the sixteenth edition, at page

382. The other is a case that occurred in the House of Commons

in Ottawa to which I will advert later.

In the case in May on page 382 it states: "Proceedings have

been interrupted to allow the raising of a communication to a

newspaper of a memorandum explanatory of a bill which was to be

introduced the next day, after the memorandum had been

presented but before it was available for Members." And then it

refers to the citation: The House of Commons Debates of

Westminster in the year 1909, volume 9, and found at page

I've taken the opportunity to examine the particular

incident in that case, and it was somewhat

[ Page 686 ]

different to this — a stronger case. It is where a bill was

to be presented, and a memorandum was authorized by the House

to give a statement to all the Members. The statement that was

to be given to all the Members in fact was not distributed to

the Members but was distributed to the Press.

So there you have a case where a bill and an explanation of

a bill was authorized and was in the possession of the House,

in effect, and authorized by the House that a memorandum be

prepared.

The other case is one in the House of Commons at Ottawa,

June 3, 1969; Mr. Speaker Lamoureux. The complaint was that a

Member rose on a point of privilege to state that the Hon.

Member claimed that the decision of the Minister of Finance to

deny party representatives access to advance budgetary

briefings is a breach of parliamentary privilege and he

complained that the Press was given this information but that

Members were not. In this case, of course, the parliamentary

leader's in the finance portfolio.

The Hon. Speaker of the House of Commons, in dealing with

this and the question of advance information to the Press,

stated:

"The first aspect of this problem has been raised on a

number of occasions, particularly in January, 1961, when Mr.

Speaker Michener was called upon to make a ruling on a similar

question. The Speaker then said, 'I do not find a prima facie

right on the part of the House to insist that the Government,

when it tables the full information, shall not give a

summary

of it to the Press.'"

Then the Hon. Speaker goes on:

"I would be inclined to come to the same conclusion in the

present circumstances. While it may well be that the whole practice should be

reviewed by the executive or by Members, I doubt very much if the way to have

or conduct such a review is by way of a specific question of privilege of the

type raised by the Hon. Member for Waterloo.

In the circumstances, my suggestion

is that the matter be given some thought, perhaps for future consideration when

budgets are presented and that a determination be made by the executive concerning

whether there should be advance briefing at all in such circumstances.

For the

time being however, I suggest to Hon. Members that there is no prima facie case

of privilege and that the motion should not be put to the House at this time."

So what we are faced with here is a similar situation but not as strong, actually,

for one reason. In the paragraph that commenced the statement by the Hon. Member,

it is indicated, by what appears to be hearsay, that some advance information

pertaining to a bill or bills which the Minister was expected to present to

the House later that afternoon had been given to some members of the Press gallery.

There is no indication that the informant was present nor that a bill was presented

to the Press, but some information pertaining to it.

The evidence is not yet, in my view, even a prima facie

showing that I have to deal with because it isn't factual

enough to determine whether it constitutes a break of

privilege. I am reinforced in that view by the decision which

was the strongest I can find, that of the House of Commons in

Westminster in 1909, where the House actually had possession in

property interest in a bill when it authorized a memorandum of

the bill to be prepared. By some inadvertence it got to the

Press before it got to the Members.

There has been a long practice that is not really the

business of the Speaker or the House, for the executive or

indeed other Members to make on advance disclosure to the Press

under a curtain of induced secrecy. This may be quite all right

where the Press and the Members are in honour bound to preserve

the confidentiality of such communication. It is not really my

business.

But I can only echo what the Hon. Speaker of the House of

Commons in Ottawa has said: it is time that this practice was

in some way modified either by this House or by the executive

so that we do not find ourselves in this embarrassing

contretemps that we are in today.

I can find no breach of privilege but I do urge the Members

to give consideration the House, for the executive or indeed

other Members to make an advance disclosure to bills are not

disclosed to persons who are not of this House — in some manner

that will accord with general satisfaction.

As you may know, there is no new breach of privilege that

can be created and I must be bound by those that I have before

me that have been of long-standing in the annals of parliament.

On those grounds I must reject the complaint.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, we

appreciate your ruling on the technicalities of the matter and

that no breach of privilege is involved. But we would like to

consider the matter at the political level and legislative

level for a few more days. It may well be that this question of

pre-release which has been common practice in this Legislature

and others should be considered by the Committee on Standing

Orders and Private Bills that is now looking at the question of

the practice of parliament.

Without making any commitment with respect to that, I would

like to say that we want to feel free to give consideration to

what you have said today and to the broader implications of the

matter apart from precedent and perhaps address ourselves to it

shortly.

MR. SPEAKER: As you know, I have the power vested in me to

refer matters of that kind from time

[ Page 687 ]

to time. I think it would serve a useful purpose if such a

matter were referred to a committee of the House.

Introduction of bills.

THE ABANDONED REFRIGERATOR ACT

Mr. Wallace moves introduction and first reading of Bill No.

95 intituled The Abandoned Refrigerator Act .

Motion approved.

Bill No. 95 read a first time and ordered to be placed on

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

House after today.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE TRUST COMPANIES ACT

Mr. Gardom moves introduction and first reading of Bill No.

96 intituled

An Act to Amend the Trust Companies Act .

Motion approved.

Bill No. 96 read a first time and ordered to be placed on

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

House after today.

AN ACT TO PROVIDE ACCESS

TO PUBLIC BUILDINGS

Mr. Gardom moves introduction and first reading of Bill No.

97 intituled

An Act to Provide Access to Public

Buildings .

Motion approved.

Bill No. 97 read a first time and ordered to be placed on

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

House after today.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ACT

Mr. Curtis moves introduction and first reading of Bill No.

98 intituled

An Act to Amend the Capital Improvement

District Act .

Motion approved.

Bill No. 98 read a first time and ordered to be placed on

order of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the

House after today, Orders of the day.

ON THE BUDGET

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Chilliwack.

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I

am glad to see you in the chair again today after a rather

harried experience last evening to which you and I both were a

party. I come today to put oil upon the troubled waters.

MR. SPEAKER: That's covered in the bill too, I think.

(Laughter).

MR. SCHROEDER: I had to think a long time to find something

within the confines of the bill.

We were indubitably proud of you, Sir. We think you have

handled your duties extremely well. It must be difficult for

you, as the Speaker, not to engage in debate when the

proceedings carry on as they did last evening. We want to

commend you for your gallant efforts last evening to refrain

from that debate and trust that again today you will be doing

that for us.

I speak to the sub-amendment. The subamendment talks about

relief from the burden of provincial taxation as it relates to

the Peace River Liard region in particular and in restoring the

level of job activity within British Columbia generally.

I began last evening and shall continue with the

illustration from my constituency in which I wish to show that

the budget speech does not provide for relief from the burden

of provincial taxation in a specific sense. I return to the

illustration of the broiler farmers, Mr. Speaker, without

wanting to suggest that the chickens have come home to

roost.

I will just recap momentarily so that it will refresh your

mind and you will be able to see the continuity, If in some measure, by reducing taxation for those who are

involved in agriculture or the production of agricultural

products — if we can reduce that provincial taxation — I

believe that we can create jobs in which we can gain some

benefits, which I would like to reserve to the conclusion of my

remarks.

We have in the Chilliwack constituency an industry which is

unique, as you heard last evening from the Hon. Member for

Shuswap (Mr. Lewis), who very correctly observed that there are

no broiler hatching-egg producers in the North Peace. This is a

unique industry to my constituency. We have in my constituency

33 individual, that is private, producers of hatching eggs as

well as one, and one only, corporate producer of hatching

eggs.

The average gross income of these producers is $41,966 for

the year. Their expenditure — and taxation is included in this

expenditure figure — is $33,400 annually. This is not including

any labour expense and does not allow for any compensation to

the owner either for labour or for investment for capital

investment return.

[ Page 688 ]

The average capital investment is $80,000 per farmer. Now

speaking on the fact that the farmer needs a return for the

$80,000 investment, I would like to show that by decreasing the

taxation on the land and also giving a rebate of taxation on

the 5 per cent sales tax, which the farmer must pay on such

items as building supplies, various repairs to farm machinery — if indeed he cannot prove that the repairs are going to be used

on implements and implements alone, he is taxed — if we can

reduce the taxation of the farmer, we can make the broiler

hatching-egg producers' industry a viable industry in

Chilliwack and we can provide jobs for family members.

As it is right now, the family grows up. They go through the

mechanics of education and they graduate from high school. The

minute they graduate from high school, there is no means of

them caring for themselves, to be gainfully employed, either in

the area or on the home farm. As a result, they migrate to the

urban areas. They find themselves many times in the City of

Vancouver and, I believe, con, tribute to the unemployment

situation in the City of Vancouver.

I wish to suggest that the Government take steps immediately

to lighten the tax load on the agricultural industry in

general, and on the broiler hatching egg producers' association

in particular, and make that a viable agricultural endeavour.

It would end up with these benefits:

It would keep the family unit together, and this is other

than pecuniary, Sir. It would strengthen the sense of

individual worth. It would create a strong moral fibre which,

by the way, I see an absence of moral fibre in the population

around about us. More important than that, it would vacate the

streets of thousands of demoralized youths, who are the

potential bane to law and order, and who by their lawlessness

quickly become an even greater burden on the taxpayer of

British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I want to support this subamendment because I

do not find in the budget the measures that would relieve that

particular kind of taxation which would create jobs. It's bad

enough that I don't find it but, still worse, it appears as

though these measures are absent by design; all of this in the

face of a commitment to the people of B.C. that these steps

would be taken.

I have a benediction for you for today.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's a little early, isn't it?

MR. SCHROEDER: And now may grace, mercy and peace rest upon

you all: grace upon those who are jobless, mercy upon those who

through blindness in legislation perpetrate joblessness, and

peace upon both factions lest war break out between them, both

now and forever more. Amen.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Cariboo.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Mr. Speaker and Hon. Members, I

rise in support of the sub-amendment before us, which is dealing

with restoring the economic viability of the northeast

section

of British Columbia, more particularly the Peace River Liard

region.

I feel that the citizens in this area of our province are in

dire need of help and it's time that we did something here in

this House to help them. I would like to support this

contention. I'll read a letter to you that I have been given

from the mayor of Fort St. John spelling out their troubles.

It's certainly at the local level. It was written to the Hon.

Premier on February 16 by the mayor of Fort St. John Mr.

Frankiw and it says as follows:

"I am very concerned about the economic future of this

regional district and particularly Fort St. John due to the

announcement last Friday by the Government to tax crude oil

royalties by an accelerated rate. You probably heard the

comments by the drilling association this morning.

"You and I know that farming has not been the most economic

base for the last five years. It has been the oil industry.

Since last Friday everyone directly or indirectly connected

with the industry has noticed a slowdown by nearly 65 per cent.

I hear today of one oil company moving out and cancellation of

three other drilling contractors to explore in the Boundary

Lake area.

"This is an oil-oriented town. The rest of the province is

either uninhabitable due to mountainous terrain or has

industry. Our industry is only oil and gas. This new policy

hits Fort St. John and area right in the left ear. Unless the

Government is prepared to negotiate a policy parallel at least

to Alberta, I cannot help but foresee a decline in economic

growth and an increase in social welfare.

"The farmers have had no crops. The Government has partially

helped them. Is the Government going to be prepared to help

many of the local service people if a slowdown is indeed

experienced? These companies will start to lay off men. Others

have already indicated they will move out. I cannot see that

this is logical thinking on anyone's part. Further, it only

affects this area, as the rest of the province really has no

gas or oil resources. Even suppose there is oil or gas in the

rest of the province outside this area, who is going to explore

it under the present policy?

"This is a serious situation and one which, even if

rectified shortly, has already created an uneasiness in the

petroleum industry. Fort St. John is the fastest growing town

in western Canada today. The Government has suggested they will

develop

[ Page 689 ]

the north with services, roads and assist planning of communities

to entice people to live on a relatively parallel basis to the lower mainland.

It has suggested provincial incentives, both for people and industry. This type

of thinking is logical for development of all the north. However, when a policy

hitting the oil industry directly is introduced, I feel that this somehow was

not the original intent of the Government.

"The other provincial natural resources — forest products,

mines and minerals — have not had the same effect. As you are

aware, the local farmer has had an opportunity to go and work

for the oil industry each winter, and many have done so. I

might add that the petroleum service and drilling contractors

have given employment to many farmers here and their policy has

been an excellent one.

"I am not anxious to manage a ghost town, much less live in

one. I am sure that neither would you. May I have your

comments?"

That letter was written summarizing that situation to the

Premier on February 16, just last week. I think that something

through the industrial development, trade and commerce

department should be done to help these people.

But I'm more concerned today with the silence of five

northern MLA's that sit in this House and have contributed

nothing nor have they shown their concern for the problems of

this area. I might say that the five northern MLA's I refer to

are the Hon. Members for Atlin (Mr. Calder), Skeena (Mr. Dent),

Fort George (Mr. Nunweiler), Omineca (Mr. Kelly) and Prince

Rupert (Mr. Lea).

They certainly are all northern Members and they espouse a

lot about northern development outside of this House. I think

if they're really sincere and interested, they should jump into

this debate on this sub-amendment and, of course, end up by

voting for this sub-amendment. You're actually double talking

when you're up home, the way you operate down here.

I would like to refer to the five of you as

conscience-stricken with your silence. The basic contribution

to this debate has been in the budget's main motion itself by

the Member for Fort George (Mr. Nunweiler) who could talk about

broken contractors.

MR. SPEAKER: Point of order, Hon. Member. It's not

acceptable to accuse another Member, by his silence or

otherwise, of being conscience-stricken or double-talking. I

wish you would withdraw those statements against other Hon.

Members. You've specified five Members. I think it's unfair to

accuse them of either double-talking or, in this case, of being

conscience-stricken by their silence.

MR. FRASER: I withdraw.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you very much, Hon. Member.

MR. FRASER: I would like to refer to what the Hon. Member

for Fort George (Mr. Nunweiler) said the other day in this

light in the budget debate regarding the British Columbia

Railway. I take strong exception to the criticism implying

things that are wrong with that railroad. In this debate on the

sub-amendment I don't think there is anything that has

contributed more to the opening up of the north than the

British Columbia Railway, known previously as the Pacific Great

Eastern Railway.

I've lived in the interior all my life and I know what it

was at one time and I know what it is today. The Peace River

country, which is the subject of this sub-amendment, certainly

was divorced from the rest of this province until the B.C.R.

was extended into the Peace River section.

AN HON. MEMBER: By the Social Credit government.

MR. FRASER: By the Social Credit government during the

1960's. To come out and read what I have here today — and I'm

not going to read it at all — what the Member has said about the

operation of this railroad, implying that the contracts were

wrong that were left, let's get this on top of the table. If

you want an investigation, why don't we have an investigation

about it, instead of implying what's all wrong ?

I really think that this railroad has done an excellent job

and is doing an excellent job. It's probably one of the

greatest things that's happened in our province in the last 30

or 40 years — the upgrading of this railroad, the extensions

and the operations of it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Of which the Premier is the proud

president.

MR. FRASER: Right. I want to congratulate, Mr. Speaker, the

Premier, who is the president, for his stand and the way he

seems to be taking….

AN HON. MEMBER: The Member for Fort George should be ashamed

of himself.

MR. FRASER: Right. I want to thank the president of the

railroad for the way he is guarding our railroad from the

attacks made on it by several people — the CNR; and so on, I

support you fully and I wish you luck in the proper conclusion

of those discussions.

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that northern people are

positive people. We always were and we always

[ Page 690 ]

will be. From the southern reaches of the Cariboo to the

Yukon boundary we feel there is a future in employment for our

families and our people, if we have confidence — and that can

be destroyed by the silence of Members opposite. I certainly

urge that these Members now stand up and say their piece in

this very important sub-amendment. Then you will be able to go

home to your ridings and carry on with the discussions that

have taken place before but haven't taken place here. You can

say you certainly did get in on this debate to help this

stricken area of our province. Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Premier.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I welcome the

opportunity of participating in this debate so that we can

begin to lay aside what is a matter of politics from the

Opposition's point of view, and a matter of reality to what's

happening in that situation. I want to tell the Member that

Mayor Frankiw will be in my office on Monday morning.

First of all, on the matter of Blueberry Bridge and the investigation, if the Member felt that this was a matter of

absolute necessity that he be on top of, he would have read the

newspapers, where the Member for Fort George (Mr. Nunweiler)

announced that the Government and the president of the railroad

have ordered an investigation into the Blueberry Bridge

contract and the whole structure. That's number one. We've

asked an outside engineer, who is recognized in British

Columbia as an outstanding railroad engineer, to give us that

report as an independent report. After all, the contracts were

let by the former government, not by this Government.

The next matter is the question of the oil drilling. On

February 9 the legislation, which is out of order to discuss,

was introduced in this House. This morning I phoned my

colleague's office and I asked him if his staff would tell me

the information on oil drilling in the north, since the budget,

so that this House would know whether or not the Opposition was

playing cheap politics or whether there were facts related to

their charges that oil wells were closing in the north and oil

drilling was not going on.

What are the facts? At 8 a.m. this morning, Friday, February

23, there were 31 drills operating and six more rigging up to

start. All right. One week ago, on February 16, there were only

27 wells. In one week there's been an 18 per cent increase in

the number of wells being drilled in the north. And you have

the nerve to come into this House and attempt — unconsciously,

I'm sure, because you wouldn't do it deliberately — to mislead

the people that the oil drilling was stopping when, in actual

fact, within one week there has been an 18 per cent increase in

oil drilling in the north.

I suppose the truth does hurt, Mr. Speaker. But it's never too late to learn.

I've got some more information for them since we've announced this new policy.

There is no official indication to data that a decrease in

future drilling activity is imminent. The petroleum and natural

gas branch has received no requests for cancellation of issued

well authorizations, And, since February 12, three days after

the bill was introduced, 12 new well authorizations have been

approved by that department.

It should be borne in mind that operating companies are

bound by drilling contracts before they apply for well

authorization. We have received no official word that any well

is to be phased out because of the legislation.

So I ask the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, to get up in this

House and apologize for not checking out their facts.

Mr. Speaker, we got the story from them that wells were

closing down, that rigs were leaving and that people were out

of work, when in fact there has been an 18 per cent increase in

the number of wells exploring in the area in one week. They've

got the nerve to attack the northern Members for not speaking

out. The northern Members at least are in touch with their

ridings and finding out the facts. While they are getting fat

and lazy here in Victoria and not finding out what's going on

at home, Mr. Speaker. They don't have to face the winter

problems.

They want to fight against this amendment here. They want to

fight against….

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order, Hon. Member?

MR. PHILLIPS: I would like the Premier to withdraw the fact

that I'm getting fat here in Victoria. I haven't put a pound on

since I came here. I resent that statement. (Laughter).

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, it's absolutely true and I

will withdraw it. You talk your fat off. (Laughter).

I want to tell you this, Mr. Speaker….

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I don't think it's acceptable that Members draw

attention to their personal differences or characteristics in

this House — although I've noted it on both sides of the House

on occasion. (Laughter). One of the victims is the man who's

speaking now — from Members in the Opposition. I think both

sides should agree to a truce.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I accept your offer of the

olive branch.

[ Page 691 ]

I want to go on to say something about concern for the

farmers. For 13 years that I've been a Member of this House I

saw the former Members get up and speak back there when they

used to be the "disappearing fog" Members from the north.

They'd get up and they'd say, "Oh, yes, we want this Government

to remove the tax from the farmers on the gasoline." It was

never done. It is done this year by this budget and now they're

attacking the budget. They talk about lowering the price for

the farmers. They talk in the main amendment, which is in

addition to this one, about consumer affairs. Who's had the

guts to bring in the legislation to bring the cost of

automobile insurance down, Mr. Speaker?

Not once did I hear last night, when I got the catalogue,

"Oh…."

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, order.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, Mr. Speaker, I know. I know they can't

take it. But here are the facts. They don't want to deal with

facts.

Last night you were in full flight, my friend. I listened to

you. I watched this beautiful, grey bird, floating in from the

north, sea gulling your way through this House with not one

mention of anything you had anything to do with. You were

talking about the food prices and labour costs and Saskatchewan — I remember we used to use Saskatchewan. Now it's your turn.

(Laughter).

Now to have him come into the House and say everything's

going up — but not once did he mention the price of trucks

going up. Not once.

MR. PHILLIPS: I did too!

Interjection by an Hon. Member. (Laughter).

MR. PHILLIPS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: What's your point of order?

MR. PHILLIPS: I stood in this Legislature last night and

said the cost of parts and service and repairs and vehicles was

going up. It was the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich)

who said the cost to the farmer wasn't going up. He said they

were going down.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. You've made your case and the House is

bound to accept it.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, any repentance before death

is welcome. (Laughter).

I am opposed to this sub-amendment because it was brought in for nothing more

than frivolous politics, no relationship to facts, when there's an 18 per cent

increase in oil drilling in one week.

The last thing I'm going to say to you, because I want all

the people of British Columbia to hear this, is that not one

oil rig is gone — there's been an 18 per cent increase. But I

don't want to be threatened by any oil company. I don't want to

be threatened by anybody. I have out the olive branch to all

citizens of this province, but let me tell you, that no oil

drill wants to leave.

There's going to be bids for exploration, but if one company

feels that it's not British Columbia enough to stick around,

that's O.K. with me, because I tell you this — they may leave

B.C., but the oil will be still in the ground, and it belongs

to the people of British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Prince Rupert.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Mr. Speaker, I don't feel that

five northern Members can sit here and be insulted, and so I

stand to speak against this sub-amendment.

I'd like to briefly examine it to see the difference between

the five northern Members who belong to this party and the two

northern Members who belong to that party. If we take a look at

the amendment, in the last paragraph it says, "and for the

purpose of restoring the level of job activity within British

Columbia in general." Restoring it to what? To what it was when

the Social Credit were in?

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): Right on!

MR. LEA: People who are out of work don't care about

percentages, I'll tell you that. This budget will put them to

work, and you never did.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. LEA: Now let's take a look at the first paragraph, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. The Member made his speech.

MR. LEA: Let's look at the first paragraph. They say that

we're not interested in northern British Columbia. Every one of

our five Members stood up and asked for development for all of

northern British Columbia — not just one section. They ask for

north-eastern British Columbia. They don't care about all of

northern British Columbia. It's right here in the book, isn't

it? When we speak, it will be for all of northern British

Columbia, and for all of the people who are out of work in the

province, and we won't do it for cheap politics.

[ Page 692 ]

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North Okanagan.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): I'm taking water, Mr.

Speaker, because I don't want to get as high as the Premier

does on Okanagan apple juice, because we have just been treated

in this House again to another one of this Premier's

characteristic habits, which we see whenever a real — and I

don't choose to use his words — intestinal issue that concerns

the people of this province comes before the House.

You saw it yourself, Mr. Speaker, and the gallery saw it. He

stands up, he smiles, he raises his arms, and then he plugs in

and he generates….

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Hon. Member, you must be getting to me

too, Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: My husband has that problem too.

(Laughter).

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, we tried to stop the personalities

that have been going on. Just a minute ago, you were

complaining about the same offence from the other side. Now you

are perpetuating the same conduct that you complain of. I ask

every Member not to indulge in personalities.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, I quite accept your point, with

the exception of the fact that I didn't complain, and our

Member was offended. I'm not talking about the Premier's

personality, I'm talking about his actions on the floor of this

House as we have just witnessed them.

Mr. Speaker, when we are talking about this intestinal

situation, these serious problems that are facing the people in

British Columbia, the Premier picks a prime time for the media

and waves his arms instead of debating it. He looks in the

gallery and plays to the students. Those students are

intelligent students, Mr. Premier, and they're not going to

fall for that sort of nonsense. Their families are affected.

Their families are affected by this sub-amendment that we're

moving, because their families and those young people are going

to pay the tax increases you've brought into this province and

are trying to blame on the big "they."

Mr. Speaker, in relation to this sub-amendment, and to the

Premier's statements, we and the people of British Columbia are

tired of this type of tirade in this House and out of this

House.

The Premier and this Government and his Ministers are insistent on shock treatments

to the business community of this province, who are the job creators in large

in this province. They made wild statements, they bring in legislation without

understanding, and it's because they don't understand the effects of this legislation

that we have moved this amendment to try and clarify for them what the situation

is.

But when they make these statements, that cause these job

losses, when they bring in the legislation that causes these

job losses, and when they bring in bills that affect the whole

life style and income potential of the people in an area of

this province, specifically the Peace River, and then jump up

in here and say, "Well, we didn't understand what we're doing,

we'll call the mayor down," this is band-aid treatment,

and this is not good enough for British Columbia.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I didn't say that.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Premier, you said you're on the phone here

and there, and then you brought out and paraded before this

House a lot of figures which we will refute. You took the

figures as presented by the Members of this side of the House,

and twisted them and distorted them in your usual manner. This

is what we're complaining about, through you, Mr. Speaker, to

the Premier and Minister of Finance.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Is it not true that there are 31 wells

today?

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, the Premier got up and, again in a

play to the gallery and the Press, said that we bring auto

insurance rates down as it relates to this sub-amendment.

AN HON. MEMBER: What are the rates?

MRS. JORDAN: He makes great statements like this. He brings

in legislation like this. He is losing jobs in British Columbia

through this action, but he will not give the facts. I

challenge the Premier on the past statements he made on the

floor of this House, one minute ago, through you, Mr. Speaker,

to give us those rates. To say to the people of British

Columbia that you will meet your election commitment of $25.

There's not one….

MR. SPEAKER: Point of order.

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Point

of order, Mr. Speaker. I was always informed that when there were bills on the

order paper for dealing with different subjects, such as has been discussed

in the last half hour, it's out of order in a debate such as this,

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, it is out of order. You can merely advert to some

bill, but you can't debate the terms of a bill, or anything in argument in favour

or against a bill, when it's on the order paper. I said you could advert to

a bill, but you can't debate the

[ Page 693 ]

particulars of a bill. And you can't argue for or against a bill, or the substance

of a bill,

MRS. JORDAN: You're quite right, Mr. Speaker, and I bow to your ruling.

I would ask you to apply the same regulations to the Premier,

MR. SPEAKER: I certainly shall.

MRS. JORDAN: Referring to the broad generalities that the

Premier made, we say, when will you present those facts? When

will we have a chance as legislators to deal with those facts?

When will the public know those facts? You claim, Mr. Premier,

that you yourself used Saskatchewan in the past, and we suggest

now, Mr. Premier, in relation to what you said, that

Saskatchewan is using you, at the taxpayers' of British

Columbia expense.

Mr. Speaker, what is quite obvious from the debate on this

sub-amendment last night, and from the Premier's reactions this

afternoon, is that the Premier simply does not understand. We

are trying in this amendment to tell you, and our amendment is

about the mayors crying for help around the Province of British

Columbia as a result of this Government's action. Surely, Mr.

Speaker, that counts. Surely, Mr. Speaker, that warrants

discussion. Our amendment, Mr. Premier, through you, Mr.

Speaker, is about the whole shock treatment and the concern of

the business districts large and small in British Columbia. The

people who are shocked, who are faced with this increased

taxation, which must be put on the public — individual consumer

and shopper and worker, want an explanation, and surely that

concern counts. Surely that concern warrants discussion.

If you doubt my terms I would like to read an editorial, or

parts of it, from the Vancouver Province of February 7,

1973, at a time when they were running an editorial about the

Premier and the Minister of Finance, and all his mixed up,

millions:

"The business community of British Columbia certainly prepared itself for an increase in provincial

corporate income taxes in Premier Barrett's first budget. Mr.

Barrett has promised to raise the current 10 points of

corporate income tax to 13 points. He hasn't said whether it

will be done in one jump or in stages."

This is a prime example of the shock treatment, and then the

budget comes in, after they've had their ulcers titillated, at

12 per cent — a 2 per cent increase. It is an irresponsible

shock treatment initially on the part of the Minister of

Finance.

It says in the editorial, "The Premier should avoid spouting

such nonsense. He should be prepared to explain to the ordinary

people " — the ordinary people, Mr. Speaker, the men and women

and children who sit in this gallery, who we all represent, who

those northern Members represent in this debate.

These are the people who want to know. He should be prepared

to explain to the ordinary people that it is they, not the fat

cats of British Columbia, as he so aptly likes to label them,

or glibly likes to call them, who will suffer more from a

corporate tax increase.

It goes on to say,

"But of wider importance in British Columbia is the effect of heavier taxes on companies that live mainly on

exporting. In those cases the competitive position of exports

is reduced with the tax increase added to all the other cost

pressures that have sent Canadian export prices rising at a

faster rate than have the prices of imports."

Mr. Speaker, I'll have more to say on that in a future

debate. But why I use these examples is to try to help the

Premier and Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) to

understand what this sub-amendment is all about. To try to help

those Members who sit silently in the backbenches to understand

what it is all about, and what the actions of this Government

have done.

Our amendment is about the concern by councils who are faced

with a rising cost through the actions of this Government. Our

amendment is about the small businessman in the small

community. These councils and these businesses are concerned

because their very tax base is being torn to shreds by this

Government. These small businesses and home owners in these

communities will face an unprecedented one year tax

increase.

Who will pay this tax increase? Mr. Premier, through you,

Mr. Speaker, your father was a small businessman and a highly

respected one. He's not in business now, but other people have

followed on all over this province. They just have a limited

market potential — they don't all work in Vancouver where you

can fight and compete for volume. They are people in places

like Cherryville — people in places like Nakusp, Pouce Coupe

and Campbell River where there is only a limited volume of

business. The people in those areas are dependent on the jobs

and the income that is created by the private sector of the

economy, and in a small measure the Government bureaucracy.

But these small businesses can only achieve a reasonable

mark-up from these people because people can only afford to pay

so much. Mr. Speaker, what are they to do? How is a small

grocery store, a vegetable market — the small businessman as

the Premier's father was — in these parts of the province to

meet this added tax burden. His choice as I said, is to pass it

on to the consumer in that area who has a limited income, Or

he's to compete for a greater volume, and that volume of people

just is not there. Who is to pay, Mr. Premier, through you, Mr.

Speaker?

The other problem independent businesses face is that the

Premier has called, and rightly so, for the private

[ Page 694 ]

sector to help to create jobs in this time of acute

unemployment. How can a small grocery store, or a small auto

body shop, a shoe repair shop, a record sales shop, a small

boat manufacturing company — and I have two in the area I

represent; they're not big — how can they possibly meet a

rising minimum wage, meet the problems of tax increases that

we're debating now. How can they make some justification for

their business and their efforts through a profit and provide

more jobs? The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) sits there

laughing and rolling his hands round and round. And we say that

Minister of Labour better get off the pot. Because you, Mr.

Minister of Labour, through you, Mr. Speaker, are part of this

problem. Mr. Minister of Labour, we expect better, through you

Mr. Speaker….

MR. SPEAKER: Excuse me, Hon. Member a point of order has

been raised.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): A word to the Speaker I

think it's unfair on Hansard to have her speak in a low

voice, and then all of a sudden raise her voice saw those poor

girls jump there. I think for medical reasons she should be

cautioned about that.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, I don't know whether the Hon.

Member for Vancouver Centre is more entertaining in his concern

for Hansard or his sense of humour. I don't think this

is a laughing matter, Mr. Member. And a lot of people out in

British Columbia don't thing it's a laughing matter either.

That's why we moved the sub-amendment.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: I don't want to call him a "fat cat," I

don't want to get into that sort of thing. But what I would say

to that Member is — get off what you're sitting on and enter

this debate and come up with some constructive suggestions to

help these people. And you have the background, through you,

Mr. Speaker, to do that. You, as a Member, through you Mr.

Speaker, should be very, very concerned about the rights of

people in British Columbia to have the opportunity of a job and

to have a fair return for that job, and not have that money

taxed out of their hands for the benefit of the ill-managed

state which this is be-coming.

MR. LAUK: 20 years of ill-management.

MRS. JORDAN: That Member seems to have done well on the 20

years of mis-management he claims was here.

Mr. Speaker, in trying to simplify for the Premier this

complex problem that he has created, as it related to people;

as it relates to councils; as it relates to small businesses

and large businesses and the jobs — we are asking on their behalf who is going to pick up this

tab? It isn't in the budget that we're debating and it

certainly isn't in his statements.

We question seriously the role of the Members in the

Government benches when warnings such as we are giving them now

go unheralded and unheeded. We would like to see when this

sub-amendment comes up for vote, which ones of them are going

to vote for it. We are trying to tell them, through you, Mr.

Speaker, what the problem is. We are trying to sound the

warning and ask you to go back to your caucus and to your

cabinet and ask that Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) to

re-evaluate the programmes he's trying to bring into the

province. That's what it's all about, Mr. Speaker. And if you

want to put it in modern terms as they like to do, "that's

where it's at.”

I'd like to speak on this area of unemployment, about the

jobs that were lost in the highway department. When this was

brought to the Premier's attention, that 100 people had been

fired from the highway department at a time of high, high and

unprecedented unemployment, the Premier said, "It's because

there wasn't enough money in the budget allotted by the Social

Credit administration."

Yet, almost on that very day, and proceeding that day, and

after that day, that Minister of Finance released through his

cabinet special warrants for an excess of $17 million of

spending in that department. Other than employment, nothing out

of that $17 million by special warrant for highway spendings

went to the workingmen in that department, and the men who were

laid off — 100 men. He waves his arms in that instance again

and raises his voice as he did just a few minutes ago. He says,

"It's O.K. boys, it's O.K. Don't worry about your grocery bills

now. Don't worry about your gas bills. Don't worry about being

unemployed, we'll employ you again April L" What a phony excuse….

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Why wait till spring,

do it now.

MRS. JORDAN: Right, Why wait till spring? I'd like you to

meet my ghost-writer, Mr. Speaker. But he's right. Mr. Speaker,

through you to the Minister of Finance, do it now. Pass a

special warrant. It wouldn't take more than about $50,000 to

put those men back to work — to put food on the table in those

families, give them their right to their right to their job,

and their right to work. But, what does the Minister of Finance

do? Nothing., Nothing for those men, nothing for the consumers

of British Columbia, nothing for the taxpayers of British

Columbia.

For all the tirade that he gave us this afternoon — and other Members will gladly

pick up the pieces after the Minister of Finance hung himself this afternoon.

There's nothing that the Premier did in

[ Page 695 ]

those tirades for the jobs that are

being lost in the oil fields of the Peace River and Liard country. The Premier

again, and the Minister of Finance again, doesn't seem to understand that that

can't wait for spring. I'm sure many of the Members know, and those that don't

know, without going into detail, you must understand the geography of the north

country — and the climatic conditions. You must understand that drilling must

take place in winter because of the muskeg.

Mr. Speaker, I'm sure there are other Members who want to

speak on this sub-amendment. But I would again ask those silent

benches on the other side of this House, with their massive

majority, to get up and enter this debate. Don't follow your

leader's example and wave your arms in the air. Get up an d

face what the real issue is. Nobody blames anyone for making a

mistake. And the NDP Government have made a mistake and we'll

accept that. We don't even ask for an apology. All we ask is

for correction of that mistake and the returning of the jobs to

people.

If you don't Mr. Members, then I must caution you that it

will be our obligation to advise the people of the north that

all the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) can do when he

has an unemployment problem and a firing problem in his own

department, is get up in this House in a serious debate and

raise a lot of irrelevant points of order about bills which are

not even in the order book.

Mr. Speaker, through this debate, with the exception of the

Minister of Highways I just mentioned and the Premier who

flapped around a little earlier this afternoon and one Member

from the north who I think is trying to understand the problem,

the NDP Members have sat quiet, frozen. The cabinet sit quiet,

frozen. There's a cold freeze will make those cabinet Members

more silent in the future.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Labour, followed by the

Hon. Member for Columbia River.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have been looking over the sub-amendment that the Social

Credit Party moved and it occurs to me that due to the

wide-ranging discussion which has taken place that they have

boxed themselves in to such a degree that they lost track of

their own amendment. They spend more time analyzing the

political performance and the particular style of the Premier

than they do discussing the issues of the amendment.

I haven't heard one solid suggestion put forward from the

Opposition ranks on a mechanism that the government might

employ to generate employment in the north.

The Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) has spent time questioning my facial

expressions and the style of the Premier. I just don't know what the point is;

she doesn't seem to be able to find anything valid in the sub-amendment to discuss

and recommend to the government.

When we are talking of political styles, Mr. Speaker, I have

studied the Member for North Okanagan and paid close attention

to what she has said. I have come to the conclusion that there

is a lot less to that Member than meets the eye, Mr. Speaker. I

couldn't analyse it any other way.

Some of our people have discussed and indicated the impact

that government policies are going to have in the north.

Certainly the removal of gasoline taxation has been a boon to

the farmers in that area and it is a very direct help to them.

And quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, until we can see some

reasonable suggestions coming forward from the Opposition

benches on specific programmes that might be considered by the

Government — serious programmes offered in a genuine way — then

I think this whole debate becomes a bit of a charade. I think

the Members across the way are playing games.

MR. SPEAKER: Point of order.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Yes, I would like, on

a point of order, to draw the Minister of Labour's attention to

six concrete suggestions that I made in the House last night.

He is saying that the….

MR. SPEAKER: Point of order, Hon. Member. Order! That isn't

a point of order.

AN HON. MEMBER: I consider it a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I know you do.

HON. MR. KING: I just wanted to make a few observations on

this. I think the debate has become rather shallow, rather

hollow, and I don't intend to spend any more time on it.

I just wanted to draw the attention of the House to the fact

that the Opposition Members seem to be spending more time

talking about the Premier's style and whether or not I am

smiling — and incidentally, Mr. Speaker, my facial expression

was in response to a Member behind the Member for North

Okanagan, one of her colleagues. If he was smiling you had

better question his motives first; I was simply responding.

I wouldn't argue whether or not he was a little bit amused

by what the front bench was coming up with and I wouldn't blame

him for that, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Columbia River, followed by

the Hon Member for Shuswap.

[ Page 696 ]

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Speaker, we are

discussing what I consider to be a very serious sub-amendment

at this time and for anyone to reflect on the sub-amendment

being shallow and hollow is most unreasonable in my

opinion.

Just a few moments ago the Premier was speaking on this

sub-amendment in which he attempted to convey that the

sub-amendment was one of a political nature. He got into a

great arm-waving exhibition here and tried to make as much

political gymnastics as he possibly could, possibly to convince

those northern Members of his that they should not support what

we consider to be a very relevant and timely and important

sub-amendment in this House.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver-Centre): Nonsense!

MR. CHABOT: The Second Member for Vancouver-Centre has just

indicated, Mr. Speaker, very clearly that the sub-amendment

which we have placed on the Votes and Proceedings is

nonsense.

MR. LAUK: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. That is not what I

said. I said…

MR. CHABOT: …that the amendment to the motion that Mr.

Speaker do now leave the chair….

MR. LAUK: That Member is deliberately trying to twist what I

said as cross comment on the floor and I won't permit it. I am

sorry, Mr. Speaker. Let me explain to you what he was mistaken

about. I said, "Nonsense" to his comment about his previous

comment, not that the sub-amendment wasn't a valid

sub-amendment at all.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. CHABOT: I have to, in some instances, relate it to what

has been said, Mr. Speaker, despite your suggestion, because I

think that is what we are doing here at this particular

time.

The thing we are really talking about is increase and restoration of job activity

in the province. We have heard from a great variety of people. We have heard

from the Premier as I have said a few moments ago, and he did indicate that

he is going to have someone in his office on Monday morning — the mayor of the

town of Fort St. John. He indicated very clearly when he spoke in this assembly

that job activity had increased in the oil patch in the northeastern part of

this province. Just a few moments ago the Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) read

a letter from the mayor of Fort St. John. and I think the Premier quite obviously

did not attach any significance to what the mayor of the town of Fort St. John

had to say. He went on to say that there had been an increase in activity in

that part of this province. This is what the mayor of Fort St. John said:

"I am very concerned about the economic future of this regional district and particularly Fort St.

John due to the announcement last Friday by the government to

tax crude oil royalties by an accelerated rate.

"You probably heard the comments by the drilling association this morning. You and I know that

farming has not been the economic base for the last five years

here. It has been the oil industry.

Did you want to challenge me on the point or something, Mr.

Minister?

"Since last Friday, everyone directly or in-directly connected

with the industry has noticed a slowdown by nearly 65 per cent."

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That's wrong.

MR. CHABOT: In other words you are calling the mayor of Fort

St. John a liar; you and the Premier are calling the mayor of

Fort St. John a liar.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, but you tempt me.

MR. CHABOT: "I hear today of one oil company moving out and

cancellation of three other drilling contractors to explore in

the Boundary Lake area."

Well, the Premier said there is increased activity in

exploration in the northeastern part of this province, yet the

mayor says it has decreased by 65 per cent. I wonder what the

people of Fort St. John and Dawson Creek think? Who is right? I

will tell you. They will give you the answer as to who is

right.

We have listened to the two Members here speak on the oil

industry and I think they have related some pretty accurate

figures on the decrease in employment in that particular area

by the policies enunciated by that very Government. Then for

the Member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) to stand in this House

for about two or three minutes and to accuse those Members from

the Peace River of being parochial is irresponsible in my

opinion, Mr. Speaker. If these Members from North Peace River

and South Peace River are not speaking on behalf of those

people in their constituencies, who will speak on their

behalf.

It is quite clear to me that those five Members for the

north will not speak on behalf of the people of the Peace River

who are losing their jobs every day. Where are those Members

from the north?

We are talking about job activity and the increase of jobs

in British Columbia and I think it is a timely subject. It is

one that needs thorough debate on the floor of this House. When

we find that in British

[ Page 697 ]

Columbia we have 95,000 people unemployed, it is time that

us legislators be concerned because that is the highest degree,

the highest number of unemployed, we've ever seen in the

Province of British Columbia.

Never before in the history of this province have we seen

such numbers unemployed — in a "have" province. There are two

other "have" provinces, Ontario and Alberta, and they are

experiencing roughly half the amount of unemployment that is

being experienced in the Province of British Columbia.

It's quite obvious to me what is wrong, Mr. Speaker. It's

the philosophy of that Government that is so foreign to the

job-creating process. Your policies are foreign to job

stimulation. It's rather hard to believe that the Province of

British Columbia, that is rich in resources, rich in capital

wealth, would have the lack of job activity, the lack of job

stimulus that we're experiencing at this particular time.

It's the tax policies of that Government that has created

the uncertainty within the business community of this province.

It's time that you looked at the direction in which you're

leading this province. Take a second look and realize that your

policies and your statements have directly contributed to the

inactivity of job creation in the Province of British

Columbia.

We've listened to policy statements from the Minister of

Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Nimsick), who

constantly runs between the Speaker and his desk. I've watched

him here on several occasions, probably looking for some reason

to correct me or to sit me down because I'm probably dealing

with some legislation on the order paper.

AN HON. MEMBER: Aw, come on.

MR. CHABOT: But I want to assure you, Mr. Minister, you have

been responsible for the creation of unemployment in this

province by the lack of action on the part of your department,

by the removal of incentives for the creation of jobs in the

further refining of our raw materials in this province. Yes,

Mr. Minister, you are directly responsible for the uncertainty

which permeates the mining industry in this province today.

Yes, you are.

Where are your plans? You are a Minister of the Crown. You

have a direct responsibility, in the job creation at least,

within the realm of your department. What are you doing, Mr.

Minister, for job activities? Absolutely nothing. I'll tell you

what you're doing. You're decreasing job activity with the kind

of statements you have made.

I'm not going to blame entirely the provincial government

for the lack of job activity in the Province of British

Columbia. Certainly the economic policies of the national

government have a great bearing on job creation. The

uncertainty which they have created in the country as well has

contributed.

However, the economic policies of your Government also have

a direct bearing on job creation. I want to tell you, you're

not doing very much for creating jobs. British Columbia has

been accustomed to a rather fantastic growth of job creation — an average of 4.6 per cent over the last 10 years. No other

province…and I'm not going to go into a whole series of

comparative statistics which I have here on the question of job

creation that has taken place in this province.

It's really the pall that you've put over industry, the

uncertainty of the direction in which your Government is going,

Mr. Speaker. I'm sure you'll agree with me, Mr. Speaker, that

there's a tremendous uncertainty in the business community as

to the direction in which this Government is going. The budget

failed to tell us what the economic policies of this Government

will be for 1973-74.

They've indicated very clearly that most of the budgetary

measures are contained in the legislation and not in the

budget. No wonder there's uncertainty in the business

community. No wonder jobs are not being created at this time in

this province. We read in the newspaper…not only in the

mining industry, in the drilling industry — diamond drilling.

Government taxes….

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Why didn't you give that speech last

year?

MR. CHABOT: Because unemployment was not as serious as it is

today, my friend. I've always spoken on unemployment. I've

always been concerned. Don't you sit there and smirk and

insinuate that I was never concerned about unemployment.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): You fooled us.

MR. CHABOT: The drilling industry has been hurt too. This is

what an

article relative to diamond drilling has had to say. It

says:

"British Columbia's diamond drilling industry has fallen on

hard times. The drillers say the pinch is brought about by the

election of a socialist Government, new federal tax laws .

MR. LAUK: What newspaper?

MR. CHABOT: It's in the Vancouver Sun: "…new federal tax

laws, metal prices and a dearth of major new ore bodies in the

past. The situation has reached…"

MR. LAUK: What date — 1952?

MR. CHABOT: 1952? There was no socialist Government. Don't

be so stupid. (Laughter).

"…The situation has reached the point where some local

drilling companies are looking to the United States and offshore in an effort

[ Page 698 ]

to offset the slowdown in business being experienced in B.C.,

Last week the severity of the situation was brought to the attention of mines

Minister, Leo Nimsick. The Canadian Diamond Drilling Association warned the

Minister that higher mining taxes and mineral royalties would only further aggravate

an already serious situation…

"Indications from many of the companies would suggest that

this trend has continued into 1972, and it would appear that

there has been a shift of exploration emphasis away from

British Columbia. The Association also said indications are

that as B.C. is no longer considered as competitively

attractive a mining area as it once was, the imposition of a

royalty could have further deterrent effects upon the future

development of the industry in the province. 'It does not look

very good this year,' he said. 'I think it is fair to say that

the new provincial Government has had a harmful effect on

mining exploration. Last year we saw the first sign of coming

out of a recession. This year things were looking pretty good

until the political developments took shape."'

That's what the diamond drilling industry has to say about

your policies relative to job creation and relative to job

activity in the mining industry. We're talking about the jobs

that are on line up in the Peace River today; jobs that are

lost; jobs that might never return.

Certainly, you have put some emphasis in your budget as a

stimulus for jobs, because you've indicated in the excerpts of

the budget that you're interested in job creation. You have

allocated $5 million to an accelerated park development fund

for job creation. You've also allocated $5 million to the

accelerated reforestation fund for jobs. That kind of money,

Mr. Speaker, would create approximately 4,000 jobs for a period

of six months.

But the tax policies being initiated by that Government are

going to eliminate thousands of permanent jobs in the Peace

River. Yet you say you're concerned about creating temporary

jobs, that with the money that you're allocated for those

temporary jobs you'll create employment for about 4,000 people

on a six-month basis. Yet 2,000 people could be directly

affected in the oil fields in the Peace River, as well as about

3,000 people indirectly.

If you're really interested in jobs — really interested in helping the unemployed

in this province — where are your winter works projects? Where are they? No,

they seem to want to sit on their surplus. You have surplus funds. Why don't

you employ a portion of these 95,000 people who are seeking employment in this

province? No, you can use all your pious statements in the excerpts and in the

budget about your concern for job creation. I want to assure you that the people

who are unemployed and looking for jobs certainly can't eat the budget or the

excerpts from the budget.

Where are the plans for the Department of Industrial

Development, Trade and Commerce for job creation for secondary

industry? Where are they? Where are the low-interest loans to

activate development, to activate jobs in the secondary

industry field? Where are the plans of the Department of

Industrial Development.

Where are the plans, Mr. Minister (Hon. Mr. Macdonald)

through you, Mr. Speaker, for these new jobs? Where is the

full-time Minister for this particular department? Do you

think, Mr. Speaker, we should adjourn this House at this time

to send the Premier and someone from the backbench to the

Lieutenant-Governor to appoint a full-time Minister of

Industrial Development, so someone can get on with plans for

creating jobs in British Columbia? It's not good enough to have

a part-time Minister that does not have sufficient time to

create jobs in his particular department.

I have to admit that certainly a few jobs have been created.

There have been a few executive assistants appointed. But

that's not good enough. That only has helped 10 or 12 friends.

But what about the 95,000 people that ate seeking jobs in.

British Columbia today? Are you going to appoint them all

executive assistants?

Where are the new jobs in the civil service? You talk about

1,000 new jobs — a cut-back of 473 from the previous year. No,

Mr. Speaker, I want to say that if that Government is seriously

interested in creating jobs in this province, they'll

withdraw that punitive legislation which is destroying jobs in

the Peace River day by day. I call upon the Minister to

withdraw the legislation so that the Peace River will have an

opportunity of enjoying not necessarily full employment, but

better employment than what their prospects appear to be at

this time.

I think that if the backbench is serious in their statements on health and

aid for the northern part of British Columbia, that they'll stand up and support

what I consider is a most important and timely amendment. Thank you, Mr. Speaker,

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I recognize the Hon. Member for Shuswap.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have heard the old saying that, "It's an ill wind that

does no one any good." But I'm beginning to wonder. It kind of

makes one stop and wonder when you see the official Opposition

stand up and attack the Government on things that they can't

implement in five months when they've had 20 years to work

at it.

[ Page 699 ]

I'd like to give you a little example of the types of things

that they've done for the Peace River in the past. I think the

best one that they've done was name a dam and a lake. That the

biggest thing that they had in the whole of the Peace River for

Social Credit.

You know what happened in the farming industry in that area?

They had a poultry specialist come into that area and hold

meetings. Then he had courses and he was going to teach the

Peace River farmer how to be a professional egg producer. But

you know, all the time they were doing this they knew that

there was no way that an egg producer could produce eggs in the

Peace River country. There was a law under the marketing board

that wouldn't allow it.

I'd like to give you a little example of what went on under

their rule through this egg marketing board. They had a

regulation that stipulated that no eggs could be produced in

the entire Peace River country. The few farmers that were

trying to raise a few eggs in that area from 400 to 500

chickens were having eggs shipped in from the lower mainland at

prices of 23 and 24 cents a dozen to put them out of business.

I've heard about chickens with their heads cut off, but that

government had heads on their shoulders but they never used

them.

Producers from the entire interior spent two years fighting

the rulings and regulations imposed by this egg marketing

board. They had several hearings before the Minister of

Agriculture. When he finally said, "I'm sorry, we can't do

anything for you," we took it to the Opposition. They

brought it on the floor of the House about one year from now….

AN HON. MEMBER: One year from now? (Laughter).

MR. LEWIS: In the past, that is.

Interjections by an Hon. Member.

MR. LEWIS: Well they act a lot faster than you do.

(Laughter).

They brought it to the floor of the House and requested that

it be taken before the agricultural committee. After a little

harassment it finally was agreed to go before the agricultural

committee. We had hearings before the agricultural committee,

all costing interior farmers — in the Peace River too; there

were several came down from the Peace River — a considerable

amount of money to fight a regulation installed by that

Government that completely tied the hands of farmers in the

Peace River.

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Member, the subamendment under consideration by

the House deals with the matter of taxation and the restoration of the economic

viability of the northeastern

section of the province, namely the Peace River-Liard

region. I would ask the Member if he would direct his remarks in this debate….

MR. LEWIS: Mr. Speaker, I am trying to point out that we're

going to bring some economic justice to that area.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well then please do so, Mr. Member.

MR. LEWIS: The egg producers in this area were finally able

to get a hearing held underneath the government that allowed a

commission to travel throughout the province and hear the story

of the farmers in the interior. This commission was appointed

by the past government. A lot of people said, "Oh, well, it's

going to be a political appointment and there won't be anything

come of it anyway." But I'll have to give them credit. They

looked on it in an unbiased manner and insisted that there be

changes made to the marketing board structure within this

province.

The same type of thing in the Peace River country has

happened in the past and it's still in effect at the present

time, in regard to broiler production, turkey boards and in

several other areas of farming. How do you expect the Peace

River country to thrive when they've had regulations like this

that froze the whole area into nothing else but grain

production?

The type of thing that's happened is: Lucerne Milk, through

Canada Safeway, insists on shipping their product into the

northern part of the province; Foremost has now set up a dairy

and they ship their milk into the northern part of the province

as well. This completely ties the agriculturalist in that area,

the farmer that wants to be involved in agriculture. He's told,

"It's too bad. It's going to come from the lower mainland."

This happened underneath the past government and you can

rest assured that I'll be doing everything that I can to see

that this is changed.

What did that past government do in regard to machinery

parts and to seeing that there was proper service applied to

the farmers in the area from machinery companies? Nothing. Not

a thing.

This government is working towards it now. Maybe there isn't

legislation on the books, but it won't take us 20 years.

I suggest we had a good Minister of Agriculture in Mr.

Shelford. But one out of the many that they had, he wasn't

enough to carry the force.

We also lost a real good farmer in that area. I would

suggest if the farmers in that area want something for the

farmers, to again return a farmer into their area as an

MLA.

I'll tell you one thing that's happened in five

[ Page 700 ]

months that the farmer has waited for 20 years. It's already

been mentioned — the coloured gas. I would say that even the

Opposition will have to take their hats off to that.

They scream and holler and stand up and say, "Well how come

you haven't taken the school tax off farmland already? You've

been in there five months." Well they were in there for 20

years. Did they ever take any move toward removing the farm

tax? Not once.

I'll tell you the type of thing that I'll be working toward

trying to get implemented in this government in the near

future. It will be a moratorium on all farm debts within the

Peace River country for the community — not just for the

farmer. I think if we'd had the Social Credit government in

there now they would have been out digging the plots for the

farmers and burying them and saying, "Good riddance."

I think there's lots of room in the Peace River country for

the implementation of a programme that would benefit the

farmers in cooperation with the government in setting up

processing plants, as our friend, Mr. Marshall, promoted in the

past. I don't think I'll be walking across the floor because it

didn't happen, I'm sure it's going to.

Interjections by an Hon. Member.

MR. LEWIS: I'm afraid that I'm not supporting them.

They also say it's a dangerous thing for the government to

become involved in cooperation with the private sector in

investing in the economy of any one area. They say it'll fail.

Well I want to give you some figures of what's happened to free

enterprise in the past year.

Just this year, in the week of January 5, there were 76

companies in Canada that went broke. Now you can look through

Saskatchewan and Manitoba and you'd have a hard time finding

five or six.

MR. PHILLIPS: Most of them are from Manitoba or

Saskatchewan.

MR. LEWIS: A year ago there were 33 in the same week. I

intend to support this sub-amendment…I mean….

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! (Laughter).

MR. LEWIS: I mean oppose — vote against this

sub-amendment.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. LEWIS: I think I'm entitled to a slip of the tongue,

because for 20 years we've had slips of the tongue.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. LEWIS: I know you're trying to excite me, but for 20

years you weren't able to get excited. Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Health Services and

Hospital Insurance.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance):

Mr. Speaker, it's not without a great deal of reluctance that I stand today.

I've sat here and I've listened to wanton nonsense come across the floor from

the Opposition. I've listened to what are some of the most frivolous statements

that I've ever heard. The Members who made those statements know perfectly well

how frivolous they are.

Many of us have sat in this House for some years and we've

all listened to those silent Members in those days — silence

over jobs, silence over the north, silence over every issue

that this want of confidence motion is all about. This want of

confidence motion is a want of confidence in the Social Credit

government that created this climate — that created this

situation in the north, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Name names.

HON. MR. COCKE: Name names? I can name 38 names, Mr.

Speaker, that for three years….

Interjections by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. COCKE: You would have been here too and you were

part of it.

Mr. Speaker, they're screeching about the close down of the

oil industry in the north. You know, Mr. Speaker, we all heard

that. We all heard those squawks and those howls from Alberta

when Premier Lougheed said, "We have to have a bigger piece of

this action." That's precisely what it's all about, Mr.

Speaker. The fact of the matter is these people don't represent

ordinary people. They represent the oil companies; they

represent the big interests. Then one of their Members gets up

in this House and indicates, "We represent the guy selling

washing machines," or "We represent the refrigerator

dealer at the corner," or some other corner situation.

The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, they're talking about

big interests.

We are interested, Mr. Speaker, in people — in jobs. The

fact is, as the Premier pointed out a little while ago, things

are going along in that oil industry up there and, but for the

kind of ill winds that blow from that side of the House, will

probably keep on doing very well.

Mr. Speaker, what about this whole business of taxation of

corporations? If you ask that we follow

[ Page 701 ]

that through, we should then take all taxes off

corporations, following the kind of reasoning that these people

propose. Mr. Speaker, it's just pure, unadulterated utter

nonsense. The corporations, and particularly the big

corporations, are in there for what they can get out of it and

they're doing very well, thank you.

When the Hon. Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) talks about

those 75 companies a week that go broke in this country, we all

know what it's all about. The poor little guy in this country

is squeezed to death. It's the little businessman who voted for

the NDP and will go on voting for the NDP, Mr. Speaker, because

we're his only friends.

Mr. Speaker, I know that there's a great deal of guilt over

there. I know that they're feeling badly and that's the reason

for the sub-amendment. Mr. Speaker, without any hesitation,

we'll vote against that sub-amendment and let's get on with

it.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. First Member for Victoria.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to give

the House some facts this afternoon. Our Premier this afternoon

has suggested that this whole debate is a sham. He has

suggested that the recorded views of the heads of government

are to be ignored in this Legislature. He say's we're going to

ignore them because we're engaged in a political and

hypocritical game in this sub-amendment.

As a Member from a faraway place here in Victoria — far away

from the area we've been talking about — I find it difficult to

believe that the warnings of the mayors of Fort St. John and

Dawson Creek — that you say they are simply crying wolf. If the

Members opposite can't hear their concern, I certainly can.

Mr. Speaker, I'm kind of happy that you're back. There are a

couple of facts that I'd like to explain to the House and to

yourself. I think that the Member who was sitting in your chair

previously understood them and I wouldn't have needed to

explain them to him.

In a petroleum exploration, as I understand it, first of all

there's a lease of the Crown land for the purpose of exploring

for gas and oil. Secondly, the seismic contractors move crews

in and they do seismic evaluations. If the company finds those

evaluations and their findings worthwhile from those reports,

then a drilling contract is entered into. Once that drilling

contract is entered into, if the drilling is successful and gas

or oil ends up as the result, then we have a producing

well.

Our Premier this afternoon made the statement that there were 31 companies

in that area drilling as of this morning, I don't doubt for a minute that those

facts are correct. I don't propose to quarrel with him understand, quarreled

with that fact. Our issue, and the whole programme, is that the ones that are

being cancelled haven't started.

AN HON. MEMBER: Name those that have been cancelled.

MR. MORRISON: I'm just proposing to do that right now. Thank

you very much. I'm glad you're a good straight man.

As of right now, our information is that there are 22

intended drilling programmes either cancelled or suspended. The

companies' names are Dome Petroleum, Union Oil, Endaco

Petroleum….

MR. LAUK: Slower.

MR. MORRISON: You can read it in Hansard tomorrow.

Houston Petroleum, Hudson's Bay Gas and Oil, Tenaco Petroleum.

Twenty-two intended programmes have been cancelled or suspended

as of this afternoon.

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): That's

not so.

MR. MORRISON: Mr. Speaker, if he's got something to say, let

him say it. Just recently our office, while this has been going

on, has been talking to the people in that district. That

mayor, who was referred to earlier in this House as being here

on Monday morning, has said that he is coming down on Monday

morning and that's true — with four elected officials. If

anyone wants to see him, he'll be in the Empress Hotel and

he'll be happy to see you.

He says, "I've got lots of problems." He says that he has

the support of all the municipalities in the Peace River and

the Liard region district. He is bringing with him stacks of

letters. He says, and I quote, "If the Premier reads each of

these letters, he won't be able to finish them from Monday

until Friday."

The whole exercise, as I understand it, is we are referring

to the jobs which are lost and the opportunities which are

being by-passed right now in that district. We talk about

raising $9 million from this extra tax which you propose to put

on right away. But the economy in that district will lose a

great deal more than the $9 million you propose to raise.

Without any difficulty, I intend to support this

sub-amendment. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The

sub-amendment — at times I wondered whether it had been lost — but I'd like to go over it so

[ Page 702 ]

the House knows precisely what we are talking of. It's that:

"the Speaker do leave the chair for the purpose of going into

committee, but this House regrets that the budget neglects the

general good of the citizens of this province by failing to

provide for relief from the burden of provincial taxation for

the purpose of restoring economic viability of the entire

northeast

section of the province," et cetera, and, the

second point; "for the purpose of restoring the level of job

activity within B.C."

It's not a resolution that's impossible to understand, I

think it's a fairly straightforward one. Yet today we have had

a great deal of comment, in particular from Government

Ministers, which simply failed to be relevant, in my opinion,

to the actual sub-amendment.

Mr. Speaker, it's perfectly clear that there is a

relationship between taxation and the level of employment in

any particular province or territory. It's also, I think,

demonstrable, and fairly quickly so, that if you have the taxes

set in a certain way, you will discourage employment, in

particular if you're competing with other jurisdictions.

The Economic Council of Canada has come out with their ninth

annual review. It came out in 1972 and it's entitled The

Years to 1980 . I had a close look at it, as close as I

could. I'm no economist but I have studied some economics. I

looked at it from the point of view of trying to find out, in

their opinion, where this country is going and where the parts

of this country are going with respect to taxation and

employment. There are some interesting statements.

On page 101 they say, "In our opinion, a reasonable stance

over the next few years would be to keep direct and indirect

taxation rates at their present levels, if not reduce them." It

talks about the progressive nature of taxation.

A point that we have already tried to make is that the claim

that taxes are being kept level and that there is no increase

in taxation is of course wrong, when you realize that with

inflation and, indeed, with increasing incomes, the amount of

money taken from the citizen in the form of taxation is

increased. In addition, when you realize that the

municipalities, the creatures of the province, are being forced

by this budget to substantially raise their tax rates, you

realize that the claim of the Premier on this is at the best a

half-truth, and probably less than that.

There is a direct relation between the economy and taxation

and between employment and taxation. There is quote here from

Maurice Western, in a Victoria Times article. He's an

Ottawa writer, talking about the federal budget. But of course

the question of taxation and budgets is the same in both

instances. We talk in general principles.

He talks about the anticipated budget, et cetera: "By freeing a great volume

of purchasing power hopes to boost production and increase jobs." We in this

province, by contrast, are essentially increasing taxation and, in my view,

are probably cutting down on employment. Where are the new jobs then to come

from? If there is a need for keeping taxes low and keeping taxes selective,

where can we expect new jobs to come from? — a point that simply hasn't been

considered by the Ministers who spoke in this debate. It is to my considerable

regret that I find this to be the case.

Again, the Economic Council of Canada's ninth report, p. 63,

suggests that "agricultural employment will decline in absolute

terms, while manufacturing will increase but at a very low rate…", and it suggests that the new jobs are going to be in

other areas, such as finance, insurance — community, business

and personal services and public administration. Those are

areas which, it is suggested to us by the Economic Council of

Canada, we should encourage as job-creation areas.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: It's curious that this budget of this

particular NDP Government flies in the face of everything I've

heard said by your party, the NDP, in the House of Commons. You

can't have your cake and eat it too. You had better make up

your mind either to support your Premier or to support the

leader of the national NDP.

The Economic Council goes on: "To be consistent with the

overall pattern," I am quoting from p. 95, "the current

government expenditures in goods and services should not

increase in real terms more than 5 per cent per year."

There's a very clear suggestion there in the Economic

Council of Canada's report that governments, should at this

stage not be increasing taxation. They should be encouraging

employment in other ways. Because employment is undoubtedly not

only a major problem now but will be for some years to

come.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): You know where the problem

is. It's there in Ottawa.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The calls that come across the floor from

the backbench are typical of the stupidity of some of the other

remarks we've had.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. Order. The answer is not to engage in

across-the-floor discussion. If you would, please kindly

address the Chair.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Very good, Mr. Speaker. Certainly I

wouldn't use that term in addressing the Chair. I accept your

criticism.

The point is this, Mr. Speaker, that in mid-

[ Page 703 ]

September we had the unemployment in this province slightly

over 60,000; I believe the figure is 61,000. It has gone up

half again since then; yet there's not been a word from the

Ministers of the Crown of this province as to what the cause

might be or how they are really going to go about dealing with

it.

They have consistently attempted to blame the official

Opposition — and we in this party have blamed them enough over

the years for what they were doing when they were the

government. But I think the time has come for the Government

itself to start facing up to a few facts as to what it is doing

and what the increase has been since they took over.

We cannot continue in this Legislature and in this province

simply throwing verbal bricks across the floor at one another

and ignoring the real needs of people. It's a government

elected on a platform of assisting people. Yet, in debates on

employment, when we have getting on for 100,000 people

unemployed — the highest unemployment since the Depression in

this province — we have Government Ministers quite willing to

ignore the problem, to ignore what effects there can be on

taxation which could improve the situation.

We're heard from four Ministers this afternoon, including

the Premier, none of whom has really dealt with the issues of

this sub-amendment which, as I read earlier, Mr. Speaker, is

the effect of provincial taxation on employment.

It's fine to talk about all these people who have come from

the north or written from the north or phoned from the north.

They have spoken to Social Credit Members; they've no doubt

spoken to the NDP Members; they've certainly spoken to us. They

have told us that there is a problem there. There is

uncertainty. There is need.

The quotes from the newspapers have all indicated this. All

the papers of the province. And yet this government has

apparently decided that here in Victoria, in this House,

certain statistics will be quoted and only those statistics — I

refer to those quoted by the Premier — none other will be used,

and certainly not the other statistics put forward by my Hon.

friend the First Member for Victoria (Mr. Morrison). It's a

case of dealing with a real problem for people. The Government

should attempt to put on the record and into debate on the

basis of factual information the whole situation and not simply

a few things dragged out at random for political purposes for

berating the former administration for some sins of omission or

of commission of 20, 10, five, two or one year ago.

We are dealing with unemployed people here in British

Columbia today. We are not dealing with what's happened in the

past.

The comment's been made, "Well, where are our Members from

the north?" I trust that when the Liberal Party forms the Government of this province, and we

put in our budget a map of British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, we

won't leave off the name of Prince Rupert, nor will we leave

off the name of Trail. When we put a map of the Province of

British Columbia into the budget, perhaps we won't just use the

B.C. Rail map of the province. We'll try to indicate the

interior with its cities, and the northern cities, which have

been left off. We'll try to indicate to them that even though

they don't live along the rail tracks of B.C.R., at least

they're part of the province too.

I trust that even though we don't at the moment have Members

in the north, we will be able at least to indicate to them more

concern than this budget, in the very printing of that map,

indicates for northern British Columbia.

We have a situation in B.C. where we have taxes going up.

There are the municipal taxes I talked about yesterday. The

effect of inflation and of course progressive taxation means

that the tax bite will be larger for the regular citizen. This,

of course, indicates to us that we're no doubt going to have to

have supplementary estimates or even a supplementary budget at

some later time when this Government realizes that its budget,

its efforts to create large surpluses — which may have made

sense in the days of our former Premier (Hon. Mr. Bennett), in

the days of rapid expansion but simply don't make sense today

in terms of our unemployment — will have to be adjusted and

there'll have to be a change.

We are not having enough money, we feel, put in the hands of

the consumer. We're not having enough money put in his hands by

way of tax reduction. There naturally have been been many

articles to this effect in recent days, because of the measures

in the federal budget which, as they affect the economy as a

whole, are designed to increase employment.

There is an

article by a man by the name of Downey, a C.A.

in the Vancouver Province , February 14, 1973, where he

talks about the tax cuts. He talks about the actions of the

Province of Ontario in matching, in meshing their budget with

the federal budget so that the Ontario tax rate will go down

and the overall affect will be beneficial. He talks about the

need for co-ordination, something that we haven't seen in this

province and something that I trust we'll see in the

future.

Why have we not seen this? Why do we apparently have a

budget so out of date with the needs of the 100,000 unemployed

in this province? Why do we have Ministers getting to their

feet and ignoring the basic questions that are facing us right

at this moment?

There are a number of reasons. Perhaps one of the most basic

is that of course we have a Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr.

Barrett) who hasn't got the time to devote himself really and

truly to the job to the degree that it requires. Now it's

simple to say, "Oh,

[ Page 704 ]

I have to hold onto Finance, to keep control of what's

happening among the other Ministers." That's nonsense. Because

the Premier can hire and fire Ministers very quickly — and I

note a smile from the faces of some of the backbench when I say

"fire." He can change them.

The need is for a man to take a hold of that portfolio,

understand what is going on, co-ordinate the efforts of this

province with others and, of course, the federal government,

and see what can be done to deal with the substantial increase

in unemployment in British Columbia since the NDP Government

took office.

Again I quote from the Economic Council of Canada, p. 97, It

says:

"Yet major gaps" — that's between federal and provincial — "cannot be allowed to emerge between the effect of these decisions

and the overall behavior we have attributed to governments, or the realization

of the objectives we have set forth will be jeopardized."

We recommend that each year one of the federal-provincial

meetings of the Prime Ministers of Ministers of Finance be

devoted to the medium-term performance indicators developed by

the Economic Council of Canada and to an examination of their

implications for the federal and provincial governments, Mr. Speaker, few of us here, especially the Hon. Member for

Coquitlam (Hon. Mr. Barrett) really have the time to go into,

or to receive all the economic material we would like. Yet we

all, undoubtedly have more time available for examining this,

analyzing this material, considering what can be done. All of

us, no doubt, have more time than he has, because of the fact

that he has the Premiership of this Province, and has many

other responsibilities, not the least of which is the

presidency of B.C. Rail.

Now it's simple to follow an old budget plan put forward by

previous governments. It's simple to do that, adding in a

little more money here, and a little more money there. It's

simple to do that, but it doesn't do a thing for the present

situation of 100,000 unemployed.

If taxation can affect employment and unemployment, and

let's face it, it can, I think it's time that we faced up to

the fact in British Columbia, that we have switched from an

economy which was pretty much a boom economy, which was pretty

much capable of employing large numbers of people, a very large

increase in the labour force each year, to something else.

It's time that this portfolio was given to a specific person

with ability. Perhaps the Premier will have to look outside the

House, suggest to one of his backbenchers or even a Minister

that he step down, so that another person knowledgeable in the

area can be brought in to handle this.

But our present situation, where we go simply on a

day-to-day basis in this House, on the strength of a budget

which does nothing for one of these critical problems, is

simply not forgivable in this day and age. We need someone

dealing with this problem; considering it from the British

Columbia point of view; co-ordinating with the federal and

other provincial governments; taking care to make sure that the

budget is not simply a list of the way things are going to be

spent, but a vital document that indicates what objectives can

be reached by spending in certain ways.

We haven't had this at all from this Government, nor will we

have it, when we have a Minister of Finance who simply hasn't

the time nor probably the training to do that type of job.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on!

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The time has come for the Premier to

realize that he cannot continue to consider transportation

questions only in terms of the PGE. He cannot continue to

consider budget questions only in terms on money in and money

out. He's got to consider effect. And the effect of much of

what has happened in the last six months has been an increase

of 50 per cent in our unemployment rate.

So the time has come for him to suggest that some Member of

his cabinet or backbench step down and he go out and get

someone with the ability to handle this matter — handle this

portfolio, Bring him into the Government so the people of

British Columbia can at least get what they're paying for.

Now I can suggest plenty of Members who would be happy to

step down. Perhaps I can suggest the jobs to which they could

go, if it's necessary to buy them out. But the thing is that

the unemployed in this province cannot continue to be treated

in this negligent, casual way that they have been treated by

this Government up to now.

It's simply not good enough to ignore their problems, to

bring in statistics which undoubtedly do not reflect the whole

picture in the north of B.C., and claim that that's all that

has to be done.

It's been suggested on my right by the First Member for

Victoria (Mr. Morrison) that 22 operations have been curtailed

because of the effect of the budget. Well, we've had plenty of

phone calls from there. I can't guarantee that his figures are

right, but I do know that there's plenty of suspicions, plenty

of worry.

I can suggest that if the mayor of Fort St. John, or the

mayor of Dawson Creek, or the mayor of any other community in

the north thought things were so great, perhaps he wouldn't be

coming down here with a great pile of mail on Monday, to

discuss these things with the Premier.

The impression given by the Premier was that this

[ Page 705 ]

guy's coming down to tell us how great things are, how

things are booming, increases here and there in drilling. Well,

that isn't the impression we've got. I trust that at the end of

that meeting on Monday, a true and more factual appreciation of

what is happening in northern B.C. will be given to this House

by the Premier.

Mr. Speaker, this sub-amendment to our amendment is one that

we support. We support it with regret because we wish the

Government had done enough so we didn't have to have it debated

on the floor of this House at this time. But when we have a

Government which is callous and indifferent to the problems of

these people, a Government which has refused point-blank to

deal with this, well then we have no choice but to support this

sub-amendment.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS-14

Richter

Chabot

Jordan

Smith

Fraser

Phillips

Morrison

Schroeder

McGeer

Anderson, D.A.

Williams, L.A.

Brousson

Wallace

Curtis

NAYS-33

Hall

Barrett

Dailly

Strachan

Nimsick

Nunweiler

Nicolson

Brown

Radford

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Dent

Levi

Lorimer

Williams, R.A.

Cocke

King

Calder

Skelly

Gabelmann

Lauk

Lea

Young

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Barnes

Steves

Webster

Lewis

Liden

PAIRS

Gardom

Macdonald

Kelly

McClelland

MR. SPEAKER: There is some debate on the amendment. The Hon.

Member for North Vancouver–Capilano.

MR. D.M. BROUSSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. I would like to refer to the wording of the amendment

as it was originally moved — "that the budget neglects the

general good of the citizens of this province by failing to

provide…adequate consumer protection."

I would like to make some remarks on this subject. I started early this year

in a campaign on a particular area of this subject. As far as I am concerned,

I propose to continue this campaign regardless of comments from some Members

of the Government such as, "Well, yes, we're going to do something about this

sometime. The legislation is coming," or "the department is working on it."

Until we actually see it and until we see the concrete

evidence that these things are happening, I am going to

continue my campaign on consumer protection in British Columbia

in general and on the subject of mortgages in particular.

I'm not going to go through all the gory details again

today, but I do want to clarify the problem a little bit,

clarify one or two special points and underline, perhaps, some

of the human misery. I want to show just how little the

Government has been doing so far.

The other day, Mr. Speaker, when I was discussing this in

the main debate on the budget, I mentioned the address, 430

Columbia Avenue, in New Westminster. I said that I would refer

to it again and explain why I was particularly mentioning that

address. I would like to tell you today the names of some of

the firms that work out of that address and the names of some

of the people who are directors and shareholders of those

firms. For instance, at 430 Columbia there is a firm called

Western Organ Sales. Its directors are Stanley Wright, Robert

Keenan and Gordon Grondahl. Mr. Speaker, despite the fact that

that firm shows up over and over again as purchasing and

dealing in mortgages, it is not registered as a mortgage broker

by the Securities Commission. Yet the Attorney General tells us

that he is investigating and his people are busy pursuing this

field.

Also at the same address, Mr. Speaker, 430 Columbia in New

Westminster, is Safeco Mortgage and Loan. Its shareholders are

Herbert Lawrence McCallum and Margaret Elaine Cameron. Now

Herbert McCallum I have mentioned a number of times in previous

speeches on this subject. Herbert McCallum is the principal in

a firm called Modern Finance, now called Modern Mortgage and

Loan, whose registration was renewed on January 12, 1973, for

another year — as recently as that.

The secretary of Safeco Mortgage and Loan is also Stan

Wright whom I just mentioned and who is the president of

Western Organ Sales. So there is obviously some connection here

between Mr. Wright and Mr. McCallum. Then of course, we

mentioned the other day, Midtown Mortgage and Loan of Calgary,

and Mr. McCallum is principal of that firm and he was selling

his mortgages from Calgary to the Safeco Mortgage and Loan.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you that Safeco Mortgage and

Loan is not registered as a mortgage broker by the Provincial

Securities Commission and the registrar of the Mortgage

Brokers Act. Not registered.

Another one from 430 Columbia Avenue, New

[ Page 706 ]

Westminster is Jackstan Securities. The shareholders are

Stan Wright, Robert Keenan and Harry Ritchie of Montreal. It is

not registered, Mr. Speaker, under the Mortgage Brokers

Act . Not registered.

Another one, called Penney Holdings, 430 Columbia, is not

registered and there is not even any record of it at the

Companies Office.

Another one from 430 Columbia is Stratford Estates Limited.

The shareholders are Stan Wright, Mr. Grondahl and also Jim

Wolstoncroft, who is a director. It is not registered as a

mortgage broker, but the name has appeared a number of times on

mortgage documents that I have seen.

Mid City Acceptance Corporation, 430 Columbia — president,

Stan Wright; secretary, Robert Keenan. Tremar Holdings Limited,

430 Columbia, is not registered as a mortgage broker. Stan

Wright, Robert Keenan and Harry Ritchie are the

shareholders.

One other from 430 Columbia is called Sunridge Homes — Stan

Wright, John Wright, Gordon Grondahl and Hubert Zobrist of

Seattle — widely connected these firms of 430 Columbia — not

registered as a mortgage broker. Three other firms I heard of

this morning, all of them dealing in mortgages and not one of

them registered under the Securities Commission. Victory

Finance Company of Canada Limited, Campbell Associates Finance

Corporation and Campbell and Associates Properties Management

Limited — none of these three are registered. Apparently a John

and Freda Campbell are the main shareholders of those three

companies. So it is very clear, Mr. Speaker, that the people

responsible for the administration of the Mortgage Brokers

Act have not been fulfilling their responsibilities.

When I was speaking the other day, I told some stories of

some sad situations in northern British Columbia or central

British Columbia, including one from One Hundred Mile House. I

mentioned particularly that the man who had been in trouble at

One Hundred Mile House had recently been able to obtain a

satisfactory first mortgage at, I think, 12 per cent, with no

bonus and he was very pleased with the arrangement. I mentioned

the name of that firm. Unfortunately none of the Press carried

the name of that firm as an example of a small mortgage broker

who was doing his job and was giving fair and honest mortgages

and doing it in the country.

The very next morning at 7 o'clock in my room, .my phone

rang. It was the gentleman who owned this company and he was

very upset and said, "Look, it is time you mentioned some of

the good guys in this business, not only the bad ones." I said,

"Well, I did mention it, but unfortunately the Press didn't

pick up your name." So I am repeating it now in fairness to

this gentleman because he told me that he had placed in the

past year over $15 million worth of business in central and

northern British Columbia and he gave me the guidelines under

which he worked and I certainly would respect him. This was Alpha Mortgage of Kamloops — David McNair was the principal in that firm. Let's hear it for

Mr. McNair.

The Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) tried to indicate

that under the present Mortgage Brokers Act his

department couldn't move very far. I certainly agree, Mr.

Speaker, that this Act needs amendments but there are things

that could be done right now. For instance, under

section 4 of

the Act it says,

"The Registrar shall grant registration or re-newal of registration

where in his opinion the applicant is suitable for registration and the proposed

registration is not objectionable. The registrar shall not refuse to grant or

refuse to renew without giving the applicant an opportunity to be heard. He

may in his discretion attach to the registration or renewal such terms, conditions

or restrictions as he may consider necessary."

In other words he can attach any restrictions that he may consider necessary.

However, in

section 8 it says, "The registrar shall suspend

or cancel any registration where, in his opinion, that person

would be disentitled to registration if he were an applicant." — an applicant under

section 4. So, "the registrar shall

suspend or cancel where in his opinion that person would be

disentitled to registration."

I think there has been ample evidence of a number of the

firms I have mentioned which, if applying for the first time,

would not be acceptable.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to mention the penalties that

are available in this Act, because they are substantial and the

registrar could be, perhaps, considering the use of them right

today:

"Every person who violates any provision of this Act is liable, on

summary conviction, to a fine of not

more than $5,000 on first offence or to a fine of not more than

$5,000 and to imprisonment for a term of not more than six

months for any subsequent offence or, being a corporation, is

liable to a fine of not more than $ 10,000 for any subsequent

offence."

These are substantial penalties. I have detailed a number of

infractions of the Act and I think the Attorney General should

be moving in these areas now, without waiting for the

amendments and the changes that I'm sure he's bringing.

I want to mention another point, Mr. Speaker, that came to

my attention yesterday afternoon, perhaps more strongly than

before. I have had a number of hints about this particular

thing. It's a point I cannot prove but I have had a number of

hints, suggestions, comments about it and I think it needs to

be said in public.

The indications that I have are that mortgage brokers are on many occasions

referred to people in

[ Page 707 ]

trouble by the officers of other lending institutions

who are not prepared to extend credit under their terms of reference, or by

officers and personnel of credit bureaus, or various kinds of collection agencies.

I am told, Mr. Speaker, that it is not uncommon for the mortgage broker, if

he is referred to one of these people in trouble and is able to write a mortgage

under the kinds of terms I have described, to slip the referring gentleman or

person perhaps a $100 under the table or a small percentage or whatever the

bonus was.

Now as I say, Mr. Speaker, I cannot prove that, I have no

specifics, but this has been mentioned to me by a number of

people on a number of occasions and I think there is a little

fire behind that kind of smoke. I think that is a pretty

unsavoury kind of mess.

I would like to give you one or two quotes from some of the

letters I have received. You may remember that I told you the

story of a 76 year old senior citizen here in Victoria who had

some problems with a mortgage written for him by National

Trust. I didn't suggest in any way that National Trust was

doing something illegal, that it was not in strict terms with

what is normally done on the conventional mortgages. I did

suggest that National Trust might have shown a little more of

the milk of human kindness for this gentleman of 76. The

gentleman about whom I was talking has written me a letter

since my speech in the House and I would like to share it with

you:

"I read the report in today's Press of your speech in the

House yesterday and the least I can do is to thank you for the trouble you

took in looking into the case I presented, which I still think represents usury

of the worst kind. I see no justification for the National Trust charges. I

went there and I told them so.

I also told them that I could accept a reasonable

charge for disruption of documents and I said that the maximum I would listen

to would be three months penalty. I have been there repeatedly to try and find

a way to beat their rules without success.

However, for the sake of many people

besides myself, I hope your work there is fruitful."

"Anyway," and, Mr. Speaker, I hope you will listen closely to this

line — "anyway you can look forward to a reward for your humanitarian

effort by a front seat in heaven in all good time."

MRS. JORDAN: Is that guaranteed?

MR. BROUSSON: Mr. Speaker, finally, finally I am going to

get a front bench seat on the Government side. (Laughter). This

letter, Mr. Speaker, came from Valemount. What I want to do now

is not go into details — you have heard the details — but I

want you to hear the human misery that is crying out:

"Living as I do in an out of the way corner of British

Columbia, information and protective services are hard to come

by to say the least. It was with a sense of relief I heard that

you were investigating, or at least interested, in rip-off

mortgage companies and their practices."

And he finishes up his letter, "Can your office advise or

help?" Can your office advise or help?

Another letter from north central British Columbia: "Do you think there is

any way that we can get a return of this money or who could see to look into

it."

This letter — I read you the story, I will read you the

ending of the letter now. It said, "So in

summary, because they

needed $2200, they paid a $500 bonus; they paid $684 in 12

monthly payments; they paid $2600 for the pay-off, or $3800

just in 12 months and still haven't been taken off Penney

Holdings' hook. Go get 'em! "

The last letter I want to read to you, Mr. Speaker, comes

from the case that I used as my last case in my speech the

other afternoon:

"Once I realized that I was trapped, I put my house up for

sale, and it still is. I realize I will have to pay a penalty but I would rather

lose my house than support a bunch of bloodsuckers for the rest of my life.

I want you to understand that I am not feeling sorry for myself or that I am

trying to wriggle out of a bad deal. With the proceeds from my house I can square

away my debts. As I earn over $12,000 per year, I can buy another one.

The main

reason that I am writing this letter is that I am declaring war on AVCO Finance

and I need help to be effective. Whether I get help or not doesn't matter, I

will fight them anyway."

Mr. Speaker, who is going to answer these cries for help.

Who is going to prosecute? Who is going to reform the

offenders? Who is going to throw the usurers out of the temple?

Is it going to be the lawyers in the Attorney General's office?

Or is it going to be the social workers in the Minister of

Rehabilitation's Department? Let us find out what can be done,

Mr. Speaker, or what is being done, if anything.

I talked at length about the storefront at 430 Columbia

Street in New Westminster, That storefront is actually the

store where Wright's Furniture is. But behind that storefront

are all of the mortgage companies that I told the House about.

I want to repeat, Mr. Speaker, what I said the other afternoon.

We need another kind of storefront. We need storefront consumer

affairs offices across British Columbia.

We want these to provide a place where young lawyers, young

financial people, bright young people can work and get a

tremendous experience in legal matters, in financial matters,

in human affairs;

[ Page 708 ]

advising, dealing and helping in an impartial way the people

that are faced with the kinds of problems that I have been

outlining.

Mr. Speaker, the Attorney General and other Members of the

cabinet keep repeating that they can't do everything at once.

They have only been in office five or six months. "Give us a

little more time." Well, Mr. Speaker, to do what I am

suggesting wouldn't require any kind of a takeover — wouldn't

even require taking over the mortgage business, as one Member

suggested the other day — wouldn't require the takeover of the

insurance business, auto insurance or life insurance; wouldn't

require takeover of the natural gas business. Nothing

complicated. at all. Very simple.

I would think that in five or six months we could have made

some progress in this direction. Let's take a look at the

Consumer Affairs Office that exists today under this Government

and as it is provided for in this budget.

I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if the Attorney General has been down

to visit his Consumer Affairs Office. I wonder if the Minister

of Finance has been down to visit the Consumer Affairs Office.

I should tell you, Mr. Speaker, through you to the Minister of

Finance, that office is in the basement of the Law Courts

building just a few blocks away from here. I think th