1970 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 29th 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 20, 1970

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 501 ]

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 1970

The House met at 2 p.m.

BUDGET ADDRESS

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for North Vancouver–Seymour.

MR. B.A. CLARK (North Vancouver–Seymour): It is again a

privilege for me to take my place in the Budget debate, and this year

to be the concluding speaker for our group in this House to comment on

the Budget.

I wish, first of all, to comment on some of the things that have

been mentioned during the course of the debate as it has gone its two

weeks. Particularly I would like to acknowledge the contribution

yesterday of the second member from Vancouver South for her addition to

our list of words which we must now use with discretion in this House,

but sincerely, I would like to thank her for providing a very

light-hearted interval to the proceedings, and I think it probably did

us all a lot of good. (applause) Having said that Mr. Speaker, I enter

with some trepidation into my first subject.

When I spoke in the earlier debate, I raised a topic of considerable

concern to a lot of the people in this Province, and that is the topic

of the termination of pregnancy, or abortion, and sterilization, and

whether or not people in the Province were receiving adequate

information pertaining to this, and adequate service. I wish to mention

this again because I would like to try and make a point with the House

in regard to this, and some other subjects that have come up for

discussion in this debate.

Quite often, Mr. Speaker, we can have total agreement from all

parties on a subject, but at the same time, because of party

differences we are inclined to take sides. I think this is one of the

unfortunate aspects of this Assembly and any other democratic Assembly,

because when we are in unity I wish we could speak with unity and no

party lines at all, and I think on this subject we are in unity. I was

very impressed with what the Minister of Health had to say on the topic

of abortions yesterday, and he certainly has my support in any effort

that he makes to liberalize these laws. He suggested that he thought

there was a way that the legal minds of this country could draft

legislation so that it was far better than it is now.

The next point, I think, that I would like to make in regard to this

subject, and I make no apologies for raising the topic again, is that

as the Minister of Health has stated his point of view and issued a

warning to the doctors of this Province. I would hope that the

Attorney-General perhaps later in this debate, as he concludes debate,

would also offer his comment, because it seems to me it would be a pity

if any doctor was — perhaps frightened is not the right word but

prevented by fear of prosecution from providing what information he

knows to his patients on this subject. I would hope that the

Attorney-General might be able to choose his words very carefully, and

I appreciate his position. I've had some discussion with various

lawyers in this House and I get all tangled up in their legal

interpretations, but nonetheless I don't particularly care about the

problems you may have in drafting the legislation, I don't think that's

the point. It's the people who are faced with this problem we have to

consider.

I have received many letters, I think as members in this House can

appreciate, since my last speech. I mentioned that I received as many

as a dozen pleas for assistance before I ever raised the topic in the

House. I would just like to read two paragraphs from one. I obviously

won't mention the name of the writer, but this is the type of person I

am talking about and this is the type of problem. "Mr. Clark, I am now

25 years old, my husband is 30, we have four children, the oldest is

six, the youngest are twins eight months old. My husband is unemployed

with a Grade 9 education, and a history of nervous disorders. I am now

two months pregnant, and desperate. My husband knows, and I know, Mr.

Clark, that physically, mentally and financially we cannot handle any

more children. Our own family doctor will not help us. My husband was

to have had a vasectomy after the twins were born, but because of other

illnesses, put it off. Now, as a result, our whole family must pay for

this in ways too numerous to mention." This is a typical example and,

of course, I had to write the lady back and say there was nothing I

could really suggest. Obviously they were not in a financial position

to go to any country where this is legal.

I agree with the Minister of Health who said yesterday we must face

this problem with understanding, with patience, with consideration, and

a great deal of sympathy, and I would hope that we won't let the

debates of this House on this subject end now. It seems to me there is

an answer, and I bow to the Minister of Health's greater knowledge of

the law, but it seems to me the answer is to just simply remove

abortions from the Criminal Code. I see no reason why there should be

any more restriction regarding this operation than any other operation.

I'm perfectly content to leave matters of this sort, the matter of

judgment between doctor and patient, and I think this is the only area

in which I disagree with the Minister without Portfolio from North

Okanagan, and perhaps we don't even disagree on that. But it seems to

me that as with any other operation, this is a personal matter between

a patient, a doctor and, if the situation warrants, their God, and I'm

prepared to leave it there. So I would hope that you won't let it end

there, that's all I'm asking. I certainly pledge you my support, and I

think I can pledge you the support of all members in our caucus, and

anything we can do, gladly.

Turning to another subject that has been discussed in this debate,

Mr. Speaker, again raised by the lady Cabinet Minister from North

Okanagan, the subject of broadcasting. I sometimes think, though, that

the members in this House should avoid discussing subjects pertaining

to their own profession, because quite often we can be so close that we

don't get an over-all view of what is happening. With having said that,

though, I would like to comment on what the Minister said, and you can

take it for what it's worth as a broadcaster. The Minister objected to

recent Radio and Television Commission decisions to restrict

rebroadcasting of American television on Canadian cable, and in that

regard I completely support what the Minister had to say. I believe

that the actions of the Canadian Radio and Television Commission in

this regard come very close to censorship, and I think we should

protest them vigorously.

On the other hand, I do not agree with what the Minister said

regarding the C.B.C. and, although I am a private broadcaster, I have

worked for the C.B.C. on a free lance basis, and happen to believe that

in certain areas of broadcasting, the C.B.C. is superb and unbeatable.

This is acknowledged by my profession on both sides of the border The

tragedy that has occurred in Canada, in my opinion, is that the C.B.C.

has tried to become all things to all listeners, and that is impossible

for any broadcast media, be it private or public.

Now recently the Canadian Radio and Television Com-

[ Page 502 ]

mission has issued new standards for both radio and

television. Their goals are admirable but again, in my opinion, their

means are illogical. The Commission has ruled that a greater percentage

of our broadcasting shall be done by Canadians or shall include

Canadian music or Canadian talent. We now have before us two rulings,

therefore, of the Canadian Radio and Television Commission. One

regarding cablevision, and one regarding Canadian content, both of

which are designed to foster Canadian talent for Canadian culture, and

with that, who can disagree. I certainly agree with the objects of

these moves but, Mr. Speaker, to suggest that by legislation or

regulation we can make Canadians the best in every field of the

performing arts is just ludicrous.

There are some areas in United States broadcasting where we have no

hope of competing, nor should we try, because we can contribute to

their broadcasting. But.to better the American talent in a variety

show, with the backing of the financial resources of the American

sponsors, is literally impossible. It was tried in Canada and failed

miserably, and in that regard I feel that Canadian talent should be

encouraged to partake in the American shows, but to suggest that we can

come up with our own Ed Sullivan, I think is crazy. Bad choice? Sorry

about that.

On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, let me name some fields of

entertainment where any American producer will tell you that Canada is

far and away ahead. I refer specifically to televised music programmes

such as ballet, symphony, opera or operettas. I refer to public affairs

programming, I refer to ethnic programming, and perhaps most important

of all, the documentary. Any qualified American producer will take off

his hat in those fields to Canadian television any time you ask him. I

have met in my career a number of American producers that go so far as

to hire Canadian television cameramen whenever they are producing a

television special, because of the superior skill of the Canadian

television craftsman. These are fields that I feel we should support,

we should foster them.

We should also, of course; make it possible for Canadians with any

specific talent, to develop their talent, but to suggest that by

legislation we can make ourselves number one in every field of arts, I

just can't buy. That's my only comment on the lady Minister's remarks

and I think, really, we agree again.

Now, again, before moving to specific Budget issues, Mr. Speaker, I

wish to inform the House for the third time, that this is the third

year now that I have been off the weed. (applause)

AN HON. MEMBER: Guess he's on grass.

MR. CLARK: If that is not considered particularly significant

by some, I think more significant is that I repeat my request for this

House — and I say this, too as a broadcaster — to ban cigarette

advertising. Ban it from radio, from television, from billboards, from

newspapers, from magazines. Ban it by any means that encourages young

people to take up this habit. So I serve notice to the member from

Columbia, Mr. Speaker, that if he wishes to re-introduce his Bill of

last year, I will be happy to support it. Those are the nice things,

Mr. Speaker. I've reached the hot water section.

There have been other things said during the course of the debate

that have bothered me and with which I certainly cannot agree. The

first of those involves the subject in which I have been a listener for

now some three years. I have not participated in any debates relating

to Commonwealth Trust, but with other members of this House, I have sat

and listened. Yesterday I heard the Minister of Health, after he made

the good part of his speech, somehow try to justify the actions of this

Government by blaming it all on the Federal Insurance side of Trust

Company operations. I have heard some illogical things in this House,

but that one really takes the cake. But what bothered me even more, Mr.

Speaker, was to have the Minister's remarks roundly applauded by all

the members of the Government because if one thing has been clear in

three years of this debate, it is the fact that there are thousands of

British Columbia citizens who were sucked into this operation and have

lost their life-time savings. Under the supervision of this Government

— no one else is to blame. In my opinion, it's like knowing there was

typhoid on the Oriana, and you invited people to come aboard.

I've said many times I'm not a lawyer, but I think I am capable of

sitting here and judging the debates and knowing when something is just

not right,. and if ever there was something that was not right in this

Province, it is the Commonwealth debacle, and the fact that members of

the Government can applaud a statement like we heard yesterday from the

Minister of Health. Again I acknowledge the Minister of Health's far

superior knowledge of the law and, Mr. Speaker, through you, I ask him,

if he has any real respect for the law, then speak up in Cabinet for

the right of all those people who have been injured by the action of

this Government so that they may sue this Government in the Courts of

the Province.

If there has been one subject that has been mentioned most often in

this debate, Mr. Speaker, I think we would all agree it is that of

pollution.

AN HON. MEMBER: Bolt has been used.

MR. CLARK: No, I think that pollution has even outdone that

one, Mr. Minister, and that is good, too. The Budget states on the

question of environmental control — I told you we were going to have to

deal with that word very, very carefully from now on (laughter). The

Budget states, on the question of environmental control, that the

protection of our environment is of great importance both for this and

future generations, and who can argue with that statement? The Budget

states further that, "The enforcement of sanitary and air and water

quality standards by the Health and Pollution Control Branches of the

Provincial Government Service is safeguarding the quality of our

environment, and these activities will be intensified, as I indicated

earlier," quoting from the Budget.

Well, you've been indicating over and over and over again that you

were going to do something about pollution control. When is it going to

happen, because there is no indication of it in the Budget. It takes

more than words. Where is the action? Even members in your own

backbenches have joined with members on this side of the House in

asking for a Ministry and a Department of Environmental Control. It is

quite clear to me, Mr. Speaker, that in the Treasury benches there is

no co-ordination on the matter of pollution, and in fact there is no

real understanding of the problem.

I don't want to pick just on the Minister of Health, but yesterday

the Minister of Health somehow attempted to blame the Federal

Government, I think to be more specific the Liberals, for any pollution

that might be caused by Neptune Terminals that are located in my

riding, the bulk loading terminals that soon will be loading coal. I

think what

[ Page 503 ]

the Minister said was that the Liberals were responsible, and we now

know just how badly the people were led down the garden path. Well, of

course, the Minister didn't even have his timing straight, Mr. Speaker,

because it was long after Neptune Coal was a fact that the people in

North Vancouver elected not one, not two, but three Liberals back into

this House.

The Minister obviously had no consultation with the Minister of

Municipal Affairs or his department, and we have here a beautiful

example, as I tried to illustrate in the Throne Speech debate, of what

lack of co-ordination can do. Because during the fight in North

Vancouver to prevent Neptune Coal from coming into the community, or at

least prevent Neptune Terminals from undertaking a coal contract, the

Department of Municipal Affairs was in touch with the City of North

Vancouver. If you look at the North Vancouver Citizen, July 16th of

last year, you will find a letter from the Assistant Deputy Minister of

Municipal Affairs and I quote, "We do not intend to become involved. As

you are well aware the powers of zoning, re-zoning, and regulation of

building is a matter entirely within the jurisdiction of the Council

which judges cases on their merits and acts accordingly. It is my

understanding that the Council has dealt with the question involving

Neptune Terminal facilities, and as far as the Department is concerned,

that is the end of the matter." Where is Provincial leadership on

pollution control in that letter?

But of course it is to be understood, because the point we have been

trying to make in this debate is that a single department of

Environmental Control would not see such a situation existing where one

Minister is saying, "Oh, it's the Federal responsibility," and another

Minister is saying, "It's the civic responsibility." You don't talk to

each other, and in the meantime who is left with the coal and the coal

dust, the people.

But of course it's not unusual for this Government, Mr. Speaker, to

be in trouble in my particular riding, but with the newspaper situation

in Vancouver these days, the North Shore Citizen, that well-known

newspaper, not really too much in favour of Liberals, has been

publishing daily, and an issue of the North Shore Citizen is on the

streets today that has a very interesting headline, also on the subject

of pollution. The headline of the North Shore Citizen today is, "Socred

engineer qualities for $250,000 prize."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh ….

MR. CLARK: Headline, North Shore Citizen today. "Peter

Robinson, former Social Credit candidate in North Vancouver–Capilano,

is the man who is quoted, and Mr. Robinson says that the matter of

control of smell from pulp mills has been under investigation for some

time, that he has a process which is successful, that the Premier knows

about it, that it has been sent to the B.C. Research Council, and they

confirm …. can I help you pass a message? …. and they confirm that

the process is practical. What does Mr. Peter Robinson say about the

$250,000 prize?

AN HON. MEMBER: How does he control the political smell?

MR. CLARK: Mr. Robinson says it's a pacifier for the public.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh ….

MR. CLARK: That's not me, that's the former Social Credit

candidate in North Vancouver–Capilano, and what does he say further,

Mr. Speaker, and I quote, "it puts me in a hell of a position for a

Socred."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh ….

MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member cannot use such language

in the House, even though he is quoting someone else. He cannot do

indirectly what he cannot do directly.

MR. CLARK: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I think you should apologise to the House.

MR. CLARK: I'll withdraw the curse word of the quotation.

So as I say, Mr. Speaker, it is not unusual for this Government to

be in trouble when it comes to pollution in North Vancouver, and as far

as the Budget is concerned, there is nothing there that gives me any

indication that we are going to see real action to cope with this

problem.

The Budget states, Mr. Speaker, that the "Provincial Government

policy over a number of years now has recognized the growing needs of

the local governments, and generous financial assistance has been

provided." Another quote from the Budget. What are the facts in regard

to this statement? Well, lovely graphs are included in the Budget

document. They all demonstrate to all sorts of things. One thing they

demonstrate was indicated by my friend, one of the members from

Burnaby, when he said that really what these graphs illustrate is that

in some instances Vancouver City has a bigger apple than Winnipeg's

orange, and that's really what they do indicate. Such comparisons as

shown in the Budget in regard to municipal financing are completely

meaningless.

The fact is that the cost of servicing people in the municipalities

of British Columbia has been increasing every year. The member from

Cowichan-Malahat touched on this earlier in the debate, and I would

like to bring up to date some statistics I read to the House every year

about the cost of servicing people in one riding, North Vancouver

District. Incidentally, this is a very easy procedure for any member to

go through, Mr. Speaker, and if you wish to find out what is happening

in your own municipality it's a very simple set of statistics to keep

and compare. You simply ask your municipal treasurer to separate from

his budget the cost of servicing people, and deduct from it any

Government grants, and then the result can be compared from year to

year. There are a couple of — more than a couple — a number of

municipal elected officials in the House in this Session who can

confirm how this is done.

Take one figure, the subject of health. Again, one municipality. Go

back to 1962 and the cost of health services in North Vancouver was

$34,000. In 1967 it had jumped to $66,000. In 1968 it was up to

$83,000. In education the story is even more dramatic. In 1962 the

costs — now these are municipal costs, Mr. Speaker, I'm not talking

about total cost — strictly the cost being applied to land. In 1962 the

costs of education in North Vancouver District was $1,759,000. In 1967,

$3,693,000. In 1968, $4,460,000. In 1969, $5,127,000. And the story

goes on and on, for every people's service in the municipality.

An easier way to make a comparison is to check the per

[ Page 504 ]

capita costs of these services in your municipality. How much does

it cost on a per capita basis to provide the services to people that

are paid for from property taxes after all Government grants,

home-owner grants, everything have been subtracted. Again, to use my

own riding, in 1963 the cost per capita was $47. In 1968, $79. In 1969,

$91, and in 1970, $101.29. Mr. Speaker, there is your tax increase.

It's been there every year, and for the Premier or the Minister of

Finance to say in his Budget there is no tax increase in British

Columbia is ridiculous. There has been a tax increase, doubled on a per

capita basis since 1963.

There has been discussion in this debate, Mr. Speaker, on housing.

Many of the Government speakers, including Ministers, have praised the

efforts of the Government in the field of housing. Again, what are the

facts, and despite the glowing phrases from the lady Minister without

Portfolio from Vancouver-Little Mountain, the facts are simply this,

Mr. Speaker, that despite anything you've said or despite anything in

the Budget, there are thousands and thousands of British Columbia

citizens who can't afford to buy a home. That's the relevant fact,

that's the only important thing. Until you've satisfied the need for

housing you've failed — so don't give us excuses.

There are still acres and acres of municipally-owned land that is

undeveloped in British Columbia in heavy population centres, simply

because your Government hasn't provided the funds to put in services.

Acres and acres of it. And, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to housing, in

the opinion of this member, as long as there is one municipally-owned

lot that is not developed because of lack of funds, then this

Government has failed.

It has amused me, Mr. Speaker, to hear in the debate some members

praise new school developments in their ridings. It has amused me

because the so-called new developments that we have heard praise for,

and they deserve praise, are the result of the experiments that took

place many years ago in the lighthouse or keystone school districts in

this Province. These are the results of hard-working school trustees

that you, Mr. Minister, may consider to be baloney, but I don't.

Hard-working school trustees who have devoted their time and efforts in

research to coming up with new and better education programmes.

What is tragic, Mr. Speaker, is that these lighthouse or keystone

school districts are the ones that once again are facing gigantic

overages in their budgets. North Vancouver school district, three

quarters of a million dollars. In West Vancouver school district even

more, and yet I have heard members stand up and praise school

developments which specifically were the result of work done in school

districts such as this.

My own school district, Mr. Speaker, has been progressive, and I am

proud of that and the whole Province should be proud of school

districts that are progressive. But when school boards and school

trustees are told that their entry into fields of experiment are going

to be paid 100 per cent by local property taxes, that's a backward step

and this Government has certainly taken that step every year.

AN HON. MEMBER: Backing up with education for 17 years.

MR. CLARK: Again, Mr. Speaker, I point out that despite

anything that's said over there, or despite anything that's said in the

Budget, there is really only one fact when it comes to education that

is relevant today. Despite all the denials of a school classroom

freeze, the fact of the matter is that as the chilly winds blow around

such municipalities as Coquitlam, the mothers know their children are

on shift classes. So, you can print all the fine phrases about

education you want, the fact of the matter is there are children on

shifts in British Columbia. There are classroom shortages. There are

school construction by-laws being held up. You call it whatever you

want, Mr. Speaker. I call it plain and simply school construction

freeze, and there is nothing in the Budget I can see to correct it.

There are improvements forecast in the Department of Social Welfare,

Mr. Speaker, in the Budget, and I wish to acknowledge some of them.

Most important of these is the $5 per capita increase in welfare

grants, 20 per cent of which will be paid for by the municipalities.

So, it's a $4 increase from the Provincial Government and $1 from the

municipalities.

But I fail to see anything in the Budget that is designed to tackle

some of the real problems of welfare in the Province. What are the real

problems? An over-simplification. Yes, Mr. Speaker, but the real

problem is there are too many people on welfare and there are too few

social welfare workers, and the only hope in social welfare generally

is to make it possible for a person-to-person relationship, so that

these people can be given more help than just money.

I heard the Minister's new plans for his Department and I see

nothing in them that really encourages me but, more important, I see

nothing in the Budget to make it possible for the Minister to carry out

any of the things that he said he wished to do. I appreciate the

Minister is busy talking to his colleague, however, while that

continues I would still like to point out that I see nothing in this

Budget, Mr. Speaker, that will assist people like this. A woman in my

constituency who is facing a broken marriage but determined to support

her three children, she returned to university and on her savings has

completed all but two months of her B. A. degree. Reaching that stage,

two months to go to graduation, she was up against it financially and

went to the social welfare office and was told, No, she wasn't eligible

for welfare for two months. That's the sort of thing. Because she

appears in Column A, subsection B, she is not eligible for social

welfare, yet if ever there was a woman we wanted to help surely it's

the woman who has gone out to educate herself so she can support her

family. Ironically, she has applied for entrance to Simon Fraser Social

Welfare Faculty, and I wish her well. I see nothing in the Budget that

is going to help out the situation like this one. I don't necessarily

blame the Minister directly for this, Mr. Speaker, but certainly his

Department.

Here's a story of real disappointment, the Provincial Businessmen's

Alliance which that Minister has been responsible for. Now I appreciate

the Minister has been busy on radio stations such as the one I work

for, relating all the job opportunities of Canada Manpower, but Mr.

Speaker, this story is a 19-year old boy who has been in trouble with

the law over and over again, whose parents, in

an act of desperation,

finally turned him over to the police when they discovered stolen

property in his bedroom. That boy appeared before the Courts of this

Province, and the Courts in their wisdom determined the best thing they

could offer that boy was Haney. He was sent to Haney, where he received

some encouragement to apply for a job to get back on his feet to earn a

bit of money so he could complete his education. He didn't know where

to start, but he'd heard about the Minister's Provincial Businessmen's

Alliance, and so he wrote that Alliance. You know what happened, Mr.

[ Page 505 ]

Speaker? They didn't even answer his letter. They didn't even answer

his letter, and when he came out of Haney, we found him a job, Mr.

Minister, I found him a job.

AN HON. MEMBER: Give me the name.

MR. CLARK: Outside this House I'll give you the full story

and names, yes. I'm surprised you don't know, because you received a

letter from the mother, too, and so did the Attorney-General.

AN HON. MEMBER: Give the names.

MR. CLARK: I said, Mr. Speaker, that I would give the

Minister the names outside this House. I'm not about to embarrass the

parents …. (loud noise and Interjections) …. Just calm down, the

Minister can check in his files, too, if he's in a hurry ….

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MR. CLARK: I haven't got the letter with me, Mr. Minister, I

have it in my files in my apartment if you would like it. It's a copy

of a letter sent to the Minister of, yourself, and to the Minister of,

the Attorney-General, pardon me. As a matter of fact, three letters,

Mr. Speaker. But that's not the point, the point is you didn't even

reply….

MR. SPEAKER: Is the Minister rising to a point of order?

HON. P.A. GAGLARDI: The point of order, Mr. Speaker — it is

the point. I'm being accused of something that I am not guilty of, and

I want to have that name!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh ….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I'm sure the matter can be

resolved elsewhere but in this Chamber. There may be a confidential

nature to the name of this individual and it can be passed on later,

but I think that the member has a responsibility to pass the name along

to the Minister.

MR. CLARK: I will, Mr. Speaker, and I'll be happy to withdraw

the accusation of no reply if the Minister can prove to me that their

letter was in fact replied to.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sure that this can be resolved outside the House.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, I think, too, in this Department, of

an aging grandmother who phoned me in tears one day because she could

not get any help from this same Department for her grandson who has

been disowned by his parents, and the confusion of trying to straighten

this out in the red tape of the Social Welfare Department. I mention

specific examples to only illustrate what happens in one riding, and is

there any member in this House who has not had countless similar

situations drawn to their attention, that are not solved, in my

opinion, by any estimates in this Budget.

Mr. Speaker, the Budget states that the new name for the Social

Welfare Department, namely that of the Department of Rehabilitation and

Social Improvement, is a designation more reflective of the

Government's philosophy of assisting those of the population who are

disadvantaged. And there are certain specific benefits outlined here,

as I've already mentioned. But I would like to deal for a moment with

those relating to our senior citizens. Because, Mr. Speaker, despite

all the changes announced in the Budget, the senior citizens of this

Province will remain disadvantaged. There is no guarantee, no

suggestion in the Budget for provision of chronic care. Senior citizens

will again face the horrible and outlandish costs of private nursing

homes that quickly will eliminate any savings that they may have.

I think of another woman in my riding who is watching her husband

die alone with her in their home at this moment. The doctors have given

the gentleman anywhere from three days to a month to live. He's not

dying of any particular disease, other than old age, but the husband in

this case is still able to converse with some clarity to his wife and

he extracted from his wife a promise that she would not put him in a

nursing home, so that when he died and as he died, he knew that what

estate he had left, as small as it was, would remain for her care. Can

anyone blame him for such a wish? So the situation is that this elderly

lady in my riding is caring for her husband in his last days, although

she is ill-equipped to do so, and the emotional strain, I am sure you

can appreciate in this House, is almost unbearable. And, Mr. Speaker,

as you look at the glowing phrases again in this Budget, is this the

grand society of the 70's that we promised the senior citizens? A

society that is still not prepared to accept its responsibilities in a

situation like I have just described. What of those of our senior

citizens that are still relying on fixed pension income? The Budget

doesn't make any mention here of — it does make mention of certain

increases that will apply only to those who are eligible.

Mr. Speaker, I have another budget to lay before the House. There's

been two already. The Minister of Finance's, my colleague the leader of

the Liberal party, I would like to table another budget, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh…. no….

MR. CLARK: That's right. I give you the Budget of Nellie

Walsh. Nellie Walsh is not the most unfortunate senior citizen in my

riding, Mr. Speaker, she lives in the Kiwams Senior Citizens' home.

Here's her budget. She's lucky enough to be spending as little as $36 a

month for her accommodation. Rent — $36; Food for a month for a maximum

of $45; light — $5; telephone — $5.15; payment on her television set — $10; bus pass — $10 yearly; entertainment — $5, which includes her

monthly subscription to a Senior Citizens' organization in the area;

the Sun Newspaper when it's published — $2.50; hair-dresser — $2. What does it leave, Mr. Speaker? For clothes, for shoes, for any

little extras — about $6 a month.

AN HON. MEMBER: She doesn't have a family?

MR. CLARK: No, sh e doesn't have a family. I have several more

budgets, Mr. Speaker — I could read them all. They are all the

residents of one of the Senior Citizens' Homes in my riding, and they

are all the same. Would anyone here want to live on that budget? What's

more important — the Minister of Finance's Budget or Nellie Walsh's

budget? Mr. Speaker, it is not printed on fine paper and it's not in

colour, there are no pictures, there's no grass, and there's no charts,

but I can assure you that the budget I just read is more important to

Nellie Walsh than anything else in the world. She's got to live within

it, and I see nothing in this Budget that we are discussing today that

is going to be of

[ Page 506 ]

assistance, really, to the Nellie Walsh's of this Province.

I see the Minister of Health is not in his seat, Mr. Speaker. I wish

to deal with the matter of retarded children. He mentioned retarded

children yesterday. I wonder if there is anything hidden in the Budget

that I couldn't find, to deal with situations like this, and these too

can be repeated countless times in the Province. I had occasion to

run afoul this past year of the efficiency of that Minister's

department. The case, specifically, saw two parents who were facing the

common problem, namely of having their retarded child on the waiting

list for Woodlands School. The family in question had reached the point

where it was virtually impossible to continue providing for the child

in their own home. Mother had reached the point of desperation, this is

the common story, and at this stage she approached two people, myself

and my colleague, Jack Webster. She received the advice that as her

child was in hospital at this time with a skin infection, that she

should refuse to take him home. This was upsetting to her and her

husband, as you can appreciate, but that's the action she took.

The parents were immediately in conflict with the hospital

administration, but the family persisted, and some days later the

Health Minister was a guest on a talk programme. The mother called in

and told him what she had done, and she received the advice from the

Minister that she should desert her child in the hospital, that he

would do the same thing, and that he sympathized with her and he would

look after the matter. The mother was greatly relieved and I think we

can all appreciate that, greatly relieved, until she learned many days

later nothing had been done. The hospital administration were still

demanding that she remove the child — no-one in the Health Department

had contacted the hospital. Merely words on a talk programme. The

hospital obviously refused to accept the assurance of the mother that

the Minister of Health had told her he would look after her child, the

family doctor became involved in the middle, and tension increased all

around.

The mother attempted to contact the Minister of Health to confirm

what he had told her on the radio, without success. The situation

stayed that way, Mr. Speaker, for many weeks, but I am happy to report

that the child eventually was transferred to Woodlands at the pressure

and instigation, I am sure, of the hospital authorities who admittedly

had an awkward situation on their hands. What's wrong with that is that

a mother shouldn't have to go through that in order to get a retarded

child in a hospital in this Province in these glowing days of the

70's…. Are we really supporting a society where you have to phone a

radio programme to get your child into hospital?

AN HON. MEMBER: You didn't help.

MR. CLARK: The child's in Woodlands.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, you didn't.

MR. CLARK: Well, that's a matter of opinion. I am prepared to

accept your criticism if I did wrong. I would say that the child is in

Woodlands.

The Budget indicates that a short step is being taken to solve this

problem, but it's not the big giant stride that's necessary, Mr.

Speaker.

There has been discussion in this debate involving recreation and

conservation involving Skagit Valley, involving Cypress Bowl, and I

wish I could report, Mr. Speaker, that there was something here in this

document that indicated we were going to get some kind of recreation

plan with a real recreation budget, but I don't see it.

In my own riding, of Mt. Seymour, after so many years still has to

have the worst road in the Province, although I can appreciate that

might be debated by some of the members in the House. But with 10,000 a

weekend, a day, going up there, the road is in deplorable shape, but

there is still hope, Mr. Speaker. There are a couple of lakes up in Mt.

Seymour and maybe the Minister could arrange to sell them.

Mr. Speaker, page 7 of the Budget says the Government's first policy

in this new decade is for people, to make sure increased funds are

available for people in education, health, hospitals, medical care,

social services and urban growth. If I were voting for words, Mr.

Speaker, words such as that, I could perhaps support this motion that

we are debating. But it's when you get into the details of the Budget

and the dollars that are actually assigned to accomplish what these

words say, that you realize they are merely words. Mr. Speaker, I

therefore cannot support this Budget, although I appreciate the

attention of this House in listening to my point of view.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the second member for Vancouver East.

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to

welcome the special representatives we have in the gallery this

afternoon from the forest lobby of British Columbia. I would like to

welcome the vice-president of MacMillan Bloedel who, I understand, is

in the gallery, and I am pleased that they have seen fit to send a

representative here. Because it may be that the honourable gentlemen

will be hearing a point of view that they don't normally hear on the

28th floor of the executive suite on Georgia in downtown Vancouver ….

Anything I have to say about MacMillan Bloedel I'll be glad to say

outside the House at any time.

You know, I can't help but think, Mr. Speaker, looking at the long

display of backbenchers on the Socred side and the significant majority

they have, I can't help but think about Aneurin Bevan's comment in the

British House, when he looked over at the Tories. Looking over at the

Tories in this House, I can't help but think it is much the same. He

said it reminds him of Woolworth's — everything in its place and

nothing really worth more than 15 cents, but I won't pursue that.

In my last speech during the Throne Debate, Mr. Speaker, I talked

about privilege. I think privilege is what we should be talking about

in this House. I started out talking about Cypress Bowl, and the

non-performance by the developers in Cypress Bowl, the ruination of the

Bowl, and especially the loss of public values. I discussed the forest

industry to some extent, Mr. Speaker, and the loss of public values in

the forest industry, and how the public is losing a great deal. I think

I suggested that by losing the public values in this industry, by

losing these great pools of revenue, that are rightfully ours in this

Province, that we attract problems. That the Government by doing so,

the Government by not tapping its own revenues, is creating its own

problems, problems with influence peddlars on the edge of Government. I

think the problem, Mr. Speaker, is that we sometimes get diverted from

the main issue — the influence peddlars themselves become interesting

to us and we sometimes concentrate too much on them rather than on the

cause of the problem, and the cause of the problem is the giving away

[ Page 507 ]

of public assets.

I think Lincoln Steffens, who was one of the great early journalists

of the United States, a man who was known as a muck-raker, a term that

I don't find distasteful at all.

AN HON. MEMBER: You wouldn't.

MR. WILLIAMS: No, I wouldn't. These were the great early

journalists of North American that shed light on what was going on

behind the scenes in government in association with the robber barons

at the turn of the century.

Mr. Steffens wrote a book. He wrote several, but one of them was

called, "The Shame of the Cities," and he talked about corruption at

the civic level in governments across the United States. This was the

time of the boss mayor era in the United States. At any rate, at a

meeting in Los Angeles, Mr. Steffens was discussing this, and a

minister at the meeting said, "Well, Mr. Steffens, what's the root

cause of corruption in our society, in our communities, and in our

state government?" So the root cause that Mr. Steffens dealt with the

minister, he said, "I guess you want to go right back then, do you?"

The minister said, "Yes", and Steffens said, "Well, you know some

people say the root cause was the serpent, some people say the root

cause was Adam, some say that it was Eve, but I say, I say that it was

the apple." That's the problem in our society, Mr. Speaker, — the

apple, because the value of our public resources is being dissipated in

this Province on a scandalous scale.

If those revenues don't end up in the public purse then the problems

of conflict of interest continue to develop within our society, and if

the Government faced this one issue, Mr. Speaker, then these kind of

problems would simply disappear, but the question that has to be asked

is does this Government really want them to disappear? Does this

Government want them to disappear?

I don't intend to deal with the liquor industry today, Mr. Speaker,

which is an obvious huge area of privilege in this Province. I don't

intend to deal with the horse-racing industry, which is also a huge

area of privilege in this Province. But the substantial areas of

privilege that continue to exist, exist in our basic industry — the

forest industry of British Columbia. The forest industry is half of our

economy.

It has consistently been so for decades. For the general public, at

least, the elements of privilege in the forest industry are somewhat

obscure, but the fact is this is where the areas of greatest privilege

reside in British Columbia. And it's not surprising, Mr. Speaker, that

the forest king of British Columbia, Mr. Clyne, should be disturbed by

even a general discussion of these issues.

In my last speech, Mr. Speaker, I stated that Cypress Bowl was a

classic case of mismanagement at the hands of the Minister of Lands,

Forests, and Water Resources, and we in the lower mainland realize that

to a great extent. I think the general public did, because Cypress Bowl

is immediate and relevant to all of the people in the lower mainland,

and we found in Cypress Bowl that the Minister traded for $10,000 a

public asset worth a million dollars.

But comparable in every way though, Mr. Speaker, are the deals that

are constantly going over the Minister's desk with respect to the

timber industry in British Columbia, and I suggest, Mr. Speaker, the

most costly Minister, the most costly Minister in the history of

British Columbia is the Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water

Resources. I suggest that the losses that the public has suffered at

the hands of this Government and Minister are the gains that Mr.

Benguet and those interests are receiving. The losses to the public are

he gains to MacMillan Bloedel and the man in charge of MacMillan

Bloedel. The losses to the public are the gains to Crown Zellerbach,

Canadian Forest Products, B.C. Forest Products, and the rest.

Let's first just look at the one element, stumpage rates, with

respect to the public's trees in British Columbia, Mr. Speaker. As a

guide, I think it's fair to look at the industry in the northwest of

the United States. It's a comparable forest resource in Oregon and

Washington, comparable to the southwestern part of British Columbia.

The Federal Government manages the public forests basically in

northwestern United States, Mr. Speaker, and the Bureau of Land

Management in the Department of the Interior of the Federal Government

down there, I think, manages the forests probably better than any

public agency in North America today.

What kind of prices, Mr. Speaker, were they getting for public trees

in northwestern United States during the great peak of last winter? The

kinds of prices they were getting in northwestern United States ranged

— in February the average bid for fir in the northwest was from $93 to

$110 a thousand in Oregon and Washington. Now that was at the peak, Mr.

Speaker. What's happened since then? The latest figures we have in B.C.

are for last November, that is, that are available. What were the

figures in the United States in November, Mr. Speaker? The figure for

fir, for all species in fact, was $57 per thousand. That was the

average figure in the northwest. Let's compare it with some of the

sales, Mr. Speaker, in the Vancouver Forest District, which is the

richest forest resource in British Columbia. Fir in one sale in the

lower mainland area — $5.80 per thousand. That's compared to the

average in November for all species, not just fir, in the U.S. of $57.

$5.80. The figures vary, Mr. Speaker, but it's clear — it's clear that

the difference is very substantial. The average figures in British

Columbia are totalled at the end.

It's clear that the public is not getting what the public in the

United States is getting, and the irony is that we are competing in

exactly the same markets, so that the problem of raising royalties and

stumpage in British Columbia is not one that will necessarily affect

our markets, so long as people with the same resource south of the line

are competing in the same markets and getting a fair return for the

public's resource.

I think, Mr. Speaker; the fact that we really don't have effective

competition for the public's resource in the industry is the root of

the problem. You can look through the Forest Service Report for a month

and look at the number of bids where there's been no competition. You

thumb through — no competition, no competition, no competition, no

competition, — the whole page, no competition for the timber sale, and

that's pretty well consistently the case with every sale every month in

British Columbia. In fact the figures for November indicate 135 sales

in this document, there were five in which there was more than one

bidder. That's 95 per cent of the sales this month, and virtually every

month, in which there's no competition for the public's greatest

resource in terms of natural resources, other than people, in this

Province. That's the situation. Ninety-six per cent is at a fixed price

or an arranged price in British Columbia.

We should compare that with what they found in the United States,

Mr. Speaker, in terms of the effect of competition for the public's

resources on the price to be paid for the resource, and I've got a

little graph here that indicates it fairly clearly, I think. This graph

along this line shows the

[ Page 508 ]

number of bidders, and on this side the percentage increase above

upset price when the number of bidders increases. So that what happens

is, as the number of bidders increase the price paid to the public also

increases, so that when there is one bidder it goes at the upset price.

That's what's happening in British Columbia — were down here. In the

U.S. northwest, when there's two bidders it goes up 20 per cent, when

there's three bidders it goes up 35 per cent, when there's four bidders

it goes up 45 per cent, when there's five bidders it's closer to 55 per

cent, and when there's six bidders it's 60 per cent. That's the data

from Professor Walter Meade, one of the foremost economists on the

sawmilling economy of the northwestern part of the United States, a

professor of the University of California.

So it's clear that when there is more than one bidder we get genuine

competition for the public's resource. That's the problem in British

Columbia, Mr. Speaker. There is no competition for what is yours and

mine, the forest resource of this Province. It's this degree of gravy

that exists within the forest economy of the Province that's causing

many of our problems.

The degree of gravy is also shown at a national level in a study

done by the Atlantic Development Board, which is the economic group

that studies the problems of the Maritime Provinces in eastern Canada.

They've looked at the comparative cost of producing wood across Canada,

and their study is especially interesting, Mr. Speaker. The comparative

costs for producing wood — that's the last census in 1965 — are shown

in this bottom graph. In the bottom graph, Mr. Speaker, the average

cost per cunit in dollars is at this level across the nation. The

average cost per cunit of production in British Columbia is the red bar

on the right hand side, and it's clear….

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you count the chips?

MR. WILLIAMS: No, I have a separate graph on wood fibre. This

is mill-wood cost. So that the difference in terms of this study at

that time done by the Maritime economists indicates something of the

level of $22 in B.C., a national average of $31. So it's clear from

these graphs that this difference in here between the national average

cost of wood production and the British Columbia level of cost is the

gravy in the forest industry. The economists, Mr. Speaker, have a nicer

term for it. I think the public understands gravy. The economists call

it economic rent, economic rent. That's the base value of the resource,

and that's where it is.

Let's compare comparative fibre costs across Canada as well, Mr.

Speaker, and again, a similar graph indicates the same situation. The

bar here — cost per ton is at the 17 level — the cost nationally at the

27 level — in relation to 1965 census data. So again, the economic rent

of the resource shows up there between the national level and the bar

graph. The economic rent is simply gravy.

These benefits in B.C., Mr. Speaker, could be going to the public.

The differences between the cost of production in British Columbia

could be going to labour in terms of good wages, and we have reasonably

good wages in British Columbia, thanks to an effective trade union and

the most democratic union in the western part of North America. But

beyond that, beyond that, Mr. Speaker, people like Nellie Walsh, the

lady that the honourable member from North Vancouver–Seymour referred

to, could be living a better life if this element of gravy was being

diverted and being put into the public treasury. That gravy at the

moment, Mr. Speaker, goes to the forest kings of British Columbia and

not the Nellie Walshes of British Columbia.

Even within the industry, Mr. Speaker, we've been getting

indications of the values that we're letting slip out between our

fingers, and I mentioned in my last speech the Crestbrook example. With

respect to the pulp mill at Skookumchuk, there was a bonus bid offered

of some $7,300,000, and if you relate that to the number of pulp mills

built or in the building in British Columbia, we're talking about a

loss of maybe $200,000,000 in terms of the value of pulp wood that the

industry is absorbing. But the interesting question, Mr. Speaker, is — I can understand the Minister not knowing what the value of the

resource is, because it's a market process in terms of determining the

value. But when knowing people in the market make an offer, an

additional offer of $7,300,000, and indicate they're willing to pay

even more for the resource, then the Minister should start sharpening

his pencil. But did the Minister do that in the Crestbrook case? What

was the subsequent memorandum of agreement with respect to the

Crestbrook mill in the East Kootenays? It's covered here — an agreement

in 1966 — it's good 'til 1978 like most of the pulp agreements in this

Province. The agreement that the wood will be available at the basic

upset price. The Minister ignored the bids that he got in that

particular instance, and turned down $7,300,000 that should have and

would have gone into the public treasury if he'd been doing his job.

AN HON. MEMBER: Financial wizard.

MR. WILLIAMS: That might have just been a fluke, Mr. Speaker.

Maybe that was a special case in the East Kootenays. But was it? What

happened in northern British Columbia when we got some genuine

competitive bidding for pulpwood? The case there involved Cattermole

timber and Mr. Ginter, Mr. Ginter again. You know, I must thank Mr.

Ginter, Mr. Speaker, for pulling back the veil to some extent in terms

of showing us what the values of the public resources in British

Columbia are, because he did in that case as well. Mr. Ginter, for a

300-ton mill, put in a bonus bid of $12,600,000. In that mill the bonus

that they offered $12,600,000, not the $7,300,000 that we saw in the

Kootenays, and I might quote from the press of that time, Mr. Speaker,

which compares Mr. Ginter's bid with the bid of Cattermole of 340

thousand odd dollars. The adjacent mill in the Peace involving

Alexander Forest Industries, a subsidiary of B.C. Forest Products, was

a bid with only one competitor for a larger mill, a 400-ton mill, of

$460,000.

Now, subsequently, the honourable Minister of Recreation and

Conservation commented on the situation since the Minister of Forests

was ill, and he said, "Well Cattermole made the first bid and under the

legislation they have the first choice and," as he said, "it would take

a lot of re-figuring to decide if Cattermole could meet Ginter's bid to

pay the Government a bonus of $12,600,000." I think that may be the

understatement of that particular year, Mr. Speaker, but re-figure it

they did, and in that particular case in the agreement there is

included a bonus cost of a $1.70 total per cunit compared with the 20

cents that the Minister would otherwise have been happy with. That's

the kind of ratio per 100 cubic feet of wood that they were willing to

pay in the north.

Well you know, you wonder, Mr. Speaker, how many lessons the

honourable the Minister needs. In that particular case he was willing

to live with 20 cents per cunit for the

[ Page 509 ]

salvage material in the Peace. He got a bid of $1.70, and yet the

adjacent mill is operating on the 20 cent basis. He has two deals

operating in the Peace, one at 20 cents a hundred cubic feet, the other

at $1.70 a hundred cubic feet. I don't know what corner store operator

would accept a similar situation, Mr. Speaker. I don't even know what

peanut stand operator would accept that kind of situation. So we got

the indication there, Mr. Speaker, that what we had lost in terms of

the value of pulpwood in the Province was not $200,000,000 as we

suspected in the East Kootenays, what we had lost was at least

$400,000,000. That's what Mr. Ginter showed us in the Peace River

country. That's the situation with respect to pulp licences and

stumpage, Mr. Speaker.

But let's also talk about the tree farm licences which are probably

the greatest concession in timber in British Columbia. A privilege it

is, yes. I might just quote from a letter I received, and I might say,

Mr. Speaker, that the Honourable J.V. Clyne publicized his letters, and

he has access to the media, and he is a man of some influence in this

Province. It's unfortunate that the countless citizens that wrote me

and agreed with me were unable to get the same kind of coverage for

their letters, and I might note that the ratio was about 30 to 1, Mr.

Speaker, in terms of the public's response to what I had to say in the

last debate.

I might just quote one gentleman here on Vancouver Island who

reflects on the situation. He says, "Your statement in the House

regarding MacMillan Bloedel and Government privilege was so accurate

that it is well worth going into a bit further," and he says, "Anyone

travelling throughout Vancouver Island, as I do and have done for the

past many years, will certainly agree wholeheartedly. Just one example,

from Muchalat Inlet which enters from the west coast of Vancouver

Island to Port Hardy on the east coast is 144 miles. B.C. Forest

Products, Crown Zellerbach, MacMillan Bloedel control the entire area.

Four interests control half of the Island. This includes," he says, "of

course the town of Gold River. The Island itself….

AN HON. MEMBER: And Tahsis.

MR. WILLIAMS: Oh, and Tahsis, that's right. "The Island is

approximately 300 miles long, so here we have 144 miles in the heart of

the Island exclusively under control of one industry. This, of course,

is only one area so parcelled off. The same situation exists at Sooke,

Port Renfrew, Cowichan Lake, Nitinat, Port Alberni, Kelsey Bay, Nootka,

etc. No one may enter into any of these areas without a written permit

issued at the discretion of the company. If you want to go north on

Vancouver Island, when you immediately get past the town of Gold River

you run into a barrier that reminds you of the early frontiers of

Europe. You run into the empires controlled by the forest industry, the

empires controlled by MacMillan Bloedel, Tahsis, C.F.P., B.C.F.P.,

Rainier and the rest of them. We turned over the public's resources to

these people, and for a pittance." That is what the man in this letter

is saying, and that's what the people of this Province are beginning to

realize. They get, they get these licences, Mr. Speaker, at one cent an

acre a year, one cent an acre a year, and if that isn't privilege, Mr.

Speaker, I don't know what is. If Mr. Clyne doesn't think that is a

privilege, he should talk to my neighbours, the citizens of Vancouver

East, and see if they think it's privilege or not.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about the obligations?

MR. SPEAKER: Order.

MR. WILLIAMS: I'll be glad to talk about the obligations, Mr.

Speaker, because the obligations the public have are piling up and up

and up, and I'll deal with just one of them in the honourable member's

own constituency in a few minutes.

Who else, Mr. Speaker, can get Crown land for one cent an acre in

perpetuity? Who else? Now, the honourable the Minister says it's for 21

years, but that is an interesting question that we might cover in a few

minutes.

What about the kind of privilege MacMillan Bloedel has with respect

to these licences? They've got Tree Farm Licence No. 7, which is

191,000 acres. They've got Tree Farm Licence No. 20, which is 426,000

acres. They've got Tree Farm Licence No. 21, which is 638,000 acres.

And they've got one of the last Tree Farm Licences, No. 39, which is

1,108,000 acres in the Vancouver District, and 740,000 acres in the

Prince Rupert District. That's a total of over three million acres, Mr.

Speaker, that MacMillan Bloedel have in Tree Farm Licences. That's the

equivalent of two and a half Prince Edward Islands.

There are 41 of these licences in the Province, Mr. Speaker, and

they proudly represent the grandest error in forest management in the

history of this Province. Forty-one of them, and they are all going to

have to be re-negotiated one of these days, according to what the staff

of the Forest Service does. The re-negotiation is going to be a

problem, Mr. Speaker, because so many of the contracts say that they

are, in fact, for perpetuity. That means forever at that kind of price.

The Forest Service staff read the amendments to the legislation

differently. They say that the bulk of the licences will terminate in

1979, and it's going to be an interesting period when the Minister and

the representatives of MacMillan Bloedel and the other forest giants

discuss this question, because the industry, is not yet, as far as I

know, unanimously agreed that there is a 21-year termination date to

these agreements.

There are 41 of them, Mr. Speaker, and some of them are being

re-negotiated now. Tree Farm Licence No. 1 has been re-negotiated, and

what's the cost? Tree Farm Licence No. 1 is in Skeena, the area that

the honourable member raised a few minutes ago. We face apparently the

combination of two of these Tree Farm Licences, both the Cetgar Licence

and the Skeena Kraft Licence, which will make it by far the largest

Tree Farm Licence in British Columbia, and that licence will be the

equivalent of five Prince Edward Islands. I understand the contract is

almost ready for signing, Mr. Speaker, but I don't know of any

significant public discussion that has taken place here in the capital,

or public hearings in the area or in the capital, The question is, Mr.

Speaker, will all of the remaining Tree Farm Licences be re-negotiated

in the same way as this one, or will they be done entirely in the open

and with public hearings'? That is the question.

Because, as it now stands, Mr. Speaker, there is not public access

in the daytime in all of northern Vancouver Island. For the 150 miles

of northern Vancouver Island there is not free public access in the

daytime, and that's true in the other licence areas as well. The irony,

Mr. Speaker, is that in fact the main road systems in these Tree Farm

Licences are paid for by the public, because they're allowed to deduct

the cost of various aspects of management of their operation for the

royalities and stumpage that are paid, so the main road through all of

northern Vancouver Island which the public does not, in fact, have free

access to was, in fact, paid for by the public.

[ Page 510 ]

Maybe the classic example is that Tree Farm Licence No. 1, again in

the Skeena, which I had a question on the Order Paper regarding. The

question asked on the Order Paper with regard to Tree Farm Licence No.

1 was, what total figure for road cost has been entered on the road

ledger since the inception of the licence? The figure we have in answer

today, Mr. Speaker, is $12,066,503. That's the amount that has been

credited for road construction at the Tree Farm Licence. And, a further

question — what is the latest credit figure available? That is an

amount on the ledger that hasn't yet been deducted from our royalties

and stumpage, and the amount, $4,287,570, as of the end of December

this last year. That's a credit that the company has in relation to the

Crown, Mr. Speaker, and that means that the Crown, that the Crown owes

the company $4,000,000 in that particular Tree Farm Licence.

You know, the honourable member from Dewdney, Mr. Speaker, a few

days ago gave an interesting talk on his own constituency, the Maple

Ridge area, and he talked about being saddened by the fact that young

people in his riding were unable to freely walk and use the roads in

the mountains behind his constituency, and he said he felt that that

was a shame. I agree, Mr. Speaker, but that is the situation on all of

northern Vancouver Island. That's the situation in every Tree Farm

Licence in British Columbia, and these really represent Corporate

Banana Republics, and an attitude on the part of the Government that

clearly favours the industry rather than the people in the community.

We had a short statement regarding the forest industry from the

honourable member from Nanaimo, Mr. Speaker, I think just a day or two

ago, and the honourable member gave us, I think, the usual Chamber of

Commerce point of view. I don't think that really hurts the Chamber of

Commerce or the honourable member, but what he said was that he was

happy that there was bread and butter on the table, and that people

were employed in the forest industry and that, in fact, there was a

payroll. I'm pleased that that's so too, Mr. Speaker, but the very

concessions that this Government has given to industry in northern

Vancouver Island, an area that obviously concerns the member, are the

very concessions that arc now stifling growth on northern Vancouver

Island.

Mr. Speaker, this Government is supposed to be the Government that

is concerned about individual initiative, but on northern Vancouver

Island nobody can show individual initiative because all the land base,

the economic base, has been turned over to a single industry. An

individual initiative on northern Vancouver Island is simply not

allowed to flower, given the kind of legislation and given the kind of

one industry approach that the Government has taken. The forest chains

and their bureaucratic corporations are able to control the resource,

the land resource of northern Vancouver Island and much of the Province

and manage it on a single resource basis without considering

recreation, without considering tourism, without considering urban

needs, and without considering the other industrial growth potentials

in those areas, because they are forest companies. All this range of

possibility, this range of opportunities in our Province, Mr. Speaker,

are thwarted, and no amount of Babbitt type speeches, being thankful

for wages, is going to solve the problem.

You know, Mr. Speaker, the industry claims it is the most highly

taxed industry in the Province, and yet we should look at the kind of

average taxes they pay, like you and I, and most of the citizens of the

Province. What kind of real estate taxes does this industry pay, Mr.

Speaker? In the Tree Farm Licences, the three million acres that

MacMillan Bloedel have, they do not pay a property tax, they don't pay

the real estate tax that the average citizen pays on land that he

controls. They have virtual fee simple control of these empires, Mr.

Speaker. Anybody else that has a 21-year lease in the Province ends up

paying property taxes and school taxes. The forest industry in this

Province does not.

I might just comment on a letter from a person in the Cariboo that

reflects on this problem. This citizen says, "If a rancher or a farmer

should decide to grow timber on part of his land he'll have to pay the

land tax, the school tax, hospital improvement tax, and other regional

district taxes on their land while the timber is growing, and when the

timber is cut they pay a royalty of $1.70 a hundred cubic feet," says

this rancher in the Cariboo. This is public, and it's available, and

I'd be glad to give the member the letter later. But the point is that

the major industry in the Cariboo, Mr. Speaker, only pays the royalty

of 55 cents for similar materials on the Crown's land, and they pay no

property taxes either.

What the honourable the member for Nanaimo forgets, Mr. Speaker, is

that this is our land in British Columbia. We actually own it, we

actually own the trees. It's not Mr. Clyne, it's not MacMillan Bloedel,

it's not Crown Zellerbach or any of the other forest giants. It's our

land. In terms of the value of the trees, we're not really talking

about taxes — that is really the wrong word — we're talking about a

price for the trees. We're not talking about taxes in that sense and

the price is abysmally low.

We've talked about these concessions, Mr. Speaker. What's their

attitude? You'd think that a company that got these kinds of

concessions would be thankful, and you'd think they might, at least, if

they weren't thankful, be rather quiet about it, and some people in the

industry are quiet about it, and that's understandable, too. Let's deal

with the last tree farm licence that MacMillan Bloedel got, Tree Farm

Licence Number 39. The Colonist of the day said, "The giant tree farm

licence ends the firm's twelve-year wait." What did the Honourable J.V.

Clyne say when he and his company — his company rather — got this

licence? This is what he said when he received this million acre

licence of fine coastal forest in British Columbia. "Company Chairman

J.V. Clyne, a former judge of the B.C. Supreme Court, said last night

he had not yet been advised of the Government's decision, but he was

neither surprised nor particularly elated by the outcome of the twelve

year wait. 'This isn't exactly a Christmas present by any means,' said

the Honourable Mr. Clyne." And then he said, "We need that damn timber.

It's not just a gift from the Government." That's what the Honourable

Mr. Clyne said when he got the million acre Tree Farm Licence No. 39.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please. I am not calling the

honourable member to order, but the general practice that is becoming

prevalent in the House of members reading from newspapers, saying

things in that quotation that they couldn't normally say in the House

itself. I am referring particularly to doubtful language. As I say, I

am not calling the honourable member to order, but I wish the House

would refrain from that practice. If they are going to quote from

something, make sure that it would be normally parliamentary. Please

proceed.

MR. WILLIAMS: I appreciate the point, Mr. Speaker, and I assure you that the other quotes that I have do not include

[ Page 511 ]

similar language, even though they are from the honourable

gentleman. I think the public is generally aware, Mr. Speaker, that I

received a telegram from the honourable gentleman and that I replied. I

received a subsequent reply and the Honourable Mr. Clyne was kind

enough to have it delivered by hand to the Legislature. I take it that

the socialist postal system is unacceptable. Mr. Clyne, essentially,

said in his letter what he said in the telegram, other than that he was

unhappy that the telegram was cleverly worded — that is, my reply. It

is interesting, Mr. Speaker, that the honourable "gentleman should take

this kind of attitude. A copy of his telegram to me was sent to all the

lumber-logging camps on Vancouver Island, and I am pleased that they

have such a fine corporate communication system. I am pleased that

copies of the telegram were slipped under the doors of the union

secretaries in the logging camps. I am just disappointed that it is not

really a complete dialogue. I am sorry that the people in the logging

camps weren't able to get the full benefit of what I had to say as well.

I might just quote, though — I don't want to deal particularly with

this area too long — but I would like to quote, Mr. Speaker, from a

letter from another citizen, one of the 30-odd that I received along

with Mr. Clyne's. This citizen says this, he says, "Please accept my

thanks and compliments as merely a private citizen for your courage in

using your right of parliamentary immunity to speak out on the

appearance of a relationship, "

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, order!

MR. WILLIAMS: I am disappointed, Mr. Speaker, that the

honourable the Minister feels this way regarding parliamentary

immunity. It is something built over centuries in the British

parliamentary tradition….

MR. SPEAKER: Would the House allow the honourable member to proceed.

MR. WILLIAMS: He is speaking out on the appearance of a

relationship that has been established between the B.C. Government

which is to serve the interest of the citizens as a whole and private

industry which merely serves the interest of a small

section of the

community to which the Government is responsible, and the principle on

which you take your stand is surely a vital one, just as a public

matter must not only be done, it must be seen to be done. He goes

further, Mr. Speaker. He says, "Ministers of the Crown must not only be

innocent of having used one's influence but must also be seen to be

innocent," and continues in that vein. But I might just quote one more

sentence. This citizen says, "You therefore do not have to sue Mr.

Clyne privately as was the offer, as Mr. Clyne says, with cheap

bravado. They might well be called instead to the bar of the House for

daring to interfere with the privilege of the House."

Because let's not forget, Mr. Speaker, the man we are talking about

is probably the most powerful man in British Columbia, and if he wants

to use the term "coward" that's his prerogative. It is one I cannot

accept.

I would like to quote the Honourable Mr. Clyne when he was a judge

dealing with an issue involving contempt of court, and the Honourable

Mr. Clyne had this to say. He said, "The fact that a public issue is

involved does not justify or excuse the application of defamatory words

to those discharging public duties." He was discussing people in a jury

at that time and he said, "The men and women who serve upon our juries

are performing one of the most onerous and important functions in the

life of a free society," and so the people of this Legislature might

well be said to be doing the same. That particular case, Mr. Speaker,

was Regina vs. The Vancouver Province newspaper and Mr. Eric Nicol, who wrote a column against capital punishment.

Now, the honourable member from Burnaby-Edmonds, Mr. Speaker, a few

days ago advised the honourable member from Revelstoke-Slocan and the

rest of the House about some of the history of parliament, and said

that one of the reasons we should be immune is to protect us

historically from the king. Similarly, people in this Chamber must be

protected from the forest king of British Columbia. The problem, Mr.

Speaker, is that when Mr. Clyne says, "We need that blank timber," he

was really saying that he sees our heritage, that is the people's

heritage of British Columbia as his corporation's private property.

The job we have now, Mr. Speaker, as Government and Legislature, in

relation to these forest concessions is to begin re-negotiating. We

must begin to re-negotiate with MacMillan Bloedel and all of the other

giants in the industry. But there will be difficulties in the

negotiation, needless to say. They will be extremely difficult in the

case of MacMillan Bloedel. The senior vice-president of MacMillan

Bloedel was a former member of the Cabinet in this Legislature for 17

years, or 16 years, so clearly any negotiations that take place between

MacMillan Bloedel must take place in public. There must be full public

hearings in the re-negotiation of their tree farm licences during the

next few years, because it is only this way, Mr. Speaker, that justice

can be seen to be done with respect to this forest giant and people of

British Columbia. If there is not public discussion and public hearings

throughout the Island, on the Coast, in the lower mainland, and in this

city, "with respect to the assets — the public assets — that this

corporation has, then a cloud will hang over the whole negotiation process.

You know, Mr. Speaker, MacMillan Bloedel has developed into a great

giant corporation in British Columbia, in many ways one that has

achieved a great deal of success. But they have done so on the public's

wealth essentially, and it is the public's wealth, the trees of British

Columbia that have allowed MacMillan Bloedel to expand into Spain, as

they have done in line past year. It has allowed MacMillan Bloedel to

expand further into England, as they have done in the past few years.

It has allowed them to expand into Holland, as they have in the last

few years. It has allowed them to expand into Alabama, as they have in

the last few years.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you against Canadian companies doing well?

MR. WILLIAMS: No, I am not against Canadian companies doing well.

It is the public's wealth, Mr. Speaker, that's building the

27-storey building on West Georgia Street in downtown Vancouver. That

building, Mr. Speaker, is the equivalent of 40 new elementary schools

in British Columbia, the equivalent of countless hospital beds in

British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: There's a good many jobs, too.

MR. WILLIAMS: It's all so simple, you know. That's the same

speech we got from the member from Nanaimo. We can have the jobs, Mr.

Speaker. We can have all these jobs in British Columbia and, in

addition, we can have a much

[ Page 512 ]

greater public revenue that will see to it.

Wouldn't the honourable members on the other side see our children

off of shifts rather than this towering building in downtown Vancouver?

Because that is the choice that this Government has made, either

consciously or unconsciously. And Lord knows how many decisions by that

group are unconscious. That's for you to say.

That's the point, Mr. Speaker. We could have all of our schools and

classrooms that we need in this Province. We could, Mr. Speaker, have

our senior citizens living on something more than subsistence. We could

have our retarded children cared for without line-ups at institutions.

We could avoid waiting lists in our hospitals in British Columbia. We

could avoid the gouging private hospital system that thrives in British

Columbia. We could have all these things if we got a fair price for the

public resource in British Columbia.

With this target, Mr. Speaker, progress with this Budget, progress

in the public sector, has virtually come to a standstill, and yet the

forest king and the major corporations have never done better. This

Budget shows, Mr. Speaker, that we are not masters in our own house in

British Columbia, and it shows that the Government is devoid of new

ideas and the Budget shows, really, who is in the driver's seat in

British Columbia.

The honourable members could say it is a Budget fit for a king. It

is a Budget fit for a forest king. This is not a Budget for the people,

Mr. Speaker. That is why we will vote against it.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Attorney-General.

HON. L.R. PETERSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, there is very little

time now before the honourable members of this Assembly will have their

names recorded as to how they vote for posterity in terms of this

Budget and the motion now before us. In winding up this debate I am not

going to take too long, but I want to give the honourable members

opposite just a little time to reconsider their position before their

names are so recorded.

The member who has just preceded me in this debate spent some time

quoting a man who was on the Bench, a very distinguished jurist of the

Supreme Court, a very distinguished jurist, and those who have had the

privilege of appearing before him would say the same thing, Mr.

Speaker. I think we should also recognize we have another distinguished

jurist who is still on the Bench in our Chamber today, and I know the

members would want to welcome him, a former member of this House, His

Honour Judge Morrow. I am sure the service that he is, I presume, still

performing will be the topic of discussion, I would hope, before the

Session is over.

You know, just before the second member for Vancouver East completed

his speech I was advised by my colleague, the Minister of Municipal

Affairs, that this was the very same speech he made on forestry in Port

Alice before the election. In Port Alice. And what are the voters of

Port Alice? They all are workers in the forest industry. You know, Mr.

Speaker, here are the results at Port Alice. Our Social Credit

candidate 235 votes. N.D.P., 119. 119. That's what the people who are

in the industry and know something about forestry thought of his

remarks. More than double his majority in this election, '69, over the

previous election in 1966.

The member for Vancouver East started his remarks today and I must

say that there was, I think, some improvement over the previous speech

that he gave in this House. I don't know whether to give the credit to

him or to his future mother-in-law and her daughter who are in the

House, but I think for the benefit of his political future they should

be here whenever he speaks, because it was an improvement today. Even

the Leader says it is an improvement today — even the Leader of the

Opposition, Mr. Speaker. Well, you know, in the press, in the news

media, after his remarks, when he declined to accept the challenges

that were thrown by the Honourable Mr. Clyne and the former

Attorney-General, he came out really heralding what he was going to say

today. The real tiger — he's going to be on the attack today in the

Legislature. Some tiger!

AN HON. MEMBER: A little pussycat!

MR. PETERSON: I think the Churchillian phrase would be more

appropriate of, "A sheep in a sheep's clothing," Mr. Speaker. He

started out saying about muck-raking — that he had no objection to the

phrase of muck-raking. He finds nothing distasteful about it at all,

nothing distasteful about it at all. Those of us who have listened to

him in this House can well understand why.

He talks about privilege, and indeed his whole speech in this, the

Budget debate, was on privilege. The privileges granted by the Crown to

people in industry and business. Why can he make such a statement, Mr.

Speaker? Because this is the first Government in the Province of

British Columbia that regards all the natural resources as owned by the

people of the Province of British Columbia. Unlike the Liberals, when

they were in power in this Province, when they gave those resources

away, when they gave Crown grants of mines, forestry resources. We do

not do that. We make performance covenants, Mr. Speaker. Privileges,

yes — but equal treatment to all, Mr. Speaker, and special privileges

to none.

It would have been better for that member to give this detailed

analysis — at least his analysis, and he's entitled to do so, I don't

take any objection there — in the forestry industry, and the figures

and the statistics, when the Minister's Estimates were before the

House, so he could correct them immediately, because half of those were

misleading and many of them false. He will find, when the Estimates

come before this House, and he has an opportunity of repeating some of

those statements, he'll get this answer then.

He referred to this Minister as the most costly Minister of Lands

and Forests in history. I want to tell you that he is the best

investment and the best Minister of Lands and Forests this Province has

ever had, and it will take more than his insinuations, his innuendos,

and his general allegations to besmirch the reputation of that man, and

he will be in this House long after that member leaves, Mr. Speaker,

long after that member leaves.

What a prophet of despair, what a prophet of gloom was that member

in his address today, closing the address for the N.D.P. on this Budget

for the next fiscal year for the people of the Province of British

Columbia. You know, I tell you, your party's whole tone in this debate

is the colour of your shirt — blue. Blue — depressing. Why, even the

Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, when he led off on this debate

lie wore a very deep blue shirt, too, and I thought that resembled his

remarks, because why was he blue? How could he attack the best Budget

that has been presented by any Province in Canada?

You know, in the election campaign, the member who's so anxious to talk now and said so little when he had the

[ Page 513 ]

opportunity, went about the Province and tried to convince the

voters what a wonderful Utopia this Province of British Columbia would

be if only they were entrusted with the responsibility of Government.

They talked about Budget, and they talked about the fiscal programme,

and you know, before the year was out, Mr. Speaker — and this is why

the Leader of the Opposition was so blue — we discovered, and the

public discovered, that they couldn't even run their own affairs in the

N.D.P., not even run their own affairs. Listen to this. Last December

the press reported that the New Democratic Party had launched an

austerity programme including staff cuts, retrenchment in many

directions, massive unemployment, Mr. Speaker. According to the

reports, the party's finances are in poor shape and there's substantial

debt. You know, he was talking about dead-weight debt. That's where he

got it — his own party. In an effort to reverse the growing party debt,

according to the report ….

They don't want to listen, and I don't blame them for not wanting to

listen. This hurts, Mr. Speaker. This hurts. Because this shows that

they can't even run their own affairs, let alone the affairs of the

people of this Province. I tell you, it they were ever entrusted with

Government, our credit rating wouldn't be as the Premier and Minister

of Finance reported in his Budget, it would be zero as far as the

N.D.P. are concerned, minus economy on the rocks, Mr. Speaker. No

wonder the tone of the whole debate and their contributions to this

Budget debate resembles the blue shirt. They have a lot to be blue

about.

You know, I'm sorry the member from Vancouver-Seymour has left his

place, but of course he's entitled to, but I did notice, as well, that

the tone of the Liberals was matched by the shirt that the Liberal

leader wore when he entered this debate a week or so ago. The tone of

their debate — that's right — he wore a very bright red shirt, and it

was obvious ….

AN HON. MEMBER: It was magenta!

MR. PETERSON: What was it? Well, I'm sorry, it was red to me,

Mr. Speaker, it was red to me. Because I didn't even notice the colour

of his shirt, though, until he got nearly through his address, and

that's when he was presenting his budget. He gave the figures upon

which his budget was based and then the Premier challenged him on his

figures and he declined the challenge, and his face was then as red as

his shirt, and I noticed it then. Furthermore, the budget he presented

would put the people of this Province into the red, Mr. Speaker, into

the red. Deficit financing would be the budget, but the budget crumbled

— the Liberal budget he presented — and I was amazed that he didn't get

any support from any of the other members in his party. Well I didn't

hear the honourable members elaborating on this tremendous Liberal

budget he presented. I even asked, when he presented it, for a

break-down on the figures that he was relating to my department, and

you know to this day I haven't had that break-down. Their budget

crumbled, crumbled. The Liberal member who closed the debate today

didn't have one kind word to say about the leader of the Liberal

party's proposals for the finances of this Province over the next

fiscal year, not one word.

The member had something to say about Commonwealth Trust, Mr.

Speaker, and I don't intend to deal with it at length today, and

especially in some aspects which are, as the legal members will

understand, before the Courts and sub judice. But I do want to refer,

and I must say that I'm somewhat surprised at the new status or the new

angle that these members are now taking. Because what are they saying,

the N.D.P. as well as the Liberals, joining together, what are they

saying? They are now saying that they want the people who lost money,

who made investments and lost money, to be repaid by the taxpayers of

this Province. That's apparently their policy. They want them to sue,

they want them to…. Oh, Mr. Speaker, are you advocating that people

should sue and not recover? Do you want to put them through the expense

of paying your big bills? And not have them recover anything? Mr.

Speaker, that may be his policy, it's not ours.

I want to say this, there's some relevant dates here, and certainly

at one stage the Trust Company, the Commonwealth Trust Company was in

difficulties and that was in 1963 and '64. Following that, however,

there was an examination, which has also already been referred to by my

colleague the Minister of Health, by the Federal Government's auditors,

on the basis of which they were granted insurance on the deposits made

in the Trust Company. It's — (some interjection)…. well — they

investigated. The auditors investigated and found that this was all

right for the Federal Government to guarantee the deposits, and that

decision was reached in April of 1967.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Federal Act says you have to have that approval by letter.

MR. PETERSON: What is a letter compared to an audit, Mr.

Speaker, what is a letter compared to an audit?…. You've had some

things to say, now listen and you might learn a little today.

Now then, the next relevant date is January 5th, 1968, when a report

was made by the Inspector of Trust Companies to the Minister of Finance

and the Attorney-General, and that is precisely the action making

certain recommendations, and we as a Government acted on those

recommendations, Mr. Speaker.

Now the Liberals complain about secrecy, that these orders should be

made public. I want to tell the House today that both Governments

agreed that the orders would be kept confidential, for to do otherwise

would have resulted in a run on the fully-insured deposits, and would

have worsened the company's position at that time, when all the efforts

of both the Federal and Provincial Governments were to restore the

company to a sound financial position. Then I could detail other

actions that were taken, extraordinary actions, greater intervention

here than any place else, Mr. Speaker, in respect to a private company.

The loss suffered by the shareholders and other investors of

Commonwealth Trust, is — I want to underline this — not in respect to

any shares or securities issued by the Trust Company subsequent to the

date that I mentioned of February 12, 1968.

As far as recovery from the taxpayers — that the taxpayers are going

to pay the bill for people who invest in public companies — the answer

is No. The answer is No. When was an investment in a public company

guaranteed to be successful? Is that the policy of the N.D.P.? Is that

the policy of the Liberal party, that the taxpayers should come along

and pick up the tab where people invest in a public company, and that

company does not make a profit and goes into bankruptcy? Is that the

policy of the N.D.P.? I tell you that the C.C.F.'ers today would be

turning over in their graves if they knew the attitude of this party.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! We're getting tedious

[ Page 514 ]

repetition.

MR. PETERSON: You know, Mr. Speaker, I think it has been

fairly obvious from this debate that there is a very basic difference

in philosophy between the members of the Opposition and those who sit

in support of the Government. That difference in philosophy — and I

appreciate the applause from the member who spoke before me — was very

obvious today, because to them private enterprise, profits, these are

all dirty words, dirty words, Mr. Speaker. That's their whole

philosophy. It was even obvious when the former Leader of the party

spoke in this House, and when he was criticizing us, what did he say?

"That's your system — your free enterprise system — not us." But what

did they say during the recent election campaign? "Oh — we're the great

free enterprisers, the Premier's building a false issue — socialism

versus free enterprise." False issue? Nonsense. They're simply

socialists and let the public forever remember it. (applause) There,

they are applauding, let the record show that the N.D.P. are applauding

that statement. They recognize that they are socialists, Mr. Speaker,

and they couldn't hoodwink the voters in the last election on that

score.

When the Leader of the N.D.P. spoke, I asked him to file the Watkins

Report, this report which marked a sharp turn left for the N.D.P. He

hasn't filed it. I asked him to file it here and I thought he said he

would. I haven't even seen the report, just the newspaper coverage

given to it, Mr. Speaker, but after that statement someone came along

and presented me with a copy and I am grateful for it and here are just

a few brief passages which I think….

AN HON. MEMBER: It was voted down and you know it.

MR. PETERSON: It was signed by the Leader of the N.D.P. It

was endorsed by the Leader of the N.D.P., but it was too far to the

left for Mr. Berger who was defeated — too far to the left, and what

did it say? "Our aim as democratic socialists is to build an

independent socialist Canada." That was what they said and then it went

on, "The major threat to Canadian survival today is American control of

the Canadian economy. The major issue of our times is not national

unity, but national survival. The fundamental threat is external, not

internal." The old Yankee Go Home slogan. That's the N.D.P. And here it

goes on, Mr. Speaker, "An independent movement based on substituting

Canadian capitalists, or on a public policy to make foreign

corporations behave as if they were Canadian corporations cannot be our

final objective. Capitalism must be replaced by socialism, by national

planning of investment, by the public ownership of the means of

production, in the interest of the Canadian people as a whole." That's

their policy, so let's make it clear and let's not have them come

forward and deny it once they have an opportunity to place their case

before the people again.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, Hear.

MR. PETERSON: Is it any wonder, when that is their basic

philosophy, that they should find it difficult to endorse the policies

and programmes of this Budget, Mr. Speaker?

Before I deal with the Budget, I want to touch on a couple of

matters which have been topics of discussion. I think probably — and I

have listened to all of the contributions in this debate — the most

talked about subjects were, right from the beginning of the debate to

the close, were pollution and inflation…. Pardon? …and people.

Yes, I'll have something to say about people too, but believe me,

pollution affects people. Pollution affects people, and probably with

the exception of war, pollution is the greatest threat that we have to

the continued survival of people.

I'm not faulting anyone for taking time to talk on pollution and I

am going to be very brief on the subject today. But as I've listened to

the comments and the contributions, I have got the feeling that many

people were talking as though pollution was someone else's problem, not

an individual responsibility in any sense of the word, although I think

the first member for Vancouver-Burrard got us back on the track in that

respect the other day when he spoke in this House. But certainly we are

inclined to think of it as something remote, as responsibility of

Government, and when in our daily routine we dispose of our garbage in

a bag, and a truck comes along and takes it away, or we drain stuff

down the sink and this sort of thing, and we don't know what happens to

it from there. We buy our food in the stores nicely packaged — this

sort of thing — we don't see the pollution we are causing. Or the

members of this Chamber who come in here and talk about pollution, and

they go out in the halls and pollute it with cigars and pipes and

cigarettes. I didn't used to be able to give this speech — I'm happy to

announce that I can today. But the point is that, Mr. Speaker, our

personal attitudes must change as well as our policies if we're going

to tackle pollution. The Government has been giving leadership and

doesn't deny its responsibility in pollution control. But the people

must accept certain priorities and must determine certain priorities,

and when they have the opportunity to voice their concern, not to

accept curbs and gutters in place of sewers, or underground wiring and

things that are nice to have, but placing priorities where they should

be, and health priorities and pollution priorities first.

The Government is, in this Session, establishing major policies in

terms of environmental management. My colleague, the Minister of Lands

and Forests, in his address to the House last week outlined some major

steps — the enforcement of permit controls on coastal pulp mills, the

extension of the Pollution Control Act in terms of air pollution, and

the announcement as well, which I think is significant, of $250,000 in

prize money as an incentive for the development of odour control units

for Kraft mills.

But these are still not all. There will be additional steps taken at

this Session, one of which will be a legislative attempt to partially

meet the problem of air pollution from motor vehicles. This is a

difficult area, of course, but we propose to present legislation at

this Session, the details of which can best be discussed once that

legislation is brought forward.

Now I want to devote some time to the most publicized subject I

think, in the U.S. and the Canadian news media today, and that is

inflation. A problem that is a threat to Canada, a problem that is a

threat to our economic growth, and a problem that we face now and will

be facing during this next fiscal year that we are budgeting for and

talking about. It's not an easy battle against inflation, because one

of the difficulties, of course, is our close economic ties with the

United States in terms of the inflation that they have had there, last

year being the worst year in history. Six per cent increase in the

consumer price index in the United States, which is the largest since

the year of 1951, and in Canada it was 4.3 per cent in 1969, which

shows you the difference there and, of course, different conditions

prevailing. The major thing contributing to it in the United States is

the war

[ Page 515 ]

in Vietnam and the excessive levels of spending in connection with

that. But there has been a transmission, as one would expect, to this

country of some of the same inflationary forces.

I think a good deal of the time in the discussions here have been in

more or less diagnosing the disease, and that is the easiest part. I

think the more difficult

part is the cure. The suggestion has been made

and is often made by economists of the relationship between employment

and inflation, and to those who suggest that the cure for inflation is

unemployment, this is an answer that is not acceptable to the Province

of British Columbia, and that point has been made very clear. There is

a school of thought, Mr. Speaker, of economic thought, that full

employment and price stability are not compatible, that there has been

a significant amount of unemployment in order to stabilize the value of

our currency. But we say that in this age this is an irresponsible

policy, because it must be obvious that with the cost of living

increasing with a depreciating dollar, who in our society are hardest

hit by inflation? Surely it's those who haven't a job, who are

unemployed. It's those who are on fixed incomes, and how can they be

used as a weapon to battle administration?

Therefore the point I want to make today, and this point is

reflected in the Budget that we're debating, and that is that

unemployment and a sound dollar are both economic goals of this

administration, and they are reflected in the Budget that was presented

by the Minister of Finance.

…Far more than lip service, my friend, and I can show you that

if you wish. You talk about lip service? You talk about lip service,

when here in the Times is shown the Federal figures of the increase in

employment in this Province from January 1969 to January '70, compared

with all of the rest of Canada, with the.prairie region, Ontario,

Quebec, the Atlantic — a one year period? This is…. I'm sorry if I

didn't make it clear. This is increase in workforce, the increase in

jobs in one year, and do you know, the increase in British Columbia is

larger than the combination of the prairie region, Ontario, Quebec and

the Atlantic regions? All the others put together. The increase,

according to these figures put out by the Federal Government, is

greater in British Columbia in new jobs for people, new jobs for people

in one year than the rest of Canada. And you talk about lip service?

Who in Canada are providing the jobs if it's not the Province of

British Columbia? The unemployment figure is too high? It's 7.3 per

cent, the last figures produced, too high. Too high, because they're

flocking here from the rest of Canada, Mr. Speaker, that's why, and you

have the temerity to suggest that we're giving it lip service. We have

not only been providing employment opportunities which would not have

been provided if we'd listened to the N.D.P., if we'd listened to the

N.D.P. criticizing every move this Government makes, whether it's our

hydro policy to develop jobs, or other matters, Mr. Speaker.

But we've also been critical of some of the Federal policies in

regard to inflation, because the Federal policies of tight money and

high interest rates have not led to reduced expenditures significantly

or reduction in consumption. They've led to higher prices, adding to

the cost escalation in the country, and these prices are passed on to

the consumers and perpetuate what is trying to be attacked in this kind

of inflation — a wage, cost, profit inflation — not the type of

inflation of too much money chasing too few goods in the traditional

concept.

I've no easy answers, of course, but I would like to remind the

members of the position put forward by the Premier and Minister of

Finance earlier this week when the Premiers of all the Provinces and

the Prime Minister met in Ottawa. Certainly, as I say, there is no easy

answer because of our economic well-being, which is not only dependent

on our neighbour to the south but other countries with whom we trade,

such as Japan and other countries, too, where there is inflation as

well, but one of the first steps that we suggest and have suggested

over a period of time is the stabilization of interest rates.

Our trade policies should be reviewed with a view to creating a

Common Market on this continent. Now with Great Britain considering

entering the European Common Market, I think the time is ripe for

Canada and the United States to consider a Common Market in this area

of the world. And the first step that can be taken in that trade

relationship, in a review of the trade relationship, is a reduction in

tariffs, and the Premier advocated at this Conference a 25 per cent

immediate reduction in tariffs.

We have been advocating a free trade policy. That has been the

position of this Social Credit administration…. Well, what have the

Liberals been advocating? Who's in power? Who has the authority to

reduce tariffs today if it's not the Liberals? Free trade policy has

been advocated, and this is more important now in the inflationary

setting that we're in, Mr. Speaker, because this would provide straight

price competition between our nations. A reduction now would result

immediately in a cost reduction for Canadian business, especially in

the western part of Canada, and this would improve the competitive

position of our industries.

Now what was the other positive proposal put forward by the Minister

of Finance and Premier for this Province? The immediate removal of the

Federal Government indirect 12 per cent sales tax.

AN HON. MEMBER: Pyramided tax.

MR. PETERSON: A pyramided tax when you add the profit of the

wholesalers, the retailers, and then it comes up to 20 per cent — quite

different from the direct sales tax. With the projections for the

future of the surpluses of the Federal administration compared to the

position of the provinces across Canada, by their own figures produced

by the Federal Government, this is a move that should be taken and

should be taken now. This would result in an immediate reduction of

taxes because, as the Premier pointed out, they would have to

immediately reduce stock in order to get in stock at the reduced

prices, and it would result in an immediate reduction in prices. If

that is — the objective of the exercise here are two ways in which not

only to keep prices from rising, Mr. Speaker, but to actually reduce

prices below what they are today.

Mr. Speaker, I can understand the Liberals being agitated because

here they sit, the apologists for the Liberal administration in Ottawa

who have responsibility in this field. I don't know how these proposals

were received by their Liberal friends and Liberal colleagues in

Ottawa, but those of you who heard the C.B.C. radio programme, I think

it was Tuesday night at midnight, would have heard the speakers from

the Provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, Premier Thatcher from

Saskatchewan, Premier Strom from Alberta, certainly endorse this

position. And the surprising thing was that Prime Minister John

Robarts, of the Province of Ontario, did not register objection to the

proposals. After all, these

[ Page 516 ]

tariff policies primarily benefit the manufacturers in central

Canada and particularly in the Province of Ontario, and so I think that

is certainly welcome news, and I hope action will be taken in this

respect.

If we need further evidence — and this has already been quoted but I

think it's worth quoting again — the Economic Council of Canada's

Report, in it's Sixth Annual Review, because its warnings are clearly

directed at Ottawa when they state, and I quote, "Further fiscal and

monetary restraint could conceivably result in higher rates of

unemployment and economic slack, with no more than marginal effects on

the current rates of increase in prices and costs." The unemployment

rate that I've quoted for this Province, the unemployment rates that

exist in the other parts of Canada, is evidence that there is a slack

in the economy today.

So tackle the problem of high interest rates, take the pressure off

prices and costs in Canada, reduce tariffs, take off this indirect

sales tax, and not only will prices be sharply reduced, but it will

improve the competitive position of business and industry on the

markets of the world, enable them to expand and provide greater

employment for our people, and that, after all, must be our objective.

Another, I think, appropriate reference in this respect is in terms

of deficit financing, since we're discussing the Budget today and we'll

be voting on this Budget shortly, and here the members have a rather

unique opportunity in Canada to vote in support of a balanced Budget — not deficit financing — a balanced Budget. Balancing your budget is

following not an economic road to inflation, it's following the

economic road to deflation rather than inflation, and if all

governments in Canada balanced their budgets, both in terms of current

and capital expenditure, as we do in the Province of British Columbia,

this in itself would have a tremendous impact on inflation.

The members of the Opposition, both in the N.D.P. and the Liberal

ranks, had a lot to say on debt. The Leader of the Opposition, when he

criticized this Budget, referred to the dead-weight debt of the

Provincial Government. Little does he recall, perhaps, that this

dead-weight debt was paid off in 1960, or fully secured by sinking

funds, and there is no dead-weight debt in British Columbia today. No

dead-weight debt. That's the tactic of the N.D.P. They keep repeating

that we are in debt with the hope that the people will believe them,

but you know, you don't have to take just our Budget. You don't have to

take our Budget. The sinking fund fully offsets, fully offsets the

amount of the debt. In here — here it is — $59,964,964, and offset

fully by the same amount of sinking funds and contingent liabilities.

Also listed in this book here, if you don't want to go to the Budget.

It covers every problem — 1969 — put out by the Bank of Montreal,

"Funded Direct and Guaranteed Debts of the Federal and Provincial

Governments."

Let's go to the Province of Manitoba, and it'll be interesting to

see, now that the N.D.P. are in power in the Province of Manitoba, when

they sit in this House here and criticize the fact that certain

guarantees are listed as contingent liabilities, it'll be interesting

to see whether the N.D.P. In the Province of Manitoba change this

practice. Here they are, this is Manitoba now. Not debt — guarantees,

contingent liabilities — precisely the terminology that's used in this

Province.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT: They're going to double them in Hydro.

MR. PETERSON: Manitoba Hydro Electric Boards, and they list

them. Hundreds of millions of dollars, hundreds of millions of dollars.

Manitoba Telephone System — $131,500,000 of contingent liabilities

there. The University of Manitoba — even that's a contingent

liability…. Well, is the N.D.P. going to change this? Is the N.D.P.

going to change this? Are they no longer going to continue school bonds

as contingent liabilities? School capital financing authority — $35,000,000. Water Supply Board, Agriculture Credit Corporation,

Miscellaneous, Hydro. Mr. Speaker, we will be able to tell whether they

really mean what they say when they start talking about debt. The fact

is that this is a debt-free Budget and it is recognized as such right

across Canada.

Having been somewhat critical of some of the steps proposed by the

Federal Government, I want to say that we are sympathetic with the

efforts that they've put forward in the establishment of the Prices and

Incomes Commission. In recent days we've noticed that the Commission

has had meetings and has asked business to hold back prices to a

prestated level and, if necessary, they would look at companies' books

to see that profits are not being raised through price increases and

this sort of thing, and we welcome this step by the Federal Government.

I'm sorry to say that the labour movement at this date has shown little

cooperation with the Commission's meetings. They have not made an

effort, as yet, at this time in a co-ordinated fight against inflation

in this country, and certainly it's our hope that there will be a more

rational approach in respect to wage restraint, and we hope that that

will be indicated in the near future. If I understood some of the

members opposite correct, in the N.D.P. they were supporting compulsory

price and wage controls.

AN HON. MEMBER: Profit controls.

MR. PETERSON: Yes, they wanted everything controlled, and one

can understand why, because that's part of the socialist philosophy.

Bureaucracy and socialism go hand in hand, bureaucracy and socialism go

hand in hand, and we would hope, Mr. Speaker, we would hope that it

would not be necessary to establish that kind of compulsory controls.

We would like to see wage negotiations arrived at by free negotiations

between labour and management. Inevitably this will lead to some

strikes, some lockouts, but it's our hope that neither business nor

labour will, in the long run, jeopardize their economic position. We

call upon business and industry not to accept financially ruinous wage

demands, and unions not to financially jeopardize their livelihood by

unreasonable requests, because both parties and including all of us are

really consumers.

I think, too, on this question, before I leave the subject of

inflation it's worthy of mention that each of us can do our own bit as

consumers to combat inflation. Becoming more price-conscious in terms

of shopping, balancing our own personal budgets instead of spending

beyond our income, and really it is a problem today the extensive

credit arrangements that are available to consumers, to encourage them

to five beyond their means, to buy beyond their means. At the last

Session I reviewed some of the provisions, the main provisions of the

Consumer Protection Act which is administered by the Attorney-General's

Department, and which contains a substantial bundle of rights for

consumers in the Province of British Columbia, and for the borrowers of

money as well.

[ Page 517 ]

An extension of those rights took place last year, when we put on

the statute books a provision prohibiting the practice of referral

selling. A further step was taken just at the close of this year, with

the establishment of a Consumer Affairs Officer, occupied now for the

first time by a Mr. Hansen who has had extensive experience in Great

Britain in this way. Certainly this will be a means of distributing and

disseminating more consumer information, on the basis that an informed

customer is a wiser customer, and really that's the philosophy

underlying the approach of this Government and the approach of our

legislation.

It's undesirable, we think, for Government intervention in the

market place to be such that we have inspectors looking after

inspectors and Government officials looking over the shoulder of buyer

and seller every time a transaction takes place. We want to make the

statutory rights available, make them known to the public in meaningful

terms, and allow themselves, the consumer, to assert his rights under

that legislation, and that is what is happening today.

There are two new areas that we intend to move in, and announcements

that I want to make today in this respect. The first relates to the

problem of the over-committed debtor, and it's one which is coming to

the fore with increasing frequency at this time, and we feel the remedy

in this respect is in the Federal Government's Bankruptcy Act,

Part 10,

which is intituled, "Orderly Payment of Debt." This comes into force in

the Province only on the request being made, and it provides a

comparatively simple and inexpensive procedure, whereby certain debtors

who are unable to meet their obligations as they become due may apply

to the Clerk of the Court, a Court designated by the Province to fix

the amounts to be paid into Court, and then it is distributed on a pro

rata basis among the creditors.

The big advantage is that once this is done and the consolidation

order made, it bears interest not at the rate of the contractual

obligation in the first place, but it bears interest at the same rate

as a judgment, which is now 5 per cent. A case was brought to me by my

colleague from Vancouver–Little Mountain, and she has been very active

in this area, but she brought a case in which the original debt to a

finance company, a chap borrowed sixteen hundred odd dollars. Over a

period of years he paid over $1,000 — four years I think it was — over

$1,000, and you know, at the end of that four-year period the principal

owing was still over $1,500. Less than $100 paid on the principal of

that debt and that's because, even after the pooling arrangement was

entered into, that the high interest rate of 21 per cent continued. Now

this is going to reduce it to the 5 per cent level if the debtor takes

advantage of it.

I suggest that this should also have the effect, when we are talking

in the broad sense of inflation, have the effect of making our people

just a little more careful and selective in the extension of credit. It

also, of course, helps those who are faced with garnishing orders and

other warrants of execution, etc., because these no longer apply once

the pooling arrangement is made.

Now the other area in which action will be taken this year relates

to the wholesale distribution of credit cards, encouraging people to

take advantage of the credit facilities, and the distribution of credit

cards through the mail. Of course the mails, etc., in most of this area

is not under Provincial jurisdiction, it's under Federal jurisdiction.

Nonetheless, we are going to bring in legislation which is designed to

stop this undesirable practice, and not only with reference to credit

cards but also with reference to unsolicited goods, where people can

send you something through the mail and they say, "You keep it so long

on a trial basis. If we don't get it back, we'll bill you." Well, why

should the people of the Province be put under that obligation? So this

would prohibit the practice of distributing unsolicited goods as well.

I had a case the other day. I was meeting with all of the Chiefs of

Police in the Province, and they brought forward afterwards an incident

where unsolicited goods were mailed, sent back, and the people still

billed, still billed, which happens too frequently. Therefore, this

practice is undesirable and you will be asked to consider legislation

to prohibit it.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's a matter of computers, and they'll just keep on rolling.

MR. PETERSON: Well, when you find out the means which we are

taking, I think the computers won't keep on rolling, I think the

computers won't keep on rolling as far as British Columbia is

concerned, in this respect.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Budget we are going to be called upon to

approve within fifteen minutes or so is a record Budget, a debt-free

Budget, as I've said, a services to people Budget. A fantastic

accomplishment for the people of this Province. One billion, one

hundred and sixty-five million, and you know, the surprising thing is,

that even this large figure doesn't include all of the expenditures

that will be made for the benefit of people and services to people in

this next fiscal year, and what I'm referring to here are the perpetual

funds.

MR. D. BARRETT: No problems!

MR. PETERSON: The Leader of the Opposition is right. There

are no problems on this side but we know he has problems on his side,

Mr. Speaker, he has problems on his side. And all of the comments

across the floor will not create the kind of enmity that has existed in

the ranks of the N.D.P. that caused two members to stab your former

Leader in the back.

But what I'm referring to now is something that the members across

the way haven't been talking much about, and that is the perpetual

funds. The $25,000,000 fund for the first citizens of the Province. A

Provincial Major Disaster Fund, in the same amount. The $5,000,000

Agricultural Aid Fund that the Minister of Agriculture spoke about the

other day and made certain announcements. The $10,000,000 Physical

Fitness and Amateur Sports Fund….

That is information up to the end of December. I'm going to give you

a little